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, 55.3% 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% (81.1% and
85.9%, respectively), compared to moderate and above moderate income units (59.1% and 38.3%, 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 0.8% 3 0.2% 72 2.0% 85 1.1%
60-80% 205 18.7% 111 13.3% 806 40.8% 2,168 59.7% 3,290 43.6% >80% 891 81.1% 719 85.9% 1,168 59.1% 1,389 38.3% 4,167 55.3% Total 1099 100.0% 837 100.0% 1,977 100.0% 3,629 100.0% 7,542 100.0% 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) City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 18
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (ESRI 2019), 2023.
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
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
Hearing difficulty -- 2.6%
Vision difficulty -- 1.6%
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, 79.2% of very low income units, 91.3% of low income units, 59.1% of moderate income units, and 38.2% 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% 870 79.2% 764 91.3% 1,168 59.1% 1387 38.2% 4189 55.5% 10-20% 229 20.8% 73 8.7% 809 40.9% 2,242 61.8% 3353 44.5% 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 1099 100.0% 837 100.0% 1,977 100.0% 3,629 100.0% 7,542 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 23
Figure D-7: Population of Persons with Disabilities by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 24
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.
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, 83.7% 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 62% of very low income units and 52% of low income units are in tracts where less than 60% of children reside in married couple households compared to 24% of moderate income units and 9.3% of above moderate income units. However, 7.1% of RHNA units allocated towards the very low income RHNA and 9.4% 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% 645 58.7% 558 66.7% 1,727 87.4% 3,381 93.2% 6,311 83.7% 20-40% 454 41.3% 279 33.3% 250 12.6% 248 6.8% 1,231 16.3% 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 1099 100.0% 837 100.0% 1,977 100.0% 3,629 100.0% 7,542 100.0% 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% 696 63.3% 435 52.0% 472 23.9% 339 9.3% 1,942 25.7% 60-80% 325 29.6% 323 38.6% 1,505 76.1% 3,290 90.7% 5,443 72.2% >80% 78 7.1% 79 9.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 157 2.1%
Total 1099 100.0% 837 100.0% 1,977 100.0% 3,629 100.0% 7,542 100.0% 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 (73.8%) are located in block groups that are not considered LMI areas, where less than 50% of households are low or moderate income. However,
71.9% of very low income units and 63% of low income units are in LMI areas compared to 20.8% of moderate income units and 6.9% 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 28.1% of very low income units and 37% 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% 6 0.3% 762 21.0% 768 10.2%
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 34
25-50% 309 28.1% 310 37.0% 1,560 78.9% 2,617 72.1% 4,796 63.6% 50-75% 114 10.4% 119 14.2% 294 14.9% 32 0.9% 559 7.4%
75-100% 676 61.5% 408 48.7% 117 5.9% 218 6.0% 1,419 18.8% Total 1099 100.0% 837 100.0% 1,977 100.0% 3,629 100.0% 7,542 100.0% 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).
(3) Sites Inventory
As discussed above, there are two TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty in Salinas; one in the Alisal neighborhood and one in Downtown Salinas. The distribution of units selected to meet the RHNA are shown in Table D-16. There are no RHNA units in the area of high segregation and poverty in the Alisal neighborhood. Most RHNA units (95%) are not in areas of high segregation and poverty. A slightly larger proportion of units allocated towards the very low (14.6%) and low (19.5%) income RHNA are in areas of high segregation and poverty compared to moderate (2.6%) and above moderate (0%) units. However, the City’s sites strategy aims to serve existing communities in need, such as communities of high segregation and poverty, while supporting mixed income communities.
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 44
There are 375 total RHNA units allocated in tract 13, the area of high segregation and poverty encompassing the Downtown area. Of the 375 units in this tract, 42.9% are allocated towards the very low income RHNA (161 units), 43.5% towards the low income RHNA (163 units), and 13.6% towards the moderate income RHNA (51 units). Overall, the City’s RHNA strategy promotes housing types of varying affordability levels in the Downtown neighborhood.
Table D-16: Distribution of RHNA Units by TCAC Area of High Segregation and Poverty TCAC Area of High
Segregation and Poverty
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Area of High Segregation
and Poverty
161 14.6% 163 19.5% 51 2.6% 0 0.0% 375 5.0%
Not an Area of High
Segregation and Poverty
938 85.4% 674 80.5% 1926 97.4% 3629 1 7167 95.0%
Total 1099 100.0% 837 100.0% 1,977 100.0% 3,629 100.0% 7,542 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 45
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 46
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 47
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 48
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 49
(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-17.
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-17: 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 50
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 51
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 D18 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-18: 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-18). 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 52
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 53
(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-19 and are further discussed in the following subsections.
Table D-19: 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 54
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 55
(2) Local Trends
Table D-20 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-20 and Figure D-23, most Salinas tracts are low or moderate resource areas. It is relevant to note that the scores in Table D-20 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-21 and are further discussed in the following subsections.
Table D-20: 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 56
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 D-23.
Source: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Scores, Final 2021.
Table D-21: 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-22. As mentioned above, most tracts in Salinas are considered moderate and low resource areas. Consistent with the citywide trend, 54.9% of RHNA units are in moderate resource tracts and 38.1% are in low resource tracts. Approximately 59% of very low income units and 66% of low income units are in low resource tracts compared to 53% of moderate income units and 17% of above moderate income units. An additional 161 very low income units, 163 low income units, and 51 moderate income units are in areas of high segregation and poverty. However, 7.1% units allocated towards the very low income RHNA and 9.4% 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 57
Table D-22: 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 7.1% 79 9.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 157 2.1%
Moderate Resource 214 19.5% 39 4.7% 883 44.7% 3,003 82.8% 4,139 54.9% Low Resource 646 58.8% 556 66.4% 1043 52.8% 626 17.2% 2871 38.1% High Segregation
and Poverty
161 14.6% 163 19.5% 51 2.6% 0 0.0% 375 5.0%
Total 1099 100.0% 837 100.0% 1,977 100.0% 3,629 100.0% 7,542 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 58
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 59
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-23 and Table D-24 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-23: 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 60
Table D-24: 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-21). 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-25 and Table D-26). 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 61
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-25: 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-26: 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 62
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 63
Figure D-24: Salinas School Districts
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 64
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 65
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 66
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 67
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 68
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 69
(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 D21). 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 70
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 71
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 72
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 73
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 74
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 75
(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 76
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 77
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 78
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). These scores are calculated using a multitude of indicators including exposure indicators (i.e., diesel particulate matter, drinking water contaminants, lead risk), environmental effects (i.e., cleanup sites, groundwater threats), sensitive population characteristics (i.e., asthma, cardiovascular disease), and socioeconomic factors (i.e., educational attainment, poverty, linguistic isolation). 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 79
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 80
(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-46, the central areas of Salinas along the 101 Freeway have worse environmental conditions compared to the northeastern and southwestern corners of the City. The Downtown, Chinatown, and southern Alisal neighborhood areas specifically scored in a higher percentile range for environmental conditions (more negative environmental factors). These areas also have larger non-White populations and LMI household populations (see Figure D-5 and Figure D-14).
The Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a project of the Public Health Alliance of Southern California and analyzes community conditions and variables related to economic, education, transportation, social, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare access to estimate healthy community conditions. HPI indicators for clean environment include diesel particulate matter (PM), drinking water contaminants, ozone, and PM 2.5, all of which are also indicators for CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores presented in Figure D-38.16 The HPI mapping tool ranked all Salinas tracts in quartile (most healthy community conditions) for ozone and PM 2.5. Diesel PM and drinking water contaminants percentile rankings by tract are shown in Figure D-38 and Figure D-39. Diesel PM is generated by exhaust from trucks, buses, trains, ships, and other equipment with diesel engines.17 As such, tracts along the major freeways in Salinas, CA-183 and US-101, have the highest exposure to diesel PM. Most Salinas tracts scored between the 25th and 75th percentile for drinking water contaminants. Tracts in the northeastern corner of the City, including the northern areas of the Alisal neighborhood, scored in the highest quartile for drinking water contaminants.
OHHEA also provides CalEnviroScreen 4.0 indicator maps. Pollution burden indicators affecting the central areas of Salinas include children’s lead risk from housing, traffic impacts, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste generators, and solid waste facilities. These indicators are shown for Salinas in Figure D-40 through Figure D-45. Many of the tracts with higher percentile scores for children’s lead risk from housing also have a larger proportion of aging housing units. Housing stock age and substandard housing conditions are further described in Section 1.1.5, Disproportionate Housing Needs. As shown by these indicators, there are several overlapping factors in the central area of the 16 Diesel PM: Average daily amount of particulate pollution (very small particles) from diesel sources, measured in kilograms/day.
Drinking water contaminants: Index score combining information about 13 contaminants and 2 types of water quality violations that are sometimes found when drinking water samples are tested. This is a Well-being In the Nation (WIN) indicator.
Ozone: Average amount of ozone in the air during the most polluted 8 hours of summer days, measured in parts per million
PM 2.5: Yearly average of fine particulate matter concentration (very small particles from vehicle tailpipes, tires and brakes, powerplants, factories, burning wood, construction dust, and many other sources), measured in micrograms/meter3
. This is a Well-being In the Nation (WIN) indicator. 17 OEHHA, Diesel Particulate Matter. Accessed September 2023. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/diesel-particulate-matter.
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 81
City along the 101 Freeway that contribute to poorer environmental quality and lower CalEnviroScreen 4.0 composite scores.
Figure D-38: Disel PM Percentile Ranking by Tract (2016) Source: Public Health Alliance of Southern California, California Healthy Places Index (HPI) based on CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2023.
Figure D-39: Drinking Water Contaminants by Tract (2019) Source: Public Health Alliance of Southern California, California Healthy Places Index (HPI) based on CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2023.
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 82
Figure D-40: Children’s Lead Risk from Housing Percentile by Tract (2023) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Indicator Maps, 2023.
Figure D-41: Traffic Impacts Percentile by Tract (2023) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Indicator Maps, 2023.
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 83
Figure D-42: Cleanup Sites and Exposure Potential Percentile by Tract (2023) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Indicator Maps, 2023.
Figure D-43: Groundwater Threats and Exposure Potential Percentile by Tract (2023) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Indicator Maps, 2023.
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 84
Figure D-44: Hazardous Waste Generators and Exposure Potential Percentile by Tract (2023) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Indicator Maps, 2023.
Figure D-45: Solid Waste Facilities and Exposure Potential Percentile by Tract (2023) Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Indicator Maps, 2023.
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 85
(3) Sites Inventory
The distribution of RHNA units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores are presented in Figure D46 and Table D-27. 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-27: 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% 222 23.4% 492 20.1% 543 14.4% 1,481 18.2% 51-60% 3 0.3% 7 0.7% 3 0.1% 72 1.9% 85 1.0%
61-70% 521 54.4% 314 33.2% 545 22.2% 297 7.9% 1,677 20.6% 71-80% 174 18.2% 215 22.7% 137 5.6% 0 0.0% 526 6.5%
81-90% 99 10.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.1% 101 1.2%
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 86
Figure D-46: 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 87
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-28, 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-48). 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-28: 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 88
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-29 shows that elderly and large households experience housing problems and cost burdens at higher rates than renters and owners countywide.
Table D-29: 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 89
Figure D-47: 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 90
Figure D-48: 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 91
(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-30). 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-49, 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-51).
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-50).
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-30: 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-31. 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-31: 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 92
(3) Sites Inventory
Consistent with the citywide trend, where most tracts have cost burdened owner populations ranging from 40% to 60%, 68.9% of RHNA units are located in tracts with populations of overpaying owners in this range. Another 26% of units are in tracts where only 20% to 40% of owners are cost burdened.
The remaining 5% 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, 161 very low, 163 low, 51 moderate, are generally evenly distributed.
Nearly half of RHNA units are in tracts where 40% to 60% of renters are cost burdened, including
81.7% of very low and 84.9% of low income units (Table D-33). 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-32: 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% 642 58.4% 372 44.4% 585 29.6% 371 10.2% 1,970 26.1% 40-60% 296 26.9% 302 36.1% 1,341 67.8% 3,258 89.8% 5,197 68.9% 60-80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
>80% 161 14.6% 163 19.5% 51 2.6% 0 0.0% 375 5.0%
Total 1099 100.0% 837 100.0% 1,977 100.0% 3,629 100.0% 7,542 100.0% Table D-33: 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% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
20-40% 3 0.3% 7 0.8% 3 0.2% 834 23.0% 847 11.2%
40-60% 898 81.7% 711 84.9% 1112 56.2% 809 22.3% 3530 46.8% 60-80% 198 18.0% 119 14.2% 862 43.6% 1986 54.7% 3,165 42.0% Total 1099 100.0% 837 100.0% 1,977 100.0% 3,629 100.0% 7,542 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 93
Figure D-49: 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 94
Figure D-50: 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 95
Figure D-51: 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 96
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-34). 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-28). Large households specifically have high rates of housing problems in the County (see Table D-29) 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-48) Table D-34: 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 97
Figure D-52: 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 98
(2) Local Trends
Overcrowding is more prevalent in the City compared to Monterey County. As shown in Table D-35, 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-53). More than 20% of households in many of these tracts are overcrowded. Consistent with the trends shown in Table D-35, where significantly more renters are overcrowded, the Alisal neighborhood is made up of primarily renter occupied households (see Figure D-51). 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-50). There are very few tracts in the City where less than 5% of households are overcrowded.
Table D-35: 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-36 shows that the largest proportion of RHNA units, 48.9%, 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 10.6% of very low, 2.5% of low, 0.5% of moderate, and 7.9% 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-36: 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% 117 10.6% 21 2.5% 9 0.5% 287 7.9% 434 5.7%
5-10% 91 8.3% 97 11.6% 800 40.5% 2,715 74.8% 3,703 48.9% 10-15% 668 60.8% 565 67.5% 922 46.6% 549 15.1% 2704 35.7% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 99
15-20% 120 10.9% 118 14.1% 29 1.5% 32 0.9% 299 3.9%
>20% 103 9.4% 36 4.3% 214 10.8% 46 1.3% 402 5.3%
Total 1099 100.0% 837 100.0% 1,977 100.0% 3,629 100.0% 7,574 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 100
Figure D-53: 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 101
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-37, 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 D54). 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-40). Figure D-56 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-37: 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 102
Figure D-54: 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 103
Figure D-55: 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 104
Figure D-56: 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 105
(2) Local Trends
Like the County, there are very small proportions of households lacking complete facilities in Salinas (Table D-38). 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-58, comprise more than 2% of the population in only two tracts. Approximately 6% of households lack complete kitchen facilities in tract 106.03 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, the Downtown neighborhood is primarily renters with larger populations of cost burdened owners and LMI households (see Figure D-14, Figure D-49, and Figure D-51). According to the 2017-2021 ACS, tract 13 (Downtown) has the largest share of multifamily housing developments with 20 or more units compared to other Salinas tracts. Approximately one third of housing units in the Downtown tract are in large multifamily structures with 20 or more units. This tract also has the largest share of studio units (no bedroom) compared to the remaining Salinas tract, comprising 17.4% of all housing units in this tract. Studio apartments are more likely to lack complete kitchen facilities compared to other housing types.
Unlike tract 13, tract 106.03 in northern Salinas has an owner population of 75% and is comprised mainly of single-family homes built in the 1990s. More than 86% of housing units are single-family homes in this tract. The ACS estimate shown in Figure D-58 does not align with the known character of this neighborhood. The ACS reported the following estimates for units lacking complete kitchen facilities in tract 106.03 over the last decade:
• 2016-2020 – 5.9%
• 2015-2019 – 0%
• 2014-2018 – 0%
• 2013-2017 – 0%
• 2012-2016 – 0%
• 2011-2015 – 0%
• 2010-2014 – 0%
• 2009-2013 – 0%
• 2008-2012 – 0.9%
• 2007-2011 – 0.4%
• 2006-2010 – 0%
No housing developments have been completed in this neighborhood in recent years. Based on local staff knowledge and historic ACS estimates, units lacking complete kitchen facilities in tract 106.03 are minimal.
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-39. 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-57.
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 106
Table D-38: 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-39: 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-40 and percentages of housing units built prior to 1990 at the tract-level are shown in Figure D-59. 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.
Table D-40: 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%
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 107
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 108
Figure D-57: Salinas Zip Codes
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 109
Figure D-58: 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 110
Figure D-59: 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 111
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-60). 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 112
Figure D-60: 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 113
(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-50). 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-61, 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-61: Tenure by Race of Householder (2021)
Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Figure D-62 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 114
Figure D-62: 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, 68.3% of RHNA units are in tracts that are not sensitive communities (Table D-41). However, most of these units are allocated to the above moderate income RHNA. Approximately 73% of very low and 64% of low income units are in sensitive communities compared to 34.6% of moderate income units and 10.2% 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-63). 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-41: 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
797 72.5% 536 64.0% 685 34.6% 371 10.2% 2,389 31.7%
Not a Sensitive
Community
302 27.5% 301 36.0% 1,292 65.4% 3,258 89.8% 5,153 68.3% Total 1099 100.0% 837 100.0% 1,977 100.0% 3,629 100.0% 7,542 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 115
Figure D-63: 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 116
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-42). 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-64).
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-65. 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-42: 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 117
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-64: 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 118
Figure D-65: 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 D43). 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-66 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-44 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-65, many of the emergency shelters in Salinas are located in the Downtown and Chinatown neighborhoods.
Table D-43: 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 119
Table D-44: 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 120
Figure D-66: 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 121
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 122
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 D45 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 123
purchase loans were approved at the highest rate, while only 44.8% of home improvement loans were approved.
Table D-45: 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-46.
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-61 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 124
Table D-46: 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-67. 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-51). A larger proportion of households in these neighborhoods also tend to be cost burdened or overcrowded (see Figure D-50 and Figure D-53). 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 125
Figure D-67: Salinas Zoning Map
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 126
(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 D68.
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 127
Figure D-68: 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-69).
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 128
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-69: 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-70. 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 129
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-70: 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-71. 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 130
populations, areas of high segregation and poverty and low resource tracts, overcrowded households, cost burdened renters, and communities at risk of displacement.
Figure D-71: 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 131
Figure D-72: Mobile Home Parks (2022)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (HIFLD, 2022), 2023.
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 132
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-73 and shown by neighborhood, tract, and AFFH variable in Table D-47.
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-74. 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 2,448 RHNA units have been allocated in this section of Salinas, including 209 very low income units (8.5%), 207 low income units (8.5%), 683 moderate income units (27.9%), and 1,349 above moderate income units (55.1%).
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 133
(11.8%). Tract 106.08 is also considered a sensitive community at risk of displacement. There are 241 RHNA units allocated in this tract. However, only six of units located in tract 106.08 are allocated towards the lower income RHNA. The remaining 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-75 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 3,055 RHNA units are located in Northwest Salinas tracts, including 97 very low income units (3.2%), 18 low income units (0.6%), 986 moderate income units (32.3%), and 1,954 above moderate income units (64%). 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 115 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-69 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-76. 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 use, and office uses. There are 402 RHNA units in the Alisal area, 83.3% of which (335 units) are allocated to the lower income RHNA.
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 134
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).18 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 4 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 416 lower income units are in Northeast Salinas, 115 are in Northwest Salinas, 872 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-77). 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 499 very low, 373 low, 272 moderate, and 220 above moderate income units allocated in this section of the City. Of the lower income RHNA units in this area, 324 are in tract 13, 420 are in tract 18.02, and 128 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.
These tracts also have smaller populations of cost burdened renters ranging from 43.9% to 51.7%, compared to 54.0% of renters citywide.
18 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 135
While there are 324 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 420 lower income units are in tract 18.02, low resource area, and 128 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-78 and is generally the area south of Abbott Street, John Street, and Market Street. RHNA sites have been identified in tracts 12, 15, and
17. These tracts are mostly zoned for low density residential uses as well as smaller areas zoned for medium and high density residential uses. Three sites have been identified in these tracts, one in tract 12, one in tract 15, and one in tract 17 with the capacity to accommodate 273 units (94 very low, 104 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, tract 15 is a high resource area, and tract 17 is a low resource area. They have racial/ethnic minority populations of 46%, 64%, and 77%, respectively, compared to 88% citywide, and LMI household populations of 34% and 30%, respectively. The 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 198 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 136
Table D-47: 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 106.08 608 241 4 2 191 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 36 19 17 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 1,549 135 0 0 135 0 88.00% 59.00% Low Resource 51.20% 13.40% Yes 105.06 1,382 22 0 0 22 0 92.10% 85.00% Low Resource 52.00% 20.70% Yes Alisal Neighborhood
5.01 1,128 4 0 0 4 0 98.30% 88% Low Resource 68.20% 32.20% Yes
5.02 1,172 263 101 101 29 32 90.70% 52% - 54% Low Resource 76.20% 19.80% Yes 9 1,339 135 99 34 0 2 97.10% 77% Low Resource 58% 23.80% Yes Central City Neighborhood
13 891 375 161 163 51 0 94.20% 92% High Segregation
& Poverty 49.50% 12.90% Yes
18.01 1,192 45 0 0 45 0 83.90% 68% Moderate
Resource 43.90% 11.40% Yes
18.02 1,576 595 224 196 170 5 90.20% 46% - 83% Low Resource 50.70% 11.80% Yes 145 1,829 349 114 14 6 215 66.50% 86% Moderate
Resource 51.70% 3.80% Yes
South Salinas
12 1,235 85 3 7 3 72 46.10% 34% Moderate
Resource 37.70% 3.20% Yes
15 2,523 157 78 79 0 0 64.30% 30% High Resource 47.80% 6% No 17 1,417 31 13 18 0 0 76.70% 74% Low Resource 53.10% 6.6% No City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 137
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 138
Figure D-73: Sites Inventory
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 139
Figure D-74: Northeast Salinas Tracts and Population (2021) Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Figure D-75: Northwest Salinas Tracts and Population (2021) Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 140
Figure D-76: Alisal Neighborhood Tracts and Population (2021) Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Figure D-77: Central City Neighborhood Tracts and Population (2021) Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 141
Figure D-78: 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.
Priority Level: High
A. Contributing Factors
• Lack of monitoring
• Lack of targeted outreach
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 142
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 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.
Priority Level: High
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.
Priority Level: Medium
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
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
920
600
1,692
3,462
Create the environment for housing
production (rules, procedures,
incentives)
Housing programs
Monitoring safety – code
enforcement
Grant/gap funding and special
projects
But not a housing developer
RHNA:*6,674
Required part of the General Plan
Establishes the City's goals and policies for addressing housing needs
Updated every eight years. Must be reviewed and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD)
Implements Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
CITY'S ROLE IN HOUSING
City of Salinas
Housing Element Update
2023-2031
WHAT IS THE
HOUSING
ELEMENT?
May
30- day Public
Review Period
June
Draft sent to
HCD- 90 days to
review
Sept-Oct
Revise Draft
November
City Review
December
City Council
Adoption
2023 HOUSING ELEMENT TIMELINE
SITES INVENTORY
Salinas 2023-2031 RHNA by Income Level
*RHNA is the number of homes the City of
Salinas is required to plan for. This number
is triple what it was in 2015 because of the
continued need for housing. The Sites Inventory map shows the land available for potential development.
*Ambassador Tool Kit
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
(25) Twenty-five community workshops
exploring housing topics
(12) Twelve AVP & Visión Salinas Housing
Working Group Meetings
(4) Four citywide budget meetings for
2023-2024 budget cycle
(40) Budget pop-up activities for 2023-2024
budget cycle
(6) Visión Salinas pop-up activities
(3) Housing Element Workshops
(95) Ninety-five house meetings facilitated
by GPU Ambassadors reaching over three
hundred and forty (340) residents in
Spanish, Mixteco and Triqui.
GPU Ambassadors presentations and
community conversations reaching over
one thousand two hundred (1,200)
farmworkers.
Following the adoption of the 2015-2023
Housing Element, the City has continued
extensive bilingual community outreach.
*GPU Ambassadors used a tool
kit to facilitate discussion around
housing and other topics.
GOAL 1: Increase Housing Supply and Opportunities for All.
GOAL 2: Provide Tenant Protection.
GOAL 3: Access to Safe and Healthy Housing for All Residents.
GOAL 4: Advance Housing Affordability and Opportunity at all Income Levels.
GOAL 5: Stabilize and Support Neighborhoods.
GOAL 6: Improve City Homeless Response.
HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS
HOUSING ACTIONS
Prohousing Designation: Funds will be used towards the
development of affordable housing and First Time Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance Program.
Pre-approved ADU plans.
Re-establish Low-Interest House Rehabilitation loans and grants.
Supporting Renters: rental assistance, rental registry program, Fair Housing services, etc.
Homeless Services: Salinas Outreach Response Team (SORT), Project Homekey, SHARE Center, Encampment Resolution
Grant, and more!
In-fill development and future growth areas.
KEY INFORMATION
HOUSING TOOL KIT
Salinas has limited land availability particularly for
housing developments.
Salinas is surrounded by protected agriculture land.
Housing/developments cannot be built on flood plains.
Future Growth Area: Plans have been adopted for
future housing developments.
Available land = outside City limits
46% of our current land use is dedicated to housing.
19.3% of units = overcrowded (more than 1 occupant
per room).
Median home price
November 2021
$666,250*
HOW CAN WE CREATE MORE
HOUSING?
Build out Future Growth Area
Infill development and higher density
housing
Infill development = building within unused
& underutilized lands
High density housing = taller housing
buildings
WHAT KIND OF HOUSING WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN THE FUTURE? 2 Stories
20 units per acre
6 Stories
80+ units per
acre
4 Stories
40 units per acre
3 Stories
20+ units per
acre
*Source: 2019 American
Community Survey, DQNews.com
Source: 2020 Density vs Overcrowding, bendyimby.com
Future Growth Area
COMMENTS
HOUSING
HOUSE MEETING QUESTIONS
Apart from the cost, what other difficulties with housing have you faced? Have you felt discrimination when applying for housing? What type of housing services would you like to see?
Location:
Number of People:
1. 2.
3. Create the environment for housing
production (rules, procedures,
incentives)
Housing programs
Monitoring safety – code
enforcement
Grant/gap funding and special
projects
But not a housing developer
RHNA:*6,674
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
920
600
1,692
3,462
Required part of the General Plan
Establishes the City's goals and policies for addressing housing needs
Updated every eight years. Must be reviewed and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD)
Implements Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
CITY'S ROLE IN HOUSING
City of Salinas
Housing Element Update
2023-2031
WHAT IS THE
HOUSING
ELEMENT?
May
30- day Public
Review Period
June
Draft sent to
HCD- 90 days to
review
Sept-Oct
Revise Draft
November
City Review
December
City Council
Adoption
2023 HOUSING ELEMENT TIMELINE
SITES INVENTORY
Salinas 2023-2031 RHNA by Income Level
*RHNA is the number of homes the City of
Salinas is required to plan for. This number
is triple what it was in 2015 because of the
continued need for housing. The Sites Inventory map shows the land available for potential development.
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
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 homeowner loans for home renovations
• Rehab projects, retrofitting current housing 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 with 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
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
1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
OF THE
SALINAS PLANNING COMMISSION
November 15, 2023
The meeting was called to order at 3:31 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Rotunda.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
WELCOME AND STAFF INTRODUCTIONS
PRESENT: Chairperson Gonzalez, and Commissioners, Meeks, Manzo, Donohue, and Ramos
ABSENT: Commissioners McKelvey Daye and Purnell
STAFF: Community Development Director, Lisa Brinton; Planning Manager, Courtney Grossman; Planning Manager, Grant Leonard; Senior Planner, Jonathan Moore; and Administrative Aide, Desteny Villa
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Chairperson Gonzalez opened for public comment at 3:32 p.m.
No public comment was made.
Chairperson Gonzalez closed for public comment at 3:32 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: October 18, 2023
Upon motion by Commissioner Donohue, and a second by Commissioner Meeks, the minutes of October 18, 2023, were approved. The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Chairperson Gonzalez, and Commissioners Meeks, Manzo, Donohue, and Ramos
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners McKelvey Daye and Purnell
2 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
None
CONSIDERATIONS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Recommendation to Adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element (General Plan Amendment 2023- 002)
Planning Manager, Grant Leonard, presented a PowerPoint presentation, which is on file at the Community Development Department.
Commissioner Manzo inquired about reconciliation between the current and new general plan.
Mr. Leonard informed that the city is currently operating under the 2002 general plan and scheduled to adopt the 2040 Vision Salinas general plan by Summer 2024, which is consistent to the current general plan and includes the Housing Element.
Commissioner Manzo inquired about race and ethnicity and the composition of integration and segregation and the data comparison from the City of Seaside.
Mr. Leonard indicated that he is not aware of the City of Seaside data will look into the statistics and will follow up with an answer.
Commissioner Manzo inquired about meeting notes around community meetings that highlight community land trust as a potential option for meeting the needs of housing and whether there is sufficient foundation being implemented in the housing element.
Mr. Leonard informed that the City plans to approach this matter with community partners and residents by supporting the potential foundation and foresees this as a long-term goal.
Commissioner Manzo inquired about the possibility of updating the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that is in compliance with the current economic landscape.
Mr. Leonard informed that the City is currently working with an economic analysis firm to update the background study of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Commissioner Manzo inquired about the timeline of the updated Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director, informed that this update is expected to be finalized sometime in 2024, but does not have an exact date. 3 Commissioner Manzo requested clarification around preserving 39% affordable housing stock at risk of conversion.
Mr. Leonard clarified that affordable housing is affordable by deed restriction, which is developed with a clause attached and recorded by the County. Towards the expiration date, the deed restriction is tracked, and the City continues to work with the property owner who receives state or federal funds such as the Housing Authority, to extend the funding that will convert into perpetuity.
Commissioner Manzo inquired about a time frame of implementing the inspection program around the rental registry.
Mr. Leonard informed that the City Housing Department is in the early phase of taking rental registration.
Ms. Brinton informed that the current focus is the rental registration program and the City is currently working on compliance. The City is currently prioritizing legal and financial resources that will be offered to the community before implementing an inspection program.
Commissioner Meeks inquired about the determination factor of affordable housing.
Mr. Leonard informed that the city refers to the legal definition to determine affordability.
Commissioner Meeks inquired about the intention to promote rehabilitation of affordable housing.
Mr. Leonard informed about the Community Development Block Grant program, which is a grant and loan program that funds home renovations for qualifying Salinas residents.
Commissioner Meeks inquired about Code Enforcements responsibilities within Salinas neighborhoods.
Mr. Leonard informed that Code Enforcement is currently understaffed and operates by a complaintbased system where concerned residents may submit complaints.
Commissioner Meeks inquired about particular areas in Salinas that are facing reversed patterns of discrimination.
Mr. Leonard informed that areas like Chinatown, Alisal and certain areas around Downtown are facing income segregation and racial discrimination and the goal is to implement the Alisal Vibrancy Plan, which will reverse the disparities these areas are facing.
Commissioner Ramos inquired about the plans for the future housing development and current housing developments.
Mr. Leonard informed that there are plans for growth within the future growth area for the West Area Specific Plan and the Central Area Specific Plan. City staff is currently leading a third growth area known as the East Area Specific Plan.
Commissioner Ramos inquired about the potential traffic congestion in the future growth areas. 4 Mr. Leonard informed that traffic circulation is important within the City Maintenance of the roads is provided by Public Works. Advanced Planning is working through the General Plan Update under the traffic circulation which focuses on how to accommodate more growth and how to solve the traffic congestion the city is currently facing.
Commissioner Ramos inquired about employment rates reflecting affordable housing.
Mr. Leonard noted that the income categories are updated every year by the federal government Department of Housing and Urban Development and the state’s Housing and Community Development Department and take an average of the incomes throughout the area to determined who would qualify.
Commissioner Ramos inquired about the percentage to be affordable.
Mr. Leonard informed that a percentage of every major development will be deed restricted. He also informed that through the future growth, it is expected to see the existing housing stock more affordable.
Chairperson Gonzalez inquired about the list of themes added into the Housing Element Staff report and whether City Council will be provided with this material.
Mr. Leonard informed that City Council will receive the information from the Housing Element staff report.
Chairperson Gonzalez inquired about the inclusionary housing process timeline what this process will look like in 2024.
Ms. Brinton informed that the City will give a presentation at the next Planning Commission meeting around updates on the inclusionary housing 2024 timeline.
Chairperson Gonzalez inquired about housing goal one and some examples of diverse housing types.
Mr. Leonard informed that the size is the type of housings units such as small units, single and multifamily units and Accessory Dwelling Units.
Chairperson Gonzalez inquired about a potential strategy to prevent displacement and the partnership between the City and community groups.
Mr. Leonard informed that there is a state law that requires all city and county jurisdictions to list surplus land that is available for housing as well as several programs and actions related to identifying grant funding and working with developer partners like Moon Gate Chinatown.
Chairperson Gonzalez inquired about whether the city will make capacity available for collecting data on identifying key indicators to understand tenant displacement and housing insecurity.
Mr. Leonard informed that there are existing data sources the city has implemented, but with the rental registry as a source of data, it is expected to have a greater source outcome. 5 Chairperson Gonzalez inquired about whether the cost of housing be more than 30% of an individual’s income.
Mr. Leonard confirmed that housing rent will stay within the 30% income range.
Ms. Brinton clarified that the 30% income range is within the deed restricted affordable properties.
Chairperson Gonzalez inquired as to whether the city is looking into other options to ensure housing stability rather than deed restricted affordable housing.
Mr. Leonard informed that the city is encouraging developers to build smaller multifamily units and apartments as well as having a variety of housing stock to decrease the rent cost.
Ms. Brinton clarified that live work units, townhomes, condominiums, etc., are considered lower cost units.
Chairperson Gonzalez inquired about potential programs such as farm worker and first-time home buyers.
Mr. Leonard informed that the City has two policies related to farm worker housing and will provide an update as to whether there is a specific home ownership program and/ or policy for farm workers.
Chairperson Gonzalez inquired about how the City is approaching potential displacement for current residents while implementing the proposed benefits.
Mr. Leonard clarified that the Alisal Vibrancy Plan and Chinatown Revitalization Plan are not intended to gentrify the community of Salinas, but to approach the projects through community engagement rather than push out community residents.
Eloise Shim, community resident, addressed the rental registry in the City of Monterey and inquired about the number of landlords that have complied with rental registry since implemented.
Mr. Leonard informed that he is not aware of the details of the City of Monterey’s program.
Upon motion by Commissioner Manzo to approve a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and a second by Commissioner Meeks, the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Chairperson Gonzalez, and Commissioners Meeks, Manzo, Donohue, and Ramos
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioners McKelvey Daye and Purnell
6 OTHER BUSINESS
General Plan Steering Committee Updates
Chairperson Gonzalez informed that the committee reviewed land use which focused economic development implications.
Commissioner Donohue informed that the committee focused on public safety.
Chairperson Gonzalez informed that the committee looked at a diversity of ways to address public safety.
FOLLOW UP REPORTS
None
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Grossman informed that PUD 2022-001 involving a new Raising Canes restaurant will be presented at the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled on December 6, 2023.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Gonzalez reviewed for quorum for December 6, 2023, and adjourned the meeting at 4:19 p.m.
______________________ _______________________
ROSA GONZALEZ COURTNEY GROSSMAN
Chairperson Executive Secretary
______________________
JOHN MEEKS
Vice Chairperson
Housing Element Update
CEQA Exemption
Technical Memorandum
City of Salinas
Prepared for:
City of Salinas
City of Salinas
Community Development Department
65 West Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Steve Noack, Principal
2040 Bancroft, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
(510) 848-3815
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
November 2023
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF S ALINAS
Table of Contents
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................3
1.1 PURPOSE ...........................................................................................................3
1.2 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS.............................................3
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................4
2.1 REGIONAL LOCATION........................................................................................4
2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT.......................................................................................4
3. FINDINGS CONCERNING CEQA EXEMPTION .............................................................9
3.1 SECTION 15061(B)(3): COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION....................................9
3.2 ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS .............................................................9 Tables
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions......................11 Figures
Figure 2-1 Housing Sites Inventory ..................................................................................................8 November 2022 Page 3
1. Introduction
1.1 PURPOSE
This Technical Memorandum serves as an evaluation of the City of Salinas 2023-2031 (6th cycle) Housing Element (proposed project) for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance.
This Technical Memorandum was prepared to present: 1) the findings resulting from the CEQA compliance review, as described below; and 2) the recommendations concerning the appropriate CEQA compliance documentation.
1.2 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS
Once it is determined that an activity is a project subject to CEQA, it is then determined whether the project is exempt from CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b) outlines the ways in which a project may be exempt as follows:
A project is exempt from CEQA if:
1) The project is exempt by statute (see, e.g., Article 18, commencing with Section 15260). 2) The project is exempt pursuant to a categorical exemption (see Article 19, commencing with Section 15300) and the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Section 15300.2.
3) The activity is covered by the common-sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. 4) The project will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency. (See Section 15270(b)). 5) The project is exempt pursuant to the provisions of Article 12.5 of Chapter 3.
The proposed project would be exempt as a “common sense” exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because implementation of the 2023-2031 Housing Element would not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment, as further discussed below in Section 3, Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption.
2. Project Description
2.1 REGIONAL LOCATION
The City of Salinas (City) is located approximately 105 miles south of San Francisco in Monterey County and at the north end of the Salinas Valley. The City is surrounded by unincorporated rural and agricultural land. Unincorporated communities nearby include Bolsa Knolls and Natividad to the north, Speckles to the south, and Boronda to the west. U.S. Highway 101 (Highway 101), State Route (SR) 183, and SR 68 run through the city.
2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
2.2.1 Project Background
The City of Salinas is preparing a comprehensive update to its existing Housing Element. The update is expected to be completed in December 2023 and will guide the City’s housing development through January 2031.
The 6th Cycle Housing Element is a State-mandated, eight-year policy document that is an element of the Salinas General Plan. The overall purpose of the 2023-2031 Housing Element is to identify current and projected housing needs; show locations where housing can be built; and set goals, policies, programs, and actions to meet the community’s housing needs. The foundation of the Housing Element is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which begins with a determination of housing needs issued by the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) and is allocated by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). A jurisdiction is required to demonstrate whether it has sufficient capacity to achieve its RHNA. The RHNA for Salinas for the 2023-2031 Housing Element is 6,674 units; this includes 460 Extremely Low-income units, 460 Very Low-income units, 600 Low income units, 1,692 Moderate income units, and 3,462 Above Moderate income units.1 The current Area Median Income (AMI) of Monterey County is $90,100.2 The current income thresholds for the RHNA categories are listed below.
Extremely Low and Very low Income are 0 to 50 percent of the AMI Low Income is 51 to 80 percent of the AMI
Moderate Income is 81 to 120 percent of the AMI
Above Moderate Income is over 121 percent of the AMI
1 City of Salinas, September 2023, Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element, https://www.visionsalinas.org/_files/ugd/4efb7a_72d498da612b42799448953a03af23b2.pdf, accessed on October 18, 2023.
2 City of Salinas, September 2023, Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element, https://www.visionsalinas.org/_files/ugd/4efb7a_72d498da612b42799448953a03af23b2.pdf, accessed on October 18, 2023.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SALINAS
Project Description
November 2023 Page 5
2.2.2 Proposed Sites
State law requires that the 2023-2031 Housing Element identify adequate sites for housing by including an inventory of land suitable for residential development. This includes vacant and nonvacant sites that have potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the development capacity that can realistically be achieved for each site. The purpose of the Sites Inventory is to evaluate whether there are sufficient sites with appropriate zoning density to meet the RHNA. Based on market trends observed in the city, and property owner and developer interests, the City has developed a Sites Inventory that includes properties most likely to be redeveloped to provide new housing over the next eight years. Inclusion of a site in the Sites Inventory and identification of the site’s capacity does not “preclear” any development, nor does it guarantee that construction will occur on that site. The actual construction of units is market driven and would occur as a result of a development application from a private or non-profit developer and would be subject to its own project-level CEQA review, as applicable.
The City of Salinas Sites Inventory for future housing identifies housing sites spread throughout the city that could be developed with up to 8,629 new housing units, exceeding the RHNA assigned to the City. Figure 1, Housing Sites Inventory, shows a map of where each site is located within the city.
The housing capacities for the sites in the Sites Inventory are based on the City’s current land use designations and no land use designation changes would be necessary in order to achieve the housing production to meet the City’s RHNA. Rezoning is not necessary to meet the City’s assigned RHNA.
One housing site in the Sites Inventory is a pipeline project (the El Rey Motel Conversion project at 443 West Market Street) for which rezoning is proposed in order to convert the building to permanent housing. Because the project would repurpose the existing building, the City determined at the October 24, 2023 Council Meeting that the project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and Section 15061. This project was initiated by the City independently of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and the proposed rezoning is not dependent on adoption of the proposed Housing Element or this CEQA review. Furthermore, the land use change for this site is anticipated to occur as part of the 2040 General Plan Update, for which an Environmental Impact Report is currently being prepared. The rezoning would occur following the General Plan Update and any subsequent environmental analysis required for the rezoning would tier from the General Plan Update EIR.
2.2.3 Proposed Housing Plan
In addition to providing an inventory of sites with the capacity to accommodate housing to achieve the City’s RHNA, the Housing Element includes an assessment of fair housing issues.
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 (2017) requires housing elements to analyze barriers that restrict access to opportunity and to include a commitment to specific, meaningful actions to affirmatively
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTIO N TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SALINAS
Project Description
furthering fair housing (AFFH). AB 686 requires local governments to identify meaningful goals to address the effects of systemic issues–such as residential segregation, housing cost burden, and unequal educational or employment opportunities–to the extent these issues create or perpetuate discrimination against protected classes.
The City has identified six goals to guide the 2023-2031 Housing Element policies, programs, and actions. Goals 1 through 3 address the region’s housing needs through a combination of production, rehabilitation, and protection. Goal 4 affirmatively furthers fair housing, Goal 5 promotes collaboration and preservation, and Goal 6 seeks to improve the City’s homeless response. The specific goals and policies are outlined below, and the implementation programs for these goals and policies are in Table 3-1, Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions.
Goal 1: Increase Housing Supply and Opportunities for All. HE Policy 1.1: Incentivize and support the production of new housing units. HE Policy 1.2: Develop and formalize partnerships that support the long-term supply of housing.
HE Policy 1.3: Encourage and facilitate the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
HE Policy 1.4: Encourage a mix of diverse housing types. HE Policy 1.5: Update the Zoning Code regularly to ensure consistency with state law and alignment with community vision.
HE Policy 1.6: Encourage developers to maximize energy conservation and sustainability through green building techniques and materials.
HE Policy 1.7: Develop high-density and mixed-use housing in areas with existing public and active transportation, and create additional safe bike and pedestrian infrastructure. HE Policy 1.8: Work with Monterey-Salinas Transit to ensure the Future Growth Area and all future areas with low-income housing have access to high quality transit as they develop.
Goal 2: Provide Tenant Protections
HE Policy 2.1: Pursue policies and programs that prevent displacement. HE Policy 2.2: Advance rent stabilization.
HE Policy 2.3: Develop additional programs and policies to support tenants’ rights and uphold fair housing/landlord laws.
HE Policy 2.4: Provide education on fair housing and connect tenants to related legal services.
Goal 3: Access to Safe and Healthy Housing for all Residents HE Policy 3.1: Improve the quality and condition of rental housing. HE Policy 3.2: Continue to promote the rehabilitation of existing housing units.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SALINAS
Project Description
November 2023 Page 7
HE Policy 3.3: Support programs for maintenance and retrofits that include energy, heat, and water conservation, and greenhouse gas emission reductions. Focus public funding on lower income residents to decrease economic and health disparities in the transition to green housing.
HE Policy 3.4: Through public-private partnerships and collaborative efforts, rehabilitate substandard housing where feasible.
HE Policy 3.5: Require Code Enforcement to work with property owners to address substandard housing violations before pursuing other enforcement options with the goal of preventing loss of housing.
HE Policy 3.6: Support the elimination of health risks in the home through programs to remove lead-based paint, mold, and other contaminants.
Goal 4: Advance Housing Affordability and Opportunity at all Income Levels HE Policy 4.1: Facilitate the production of affordable housing. HE Policy 4.2: Preserve and expand the existing affordable housing stock. HE Policy 4.3: Promote housing opportunities for existing residents. HE Policy 4.4: Connect residents to financial resources. HE Policy 4.5: Provide assistance to special populations to ensure equitable access to housing.
HE Policy 4.6: Support seniors aging in place in the community. Goal 5: Stabilize and Support Neighborhoods
HE Policy 5.1: Collaborate with residents to improve neighborhoods. HE Policy 5.2: Leverage code enforcement strategies to improve neighborhoods. HE Policy 5.3: Encourage the preservation and restoration of residential and neighborhood resources that possess historic, cultural or architectural value HE Policy 5.4: Take proactive steps to reverse patterns of discrimination by investing in disadvantaged neighborhoods through implementing the Alisal Vibrancy Plan (including ANRSA), Chinatown Revitalization Plan, and Downtown Vibrancy Plan, to ensure they have the resources to reverse the effects of historic neglect. Goal 6: Improve City Homeless Response
HE Policy 6.1: Collaborate with the local Continuum of Care (Coc #506-CA) to implement the Lead Me Home Plan.
HE Policy 6.2: Improve the quality of homeless services and coordination with community providers.
HE Policy 6.3: Pursue funding opportunities to support existing and new homeless services programs.
HE Policy 6.4: Seek to address the urgent health and safety needs of unhoused residents.
November 2023 Page 9
3. Findings Concerning CEQA
Exemption
3.1 SECTION 15061(B)(3): COMMON SENSE EXEMPTION
The proposed project is exempt as a “common sense” exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the project involves goals, policies, programs, and actions to meet the City’s RHNA and affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) goals but does not involve any physical changes with the potential to create an adverse effect on the environment. As described above, the 2023-2031 Housing Element creates a roadmap on how to achieve its RHNA and AFFH goals through identification of suitable sites for development and identification of programs and corresponding actions that could remove constraints to and promote affordable housing. The 2023-2031 Housing Element does not grant any development entitlements or authorize development beyond what is allowed under the City’s current General Plan and Zoning Code (Municipal Code Title 37.) All future housing development pursuant to the 2023-2031 Housing Element would be subject to further development review, which may require supporting technical reports. As further described above, no regulatory changes, rezoning, or physical improvements are required for the City to adopt the Housing Element and meet its RHNA obligations; therefore, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element would result in a significant effect on the environment. Thus, the City of Salinas finds that the 2023-2031 Housing Element is exempt from CEQA under the common-sense exemption.
3.2 ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
The 2023-2031 Housing Element is strictly a policy guidance document that does not entail entitlement of any specific development project and would not result in any direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, Proposed Sites, the Housing Sites Inventory is based on existing General Plan land use designations and zoning standards.
No changes to the City’s land use plan are proposed as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
The City plans to accommodate its RHNA through a combination of proposed pipeline projects currently undergoing planning and building permit review; future Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development under current zoning regulations; focusing development on identified vacant and underutilized sites; and development within the entitled portions of the North of Boronda Future Growth Area (FGA).
As described above, rezoning is required to allow permanent housing at the El Rey Motel Conversion project at 443 West Market Street, however, since the proposed project is to repurpose the existing building, the City determined at the October 24, 2023 Council Meeting, that the project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and Section 15061. This project
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SALINAS
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
was initiated by the City independently of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and the proposed rezoning is not dependent on adoption of the proposed Housing Element or this CEQA review.
Furthermore, the rezoning is anticipated to occur following the 2040 General Plan Update, for which an EIR is currently being prepared.
Goals, policies, programs, and actions included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element encourage housing production and outline steps for future implementation of certain programs. As discussed in Section 2.2.3, Proposed Housing Plan, Goal 1 of the proposed Housing Element Update is to increase housing supply and opportunities for all, with a focus on diversifying the mix of housing types in Salinas. Policy 1.1 incentivizes and supports the production of new housing units. Policy
1.3 encourages and facilitates the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Policy 1.4 encourages a mix of diverse housing types. Policy 1.5 specifies future updates to the Zoning Code to ensure consistency with State law and community vision, but does not specify amendments resulting in increased densities. Policy 1.7 seeks to develop high-density and mixed-use housing in areas with existing public and active transportation and create additional safe bike and pedestrian infrastructure. These policies encourage and promote housing production under existing land use regulations but do not increase the amount of development allowed in the city when compared to existing land use regulations.
The policies described above—and their corresponding implementing programs and actions— under Goal 1 are intended to encourage future housing development that meets all housing needs. However, none of these policies require any land use or zoning changes that could increase the amount of housing allowed in the city or otherwise result in physical impacts on the environment. These policies are structured to incentivize housing development within the framework of existing density and buildout provisions envisioned in the City’s existing General Plan.
The City is currently in the process of preparing an update to its General Plan (Visión Salinas 2040 General Plan Update), through which the City is reimagining its land use plan and switching from traditional land use designations to a place-type based system. These draft Place Types would offer greater land use flexibility and density, with less emphasis on strict use classifications.
In accordance with Policy 1.5, once the General Plan is adopted and the EIR is certified, the Zoning Ordinance would be updated to comply with the new General Plan policies and implementation directives.
Future implementation actions to implement the programs in the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element would include amendments to zoning and other regulations to facilitate housing development consistent with State housing law. These future amendments are discussed in detail below. Implementation of the proposed programs and actions would not have any significant environmental effects beyond those already contemplated by existing land use policies and zoning regulations. Please see Table 3-1, Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions, for a full listing and analysis of proposed programs and actions.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
November 2023 Page 11
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions Implementing Programs
and Corresponding Actions
Summary of Determination that
Program and Actions are Exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
Program 1: Provision and Monitoring of Adequate Sites for RHNA
Actions:
a. Maintain a site inventory of adequate densities and
appropriate development standards to facilitate a range of housing opportunities. - Ongoing
b. Establish a formal procedure by end of 2024 to annually review sites and ensure no net loss of sites to
accommodate remaining RHNA and to identify additional
sites or rezone within six months when net loss would
occur.
c. To ensure completion of pipeline projects identified in Table 59: Credits Toward the RHNA, the City will monitor progress of these projects and will coordinate with
applicants to facilitate remaining approvals and permits.
The City will work with applicants to ensure entitlements do not expire and assist with expedition and funding
assistance if the project is eligible under state law and applicable Housing Element Programs. If a pipeline project is not approved, the City will ensure adequate capacity for the remaining RHNA is provided through monitoring of no net loss and rezoning if necessary (see Action b. above). d. Maintain a minimum of 30 du per acre in the zoning code as a non-discretionary permitted use requirement on
previously identified sites located in the Focused Growth Overlay district which can accommodate residential and
mixed-use developments. – Ongoing
e. To ensure continued AB 1397 compliance, require nondiscretionary review for any housing projects with at least 20-percent of units affordable to lower-income households on:
i. Vacant sites identified in two consecutive previous
Housing Element cycles, or
ii. Nonvacant sites identified in the previous cycle, or iii. Sites to be rezoned past the statutory deadline.
f. Continue compliance with Surplus Lands Act requirements and actively market available Surplus Land to affordable housing developers, particularly Consolidated Sites ‘C’ and ‘E’ of Appendix B, which could accommodate 129 Very
Low-Low income units. If additional surplus land is
necessary to accommodate a shortfall of sites/net loss
identified through Action b. above, ensure any necessary rezone is completed within six months.
g. Consult annually with affordable housing developers to identify any additional sites (including surplus public land), which may be considered appropriate for affordable
housing development.
h. Work with the developers to facilitate WASP and CASP development on identified sites by 2031.
i. Coordinate with Monterey-Salinas Transit to increase transit access to new housing sites.
This program and its associated actions
outline steps that the City intends to take to
maintain the housing sites inventory on an
ongoing basis. In general, these actions
describe how the City will monitor sites,
identify new sites (when needed),
coordinate with developers to identify sites
and facilitate development, and monitor
development projects. Certain actions (c,
d, e, f, and g) identify that future rezonings
may be implemented. No specific
rezonings are identified in these actions,
and no rezonings are required in order for
the proposed Housing Element to be
adopted. These actions would not cause
land use or zoning changes to occur that
could increase the amount of housing
allowed in the city beyond levels permitted
by existing land use policies or zoning
regulations. Future rezonings would be
subject to their own project-level CEQA
review, as applicable. This program and its
associated actions would not result in
direct housing development or physical
improvements; therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SALINAS
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions Implementing Programs
and Corresponding Actions
Summary of Determination that
Program and Actions are Exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
Program 2: Financial Assistance and Gap Financing
Actions:
Annually
a. Proactively pursue and leverage governmental and nongovernmental funds to increase the inventory of affordable housing.
b. Commit federal pass-through funds to the production and preservation of affordable housing.
c. Continue to promote density bonus, inclusionary units, and other incentives to facilitate affordable housing
development.
d. Continue collaborating with existing or potential
Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs)
and local or regional stakeholder organizations to create new affordable housing projects and to enhance
neighborhood conditions.
Short Term (1-3 Years)
e. Explore the creation of a Community Revitalization and Investment Authority for Downtown, Chinatown and the
Alisal as a tool to finance affordable housing.
f. Explore parcel taxes for affordable housing that would tax land rather than new development.
g. Explore community land trusts as another avenue for
developing and preserving affordable housing.
h. Explore allocating a portion of Cannabis Business Taxes to foster affordable housing production including funding of planning staff to sustain projects through the process. i. Explore the possibility of a Monterey County Housing Bond and continue to discuss this possibility among Monterey County Stakeholders.
j. Explore the development of commercial/industrial linkage fee for the provision of affordable housing.
k. Maximize local funding resources to leverage conventional non-local grants.
This program and its associated actions
identify several funding mechanisms for
increasing, preserving, and supporting
affordable housing. This program and its
associated actions would not result in
direct housing development or physical
improvements; therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
Program 3: Prohousing Designation
Actions:
a. Annually pursue PIP funding.
b. Maintain the PDP by adhering to applicable State Housing Law, The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing obligation and the Principles of Prohousing, and by implementing the proposed Prohousing policies within the time frame
specified in the City’s application for Prohousing
Designation.
Under this program, the City would
annually pursue funds under HCD’s
Prohousing Incentive Pilot (PIP) Program,
which is intended to increase participation
in HCD’s Prohousing Designating Program
(PDP). In March 2023, the City Council
approved a Resolution authorizing the
submission of a PIP application. If
awarded, the City intends to allocate its
awarded funds towards the
predevelopment, development, acquisition,
rehabilitation, and preservation of
multifamily, residential live-work, rental
housing that is affordable to extremely low,
very low, low-, and moderate-income
households, including necessary operating
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
November 2023 Page 13
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions Implementing Programs
and Corresponding Actions
Summary of Determination that
Program and Actions are Exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
subsidies and funds towards
homeownership opportunities, including,
but not limited to, down payment
assistance. While this action calls for the
City to pursue PIP funding on an annual
basis, this action would not result in direct
housing development. Therefore, this
program would not result in physical
environmental impacts.
Program 4: Accessory Dwelling Units
Actions:
a. Promote the City’s pre-approved ADU plans and provide guidance and educational materials for building ADUs on the City's website, including permitting procedures and construction resources.
b. Monitor and pursue state grants and financial incentives in connection with the planning, construction, and operation of affordable ADUs.
c. Establish loan program for the financing of new ADUs and provide subsidies for owners willing to provide affordable ADUs.
d. Extend existing ordinance amending Chapter 9 of the
Salinas Municipal Code (Building) to exempt accessory
dwelling units from Development Impact Fees for an
additional 5 years.
e. Complete ADU/JADU ordinance update by May 2024, to
incorporate state requirements and any other relevant
legislation.
f. Monitor program every other year and adopt necessary additional zoning code or other changes within six months of identification of need.
g. Conduct annual outreach and education.
The actions associated with this program
outline how the City intends to promote
and incentivize accessory dwelling units
(ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units
(JADUs). Actions involve funding,
development process updates, outreach,
and education. Certain actions (d, e, and f)
identify that future amendments to the
City’s Municipal Code and zoning
regulations may be implemented. No
specific amendments are identified in these
actions, and no amendments are required
in order for the proposed Housing Element
to be adopted. Future code amendments
would be subject to their own project-level
CEQA review, as applicable. These actions
would not result in direct development of
ADUs or JADUs. Therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
Program 5: East Area Specific Plan Development
Actions:
a. Issue a Request for Proposals and select a planning
consultant.
b. Initiate community engagement.
c. Develop draft Specific Plan and environmental documents. d. Adopt East Area Specific Plan.
These actions provide a basic outline of
the steps the City intends to take to
develop the East Area Specific Plan. The
City has already initiated this process by
issuing a Request for Proposals. The East
Area Specific Plan will be subject to its own
environmental review. This program does
not involve direct development under this
forthcoming plan. Therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
Program 6: General Plan, Zoning Code, and Approval Process Updates
Actions:
a. Adopt the General Plan Update.
b. Amend Zoning Code to implement Place Type
designations and revised Land Use Element. Establish or modify development standards to facilitate achieving
The actions associated with this program
outline several updates to the City’s plans
and procedures, as well as future
amendments to the City’s Municipal Code
and other regulations. No amendments are
required in order for the proposed Housing
Element to be adopted. Future code
amendments would be subject to their own
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SALINAS
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions Implementing Programs
and Corresponding Actions
Summary of Determination that
Program and Actions are Exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
maximum densities, encourage small lot consolidation, and remove constraints to housing.
c. Develop and adopt Objective Design Standards for
residential and mixed-use development consistent with the Housing Accountability Act and increase opportunities for ministerial review.
d. Expand the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance to Citywide by
2026.
e. Amend Municipal Code Chapter 15 Housing to remove
subjective findings from Article IV – Reasonable
Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities.
f. Amend CUP requirements in zoning code to remove
subjective required finding (Sec. 37-60.520.(b)) on nonimpacts to the surrounding neighborhood/properties for housing projects and mixed use projects that include
housing.
g. Change the zoning code definition of family (in Sec. 37-
10.300) to remove language that may exclude unrelated
individuals from living together. Remove phrase “based on personal relationships”.
h. Amend zoning code to remove garage and covered
parking requirements.
i. Amend zoning code to make Employee Housing, Small
Project, a Permitted-by-right (P) use in the R-M-3.6 and RM-2.9 residential zones. j. Amend Emergency Shelter section (Sec. 37-50.305) to
meet all requirements pursuant to AB 2339, including
eliminating the restrictions on the number of beds,
expanding the definition, ensuring proximity to services, bringing parking and distance requirements into
compliance with AB 139, making Emergency Shelters,
Type A, a permitted use (no discretionary action) in the Mixed-Use District.
k. Streamline approval process to comply with AB 2162
(2018) for Supportive Housing (as defined in the California Health and Safety Code Section 50675.14) in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, treat as use by right, with no minimum parking requirements if the
development is located within ½ mile of a public transit stop.
l. Establish a written policy to ensure streamlined ministerial review of eligible affordable housing projects as provided by SB 35 (2017) and Government Code, Section 65913.4.
m. Amend zoning code to comply with AB 101 (2019) to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC, as defined in
Government Code Section 65660) by right in areas zoned
for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting
multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements,
including:
i. Access to permanent housing.
project-level CEQA review, as applicable.
This program and its associated actions
would not result in direct housing
development or physical improvements;
therefore, this program would not result in
physical environmental impacts.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
November 2023 Page 15
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions Implementing Programs
and Corresponding Actions
Summary of Determination that
Program and Actions are Exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
ii. Use of a coordinated entry system (Homeless
Management Information System).
iii. Use of Housing First according to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 8255 (Government Code
Section 65662).
n. Review and revise the required findings for CUP approval for large residential care facilities to ensure the findings do not constrain the redevelopment of such facilities.
Program 7: Reduce Housing Production Constraints
Actions:
a. Annually review the City’s planning and development fees to ensure they are appropriate and do not unduly constrain affordable housing development. Compare fees with other local jurisdictions to determine if they are within a
reasonable range for similar projects, based on fees per unit, square footage, total development cost, or other
appropriate metrics.
b. Revise and reduce fees to remove constraints on housing. c. Update the impact fee schedule to reduce minimum net land area per unit requirements.
d. As funding permits, assist in gap financing affordable development by nonprofit developers to help offset the cost of development through deferred impact fees.
e. Periodically review the effectiveness of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Density Bonus Program to
implement revisions as appropriate to incentivize additional housing development.
f. Continue efforts on streamlining and enhancing the
efficiency of the planning and permit approval process as well as building inspection services. Additionally continue supporting affordable housing developers through the
entitlement and development process. Track the average
processing time for housing planning and permit approvals and reduce time by 10 percent by the end of 2026.
The actions associated with this program
outline several ways in which the City
intends to update its development
procedures and fees. No specific
amendments to the City’s development
requirements are identified in these
actions, and no amendments are required
in order for the proposed Housing Element
to be adopted. Future amendments would
be subject to their own project-level CEQA
review, as applicable. This program and its
associated actions would not result in
direct housing development or physical
improvements; therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
Program 8: Residential Rental Registration & Rent Stabilization Actions:
a. Make educational material and resources available in English, Make educational material and practical resources available in English, Spanish and other languages as
appropriate.
b. Referrals to local service providers.
c. Examine the possibility of developing a Rental Assistance and Navigation program component.
d. Examination, exploration and consideration of a rent stabilization and inspection components.
This program and its associated actions
address the City’s intent to provide
educational material and resources,
coordinate with local service providers, and
explore the development of future
programs to support rental housing. This
program and its associated actions would
not result in direct housing development or
physical improvements; therefore, this
program would not result in physical
environmental impacts.
Program 9: Fair Housing Education, Outreach, and Services Actions:
a. Provide fair housing resources information through City social media, printed materials, and workshops.
This program and its associated actions
address the City’s intent to provide
resources, coordinate with stakeholders
and agency staff, identify funding, support
existing programs, and explore the
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SALINAS
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions Implementing Programs
and Corresponding Actions
Summary of Determination that
Program and Actions are Exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
b. Distribute informational materials to community
organizations and neighborhood gathering spots in areas with higher rates of protected groups.
c. Collaborate with local and regional stakeholders to reach linguistically isolated and underserved populations.
d. Meet quarterly with the City’s contracted housing rights and tenant protection agency staff, beginning in 2023-
2024.
e. Through the HUD Consolidated Plan and Annual Action
Plan, identify and allocate funding for fair housing services as a continued priority.
f. Evaluate and support the implementation of a tenant
relocation assistance program.
g. Consider the implementation of a just cause for eviction ordinance.
h. Support the implementation of a Residential Rental
Registration Program.
development of a future ordinance related
to just cause for evictions. This program
and its associated actions would not result
in direct housing development or physical
improvements; therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
Program 10: Housing Services Program
Actions:
a. Develop new Housing Services Program and hire new staff to support the services to be provided to the community. b. Promote an adequate, safe, and decent housing stock
through conservation and rehabilitation activities.
c. Market and promote the program through various social media, printed material, and workshops.
This program and its associated actions
describe how the City intends to develop a
new program to provide housing services
through the conservation and rehabilitation
of adequate, safe, and decent housing. No
specific activities are identified in these
actions. Future housing rehabilitation
projects would be subject to their own
project-level CEQA review, as applicable.
This program and its associated actions
would not result in direct housing
development or physical improvements;
therefore, this program would not result in
physical environmental impacts.
Program 11: Code Enforcement
Actions:
Complete 200 code corrections annually and address
substandard housing conditions for 80 units annually.
a. Use Code Enforcement Strategically. Reduce blight by using code enforcement, nuisance abatement, and
receivership to address significant problem properties. b. Educate Residents and Community partners on Code
Enforcement through a variety of platforms such as social media, printed materials and workshops.
c. Continue periodic analysis of code enforcement data to enhance program effectiveness, especially for housing
violations that warrant inspection
d. Seek/research funding, such as HUD HOME lead-based
paint and rehabilitation programs, as it becomes available.
This program and its associated actions
pertain to the enforcement of the City’s
existing codes. No code amendments are
proposed as part of this program. Any
future improvement projects required to
address substandard housing conditions
would be subject to their own project-level
CEQA review, as applicable. This program
and its associated actions would not result
in direct housing development or physical
improvements; therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
Program 12: Housing Vouchers
Actions:
a. By 2024, establish a closed-loop referral and navigation support system with service provider for those seeking
This program and its associated actions
address the City’s intent to provide
resources and coordinate with service
providers, nonprofits, and landlords to
support housing voucher programs. This
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
November 2023 Page 17
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions Implementing Programs
and Corresponding Actions
Summary of Determination that
Program and Actions are Exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
information about Housing Voucher program and Utilities Assistance Programs to service providers.
b. Collaborate with nonprofits and landlords to promote and increase participation of rental properties in voucher
housing programs.
c. Continue to support annual Fair Market Rental Rate
studies to ensure Voucher valuations receive necessary
cost of living increases.
d. Continue to partner and seek Vouchers to support the current and emerging development of affordable housing
projects.
e. Support HACM’s petition to HUD for increased Section 8 funding as requested.
f. Continue to support the nonprofits efforts to educate landlords about SB 329 and SB 222. Under these two
laws, all landlords in California will be required to accept Section 8 and VASH vouchers and other forms of rental
assistance and to consider them as part of an applicant’s income. Both laws came into effect on January 1, 2020.
program and its associated actions would
not result in direct housing development or
physical improvements; therefore, this
program would not result in physical
environmental impacts.
Program 13: Homebuyer Resources
Actions:
a. Reassess and Reinstate First Time Homebuyer Program
(FTHB Program) by the end of the 2023 and assist five (5) households within incomes up to moderate income.
b. Investigate and pilot innovative housing ownership model by the end of 2025.
c. Promote CalFHA programs to local loan officers and refer residents to CalFHA homebuyer assistance programs to
increase participation.
d. Continue to support first-time homebuyer education and foreclosure prevention services.
This program and its associated actions
address the City’s intent to provide
resources in support of homebuyers. This
program and its associated actions would
not result in direct housing development or
physical improvements; therefore, this
program would not result in physical
environmental impacts.
Program 14: Housing and Services for Persons with
Disabilities
Actions:
a. Reinstating the Housing Services Program (HSP) and HAA Grant for disabled residents by the end of 2025 and the target the program for low-income households.
b. Through the Annual Action Plan (AAP) of the CDBG,
HOME, and ESG entitlement funds, evaluate and allocate
funding for supportive services and housing for persons with disabilities.
c. Continue to provide individuals with disabilities “reasonable accommodation” in land use, zoning and building
regulations, as required per Ordinance and evaluate and adjust the ordinance as needed to ensure its effectiveness. d. Seek funding sources to incorporate ADA improvements under the ADA Transition Plan to bring older community
facilities up to compliance standards.
This program and its associated actions
address the City’s intent to provide
resources, programs, and funds in support
of housing and services for persons with
disabilities. No code amendments are
proposed as part of this program. Any
future improvement projects required to
bring older facilities up to compliance
standards would be subject to their own
project-level CEQA review, as applicable.
This program and its associated actions
would not result in direct housing
development or physical improvements;
therefore, this program would not result in
physical environmental impacts.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SALINAS
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions Implementing Programs
and Corresponding Actions
Summary of Determination that
Program and Actions are Exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
Program 15: Allocate Funding for Housing First Homeless Programs
Actions:
a. Proactively evaluate areas of growth to ensure Housing First programs are provided with no/low barrier access to supportive housing
b. Review and analyze street outreach, emergency shelter, and rapid rehousing policies and make recommendations
of best practices including housing first approaches.
c. Provide sub-recipients with technical assistance and support in modifying policies and procedures, either
directly or through a HUD TA provider.
d. Continue to fund and support the City’s three housing navigation centers – SHARE Center, Chinatown
Navigation Center and the Emergency Motel Program –
using ARPA and other City Funds.
e. Continue to pursue acquisition of motel/hotels for potential rapid conversion to non-congregate shelter, transitional housing, or permanent affordable housing for extremely
low, very low and low income individuals.
f. Explore the development of a safe parking program with an emphasis on unsheltered families.
This program and its associated actions
address the City’s intent to provide
resources, programs, and services in
support of unhoused persons. Any future
improvement projects to convert
motels/hotels into shelters or housing
would be subject to their own project-level
CEQA review, as applicable. This program
and its associated actions would not result
in direct housing development or physical
improvements; therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
Program 16: Local Education Workforce Housing
Actions:
a. Periodically review City zoning codes and regulations to facilitate a variety of housing types conducive to employee housing multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), emergency
shelters, and transitional housing).
b. Identify and eliminate barriers for the development of employer-sponsored housing while ensuring that the
development is built to allow for future conversion to multifamily should the employer sell the property. c. City to engage quarterly/annually with local/regional employers regarding the production of local workforce
housing.
The actions associated with this program
outline several ways in which the City
intends to update its development
regulations and promote the development
of workforce housing. No specific
amendments to the City’s development
requirements are identified in these
actions, and no amendments are required
in order for the proposed Housing Element
to be adopted. Future amendments would
be subject to their own project-level CEQA
review, as applicable. This program and its
associated actions would not result in
direct workforce housing development or
physical improvements; therefore, this
program would not result in physical
environmental impacts.
Program 17: Farmworker Housing Production & Financing
Actions:
a. Continue to seek federal and state housing finance
programs that are occupationally restricted or advantage farmworker housing (including, for example, the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program, USDA Section
514,516,521,523 grants). City to financially support all affordable housing projects within City limits pursuing Joe Serna, Jr. funding.
b. Facilitate private sector development of farmworker
housing with unrestricted funding sources to allow flexibility This program and its associated actions
outline steps that the City intends to take to
support the production of farmworker
housing. In general, these actions describe
how the City will obtain and provide
funding, coordinate with stakeholders and
organizations, monitor farmworker housing
production, identify new potential
farmworker housing sites, coordinate with
property owners and the County, and
facilitate the development of farmworker
housing projects. This program and its
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
November 2023 Page 19
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions Implementing Programs
and Corresponding Actions
Summary of Determination that
Program and Actions are Exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
in providing housing for farmworkers regardless of
documentation.
c. Continue to work with and engage farmworker
stakeholders, farmworker housing proponents and the
nonprofit community bi-annually to implement the Regional Farmworker Housing Study and Action Plan.
d. To date the City has approved the conversion of 8
hotels/motel into temporary farmworker housing through an Extended Stay Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Currently
there are 7 additional hotels/motels pending approval of an Extended Stay CUP. City to continue to approve 1-2 of
these CUPs a year to increase the supply of temporary
farmworker housing.
e. The City has assisted the County of Monterey and several temporary farmworker housing projects in the periphery of the City by allowing them to tie into City infrastructure. The City to continue to assist 1-2 of these new temporary
farmworker housing projects.
f. City to update map identifying potential farmworker
housing sites within the City every two years.
g. Incentivize growers with marginal agricultural land
contiguous to and surrounded by urban uses to dedicate, discount, or lease land for farmworker housing, including no-cost release from Williamson Act Contracts.
h. Facilitate the development of intergenerational farmworker housing for multiple generations of farmworkers (retirees, working adults, and children) to create opportunities for mutual self-reliance, such as provision of childcare and elder care.
i. Enable property owners with contiguous sites appropriate for farmworker housing to parcellate the land or create new lot lines to accommodate larger, more economically
feasible projects.
associated actions would not result in
direct housing development or physical
improvements; therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
Program 18: Farmworker Housing Regulatory and Land Use
Changes
Actions:
a. Continue to implement and improve the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Extended Stay for Hotel/Motel use by H2A or Other Seasonal Farmworkers, through a City Council ordinance passed on August 10, 2021, allowing
hotels/motels in certain zoning districts to obtain a CUP to fully operate as an Extended Stay with occupancy up to 10 months in a year.
b. Continue to comprehensively update the Greater Salinas Areas Memorandum of Understanding between the City of
Salinas and the County of Monterey to reflect current land use development plans, current planned or contemplated
development project’s including farmworker housing and
associated services and facilities (relative to sewer, roads.
Etc).
This program and its associated actions
outline steps that the City intends to take to
support the production of farmworker
housing through regulatory and land use
methods. Through these actions, the City
would allow the use of motel/hotel
properties for extended stays, maintain and
up-to-date Memorandum of Understanding
with the County, identify suitable
farmworker housing sites, and utilize
available housing stock for farmworker
housing. This program and its associated
actions would not result in direct housing
development or physical improvements;
therefore, this program would not result in
physical environmental impacts.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SALINAS
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions Implementing Programs
and Corresponding Actions
Summary of Determination that
Program and Actions are Exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
c. Update as needed a map that identifies specific sites that are suitable for farmworker housing within City limits in collaboration with local jurisdictions in the region.
Whenever possible continue streamlining the approval
processes for farmworker housing projects.
d. Explore opportunities to utilize H2A and other farmworker housing that is vacant off-season for rapid rehousing or other short-term housing uses.
Program 19: Implementation of the Lead Me Home Plan
Actions:
a. Increase participation in homeless solutions by leaders and key stakeholders from across the region
b. Improve the overall performance, capacity, and outcomes of the homelessness response system, and
c. Expand service-oriented responses to unsheltered
homelessness.
This program and its associated actions
address the City’s intent to provide
resources and services in support of
unhoused persons. This program and its
associated actions would not result in
direct housing development or physical
improvements; therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
Program 20: Expand Leadership and Advocacy Role through CoC CA-506
Actions:
a. Continue to participate as a member of the Coalition of Homeless Services Providers
b. Continue to participate in the Coordinated Access Referral System (CARS) and Homeless Management Information
System (HMIS) oversight Committees to engage in
planning and implementation of the local Coordinated
Entry system.
c. Continue to serve on the CoC CA-506 Leadership Council and Coalition of Homeless Services Providers Board of
Directors and Committees to proactively participate in
further incremental and annual assessments, updates and refinement of the Lead Me Home Plan and advocate for
and support the universal implementation of evidencedbased best practices and programs. d. Continue to pursue and apply for existing, emerging
supportive funding opportunities to further expand and
support housing solutions and services.
This program and its associated actions
address the City’s intent to provide
resources, services, and funding as part of
its participation in the local Continuum of
Care (CoC #506-CA). This program and its
associated actions would not result in
direct housing development or physical
improvements; therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
Program 21: Street Outreach Program
Actions:
a. Develop an annual homeless report to capture housing and service-related outcomes.
b. Implement an online SORT referral system for community members, service providers, and City Staff.
c. Continue to collaborate and refer unsheltered residents with community providers, housing authority, and other
housing and emergency-based programs.
d. Strive to reduce existing and mitigate emergence of
homeless encampments through Cal ICH Encampment
Resolution Grants by continuing to provide a supportive pathway and model of transition for unhoused individuals to permanent housing.
This program and its associated actions
address the City’s intent to provide
outreach, resources, and services in
support of unhoused persons. This
program and its associated actions would
not result in direct housing development or
physical improvements; therefore, this
program would not result in physical
environmental impacts.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
November 2023 Page 21
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions Implementing Programs
and Corresponding Actions
Summary of Determination that
Program and Actions are Exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
e. Support the City of Salinas Public Works Department with coordinated emergency shelter referrals and services to encampment residents prior to Health & Safety Days.
f. Continue to seek funding to sustain and expand the
Salinas Street Outreach and Response Team to include
additional housing navigation and case management
services.
Program 22: Engage In Regional Coordination Of Homeless Issues
Actions:
a. Continue to lead and coordinate multi-agency response to reduce encampments and facilitate access to services for unhoused persons and families.
b. Respond and support the CoC in regional encampment
response to address potential safety concerns due to
weather inclement, or other natural disasters.
c. Identify and assess existing and emerging barriers to housing access and propose strategies and the
implementation of best practices, standards, policies, and procedures to expand and sustain access to available
services, programs and housing.
d. Continue to collaborate with the Coalition of Homeless Service Providers and the Housing Authority of the County of Monterey to ensure that the Emergency Housing
Vouchers (EHV)s are leased by September 2023.
e. Advocate for the implementation of a Homeless Care Court in Monterey County that would consider the dismissal of criminal records and other justice-system barriers
experienced by unhoused individuals seeking permanent
housing.
This program and its associated actions
address the City’s intent to provide
outreach, resources, and services in
support of unhoused persons. This
program and its associated actions would
not result in direct housing development or
physical improvements; therefore, this
program would not result in physical
environmental impacts.
Program 23: Housing Navigation and Stabilization Program Actions:
a. Implement a housing navigation program that collaborates with the Salinas Outreach and Response Team to address
barriers to housing and increases successful outcomes.
b. Monitor and track outcomes in the local CoC HMIS.
c. Engage with property management companies and private landlords to minimize stigma and offer support through
incentive and retention services.
d. Consider providing financial incentives such as holding fees for vacant units, damage mitigation funds, and
offsetting potential legal fees to encourage landlords to rent their available units to persons experiencing
homelessness.
e. Support housing retention through a home-based, care coordination model of case management providing
individual support to access and retain benefits and
services and identify and resolve emergent issues.
This program and its associated actions
address the City’s intent to provide
outreach, resources, and services in
support of unhoused persons as part of its
participation in Homeless Management
Information System (HMIS). This program
and its associated actions would not result
in direct housing development or physical
improvements; therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SALINAS
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions Implementing Programs
and Corresponding Actions
Summary of Determination that
Program and Actions are Exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
Program 24: Develop Permanent Supportive Housing Units
Actions:
a. Complete Step Up in Salinas, Step Up on Fairview, and Step Up on Sanborn motel/hotel conversions.
b. Purchase five single-family units and add five
ADUs/JADUs for unhoused families.
The actions associated with this program
outline how the City intends to complete
motel/hotel conversions and purchase
housing units for occupancy by unhoused
persons. Any future improvement projects
to convert motels/hotels into shelters or
housing would be subject to their own
project-level CEQA review, as applicable.
This program and its associated actions
would not result in direct housing
development or physical improvements;
therefore, this program would not result in
physical environmental impacts.
Program 25: Preservation of Affordable Housing At-Risk of Conversion
Actions:
a. Prioritize the status of at-risk units through contacts with the property owner(s).
b. Encourage participation of nonprofit housing developers to acquire and preserve at-risk units.
c. Explore and identify potential funding and other
mechanisms, such as community land trusts, to support
and encourage the rehabilitation and retention of
affordable units.
d. Work with property owner(s) intending to opt out of the affordability covenants and work with potential purchasers to ensure tenants are educated on their rights and
responsibilities, and available housing options, within the required notice of intent to convert at-risk units to market rate rents.
e. Pursuant to new State law, ensure tenants are notified of the potential conversion to market rate housing three years prior to the conversion.
f. City to conduct public hearing on tenant rights at least one year prior to project’s conversion to market rate housing.
This program and its associated actions
outline steps that the City intends to take to
prevent the conversion of at-risk units.
Through these actions, the City would
coordinate with property owners and
developers, identify funding, and conduct
outreach. This program and its associated
actions would not result in direct housing
development or physical improvements;
therefore, this program would not result in
physical environmental impacts.
Program 26: Invest in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods
Actions:
a. Pursue recertification of the Alisal NRSA every five years and update the implementation strategies to reflect
housing and community development needs.
b. Expand marketing efforts in the Alisal NRSA, Chinatown Revitalization Plan and Downtown Vibrancy Plan to
promote housing and community development programs to
residents.
c. Pursue additional local, state, and federal funding that focus on addressing distressed conditions in
disadvantaged communities.
d. Pursue additional local, state, and federal funding and strive to exceed the objectives outlined in the Alisal
Vibrancy Plan, Chinatown Revitalization Plan and
Downtown Vibrancy Plan:
This program and its associated actions
address the City’s intent to provide
outreach, resources, funding, programs,
and services to invest in disadvantaged
neighborhoods. The City would also
improve parks and/or public facilities, and
collaborate with the County to develop
housing. Future improvement projects
would be subject to their own project-level
CEQA review, as applicable. This program
and its associated actions would not result
in direct housing development or physical
improvements; therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
November 2023 Page 23
Table 3-1 Proposed Housing Element Implementing Programs and Actions Implementing Programs
and Corresponding Actions
Summary of Determination that
Program and Actions are Exempt under
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)
Public Services:
e. Establish a CBDO focused on youth services
f. Provide funding for fair housing services and
tenant/landlord counseling to a CBDO
g. Establish a CBDO to provide and fund small business
counseling, education, and technical assistance services Housing:
h. Maintain and preserve affordable units prior to expiration of affordability agreement 30 to 55-year term
i. Provide funding for housing acquisition, demolition and clearance, and new construction (CBDO).
j. Partner with qualified organizations for acquisition, demolition and clearance, new construction (CBDO) on
City-owned properties.
Economic Development:
k. Recapitalize the Grow Salinas Fund and establish a
microloan program for businesses with five or fewer
employees.
l. Establish one (1) CBDO to provide and fund small
business counseling, education, and technical assistance services.
Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements:
m. Improvements at three (3) parks and/or public facilities locations.
n. Continue to collaborate with the County of Monterey and Housing Authority of the County of Monterey to acquire
and develop existing adjacent owned Division Street
properties to provide housing and serve as a hub for public services.
Program 27: Historic Resources
Actions:
a. Reassess and reinstate Miller Act Program by 2024-2025. b. Promote tax credits available for historic preservation through a Mills Act program.
c. Provide technical assistance to property owners, and help identify grant and funding opportunities, when available for preservation and rehabilitation activities.
d. Lead by example in the rehabilitation and renovation of City-owned historic Chinatown Soledad Street properties to serve as a model of considerate, progressive renovation inclusive of mixed-use housing.
This program and its associated actions
address the City’s intent to provide funding
and services for the preservation of historic
resources. The City would also rehabilitate
and renovate City-owned historic
resources. Future improvement projects
would be subject to their own project-level
CEQA review, as applicable. This program
and its associated actions would not result
in direct housing development or physical
improvements; therefore, this program
would not result in physical environmental
impacts.
Source: City of Salinas, PlaceWorks, 2023.
As described in Table 3-1, several programs involve implementing actions that specify future amendments to certain regulations. For example, some actions involve developing and adopting Objective Design Standards, making amendments to the Salinas Municipal Code, reviewing regulations to facilitate a variety of housing types, and continuing to implement and improve the
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CEQA EXEMPTION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SALINAS
Findings Concerning CEQA Exemption
Conditional Use Permit for Extended Stay for Hotel/Motel use. In addition, some actions refer to future development projects or activities, such as historic preservation renovations, improvements to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities, rehabilitation of substandard housing.
Undergoing these actions would not cause land use or zoning changes to occur that could increase the amount of housing allowed in the city beyond levels permitted by existing land use policies or zoning regulations, or otherwise result in physical impacts on the environment. Much like the policies in the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element, these regulation modifications would incentivize housing development within the framework of existing density and buildout provisions envisioned in the City’s existing General Plan. In addition, any physical improvements undertaken in the future in support of these programs and actions would be subject to their own project-level CEQA review, as applicable.
The 2023-2031 Housing Element does not include specific amendments to any land use regulations currently, but rather provides a timeline for future amendments. Subsequent amendments to the City’s municipal code would be subject to separate CEQA review at the time those amendments are prepared, if required.
In summary, as described above, the proposed project establishes a policy framework for achieving consistency with applicable State requirements within the city’s existing General Plan buildout projections. Adoption of the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element does not require any General Plan land use changes or changes to the City’s land use zoning regulations. No physical improvements would directly occur as a result of implementing the proposed project. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of City of Salinas 2023-2031 Housing Element would not result in significant effects on the environment and is therefore exempt from CEQA review.
City Council
December 5, 2023
Final 2023-2031 Housing
Element Adoption
(General Plan Amendment
2023-002)
The Housing Element . . .
Establishes City Housing goals and policies
Eight year update
Due to HCD by December 2023
Required to apply for various HCD funding
opportunities
Community Engagement
• Housing Element Workshops (3)
• Participants (60+)
• Mixteco interpretation
GPU Ambassadors:
• House Meetings (101)
• Farmworkers reached
(340+)
• Meetings conducted in
Mixteco (19)
Recurring Themes
• Need for more housing
• Affordability
• Need to maintain existing
housing/neighborhoods
• Housing for disadvantaged
populations
• Renter resources
• Housing for farmworkers
• Be innovative
Housing Goal 1
Increase Housing Supply and Opportunities for All
• Incentivize/support
production
• Encourage/facilitate
ADUs
• Encourage diverse
housing types
Housing Goal 2
Provide Tenant Protections
• Policies/programs to
prevent displacement
• Develop tenants' rights
programs
• Provide education and
connect tenants to legal
services
Housing Goal 3
Access to Safe and Healthy Housing for all Residents
• Improve the quality and
condition of rental
housing
• Promote rehabilitation
of housing
• Promote sustainable and
healthy housing
Housing Goal 4
Advance Housing Affordability and Opportunity at all Income Levels • Advance rent stabilization
• Facilitate production of affordable
housing
• Connect residents to financial
resources
• Provide assistance to special
populations
Housing Goal 5
Stabilize and Support Neighborhoods
• Collaborate with residents to
improve neighborhoods
• Leverage code enforcement
strategies
• Encourage preservation and
restoration of historic
neighborhood resources
• Work to reverse patterns of
discrimination
Housing Goal 6
Homeless Programs and Services
• Lead Me Home Plan implementation
• Enhanced focus on Street Outreach and
Navigation Services
• Facilitate the development of housing
focused shelter operations and
permanent housing through new
construction and innovative conversion
General Plan Amendment and CEQA
Needed because the Housing Element is part of the
General Plan
Housing Element is found to be consistent with the
General Plan and the update necessary to comply with
State law.
CEQA Exemption
Timeline
July AugustSeptemberOctober November December HCD
Review
Certification
Draft sent to
HCD - 90
days to review
Initial HCD
comments
received.
Second Draft
Housing
Element
issued.
Official HCD
Comments
received.
Final Housing
Element
prepared.
Public review:
Steering
Committee,
Planning
Commission
and Housing
and Land Use
Committee
Review.
City Council
Adoption –
December 5.
Submission to
HCD for
review no
later than
December 15.
60-Day
HCD review
and nonpolicy
related
revisions.
Deadline for
Certification is
120 days after
adoption
deadline –
April 15, 2024
Recommendation
Approve a resolution to adopt the 2023-2031 Housing
Element (General Plan Amendment 2023-002), authorize
staff to submit the 2023-2031 Housing Element to the State of California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) for certification, and authorize staff to make non-policy revisions to the Housing Element in
response to future HCD comments.
Questions & Comments
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-723, Version: 1
Closter Park Improvement Project Schematic Design
Approve a Resolution accepting the completion of the schematic design for the Closter Park Improvement Project.
City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/30/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1
CITY OF SALINAS
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2023
DEPARTMENT: LIBRARY COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FROM: KRISTAN LUNDQUIST, LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY
SERVICES DIRECTOR
BY: JOSE ARREOLA, COMMUNITY SAFETY ADMINISTRATOR
TITLE: CLOSTER PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SCHEMATIC DESIGN RECOMMENDED MOTION:
A motion to receive and accept the completion of the schematic design for the Closter Park Improvement Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On December 8, 2021, the California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) selected the City of Salinas Closter Park Improvement Project application for funding. The grant award is for $6.8 Million Dollars and will fund a comprehensive renovation of Closter Park. In 2023 additional funding in the amount of $314,517 was allocated by the City Council to help cover the project design and management costs. A schematic design has been developed by BFS Landscape Architects using the information gathered from park users through extensive community engagement efforts in 2021 and again in 2023.
BACKGROUND:
In July of 2019, the Salinas City Council adopted the Parks, Recreation and Libraries Master Plan (PRLMP). The Master Planning effort in 2019 included a full assessment of our park, recreation, and library facilities. The PRLMP represents a community engagement effort that connected with thousands of residents and community leaders over eighteen (18) months. The plan assessed the state of our current park, recreation, and library facilities and engaged residents to prioritize the need for maintenance. Following this assessment and the community engagement process which included over two thousand community engagement touch points Closter Park was ranked as the highest priority based on community need, significance, funding leverage, safety/security, usage/benefits, and location/demographics. Closter Park is heavily used by the community and hosts hundreds of people daily on the basketball courts, large playground, multiple ball fields, in the community center and jogging or walking around the park.
Page | 2
Following the recommendations of the Master Plan, staff has worked diligently to secure funding sources to renovate Closter Park. This included applying for the very competitive Prop 68 Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program. This grant opportunity made possible by the passage of Proposition 68 allowed the City to apply for up to $8.5 million dollars for eligible projects. Closter Park was an ideal project for this grant opportunity. The intent of the prop 68 funded Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program is to create new parks and recreation opportunities in critically underserved communities across California. The Closter Park Improvement Project location met all grant requirements and could instantly turn the little league field and its amenities into one of the best in the region.
On December 8, 2021, the California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS) selected the City of Salinas Closter Park Improvement Project application for funding. The grant award was for $6.8 Million Dollars and will fund a comprehensive renovation of Closter Park. OGALS received 468 total applications and Salinas was one of 112 successful applicants. A key to our successful application was our extensive community engagement for the grant and having a strong Parks, Recreation and Libraries Master Plan. The Salinas City Council officially accepted the grant funding on February 15, 2022.
Extensive community engagement was done to ensure that ideas from the community were made part of the conceptual design submitted as part of our application to the State of California.
Starting in November 2020 through to February 2021 we held six community meetings via zoom and three in person pop ups at Closter Park. We engaged with 129 residents and park users most of whom live within a half mile radius of the park. Over 2,500 Salinas residents were interacted with on our social media platforms on posts regarding our Prop 68 application. Residents shared with us the elements of the park they love, their concerns about the park and of course what they would like to see added or improved to the park. Our survey data shows that the top use of the Page | 3
park is for walking and jogging.
As a result of this data, a ten-foot-wide fitness loop, a half mile long with downlighting for security, fitness stations and a decomposed granite surface are key elements of the conceptual design. New restrooms, concession stands and built-in Amphitheatre style seating at the plaza are all community driven elements of the conceptual design. Refurbished baseball fields and bleachers will make Closter Park one of the nicest in the Salinas Little League system.
Concept Plan Prepared for Prop 68 Grant Application (March 2021) Page | 4
On December 13, 2022, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) between the City of Salinas and BFS Landscape Architects (BFS) for program and construction management for the Closter Park Improvement Project. The PSA includes a scope of:
1. Project management
3. Community engagement
4. Design development
6. Construction oversight
Additional community engagement was conducted by city staff and our design partners at BFS from May to June of 2023 to get more specific preferences on the playground, skatepark and other amenities to be included in the final design. Four pop-ups, held at Closter Park, and an online survey was hosted over two months. A total of 80 park users participated in the new rounds of engagement. This included direct coordination with the National Little League to ensure their programmatic needs were addressed. As part of our engagement City Staff and BFS were scheduled to present this report at the November 8, 2023, Library and Community Services (LCS) Commission ahead of this council meeting. This meeting of the LCS Commission was cancelled due to lack of quorum.
Here is a summary of this year’s outreach and images of the updated schematic design and new park amenities:
Preferred Playground Theme : Sea Explorer
Priority Amenity at Playground: Surfacing
Most Requested Playground Equipment: See-Saw
Priority Amenity for Caretakers: Seating
Preferred Skate Space Style: Hybrid of Street and Transition Features Concept Plan Prepared for Prop 68 Grant Application (March 2021) Updated Concept Plan (October 2023)
Page | 5
Preferred theme and playground elements
Page | 6
Preferred Skate Park Elements
Preferred Fitness Station Elements
Page | 7
Steep increases in construction and amenities costs over the last three years have made our initial cost estimates too low. The project team has worked together finding creative ways to minimize the cost through a process of collaborative value engineering. Since this is a grant funded project, we needed to include all the elements we identified in our application, though we did have to reduce the scale of many of the elements to stay within budget. BFS Landscape Architect’s presentation will review the work done to–date and illustrate selected features and cost analysis for the Closter Park Improvement Project.
CEQA CONSIDERATION:
Categorical Exemption. The City of Salinas has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline (Section 15300, Class 2) because it involves replacement and reconstruction of an existing structure.
No Significant Impact. The City of Salinas has determined that the project is of no significant impact under 24 CFR 58.32 – National Environmental Policy Act. No factors were found to be significant on a stand-alone basis.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
This item relates to the City Council’s Strategic Plan of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability, Public Safety as well as Youth and Seniors.
DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:
The Library & Community Services Department has coordinated and collaborated with the Public Works, the Police and Community Development Departments to include discussing this grant opportunity and how it supports implementation of the Parks, Recreation and Library Master Plan and the Alisal Vibrancy Plan.
FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:
There is no cost associated with this action.
ATTACHMENTS:
BFS Landscape Architects PowerPoint Presentation
Image Boards
RESOLUTION NO. ________________(N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE COMPLETION OF SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE
CLOSTER PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Parks, Recreation and Libraries Master Plan identified Closter Park as the highest ranked priority for renovation due to its location, high level of use and significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the renovation of Closter Park is also identified as a key priority for the Alisal Vibrancy Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with BFS Landscape Architects for Project Management, Construction Management and Community Engagement assistance for the Closter Park Improvement project at its meeting of December 13, 2022; and WHEREAS, a community centered engagement strategy was implemented to develop the conceptual plans which were further refined to complete the Schematic Design; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL that the Schematic Design Phase for the Closter Park Improvement project is hereby accepted.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 5
th day of December, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
(2) BATTING CAGES
SKATE SPOT
EXISTING BASKETBALL COURT -
NEW STRIPING AND
PART COLOR SURFACING
T O W T S T R E E T
ADULT/ JUNIOR
BALL FIELD
LITTLE
LEAGUE
FIELD
T O W T S T R E E T
D E W E Y A V E N U E
B E E C H S T R E E T
FARMERS MARKET/
MULTI-USE EVENT
SPACE
BIG KID
PLAZA
B E E C H S T R E E T
GAZEBO
LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN
CLOSTER PARK IMPROVEMENT
Salinas, California
November 2023
TREE OF LIFE
AMPHITHEATER
10’ WIDE
FITNESS LOOP
2-12 YEAR OLD
THEMED
PLAYGROUND
RENOVATED
HORSESHOE PITS
COMMUNITY ART
OPPORTUNITY &
WATER FOUNTAIN
CLIMBABLE ART &
MUSICAL SOUND
MAKING PLAZA
GROUP PICNIC
PLAZA & TURF
SCOREKEEPERS BOOTH
LEVEL II CONCESSIONS
(2) SINGLE STALL RESTROOM
STORAGE BUILDING
10’ WIDE
FITNESS LOOP
10’ WIDE
FITNESS LOOP
FITNESS STATIONS
FITNESS STATIONS
SCOREKEEPERS BOOTH
(2) SINGLE STALL RESTROOM
(2) BULL PEN STORAGE BUILDING
PLAYGROUND
2-5 YEAR OLDS STRUCTURE - SUBMARINE 5-12 YEAR OLDS STRUCTURE - SUBMARINE CLIMBER - JELLY FISH ROCKER - SEA HORSE CLIMBER - WHALE WEE-SAW + WHIRLWIND SPINNER - SEA-WEEDS WHIMPSY RIDER - DOLPHIN
CLOSTER PARK IMPROVEMENT
Salinas, California
November 2023
SKATE SPACE
CLOSTER PARK IMPROVEMENT
Salinas, California
November 2023
FITNESS EQUIPMENT
DIP BENCH PULL-UP BARS PUSH-UP BAR
SIT-UP BENCH PARALLEL BARS JUMP OVERS
CLOSTER PARK IMPROVEMENT
Salinas, California
November 2023
CLOSTER PARK
REVITALIZATION PROJECT
CITY COUNCIL
DECEMBER 5, 2023
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
• Introductions
• Review of Goals and Priorities
• Review of Prop 68 Grant Application and Award
• Project Schedule
• Schematic Design Overview
• Community Outreach during Schematic Design
• Schematic Design Plan and Enlargements
• Playground Features
• Skate Space Features
• Fitness Equipment Features
• Review of Schedule and Next Steps
AGENDA
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
PROJECT TEAM
ELIZABETH MATZ
BFS Landscape
Architects
Associate Principal
Project Manager
Presented By:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
EXTENSIVE
COMMUNITY
OUTREACH
ACHIEVED BY:
REPLACEMENT AND RENOVATION OF RECREATION
AND SPORTS FACILITIES AND AMENITIES
CLOSTER PARK
REVITALIZATION
INTRODUCTION OF COLORFUL AND ENGAGING ART
AND PLAY AREAS
ENHANCEMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY BY INCREASING
LIGHTING AND SIGHT LINES
[REPLACE W/ PHOTO]
INFORMED
PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT PLAN
PROPOSITION 68 GOALS & PRIORITIES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
PROP 68
BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
• Several meetings held
between March 2017 –
February 2021
PROPOSITION 68
APPLICATION
• Submitted in March 2021
REQUESTED GRANT
FUNDING
• $6,845,563.45
GRANT AWARD
• Grant funding awarded in Fall
2021 Concept Plan Prepared for Prop 68 Grant Application
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Kickoff meeting with City – January 2023
Schematic Design | January 2023 – September 2023
• Investigative Studies
• Community Outreach
• Cost Alignment
Design Development and Construction Documents |
September 2023 – May 2024
• Coordination with Design Team
• Review by City Staff and City Leadership
• Continued Cost Refinement
• Receipt of Building Permit
Bidding and Contract Award | May 2024 – August
2024
Construction of Park | August 2024 – Fall 2025
Jan – dec | Jan – dec | Jan-dec
2023 SCHEDULE 2024 2025
We Are Here Park Opens
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
• Conducted in Summer 2023
• (3) In Person Events and Online
Surveys (May-July 2023)
• Play Equipment
• Site Amenities
• Skate Space Design
• All materials were Bilingual
SUMMARY OF OUTREACH
• Preferred Playground Theme : Sea Explorer
• Priority Amenity at Playground: Surfacing
• Most Requested Playground Equipment: SeeSaw
• Priority Amenity for Caretakers: Seating
• Preferred Skate Space Style: Hybrid of Street
and Transition Features
DIRECT COORDINATION WITH NATIONAL
LITTLE LEAGUE
• Reviewed site plans and refined to address
programmatic needs
MOST VOTED SKATE STYLE MOST VOTED SEA EXPLORER THEME
Schematic Design Phase
Deliverables
INVESTIGATIVE STUDIES
• Topographic Survey
• Geotechnical Investigation
• Arborist Assessment
• Electrical Assessment
• Inventory of Existing Conditions
COST ALIGNMENT
• Review of available funding in
comparison to current costs
• Collaborative Value Engineering
CITY & DESIGN TEAM
COORDINATION
• Review of City Standards and
Preferences
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
CLOSTER PARK –
SOUTH SIDE
• New Little League Ball Field & Amenities
New restroom, scorekeeper's booth,
concession building
• New Adult League/Softball Field &
Amenities
New restroom, scorekeeper's booth building
• New 10’ wide fitness loop (Stabilized D.G.)
with fitness equipment stations and
lighting.
• Preservation Trees
• Renovation of Horseshoe Pits
• Renovation of existing fencing at Towt
Street
• Renovation/modernization of Irrigation
System
• Renovation/enhancement of Turf
CLOSTER PARK –
NORTH SIDE
• New Skate Space
• New Playground
• New Farmers Market Space with Gazebo
• New Turf Amphitheater at the existing
Plazita
• New Surfacing and Painted Striping at the
existing Basketball Courts
• New Group Picnic Area
• Revitalized Tree of Life Memorial
• Accessibility improvements to existing
sidewalks and City infrastructure
• Preservation of existing brick donor pavers
• Preservation of donor benches and
furnishings
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
CLOSTER PARK –
PLAYGROUND
• Custom submarine climbable structures with
accessible and inclusive features for both 2-5
and 5-12 year olds
• Freestanding equipment includes swings,
rockers, see-saw, climbers and spinners
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
CLOSTER PARK –
STREET SKATE SPACE
• Elements to provide entry level opportunities of
experiences people find in the native
environment includes curbs, banks, ledges
and rails
CLOSTER PARK –
FITNESS EQUIPMENT
• Equipment will be selected for multigenerational use and experiences. • Equipment will be spread out along the fitness
path to allow for par-course style engagement
STABILIZED D.G. FITNESS LOOP
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
EXTENSIVE
COMMUNITY
OUTREACH
CLOSTER PARK
REVITALIZATION
MEET WITH THE CITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
CONTINUED COORDINATION TO ENSURE BUDGET
AND SCHEDULE ALIGNMENT
[REPLACE W/ PHOTO]
CONCEPT PLAN
NEXT STEPS
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-714, Version: 1
Red Light Abatement Act Ordinance
Consider adopting an Ordinance to amend the Salinas Municipal Code to provide for the abatement of public nuisances.
City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/30/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1
CITY OF SALINAS
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2023
DEPARTMENT: CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
FROM: CHRISTOPHER A. CALLIHAN, CITY ATTORNEY
TITLE: RED LIGHT ABATEMENT ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting an ordinance related to abatement of public nuisances resulting from prostitution activities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Members of the community and members of the Salinas City Council have expressed concern regarding impacts to the community from the presence of an increased number of minimally clothed women who appear to be loitering for the intent to engage in prostitution. The neighborhoods in the King Street, Roosevelt Street, and North Madeira Avenue areas have been most impacted have expressed their concerns directly to the City Council on several occasions.
With a recent change to State law, it is no longer a violation of the Penal Code for an individual to loiter with the intent to engage in prostitution (though it is still a crime for an individual to engage in prostitution). To help mitigate the impacts of this recent change to State law, the proposed ordinance codifies the State’s Red Light Abatement Act into the Salinas Municipal Code thereby allowing for the City to take legal action to abate public nuisances that result from prostitution activities.1
BACKGROUND:
On July 1, 2022, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 357—The Safer Streets for All Act—(SB 357 Weiner) into law thereby repealing provisions of State law related to loitering with the intent to commit prostitution. SB 357 also allows a person who has been convicted of loitering, to petition the trial court for resentencing or dismissal, and the sealing of records. In support of SB 357, the bill’s author, State Senator Weiner (11th District) stated that the criminal provision of loitering with the intent to engage in prostitution “results in the disproportionate criminalization of trans, Black and Brown women, and perpetuates violence toward sex workers…This criminal provision is
1 The Red Light Abatement Act is codified at Penal Code sections 11225-11235.
Page | 2
inherently discriminatory and targets people not for any action but simply based on how they look.
People who engage in sex work deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”2 A copy of SB 357 is included with this Report for reference.
When Governor Newsom signed SB 357 into law, he acknowledged there may be “unintended consequences” from the implementation of this legislation and that additional action may be needed to “mitigate any such impacts.”3 A copy of Governor Newsom’s Signing Message is included with this Report for reference.
At several recent City Council meetings, members of the community (particularly those within the King Street, Roosevelt Street, and North Madeira Avenue neighborhoods) have expressed their concerns and their frustrations with the increase in the number of women who appear to be loitering for the intent to engage in prostitution. Community members have provided public testimony that numerous minimally clothed women are frequently in these neighborhoods and have entered upon private property and knocked on doors with the intent to engage in prostitution. Other residents have provided public testimony that they have observed individuals engaged in sex acts in car parked along the streets in these neighborhoods and that they have observed hotels and motels in these areas as being regularly used for prostitution activities. Council members have also expressed concern regarding these activities and the impacts on the community and have asked the City Manager, City Attorney, and Police Chief to identify measures to mitigate the impacts of these illegal prostitution activities.
As one means of mitigating the impacts on the community from illegal prostitution activities, it is recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance making it clear that the use of any property for the purpose of prostitution is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered, whether it is a public or a private nuisance. This allows the City to combat prostitution by directing enforcement against the property owners who allow prostitution to occur on their property(ies).
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
The proposed ordinance supports the City Council’s goals of Public Safety and Effective and Culturally Responsive Government (City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025).
DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:
The City Attorney’s Office, City Manager’s Office, and Police Department coordinated on this Report and Ordinance.
2 https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/20220620-senator-wiener%E2%80%99s-legislation-repeal-discriminatoryloitering-law-targeting-sex-workers 3 https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/SB357-Signing-Message-7.01.2022.pdf?emrc=14a4d2 Page | 3
FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:
Adoption of the proposed ordinance would not have a direct impact on the City’s General Fund.
The only fiscal impact to the City would be related to City staff time should circumstances arise where the ordinance would need to be enforced.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance
SB 357
Governor Newsom’s Signing Message
Page | 4
ORDINANCE NO. ________ (N.C.S.)
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES City Attorney Impartial Analysis
This ordinance incorporates the California Red Light Abatement Act into the Salinas Municipal Code and provides the City with an additional enforcement remedy to mitigate the effects of prostitution activities within the city.
WHEREAS, Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution provides authorization for the City to enact and to enforce ordinances regulating conditions which constitute public nuisances or health hazards; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 38771, et seq., authorizes the City Council to declare public nuisances and to establish procedures for the abatement of such nuisances, and to recover the costs associated with nuisance abatement proceedings; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to enact public nuisance abatement procedures to provide notice and due process to property owners and other persons who cause or maintain public nuisances on private property within the City; and
WHEREAS, members of the community have provided public testimony regarding the impacts on their neighborhoods directly resulting from prostitution activities, including the presence of prostitution activities at all hours of the day and at various hotels and motels throughout Salinas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF SALINAS as follows:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. Salinas Municipal Code section 1-01.16 is hereby added to the Salinas Municipal Code to read as follows:
Sec. 1-01.16. California Red Light Abatement Act.
The City may: (1) declare that a public nuisance exists whenever any member of the public creates, causes, commits, permits, or maintains any condition or performs or causes to be performed any activity that falls within the scope of the definition of “public nuisance” as set forth in Penal Code section 11225; and (2) commence any action or proceeding pursuant to the California Red Light Abatement Act to abate the public nuisance, to pursue all other remedies against the violator, to seek the imposition of all penalties against the violator and to recover any and all costs from the violator.
Page | 5
SECTION 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause a summary of this ordinance to be published once in a newspaper published and circulated in Salinas within fifteen (15) days after adoption. (Salinas Charter Section 11.9)
SECTION 4. CEQA Compliance. The City Council’s adoption of this ordinance is not a project subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3)).
SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
The Salinas City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, clause, and phase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance will take effect thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of __________________, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
________________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
Senate Bill 357
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
JUL O 1 2022
To the Members of the California State Senate:
I am signing Senate Bill 357, which repeals provisions of the law related to loitering with intent to commit prostitution. This bill additionally allows a person, who has been convicted of loitering, to petition the trial court for resentencing or dismissal, and the sealing of records.
The author brought forth this legislation because the crime of loitering has disproportionately impacted Black and Brown women and members of the LGBTQ community. Black adults accounted for 56.1 %of the loitering charges in Los Angeles between 2017-2019, despite making up less than 10% of the city's population.
To be clear, this bill does not legalize prostitution. It simply revokes provisions of the law that have led to disproportionate harassment of women and transgender adults. While I agree with the author's intent and I am signing this legislation, we must be cautious about its implementation. My Administration will monitor crime and prosecution trends for any possible unintended consequences and will act to mitigate any such impacts.
Sincerely,
Gavin Newsom
GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM• SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916) 445-2841 ~
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-699, Version: 1
California Senate Bill 329 (Dodd): City Council Compensation Consider adopting an Ordinance amending the Salinas Municipal Code to increase compensation for the Mayor and City Council Members.
City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/30/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1
CITY OF SALINAS
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 14, 2023
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
FROM: JIM PIA, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
CHRISTOPHER A. CALLIHAN, CITY ATTORNEY
TITLE: CALIFORNIA SB 329 (DODD): CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION RECOMMENDED MOTION:
It is recommended that the City Council consider whether to amend the Salinas Municipal Code to increase Council member compensation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On June 29, 2023, Governor Newsom signed SB 329 (Dodd) into law which amended Government Code section 36516 thereby allowing cities to adjust Council member compensation to reflect inflation as measured by the California Consumer Price Index. This legislation was intended to increase the compensation schedule for Council members in general law cities. SB 329 allows cities to increase the compensation to adjust for inflation in order to help keep city councils more diverse by allowing people from across different income levels to serve the public and support their families. Increases would require a majority vote of the City Council.
SB 329 requires that an ordinance to increase council member compensation be considered in an open session with at least two regular meetings. The ordinance must include findings demonstrating the need for the increased compensation and there must be at least seven days between the introduction and the adoption of the ordinance.
SB 329 goes into effect on January 1, 2024, meaning that should the Salinas City Council adopt an ordinance to increase Council member compensation, such increase could not take effect until January 1, 2024; however, the City Council can adopt such an ordinance now so that it may be effective January 1, 2024.
A copy of SB 329 is attached to this Report for reference.
The Finance Committee received a report on September 12, 2023, regarding Council member compensation and SB 329. The Finance Committee did not make a specific recommendation to the City Council whether to increase Council member compensation, but instead recommended Page | 2
that this item be considered by the City Council only after the City had made progress toward approving new contracts with City labor groups.
BACKGROUND:
On June 29, 2023, Governor Newsom signed SB 329 into law, allowing general law cities to increase Council member compensation. The State Legislature (and the City of Salinas) last adjusted these amounts in 1984. Currently, Government Code section 36516 authorizes a City Council to enact an ordinance to provide each member of the city council a salary, with a maximum base limit based upon the population of the city in accordance with a specific schedule. Any increases in salary are also limited and cannot exceed 5% for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary that is in effect when the increase is enacted.
SB 329 amends Government Code section 36516 to increase the maximum amount of salaries identified in the schedule. SB 329 also authorizes the salary of council members to be increased beyond the specified maximum to an amount not exceeding the greater of either 5% for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary or an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based on the California Consumer Price Index (Not to exceed 10% per calendar year).
No ordinance can be enacted or amended to provide automatic future increases in salary and the electors can consider the question of whether city council members should receive a salary and the amount of the salary may be submitted to the electors. Any retirement, health and welfare benefits, federal social security benefits, or reimbursement for the actual and necessary expenses are not included for purposes of determining salary under section 36516.
Salinas is a charter city and, therefore, this new law applies to Salinas because Charter Section 5.3 authorizes the City Council to be compensated in an amount authorized by State law for cities of a similar size, with additional compensation for the Mayor:
1 Section 5.3 Compensation
The monthly salary of the Mayor and the members of the City Council shall be set by ordinance. The monthly salary shall not exceed the amount authorized by State law for cities of a similar size; provided however, that the salary of the Mayor may be set at a higher amount that the salary of the members of the City Council.
Salinas Municipal Code section 2-01.02 sets the current amounts of compensation for the Mayor and Council members:
Sec. 2-01.02. City Councilmember compensation.
1 Charter Section 5.3 (formerly Section 9) was added to the City Charter by the voters at the November 6, 1984 election. A copy of Resolution No. 11970 declaring the results of the election is attached to this report for reference.
Page | 3
Members of the city council shall receive as compensation for their services a monthly salary of six hundred dollars each and the mayor shall receive a monthly salary of eight hundred dollars.
Compensation for the council and for the mayor may be increased beyond the amount provided for in this section by an ordinance or an amendment to this section, provided the total amount of compensation, and the percent of any increase, shall not exceed the compensation and increase as provided for in Government Code Section 36516.
Pursuant to Government Code section 36516(a)(2)(E), the compensation for Salinas Council members may be up to and $2,550 per month, and may be increased beyond that if the increase does not exceed (1) an amount equal to 5% for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary (not compounded); or (2) an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Currently, the Mayor receives an annual salary in the amount of $9,600 and each Council member receives an annual salary in the amount of $7,200, excluding benefits.2 Combined, the annual salary for the Mayor and Council members is $52,800, excluding benefits. Increasing each of the Mayor and Council members’ salaries to the amount of $2,550 per month would result in an annual salary for each in the amount of $30,600. The combined annual salary for the Mayor and Council members would thus be increased by $161,400 to $214,200:
Position Current Annual Salary
(Mayor-$800;
Council members-$600)
Increased Annual Salary
($2,550 per month)
Mayor $9,600 $30,600
Council member D1 $7,200 $30,600
Council member D2 $7,200 $30,600
Council member D3 $7,200 $30,600
Council member D4 $7,200 $30,600
Council member D5 $7,200 $30,600
Council member D6 $7,200 $30,600
Total $52,800 $214,200
Examples from Other Cities.
The following is provided to inform the City Council of the amounts of compensation paid to Mayors and Council members from some other California cities:
City Monthly Compensation—Monterey County Cities Population
2 In addition to their monthly salary, the Mayor and Council members receive benefits including health care, retirement, auto allowance, Medicare and Social Security, and reimbursement of expenses.
Page | 4
Monterey3 Mayor: $1,417.50. Council member: $965.25 26,845 Soledad4 Mayor: $612 Council member: $512 26,230
Greenfield Mayor: $481 Council member: $361 19,917
King City Mayor: $450 Council member: $350 13,817
Marina Mayor: $250 Council member: $200 22,068
Seaside Mayor: $400 Council member: $340 29,790
Gonzales Mayor: $400 Council member: $400 8,300
Monthly Compensation--Comparator Cities5
Monterey
County
Supervisor: $13,219 (full-time positions) 430,368
Santa Cruz
County
Chair: $11,901 Supervisor: $11,822
(full-time positions)_
262,051
San Jose Mayor: $17,450
Council member: Varies from a range of $12,203 to $11,613 (full-time positions)
959,256
Sunnyvale Mayor: $3,884 Council member: $2,913 156,317
Hayward Mayor: $3,474 Council member: $2,081 159,800
Oxnard Mayor: $1,701 Council member: $1,701 197,477
Gilroy Mayor: $1,475 (maximum) Council member: $984 (maximum) 60,078 Watsonville Mayor: $689 Council member: $578 49,876
Hollister Mayor: $600 Council member: $400 42,891
Options Available to the City Council.
Ultimately, the City Council has options: The City Council could choose not to increase City Council compensation, could choose not to increase City Council compensation at this time, or could choose to increase City Council compensation by a lesser than the maximum amount permitted.
This bill was sponsored by Cal Cities (formerly League of California Cities). A copy of Cal Cities’ June 14, 2023, letter is attached to this Report for reference.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
An increase to the City Council’s compensation would support the City Council’s Goal of an effective and culturally responsive government.
3 Effective January 1, 2024.
4 All of the salary figures for these six cities and population counts for all of the cities and counties in this chart are from 2022 and are taken from the California State Controller’s “Government Compensation in California” website:
https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/PositionRpts.aspx?year=2022&rpt=1 .
Salinas’s population is listed at 159,475.
5 The comparator cities are those used by the City of Salinas for its recent compensation survey.
Page | 5
DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:
The City Attorney’s Office, City Manager’s Office, City Clerk’s Office, and Finance Department coordinated on this Report and draft Ordinance.
FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:
An increase to the City Council’s compensation would have an impact to the City’s General Fund.
The total impact is dependent upon the increase approved by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Salinas City Council Resolution No. 11970
SB 329
Cal Cities’ June 14, 2023, Letter to Governor Newsom
Draft Ordinance
Page | 6
ORDINANCE NO. _________ (N.C.S.)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALINAS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2-01.02 TO
INCREASE COMPENSATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS City Attorney Impartial Analysis
Consistent with Senate Bill 329 (Dodd), this Ordinance amends the Salinas Municipal Code to increase the compensation for the Mayor and City Council members.
WHEREAS, Salinas Charter Section 5.3 authorizes the City Council to be compensated in an amount permitted by State law for general law cities with the same population, with additional compensation for the Mayor; and
WHEREAS, Council members are currently receiving a monthly salary of $600 and the Mayor $800, with those amounts having been set in 1984; and
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2023, the Governor signed SB 329 into law, allowing for Council member pay increase in general law cities. The State Legislature last adjusted these amounts in 1984.
Effective January 1, 2024, Government Code section 36516 authorizes up to $2,550 per month, based on Salinas’s population; and
WHEREAS, under the new law, Council member salaries may be increased beyond $2,550 per month if the increase does not exceed: (1) an amount equal to 5% for each calendar year from the last adjustment—in this case 1984 (not compounded); or (2) an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based on the CPI; and
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the author of SB 329, Senator Bill Dodd (D-Napa), that:
City Council members have one of the hardest jobs in California government. They deal with a wide range of issues, from street maintenance to emergency response duties. And all too often, they do this job with very little financial compensation.
No one runs for City Council in order to make money. But the low levels of pay make it much harder for them to balance their careers and personal obligations with the calling to serve their community. The Legislature has not raised the base pay amounts for City Council members since 1984. It’s time those amounts caught up with the present economic reality, especially with the rapid increase in inflation we’ve seen recently. Raising the pay will also make it easier for members of marginalized communities to serve. City Councils should be reflective of the communities they represent, and I believe raising their compensation is an important step to achieving that equitable outcome.
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with Cal Cities (formerly the League of California Cities), which supported SB 329 for the following reasons:
Page | 7
Lengthy time commitments and limited pay discourage many, especially lowincome residents, single parents, people of color, and young people, from running for public office. For many, being a council member is a full-time commitment with part-time pay. Cal Cities is proud to sponsor this important legislation that lessens barriers for those interested in governing at the local level. This overdue reform is another tool communities can choose to use that can help ensure our city councils are reflective of the residents who live, work, and play in their communities.
WHEREAS, the cost of living in Salinas is extremely high.6In August 2022, an editorial in the Monterey County Weekly urged increasing compensation for city elected officials7; and WHEREAS, a first reading of this Ordinance was held on _________________, 2023.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF SALINAS as follows:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. Salinas Municipal Code section 2-01.02 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-01.02. City Councilmember compensation.
a. Effective January 1, 2024, Members of the city council shall receive as compensation for their services a monthly salary of _________________ dollars each and the mayor shall receive a monthly salary of ___________________ dollars.
b. The compensation set forth in this subsection (a) is exclusive of any amounts paid by the city for retirement, health, and other benefits, provided that the same benefits are available and paid by the city for its employees.
c. Compensation for the council and for the mayor may be increased beyond the amount provided for in this section by an ordinance or an amendment to this section, provided the total amount of compensation, and the percent of any increase, shall not exceed the compensation and increase as provided for in Government Code Section 36516. d. This ordinance does not and shall not provide for automatic future increases in the compensation.
SECTION 3. All ordinances and parts of ordinances and all resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed effective January 1, 2024, or the effective date of this Ordinance, whichever is later.
SECTION 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause a summary of this ordinance to be published once in a newspaper published and circulated in Salinas within fifteen (15) days after adoption. (Salinas Charter Section 11.9)
6 https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/salinas-ca-ranked-seventh-most-expensive-to-live-18467574.php 7 https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/opinion/local_spin/monterey-county-s-city-council-members-volunteerwe-should-pay-them/article_e93b1500-18ff-11ed-ace1-f3ae82571b6d.html Page | 8
SECTION 5. CEQA Compliance. The City Council’s adoption of this ordinance is not a project subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3)).
SECTION 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
The Salinas City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, clause, and phase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance will take effect thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of __________________, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
________________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. _________ (N.C.S.)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALINAS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2-01.02 TO
INCREASE COMPENSATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS City Attorney Impartial Analysis
Consistent with Senate Bill 329 (Dodd), this Ordinance amends the Salinas Municipal Code to increase the compensation for the Mayor and City Council members.
WHEREAS, Salinas Charter Section 5.3 authorizes the City Council to be compensated in an amount permitted by State law for general law cities with the same population, with additional compensation for the Mayor; and
WHEREAS, Council members are currently receive a monthly salary of $600 and the Mayor $800, with those amounts having been set in 1984; and
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2023, the Governor signed SB 329 into law, allowing for Council member pay increase in general law cities. The State Legislature last adjusted these amounts in 1984.
Effective January 1, 2024, Government Code section 36516 authorizes up to $2,550 per month, based on Salinas’s population; and
WHEREAS, under the new law, Council member salaries may be increased beyond $2,550 per month if the increase does not exceed: (1) an amount equal to 5% for each calendar year from the last adjustment—in this case 1984 (not compounded); or (2) an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based on the CPI; and
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the author of SB 329, Senator Bill Dodd (D-Napa), that:
City Council members have one of the hardest jobs in California government. They deal with a wide range of issues, from street maintenance to emergency response duties. And all to often, they do this job with very little financial compensation. No one runs for City Council in order to make money. But the low levels of pay make it much harder for them to balance their careers and personal obligations with the calling to serve their community. The Legislature has not raised the base pay amounts for City Council members since 1984. It’s time those amounts caught up with the present economic reality, especially with the rapid increase in inflation we’ve seen recently. Raising the pay will also make it easier for members of marginalized communities to serve. City Councils should be reflective of the communities they represent and I believe raising their compensation is an important step to achieving that equitable outcome.
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with Cal Cities (formerly the League of California Cities), which supported SB 329 for the following reasons:
Lengthy time commitments and limited pay discourage many, especially lowincome residents, single parents, people of color, and young people, from running for public office. For many, being a council member is a full-time commitment with part-time pay. Cal Cities is proud to sponsor this important legislation that lessens barriers for those interested in governing at the local level. This overdue reform is another tool communities can choose to use that can help ensure our city councils are reflective of the residents who live, work, and play in their communities.
WHEREAS, the cost of living in Salinas is extremely high.6In August 2022, an editorial in the Monterey County Weekly urged increasing compensation for city elected officials7; and WHEREAS, a first reading of this Ordinance was held on November 14, 2023.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF SALINAS as follows:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. Salinas Municipal Code section 2-01.02 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-01.02. City Councilmember compensation.
a. The Mayor and Members of the City Council shall each receive as compensation for their services a monthly salary of two thousand five hundred fifty dollars ($2,550) dollars. b. The compensation set forth in subsection (a) of this section is exclusive of any amounts paid by the City for retirement, health, and other benefits, provided that the same benefits are available and paid by the City for its employees.
c. Compensation for the Mayor and the City Council may be increased beyond the amount provided for in this section by an ordinance or an amendment to this section, provided the total amount of compensation, and the percent of any increase, shall not exceed the compensation and increase as provided for in Government Code Section 36516. d. This Ordinance does not and shall not provide for automatic future increases in the compensation.
SECTION 3. All ordinances and parts of ordinances and all resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed effective January 1, 2024, or the effective date of this Ordinance, whichever is later.
SECTION 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause a summary of this ordinance to be published once in a newspaper published and circulated in Salinas within fifteen (15) days after adoption. (Salinas Charter Section 11.9)
SECTION 5. CEQA Compliance. The City Council’s adoption of this ordinance is not a project subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3)).
SECTION 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
The Salinas City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, clause, and phase thereof not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance will take effect thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of December, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
________________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 11970 ( N. C. S.)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF SALINAS DECLARING
CANVASS OF RETURNS AND RESULT OF A SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, by proceedings heretofore duly had and taken, a special municipal election was held in Salinas on November 6,. 1984; and
WHEREAS, said special municipal election was held on said date in accordance with law, and the votes thereat received and canvassed, and the returns thereof ascertained, determined and declared, in all respects as required by law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF SALINAS as follows:
1. The City Clerk of Salinas is hereby instructed to enter this resolution on the minutes of this Council as a statement of the result of said election.
2. The total number of ballots cast in the City of Salinas at said special municipal election was 27, 400
3. That at said special municipal election so held on
November 6, 1984, there was 1 charter amendment proposed and placed on the ballot for the consideration of the electors of Salinas, and which said proposed charter amendment was submitted to the electors for a Yes or No vote on said proposed amendment substantially in the form that follows:
Shall Section 9 of the Charter of Salinas be amended to read:
Sec. 9. Same - Compensation.
The monthly salary of the Mayor and the
members of the City Council shall be
adopted by ordinance. The monthly
salary shall not exceed the amount
authorized by State law for cities of
a similar size; provided however, that
the salary of the Mayor may be set at
a higher amount than the salary of the
members of the City Council"?
YES 15, 216
NO 8, 924
4 That 15, 216 votes were cast in favor of the adoption of said Charter Amendment ( Measure E) by the electors of said City voting on said measure at said election; that 8, 924 votes 1-
were cast against said measure by the electors of said City voting on said Measure at said election; and that said proposed Charter Amendment ( Measure E) carried.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of November ,
1984, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Paul D. Grennan, Russell Jeffries, Bill O' Brien, Phyllis Price
NOES: None
ABSENT: P4ayor James_ B. Barnes
ATTEST:
Mayor p.]ro item
2-
MONTEREY COUNTY
I ELECTION DEPARTMENT
408) 424- 7621. P. O. BOX 1848, 93902 - 201 MAIN STREET, SALINAS, CALIFORNIA 93901 ROSS J. UNDERWOOD BETTY L. BLOOMER
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS ASST. REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
C E R T I F I C A T I O N O F
STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST AT THE NOVEMBER 6, 1984 GENERAL ELECTION I, ROSS J. UNDERWOOD, Registrar of Voters of the County of Monterey, State of California, hereby certify that the attached STATEMENT OF VOTES CAST accurately reflect the total number of votes cast for each Candidate and/ or For and Against each Measure as submitted to the voters at the PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 6, 1984 held within the County of Monterey and the many sub -jurisdictions within said County having consolidated their election with the aforementioned Presidential General Election.
I HEREBY SET MY HAND AND SEAL THIS 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1984.
County of Monterey
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION CITY OF ALINAS MAYOR/ COUNCIL SALARY 9 241
31 2751 23ti
punmoou/ 45- 72,
i^
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org June 14, 2023
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 329 (Dodd) Cities: City Council Members: Compensation.
Request for Signature
Dear Governor Newsom,
The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) requests your signature on SB 329 (Dodd), which would allow general law cities to adjust council member salaries for inflation. The Legislature has not raised the base pay amounts for City Councilmembers since 1984. SB 329 is a long overdue measure that would allow for city councils to increase council salaries to catch up to the present economic reality while also ensuring local government salary transparency.
Existing law sets a pay schedule that must be approved by the City Council through an ordinance or by the voters as a ballot measure. These amounts are determined by the population size of a city and set by state law. The lowest tier is cities up to 35,000 in population, with compensation up to three hundred dollars ($300) per month. The highest tier is cities with over 250,000 population, up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) per month.
However, these amounts have not been adjusted since 1984 despite significant increases in the cost of living.
Lengthy time commitments and limited pay discourage many, especially low-income residents, single parents, people of color, and young people, from running for public office.
For many, being a council member is a full-time commitment with part-time pay.
Cal Cities is proud to sponsor this important legislation that lessens barriers for those interested in governing at the local level. This overdue reform is another tool cities can choose to use that can help ensure our city councils are reflective of the residents who live, work, and play in their communities.
For these reasons, Cal Cities requests your signature on SB 329 (Dodd). If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 658-8214.
Sincerely,
Johnnie Pina
Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
cc: The Honorable Senator Bill Dodd
Christy Bouma, Legislative Affairs Secretary, Office of Governor Gavin Newsom Ronda Paschal, Deputy Legislative Secretary, Office of Governor Gavin Newsom Senate Bill No. 329
CHAPTER 27
An act to amend Section 36516 of the Government Code, relating to local government. [ Approved by Governor June 29, 2023. Filed with Secretary of State June 29, 2023. ]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 329, Dodd. Cities: city council members: compensation.
Existing law authorizes a city council to enact an ordinance to provide each member of the city council a salary based upon the population of the city, as specified. Existing law authorizes that amount to be increased by the city council by an amount that does not exceed 5% for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary that is in effect when the increase is enacted. Existing law provides for the procedures by which a city may enact ordinances.
This bill would increase the maximum amount of salary, based upon the population of the city, that may be approved by an ordinance passed by the city council, as specified. The bill would authorize the salary of council members to be increased beyond the specified maximums to an amount not exceeding the greater of either 5% for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted, or an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based upon the California Consumer Price Index, which shall not exceed 10% for each calendar year. The bill would require the city council to consider the adoption of an ordinance to increase council member compensation in open session during at least 2 regular meetings of the city council.
Digest Key
Vote: majorityAppropriation: noFiscal Committee: noLocal Program: no Bill Text
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The compensation schedule for general law cities has not been adjusted since 1984, meaning that city council compensation has not kept pace with inflation.
(b) Allowing cities to adjust their compensation for inflation since 1984 may help city councils become more diverse because increased compensation can help individuals from across different income levels receive sufficient income from their service to help ensure that they can continue to serve the public and support their families.
SEC. 2. Section 36516 of the Government Code is amended to read:
36516. (a) (1) A city council may enact an ordinance providing that each member of the city council shall receive a salary based on the population of the city as set forth in paragraph (2). (2) The salaries approved by ordinance under paragraph (1) shall be as follows:
(A) In cities up to and including 35,000 in population, up to and including nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) per month.
(B) In cities over 35,000 up to and including 50,000 in population, up to and including one thousand two hundred seventy-five dollars ($1,275) per month.
(C) In cities over 50,000 up to and including 75,000 in population, up to and including one thousand six hundred dollars ($1,600) per month.
(D) In cities over 75,000 up to and including 150,000 in population, up to and including one thousand nine hundred dollars ($1,900) per month.
(E) In cities over 150,000 up to and including 250,000 in population, up to and including two thousand five hundred fifty dollars ($2,550) per month.
(F) In cities over 250,000 population, up to and including three thousand two hundred dollars ($3,200) per month. (3) For the purposes of this subdivision, the population of a city shall be determined by the last preceding federal census, or a subsequent census, or estimate validated by the Department of Finance. (4) The salary of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this subdivision by an ordinance or by an amendment to an ordinance, but the amount of the increase shall not exceed the greater of either of the following:
(A) An amount equal to 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. (B) An amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based upon the California Consumer Price Index, which shall not exceed 10 percent for each calendar year.
(5) No ordinance shall be enacted or amended to provide automatic future increases in salary. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), at any municipal election, the question of whether city council members shall receive a salary for services, and the amount of that salary, may be submitted to the electors. If a majority of the electors voting at the election favor it, all of the council members shall receive the salary specified in the election call. The salary of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this section or decreased below the amount in the same manner.
(c) Unless specifically authorized by another statute, a city council may not enact an ordinance providing for compensation to city council members in excess of that authorized by the procedures described in subdivisions (a) and (b). For the purposes of this section, compensation includes payment for service by a city council member on a commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body on which the city council member serves. If the other statute that authorizes the compensation does not specify the amount of compensation, the maximum amount shall be one hundred fifty dollars ($150) per month for each commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body. (d) Any amounts paid by a city for retirement, health and welfare, and federal social security benefits shall not be included for purposes of determining salary under this section, provided that the same benefits are available and paid by the city for its employees.
(e) Any amounts paid by a city to reimburse a council member for actual and necessary expenses pursuant to Section 36514.5 shall not be included for purposes of determining salary pursuant to this section. (f) A city council member may waive any or all of the compensation permitted by this section. (g) (1) For the purposes of this section, a city council shall consider the adoption of an ordinance to increase compensation in open session during at least two regular meetings of the city council. (2) At the first meeting, the city council shall present the proposed ordinance, which shall include findings demonstrating the need for the increased compensation. The ordinance shall not be adopted at the first meeting. (3) At least seven days after the first meeting, the city council shall hold a second meeting to consider whether to adopt the ordinance.
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-710, Version: 1
Minutes
Approve minutes of November 14, 2023.
City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/30/2023
powered by Legistar™
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-750, Version: 1
Financial Claims
Approve financial claims report.
City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/30/2023
powered by Legistar™
Number Date Status Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
470976 11/14/2023 Open Anthony Avila $81.00
470977 11/14/2023 Open Carlos Rios $63.75
470978 11/14/2023 Open Johnathan Flores $75.00
470979 11/14/2023 Open Nicholas Thomas $141.00
470980 11/14/2023 Open Roberto Filice $75.00
470981 11/14/2023 Open Sean Valenzuela $141.00
470982 11/14/2023 Open Shane VanderVeen $141.00
470983 11/14/2023 Open 2NDNATURE, LLC $49,995.62
470984 11/14/2023 Open Ace Hardware $17.67
470985 11/14/2023 Open Agile Occupational Medicine PC $703.00 470986 11/14/2023 Open Alco Water $9,916.00
470987 11/14/2023 Open Alco Water $13,726.00
470988 11/14/2023 Open Alhambra and Sierra Spring DS Waters of America LP $216.83 470989 11/14/2023 Open Alhambra and Sierra Spring DS Waters of America LP $166.87 470990 11/14/2023 Open All Pets Hospital $511.33
470991 11/14/2023 Open All Safe Security Alarm $210.00
470992 11/14/2023 Open Amazon.Com $3,098.32
470993 11/14/2023 Open American Supply Company $3,327.32 470994 11/14/2023 Open American Textile and Supply Inc $3,799.37 470995 11/14/2023 Open Anthony Lombardo & Associates, Inc. $3,966.25 470996 11/14/2023 Open Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel Group, Inc $29.90 470997 11/14/2023 Open Asap Alisal Signs And Printing $13.82 470998 11/14/2023 Open Assured Aggregates Company Inc $11,563.00 470999 11/14/2023 Open AT and T $175.59
471000 11/14/2023 Open Authority for California Cities Excess Liability $744.00 471001 11/14/2023 Open Authority for California Cities Excess Liability $20,015.00 471002 11/14/2023 Open AutoZone West Inc $584.28
471003 11/14/2023 Open Bandit Systems Inc dba Bandit Systems $1,301.48 471004 11/14/2023 Open Benitez Security Services, Inc $53,943.00 471005 11/14/2023 Open BFS Landscape Architects $9,882.50 471006 11/14/2023 Open BrightView Landscape Services, Inc $26,288.02 471007 11/14/2023 Open Brownells Inc $452.62
471008 11/14/2023 Open Cagwin & Dorward, LLC $1,033.00
471009 11/14/2023 Open California Water Service $3,417.89 471010 11/14/2023 Open California Water Service $75,216.50 471011 11/14/2023 Open Canine Development Group Inc dba PACKTRACK $140.00 471012 11/14/2023 Open Carlos Pimentel $541.95
471013 11/14/2023 Open Cathy's Action Packed Fun Jumps Inc $2,715.60 471014 11/14/2023 Open CDW Government LLC $4,759.62
471015 11/14/2023 Open Central Coast Center For Independent $14,532.11 471016 11/14/2023 Open Central Coast YMCA $14,545.00
471017 11/14/2023 Open Charlie D. Zarza $624.00
471018 11/14/2023 Open Chelsea Protasio $119.75
General Account - General Account
Check
City of Salinas
Payment Register
From Payment Date: 11/9/2023 - To Payment Date: 11/30/2023 user: Josephine Fernandez Pages: 1 of 9 Thursday, November 30, 2023 Number Date Status Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
General Account - General Account
Check
City of Salinas
Payment Register
From Payment Date: 11/9/2023 - To Payment Date: 11/30/2023 471019 11/14/2023 Open Cintas $2,476.39
471020 11/14/2023 Open Citizenprime, LLC dba Firepenny $1,375.38 471021 11/14/2023 Open CivicPlus, LLC $4,500.00
471022 11/14/2023 Open Coast Automotive Warehouse Inc $12.50 471023 11/14/2023 Open Community Homeless Solutions $97,195.62 471024 11/14/2023 Open Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. $1,562.64 471025 11/14/2023 Open CSC Of Salinas $15.82
471026 11/14/2023 Open Dataflow Business Systems Inc $7,019.89 471027 11/14/2023 Open Davgp, Inc. dba Salinas Valley Tire $55.59 471028 11/14/2023 Open Department Of Justice $1,566.00
471029 11/14/2023 Open Department Of Pesticide Regulation $30.00 471030 11/14/2023 Open Disaster Kleenup Specialist, Inc. $1,799.60 471031 11/14/2023 Open Discount School Supply $450.31
471032 11/14/2023 Open Don Chapin Inc $4,705.85
471033 11/14/2023 Open East Bay Tire Company $30.64
471034 11/14/2023 Open Ecology Action of Santa Cruz $60,118.05 471035 11/14/2023 Open Edilcia Perez dba Mami Fit $208.00 471036 11/14/2023 Open EMC Planning Group Inc $51,173.91 471037 11/14/2023 Open Emergency Response Training Inc dba Defibthis Emer $460.00 471038 11/14/2023 Open Entenmann Rovin Company $704.20
471039 11/14/2023 Open Fastenal Company $2,684.43
471040 11/14/2023 Open Fed Ex $48.65
471041 11/14/2023 Open Ferguson US Hodings, Inc dba Ferguson Enterprises $178.08 471042 11/14/2023 Open Filipino Community Club of Salinas Vly Foundation $75.90 471043 11/14/2023 Open First Alarm $378.75
471044 11/14/2023 Open First Alarm $76.37
471045 11/14/2023 Open First Alarm Security & Patrol Inc dba An Allied Un $4,551.80 471046 11/14/2023 Open First Alarm Wellness A Family Counseling Corporati $1,912.50 471047 11/14/2023 Open Fresno Oxygen & Welding Suppliers, Inc. $4,621.36 471048 11/14/2023 Open G2Solutions, Inc $9.00
471049 11/14/2023 Open Genuine Parts Company dba NAPA Auto Parts $223.74 471050 11/14/2023 Open Gold Star Motors dba Gold Star Buick GMC $2,442.39 471051 11/14/2023 Open Goldfarb and Lipman $1,719.00
471052 11/14/2023 Open Granite Rock Co $2,000.32
471053 11/14/2023 Open Great West Equipment $651.87
471054 11/14/2023 Open Green Rubber Kennedy Ag $227.16
471055 11/14/2023 Open Green Valley Industrial Supply $631.76 471056 11/14/2023 Open Hartnell College $72,146.70
471057 11/14/2023 Open Heidi Niggemeyer $189.95
471058 11/14/2023 Open Hemi's Landscaping and Concrete Inc $2,500.00 471059 11/14/2023 Open Hobart Sales $10,320.72
471060 11/14/2023 Open Hollister Honda $1,358.46
471061 11/14/2023 Open Homer T Hayward Lumber Co dba Hayward Lumber $100.09 user: Josephine Fernandez Pages: 2 of 9 Thursday, November 30, 2023 Number Date Status Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
General Account - General Account
Check
City of Salinas
Payment Register
From Payment Date: 11/9/2023 - To Payment Date: 11/30/2023 471062 11/14/2023 Open Hope Services $2,730.00
471063 11/14/2023 Open HROD, Inc $10,500.00
471064 11/14/2023 Open Hydro Turf $8,980.42
471065 11/14/2023 Open Ingram Book Company $6,232.64
471066 11/14/2023 Open Interactive Data, LLC dba IDI $154.00 471067 11/14/2023 Open International Economic Development Council $165.00 471068 11/14/2023 Open Interstate Battery System Inc $853.40 471069 11/14/2023 Open Interview Now, Inc $17,650.00
471070 11/14/2023 Open Isabel Yzquierdo $13.20
471071 11/14/2023 Open Jahaira Paola Navarro dba Dance Into Fitness with $906.75 471072 11/14/2023 Open Jan Roehl Dba Jan Roehl Consulting $3,250.00 471073 11/14/2023 Open Jesse And Evan Inc dba La Plaza Bakery $914.00 471074 11/14/2023 Open Jimenez Autobody Parts, Inc dba C & J Auto Parts $32.78 471075 11/14/2023 Open JJR Construction Inc $441,390.99 471076 11/14/2023 Open Johnson Electronics $228.00
471077 11/14/2023 Open Jose Luis Corral dba Salinas Pizza $868.77 471078 11/14/2023 Open JS Inc dba Steinbeck Lodge $3,148.79 471079 11/14/2023 Open Julio Gil dba Central Coast Sign & Design $637.50 471080 11/14/2023 Open Julio I Santa Cruz $3,800.00
471081 11/14/2023 Open Karen Kramer Dba Kramer Workplace investigations $12,046.50 471082 11/14/2023 Open Katharine G Bristol dba Kate Bristol Consulting $3,200.00 471083 11/14/2023 Open Kelly-Moore Paint Company $25.64 471084 11/14/2023 Open Kimball Midwest $1,112.93
471085 11/14/2023 Open Kimley Horn And Assoc Inc $3,310.00 471086 11/14/2023 Open Lawson Products, Inc $475.15
471087 11/14/2023 Open LAZ KARP Associates, LLC $43,888.56 471088 11/14/2023 Open LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc Accurint Acct $112.80 471089 11/14/2023 Open Liebert Cassidy Whitmore $13,986.21 471090 11/14/2023 Open M3 Environmental Consulting $40,923.40 471091 11/14/2023 Open Martin's Irrigation Supply, Inc $134.54 471092 11/14/2023 Open Midwest Tape, LLC dba Midwest Tape $1,576.19 471093 11/14/2023 Open Mike Signs $579.03
471094 11/14/2023 Open Monterey County The Herald $2,826.62 471095 11/14/2023 Open Monterey County The Herald $7,198.44 471096 11/14/2023 Open Monterey County The Herald $443.42 471097 11/14/2023 Open Monterey County Water Resources Agency $103,399.00 471098 11/14/2023 Open Monterey One Water $10,751.46
471099 11/14/2023 Open Monterey One Water $260.02
471100 11/14/2023 Open Monterey Transfer and Storage Inc $781.50 471101 11/14/2023 Open Monterra Ranch Of Monterey Home Owner's Associatio $900.00 471102 11/14/2023 Open MP Express $668.86
471103 11/14/2023 Open My Chevrolet $500.15
471104 11/14/2023 Open My Jeep $434.91
user: Josephine Fernandez Pages: 3 of 9 Thursday, November 30, 2023 Number Date Status Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
General Account - General Account
Check
City of Salinas
Payment Register
From Payment Date: 11/9/2023 - To Payment Date: 11/30/2023 471105 11/14/2023 Open New Image Landscape Company $250.00 471106 11/14/2023 Open NR Development, Inc $159,306.45
471107 11/14/2023 Open Office Depot Business Service Division $1,562.39 471108 11/14/2023 Open Operation Freedom Paws $208.00
471109 11/14/2023 Open Oriental Trading Company Inc $245.75 471110 11/14/2023 Open Pacific Gas and Electric Company $5,765.43 471111 11/14/2023 Open PARS Retirement Services $3,140.04 471112 11/14/2023 Open Pedro C Estrada Dba Estrada Janitorial Service $2,335.00 471113 11/14/2023 Open Pete Perez $250.00
471114 11/14/2023 Open Philip Gagnon $349.00
471115 11/14/2023 Open PJ Trucking Academy LLC $3,000.00 471116 11/14/2023 Open Place Works Inc $10,064.86
471117 11/14/2023 Open Preferred Alliance Inc. $235.00
471118 11/14/2023 Open Premier Builders, Inc. $19,727.91 471119 11/14/2023 Open Protel Communications, Inc dba Protelesis Corporat $151.75 471120 11/14/2023 Open Pure Water $332.77
471121 11/14/2023 Open Quality Water Enterprises Inc dba Culligan Water $51.48 471122 11/14/2023 Open Quinn Company $144.67
471123 11/14/2023 Open R3 Consulting Group, Inc. $5,600.00 471124 11/14/2023 Open RDO Equipment Company $2,598.26
471125 11/14/2023 Open Refrigeration Supplies Distributor $235.11 471126 11/14/2023 Open RELX Inc. dba LexisNexis, Division of RELX Inc. $1,031.35 471127 11/14/2023 Open Republic Services of Salinas $1,510.20 471128 11/14/2023 Open Republic Services of Salinas $619.60 471129 11/14/2023 Open RRM Design Group, A California Corp dba RRM Design $13,200.68 471130 11/14/2023 Open Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority $940.74 471131 11/14/2023 Open Same Day Shred $45.00
471132 11/14/2023 Open San Lorenzo Lumber $688.98
471133 11/14/2023 Open Sean Valenzuela $250.00
471134 11/14/2023 Open Sentry Alarm System $306.67
471135 11/14/2023 Open Serological Research Institute $7,800.00 471136 11/14/2023 Open Smith and Enright Landscaping $112,507.73 471137 11/14/2023 Open St Francis Electric Inc $15,150.00 471138 11/14/2023 Open Stifel Nicolaus & Co Inc $8,462.20 471139 11/14/2023 Open Stommel Inc dba Lehr $10,329.90
471140 11/14/2023 Open Stryker Sales Corporation $233.63 471141 11/14/2023 Open Sunstar Media $25.00
471142 11/14/2023 Open T-Mobile USA $39.65
471143 11/14/2023 Open Target Pest Control $370.00
471144 11/14/2023 Open TechRx Technology Services Corporation $4,797.50 471145 11/14/2023 Open The Bakery Station LLC $238.81
471146 11/14/2023 Open The Ed Jones Company, Incorporated $1,871.13 471147 11/14/2023 Open Thomson-West/Barclays $347.69
user: Josephine Fernandez Pages: 4 of 9 Thursday, November 30, 2023 Number Date Status Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
General Account - General Account
Check
City of Salinas
Payment Register
From Payment Date: 11/9/2023 - To Payment Date: 11/30/2023 471148 11/14/2023 Open Tri County Fire Protection $345.36 471149 11/14/2023 Open TVG-MGT Holdings, LP dba MGT of America Consulting $3,000.00 471150 11/14/2023 Open U.S. Bank National Association dba U.S. Bank Equip $344.98 471151 11/14/2023 Open U.S. Bank National Association ND $16,068.21 471152 11/14/2023 Open United Parcel Service $97.18
471153 11/14/2023 Open USA Towing $440.00
471154 11/14/2023 Open Vals Plumbing and Heating Inc $370.77 471155 11/14/2023 Open Verizon Wireless $330.72
471156 11/14/2023 Open Verizon Wireless $618.96
471157 11/14/2023 Open Verizon Wireless $38.01
471158 11/14/2023 Open Verizon Wireless $621.61
471159 11/14/2023 Open Verizon Wireless $529.04
471160 11/14/2023 Open Verizon Wireless $470.20
471161 11/14/2023 Open Verizon Wireless $2,722.38
471162 11/14/2023 Open Voyager $1,529.23
471163 11/14/2023 Open W W Grainger Inc $2,017.72
471164 11/14/2023 Open W W Grainger Inc $188.10
471165 11/14/2023 Open Walmart c/o Capitol One $179.46
471166 11/14/2023 Open WCDJR LLC dba Watsonville Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram $1,334.56 471167 11/14/2023 Open William W Harder III $4,800.00
471168 11/14/2023 Open Worldpac $419.10
471169 11/14/2023 Open YourMembership.com.Inc. $649.00
471170 11/14/2023 Open Friedrich Neuhoff $264.50
471171 11/21/2023 Open Alyssa Maniscalo $81.00
471172 11/21/2023 Open Andres Torres $70.00
471173 11/21/2023 Open Angel Gonzalez $107.25
471174 11/21/2023 Open Bryan McKinley $132.50
471175 11/21/2023 Open Devon Castaneda $132.50
471176 11/21/2023 Open Evelia Marr $81.00
471177 11/21/2023 Open Gabriel Gonzalez $337.25
471178 11/21/2023 Open Gerardo Magana $213.00
471179 11/21/2023 Open Isabelle Romero $27.00
471180 11/21/2023 Open Jeffrey Alford $147.94
471181 11/21/2023 Open John Murray $1,249.55
471182 11/21/2023 Open Joseph Kinney $132.50
471183 11/21/2023 Open Michael Batchelor $229.00
471184 11/21/2023 Open Michael Rivera $229.00
471185 11/21/2023 Open Stephen Craig $132.50
471186 11/21/2023 Open Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health $5,150.00 471187 11/21/2023 Open 101 Exterminators Inc $1,600.00
471188 11/21/2023 Open 2NDNATURE, LLC $9,539.44
471189 11/21/2023 Open 72 Hour LLC dba Chevrolet of Watsonville/National $4,937.11 471190 11/21/2023 Open ABAG Power Purchasing Pool $34,565.65 user: Josephine Fernandez Pages: 5 of 9 Thursday, November 30, 2023 Number Date Status Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
General Account - General Account
Check
City of Salinas
Payment Register
From Payment Date: 11/9/2023 - To Payment Date: 11/30/2023 471191 11/21/2023 Open Ace Hardware $64.43
471192 11/21/2023 Open Acme Car Wash (William Pierce Inc) $1,854.58 471193 11/21/2023 Open Adelina Tena dba Beauty Extreme Salon $1,451.99 471194 11/21/2023 Open Alameda Electrical Distributors $203.14 471195 11/21/2023 Open Alco Water $2,160.52
471196 11/21/2023 Open Allstar Fire Equipment Inc $564.38 471197 11/21/2023 Open Amazon.Com $479.92
471198 11/21/2023 Open American Supply Company $2,603.04 471199 11/21/2023 Open Ana Rueda De Vidales dba JAV Language Solutions $170.00 471200 11/21/2023 Open Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel Group, Inc $1,865.96 471201 11/21/2023 Open Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel Group, Inc $59.80 471202 11/21/2023 Open Assured Aggregates Company Inc $17,189.50 471203 11/21/2023 Open AT&T Mobility $120.89
471204 11/21/2023 Open AT&T Mobility $21.99
471205 11/21/2023 Open Avolve Software Corp $1,012.50
471206 11/21/2023 Open B&N Motors, LLC dba Toyota Salinas $104.81 471207 11/21/2023 Open B&N Motors, LLC dba Toyota Salinas $41,764.53 471208 11/21/2023 Open Bear Electrical Solutions Inc $40,902.79 471209 11/21/2023 Open Bound Tree Medical $3,529.88
471210 11/21/2023 Open BrightView Landscape Services, Inc $8,376.16 471211 11/21/2023 Open CACEO $100.00
471212 11/21/2023 Open CACEO $100.00
471213 11/21/2023 Open CACEO $100.00
471214 11/21/2023 Open CACEO $100.00
471215 11/21/2023 Open CACEO $100.00
471216 11/21/2023 Open CACEO $100.00
471217 11/21/2023 Open CACEO $100.00
471218 11/21/2023 Open CACEO $100.00
471219 11/21/2023 Open California Towing and Transport $125.00 471220 11/21/2023 Open California Water Service $13.83
471221 11/21/2023 Open Canon Financial Services Inc $384.19 471222 11/21/2023 Open Canon Solutions America Inc $261.98 471223 11/21/2023 Open Carl Warren & Company, LLC $3,997.50 471224 11/21/2023 Open Central Coast Federal Credit Union $22,400.00 471225 11/21/2023 Open Central Coast Systems Inc $105.00 471226 11/21/2023 Open Cintas $2,610.18
471227 11/21/2023 Open CMS Communication Inc $3,707.03
471228 11/21/2023 Open Coast Automotive Warehouse Inc $738.20 471229 11/21/2023 Open Comcast (Business) $600.84
471230 11/21/2023 Open Comcast (Business) $582.32
471231 11/21/2023 Open Comcast (Business) $582.32
471232 11/21/2023 Open Comcast (Business) $167.73
471233 11/21/2023 Open Community Homeless Solutions $20,992.00 user: Josephine Fernandez Pages: 6 of 9 Thursday, November 30, 2023 Number Date Status Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
General Account - General Account
Check
City of Salinas
Payment Register
From Payment Date: 11/9/2023 - To Payment Date: 11/30/2023 471234 11/21/2023 Open CONCERN $11,091.36
471235 11/21/2023 Open Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. $1,242.17 471236 11/21/2023 Open CorVel Corporation Inc dba CorVel Enterprise Compa $18,054.25 471237 11/21/2023 Open Craftwater Engineering, Inc $4,357.85 471238 11/21/2023 Open CSC Of Salinas $1,032.43
471239 11/21/2023 Open CSG Consultants $78,026.22
471240 11/21/2023 Open Dale Fors $6,730.86
471241 11/21/2023 Open Direct TV LLC $52.89
471242 11/21/2023 Open Don Chapin Inc $1,181.95
471243 11/21/2023 Open Dymaxion Research Ltd $1,248.00
471244 11/21/2023 Open East Bay Tire Company $6,695.59
471245 11/21/2023 Open Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. $11,680.00 471246 11/21/2023 Open Edges Electrical Group, LLC $1,147.13 471247 11/21/2023 Open El Sistema USA/Salinas, Inc dba YOSAL $23,870.93 471248 11/21/2023 Open Elani Trejo Petty Cash $6.00
471249 11/21/2023 Open F C And Sons Roofing Inc $356,419.42 471250 11/21/2023 Open Fabrisce De La Luz dba Rhino Linings of Salinas $1,195.00 471251 11/21/2023 Open Fastenal Company $1,479.55
471252 11/21/2023 Open Fed Ex $51.69
471253 11/21/2023 Open Ferguson US Hodings, Inc dba Ferguson Enterprises $361.15 471254 11/21/2023 Open Filemon Bobadilla $69.00
471255 11/21/2023 Open First Alarm Security & Patrol Inc dba An Allied Un $5,920.95 471256 11/21/2023 Open Francis Enos dba Francis Enos Fire Pump Repair $4,275.00 471257 11/21/2023 Open Genuine Parts Company dba NAPA Auto Parts $28.49 471258 11/21/2023 Open Glasswork by Design $1,150.60
471259 11/21/2023 Open Golden State Emergency Vehicle Service Inc $830.27 471260 11/21/2023 Open Goldfarb and Lipman $771.00
471261 11/21/2023 Open GovernmentJobs.com dba NEOGOV $45,664.94 471262 11/21/2023 Open Granite Construction Company $134,758.82 471263 11/21/2023 Open Green Rubber Kennedy Ag $263.25
471264 11/21/2023 Open Hadronex Inc dba Smartcover Systems $27,473.45 471265 11/21/2023 Open Harmony At Home $25,000.00
471266 11/21/2023 Open Harris and Associates $22,728.06 471267 11/21/2023 Open Homer T Hayward Lumber Co dba Hayward Lumber $2,095.10 471268 11/21/2023 Open Ingram Book Company $6,204.09
471269 11/21/2023 Open Instrument Technology Corporation $20.86 471270 11/21/2023 Open International Code Council $446.00 471271 11/21/2023 Open International Code Council $1,480.53 471272 11/21/2023 Open James Arensdorf $210.00
471273 11/21/2023 Open Jeffrey S. Kirby dba Site for Sure Eyes $219.00 471274 11/21/2023 Open Jimenez Autobody Parts, Inc dba C & J Auto Parts $425.44 471275 11/21/2023 Open Johnson Associates $12.25
471276 11/21/2023 Open JS Inc dba Steinbeck Lodge $107,100.00 user: Josephine Fernandez Pages: 7 of 9 Thursday, November 30, 2023 Number Date Status Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
General Account - General Account
Check
City of Salinas
Payment Register
From Payment Date: 11/9/2023 - To Payment Date: 11/30/2023 471277 11/21/2023 Open Juan Carlos Ruiz $1,000.00
471278 11/21/2023 Open Julio Gil dba Central Coast Sign & Design $1,795.23 471279 11/21/2023 Open Kelly-Moore Paint Company $223.19 471280 11/21/2023 Open Kimball Midwest $2,609.33
471281 11/21/2023 Open Kimley Horn And Assoc Inc $63,791.55 471282 11/21/2023 Open Kurt Ashley dba Secure Solutions $2,972.92 471283 11/21/2023 Open Kyle Daniels $6,100.49
471284 11/21/2023 Open L.N. Curtis & Sons $2,662.78
471285 11/21/2023 Open Lawson Products, Inc $625.58
471286 11/21/2023 Open LAZ KARP Associates, LLC $29,722.82 471287 11/21/2023 Open Lisa Marie Vetter dba Tour de force Speakers $8,330.00 471288 11/21/2023 Open Lizette Vasquez $714.03
471289 11/21/2023 Open M3 Environmental Consulting $1,250.00 471290 11/21/2023 Open Matthew Bates $225.00
471291 11/21/2023 Open Matthew G Norton Co dba NWB Salinas LLC $162.00 471292 11/21/2023 Open Matthew G Norton Co dba NWB Salinas LLC $247.00 471293 11/21/2023 Open Matthew G Norton Co dba NWB Salinas LLC $546.00 471294 11/21/2023 Open Matthew G Norton Co dba NWB Salinas LLC $217.00 471295 11/21/2023 Open MCSI Water Systems Management $1,386.81 471296 11/21/2023 Open Meyers and Nave $472.50
471297 11/21/2023 Open Michael Spencer dba Tire & Wheel World $276.29 471298 11/21/2023 Open Midwest Tape, LLC dba Midwest Tape $663.59 471299 11/21/2023 Open MILPA $2,104.99
471300 11/21/2023 Open Monterey County Health Department $4,343.52 471301 11/21/2023 Open Monterey Environmental Solutions and Services $4,067.50 471302 11/21/2023 Open Monterey Transfer and Storage Inc $100.00 471303 11/21/2023 Open Municipal Resource Group LLC $5,076.36 471304 11/21/2023 Open My Jeep $92.65
471305 11/21/2023 Open National Emblem $2,626.49
471306 11/21/2023 Open Niche Academy LLC $4,200.00
471307 11/21/2023 Open Nixon-Egli Equipment Company $842.75 471308 11/21/2023 Open O'Reilly Auto Parts $307.87
471309 11/21/2023 Open Office Depot Business Service Division $504.62 471310 11/21/2023 Open One Workplace L Ferrari, LLC dba Peninsula Busines $135,582.37 471311 11/21/2023 Open Operation Freedom Paws $260.00
471312 11/21/2023 Open Pablo Mendoza dba Green Valley PM Engineering $1,700.00 471313 11/21/2023 Open Pacific Gas and Electric Company $2,254.74 471314 11/21/2023 Open Pacific Gas and Electric Company $159,705.59 471315 11/21/2023 Open Pape Machinery, Inc. $1,511.50
471316 11/21/2023 Open PARS Retirement Services $554.51 471317 11/21/2023 Open Petsmart $535.27
471318 11/21/2023 Open PJ Trucking Academy LLC $2,500.00 471319 11/21/2023 Open Pure Gold Forensics, Inc $1,595.00 user: Josephine Fernandez Pages: 8 of 9 Thursday, November 30, 2023 Number Date Status Payee Name
Transaction
Amount
General Account - General Account
Check
City of Salinas
Payment Register
From Payment Date: 11/9/2023 - To Payment Date: 11/30/2023 471320 11/21/2023 Open RDO Equipment Company $335.74
471321 11/21/2023 Open Red Mountain Inc $259.50
471322 11/21/2023 Open Refrigeration Supplies Distributor $555.29 471323 11/21/2023 Open Rexel USA, Inc dba Platt Electric Supply $36.04 471324 11/21/2023 Open Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. $313.00 471325 11/21/2023 Open Salinas Valley Ford Inc $274.55
471326 11/21/2023 Open San Lorenzo Lumber $34.85
471327 11/21/2023 Open Scott's PPE and Recon $119.29
471328 11/21/2023 Open SettlementOne Screening Corporation dba PeopleFact $26.10 471329 11/21/2023 Open Shaw HR Consulting Inc $1,155.00 471330 11/21/2023 Open Shawn Miguel Russell dba Russell Investigations $1,952.29 471331 11/21/2023 Open Smith and Enright Landscaping $183,713.86 471332 11/21/2023 Open Star Sanitation Services $163.24 471333 11/21/2023 Open Stommel Inc dba Lehr $1,481.10
471334 11/21/2023 Open Sturdy Oil Company $65,358.41
471335 11/21/2023 Open Summit Uniforms, LLC dba Summit Uniforms $4,472.35 471336 11/21/2023 Open SWA Group Inc $60,235.86
471337 11/21/2023 Open Target Pest Control $690.00
471338 11/21/2023 Open Teresa De Jesus Garcia Puga dba Blue Heron Artisti $954.20 471339 11/21/2023 Open The Ed Jones Company, Incorporated $269.82 471340 11/21/2023 Open Tiffanys Body Shop $4,501.76
471341 11/21/2023 Open Trentman Corp. dba Interstate Sales/T-Man Traffic $7,517.44 471342 11/21/2023 Open U.S. Armor Corporation $4,151.88 471343 11/21/2023 Open United Parcel Service $33.22
471344 11/21/2023 Open Vegetable Growers Supply Company $234.85 471345 11/21/2023 Open Verizon Wireless $914.00
471346 11/21/2023 Open Verizon Wireless $3,762.10
471347 11/21/2023 Open Verizon Wireless $1,058.55
471348 11/21/2023 Open Verizon Wireless $40.01
471349 11/21/2023 Open VNA Community Services Inc $2,170.00 471350 11/21/2023 Open W W Grainger Inc $250.28
471351 11/21/2023 Open Walmart c/o Capitol One $126.67
471352 11/21/2023 Open WCAF, LLC dba Watsonville Ford $459.92 471353 11/21/2023 Open WCDJR LLC dba Watsonville Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram $1,008.64 471354 11/21/2023 Open Western Systems, Incorporated $1,432.74 471355 11/21/2023 Open Worldpac $72.19
471356 11/21/2023 Open YourMembership.com.Inc. $649.00
Type Check Totals: $3,825,189.58
General Account - General Account Totals
user: Josephine Fernandez Pages: 9 of 9 Thursday, November 30, 2023 City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-675, Version: 1
Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP 9720
Approve a Resolution approving the plans and specification for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP 9720 and authorize issuance of the Invitation to Bidders with bids to be opened on January 16, 2024.
City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/30/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1
CITY OF SALINAS
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, P.E., L.S., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: VICTOR SANCHEZ, JUNIOR ENGINEER
ADRIANA ROBLES, P.E., C.F.M., CITY ENGINEER
TITLE: CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT PHASE II, CIP NO. 9720
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
A motion to approve a resolution:
1. Approving Plans and Specifications for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP No. 9720; and
2. Authorizing Call for Bids, with bids to be opened on January 16, 2024.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP No. 9720 is a continuation of the City’s effort to repair sidewalks that are damaged and/or make improvements to meet ADA requirements. The Project identifies several street locations within the 93905 and 93906 zip codes for ARPA funds and street locations irrespective of zip code for existing clean funds for sidewalk repairs and ADA improvements based on the City’s backlog of sidewalk repairs list and Federal and State ADA mandates for accessibility.
BACKGROUND:
On January 10, 2023, the City Council approved the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project. The project took a determined effort to address sidewalk repair with the use of ARPA and local funding. A total of $6 million of ARPA funds was allocated for sidewalk repair by Council The Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase 2, CIP No. 9720 is a continuation of the City’s effort to repair sidewalks that are damaged, or in need of repair, and/or make improvements to meet current state or federal ADA requirements.
The project identifies several street locations within the 93905 and 93906 zip codes for ARPA funds and street locations irrespective of zip code for existing local funds for sidewalk repairs and ADA improvements. Locations were identified based on the City’s backlog of sidewalk repairs, the sidewalk repair list, and Federal and State ADA mandates for accessibility.
Page | 2
The project scope of work includes, but is not limited to, removal and replacement of damaged or uplifted sidewalks, curb and gutters, driveway approaches, grinding of sidewalk lips, installation of ADA compliant pedestrian curb ramps, pruning of tree roots required for concrete repairs, removal of unstable street trees due to concrete repairs, planting of new street trees where permissible.
Staff identified that approximately $5 million remain of the combined local and ARPA funding for sidewalk repairs. Depending on results of the bid, Staff recommends adding additional project locations from the original project scoping list, via contract change order, if bids received are lower than anticipated.
The Plans and Specifications for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project, CIP 9720 are now complete and ready for bid procurement with bids to be opened on January 16, 2024.
CEQA CONSIDERATION:
The City of Salinas has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15301(c), Class I) because the majority of the work will be maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters.
Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 as all exceptions do not relate to the project scope of work for this project.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
This project addresses the City Council’s Goals of “Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability” by investing in the sidewalk repair program.
DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:
Coordination with the Public Works Maintenance Forestry and Streets Divisions for update of the sidewalk log and sidewalk request list.
FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:
It is anticipated that the available appropriated amounts in 3911.50.9720 are sufficient to complete the proposed sidewalk improvements. However, the budget may need to be further analyzed pending the bidding submission outcome.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Project Location Map
Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II Plans
Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II Specifications Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT PHASE II, CIP NO. 9720 WHEREAS, on October 18, 2022, City Council approved a resolution awarding a citywide sidewalk repair project using a combination of ARPA and local funds; and WHEREAS, staff identified that approximately $5 million in both local and ARPA funds are available for sidewalk repairs; and
WHEREAS, the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP No. 9720 is a continuation of the City’s effort to repair and/or rehabilitate sidewalks that are damaged, or in need of repair, and/or make improvements to meet current state or federal ADA requirements; and WHEREAS, Plans and Specifications for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP 9720, are complete and ready to bid; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer is authorized to extend, revise, or set the bid opening date through an addendum as necessary to meet the required bidding schedule; and WHEREAS, scanned copies of the Bid Proposals (“Bids”) for the above-mentioned work shall be submitted electronically via the PlanetBids website, until 2:00 PM, Pacific Standard Time on the 16th day of January, 2024 at which time or thereafter said bids will be electronically opened, examined and read aloud via Zoom by City Clerk or his/her designee, who shall thereupon report the results of the bidding to the Council of Salinas at a regular meeting of said Council after opening of the bids; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council approves the Plans and Specifications for the Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project Phase II, CIP 9720; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish notice to bidders inviting sealed proposals for said work for one time in a newspaper of general circulation as required under the law, which notice shall set forth the time and place, when and where bids shall be received, opened and read, and shall further refer to the aforesaid plans and specifications on file in the office of said City Clerk for the contents thereof. It is not required that any other matters be set forth in said published notice to bidders. No other notice shall be required.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 5th day of December, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Page | 2
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
_______________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5 DISTRICT 6 DESIGNED BY: CAD BY: PROJECT ENGINEER / MANAGER: CONSTRUCTION REVIEW: DATE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION: REVIEWED BY: DATE REVIEWED BY: DATE CITY OF SALINAS DATE REVISION APP. PROJ. NO(S) SHEET NO. FILE NO. OF File Path: J:\p\9720 - 3911.50.9720 Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project #2 (ARPA)\dwg\ARPA 2 Sheets.dwg REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER STA TE OF CA LIFORNIA ADRIANA ROBLES C IV I L NO. 69142 ADRIANA ROBLES, P.E., C.F.M. CITY ENGINEER ADRIANA ROBLES, P.E., C.F.M. CITY ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DAVID T. JACOBS, P.E., L.S. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR J. ESTEBAN VS, AO, JH A. ALFARO V. SANCHEZ CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT PHASE 2 LOCATION MAP 9720 2 8244 35 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 5
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-697, Version: 1
Master Service Agreements for On-Call Streetlight Maintenance Contractors Approve a Resolution authorizing the Interim City Manager to negotiate and execute Master Service Agreements with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc., and St Francis Electric LLC to provide on-call contracting services related to various City of Salinas streetlight maintenance, repair, modification, and emergency work, as needed in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/30/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1
CITY OF SALINAS
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PW DIRECTOR
BY: JENNY DAVILA, PW ADMIN SUPERVISOR
TITLE: MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS FOR ON-CALL
STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
A motion to approve a Resolution authorizing the Interim City Manager to negotiate and execute Master Service Agreements with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc., and St Francis Electric LLC to provide on-call contracting services related to various City of Salinas streetlight maintenance, repair, modification, and emergency work, as needed in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report requests City Council approval for On-Call Streetlight Maintenance Master Service Agreements. An RFQ for on-call streetlight maintenance service was posted on PlanetBids where two (2) qualification statements were submitted. City Staff is recommending approval to have agreements in place for On-Call Streetlight Maintenance as a result of the RFQ.
BACKGROUND:
Public Works oftentimes require the specialized services of Streetlight Maintenance contractors to perform a variety of tasks to maintain City Streetlights including emergency work. To assist our Public Works Department in efficiently completing these tasks in the timeliest manner possible, there is a need to have a list of On-Call Streetlight Maintenance Contractors with Master Service Agreements in place.
Work will be completed in accordance with all applicable City Standard Plans, Caltrans Standards, CA-MUTCD, project Plans and Specifications or at the direction of the City Project Manager. For routine projects, the contractor will be asked to submit a proposal for a defined scope of work on an individual project. Contractors will be awarded projects based on a request for proposal process amongst the approved on-call contractors. Emergency work will be based on approved on-call contractor readily available to complete the emergency task at hand.
Page | 2
A request for qualifications (RFQ) for interested On-Call Streetlight Maintenance Contractors was advertised in October 2023 through PlanetBids, and submittals were received from two (2) contractors. The contractors submitting qualification statements were:
Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. (Alviso)
St Francis Electric LLC (San Leandro)
The submittals were reviewed based on the selection criteria listed in the posted RFQ document that included:
1. Transmittal Letter
2. Firm Profile
3. Project Team
4. Relevant Project Experience
5. Specific Management Approach
6. References
7. Local Purchasing Preference Ordinance (+ 10% of total earned points) Based on this criteria, the selection committee comprised of City staff selected both contractors to provide On-Call Streetlight Maintenance contractor services on an on-going basis for a two-year period under a Master Services Agreement between the City and each of the two (2) contractors.
Under the terms of the approved Master Services Agreement, compensation will be provided on a project-by-project basis, with each project subject to review and approval by the assigned City project manager. Contractors will be awarded projects based on a request for proposal process amongst the approved on-call contractors.
CEQA CONSIDERATION:
Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).
In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
This item relates to the current City Council Goal of Infrastructure and Environmental Sustainability. Approval of the Master Services Agreements will contribute towards the efficient and effective process to complete projects and emergency work that benefit the community.
Page | 3
DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:
Public works department is working with the City Legal Department in the review process of the Master Services Agreements for the On-Call Contractors.
FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:
Funding is available and appropriated in General Fund 1000.50.5235.63 – Street Lights.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc Master Service Agreement St Francis Electric LLC Master Service Agreement
Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SALINAS AND BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS, INC AND ST FRANCIS
ELECTRIC LLC FOR ON-CALL STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS WHEREAS, the Public Works Department has identified the need to utilize on-call contractors to perform various projects for streetlight maintenance service; and WHEREAS, in October 2023, the City of Salinas engaged in a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process to identify contractors with the requisite qualifications to provide on-call Streetlight Maintenance services; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2023, Public Works staff received two (2) statements of qualifications (SOQ) from contractors; and
WHEREAS, an evaluation committee consisting of Public Works staff reviewed each SOQ and selected both contractors based on the criteria set forth in the Request for Qualifications; and
WHEREAS, the award of projects to the selected On-Call contractors will be based on an additional request for proposal and contractor availability.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salinas City Council authorizes the Interim City Manager to negotiate and execute Master Service Agreements with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. and St Francis Electric LLC to provide on-call Streetlight Maintenance Services related to various City of Salinas public works projects and emergency work, as needed in an amount not to exceed $50.000.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 5th day of December 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
_______________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
Page | 2
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT
FOR ON-CALL STREETLIGHT
MAINTENANCE SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SALINAS AND BEAR
ELECTRIC SOLUTIONS, INC.
Contents
RECITALS................................................................................................................................. 4 TERMS....................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Scope of Service. ................................................................................................................. 4
2. Term; Completion Schedule. ............................................................................................... 4
3. Compensation ...................................................................................................................... 4
4. Billing .................................................................................................................................. 4
5. Meet and Confer. ................................................................................................................. 5
6. Additional Copies. ............................................................................................................... 5
7. Responsibility of Consultant................................................................................................ 5
8. Responsibility of City. ......................................................................................................... 5
9. Acceptance of Work Not a Release. .................................................................................... 6
10. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. ................................................................................... 6
11. Insurance.............................................................................................................................. 6
12. Access to Records................................................................................................................ 6
13. Non-Assignability................................................................................................................ 6
14. Changes to Scope of Work. ................................................................................................. 6
15. Ownership of Documents. ................................................................................................... 7
16. Termination.......................................................................................................................... 7
17. Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations. ................................................................ 8
18. Exhibits Incorporated........................................................................................................... 8
19. Independent Contractor........................................................................................................ 8
20. Integration and Entire Agreement........................................................................................ 8
21. Jurisdiction and Venue......................................................................................................... 8
22. Severability. ......................................................................................................................... 8
23. Notices. ................................................................................................................................ 8
24. Nondiscrimination................................................................................................................ 9
25. Conflict of Interest. .............................................................................................................. 9
26. Headings. ........................................................................................................................... 10
27. Attorneys’ Fees.................................................................................................................. 10
28. Non-Exclusive Agreement................................................................................................. 10
29. Rights and Obligations Under Agreement......................................................................... 10
30. Licenses.............................................................................................................................. 10
31. Counterparts....................................................................................................................... 10
32. Legal Representation. ........................................................................................................ 10
33. Joint Representation........................................................................................................... 10
34. Warranty of Authority........................................................................................................ 10
35. No Waiver of Rights. ......................................................................................................... 10 Exhibit A- Insurance Requirements.......................................................................................... 12 Exhibit B- Fee Schedule........................................................................................................... 15 Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 4 of 15
Bear Electric Solutions, Inc.
December 2023
MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE
SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SALINAS AND BEAR ELECTRIC SOLUTIONS, INC.
This Master Service Agreement for Professional Services (the “Agreement” and/or “Contract”) is made and entered into this 5th day of December 2023, between the City of Salinas, a California Charter city and municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”), and Bear Electric Solutions, Inc., a California corporation, (hereinafter “Consultant”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Consultant represents that he, she or it is specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Consultant is willing to render such professional services, as hereinafter defined, on the following terms and conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Consultant agree as follows:
TERMS
1. Scope of Service. It is understood by City and Consultant that Consultant performs or secures the performance of On-Call Streetlight Maintenance and related services for the City on an on-going basis. On each occasion Consultant performs services for City, Consultant shall advise the City in writing of the scope of services to be provided, and the cost of, and estimated time to perform the services. Consultant shall not proceed to perform any such service until City and Consultant have established a project cost, a completion schedule or a time period for performance, and the City has given its written authorization to perform. Written approval for performance and compensation may be granted by the appointed City Project Manager.
2. Term; Completion Schedule. This Agreement shall commence on December 5, 2023, and shall terminate on December 5, 2025, unless extended in writing by either party upon (30) days written notice. This Agreement may be extended only upon mutual written consent of the parties and may be terminated only pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the original RFQ.
3. Compensation. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant for services rendered the City pursuant to this Agreement on a time and materials basis according to the rates of compensation as shown on Exhibit B.
4. Billing. Consultant shall submit to City an itemized invoice, prepared in a form satisfactory to City, describing its services and costs for the period covered by the invoice. Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant’s bills shall include the following information to which such services cost or pertain:
(A) A brief description of services performed;
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 5 of 15
Bear Electric Solutions, Inc.
December 2023
(B) The date the services were performed;
(C) The number of hours spent and by whom;
(D)A brief description of any costs incurred; and
(E) The Consultant’s signature.
Any such invoices shall be in full accord with any and all applicable provisions of this Agreement.
City shall make payment on each such invoice within thirty (30) days of receipt; provided, however, that if Consultant submits an invoice which is incorrect, incomplete, or not in accord with the provisions of this Agreement, City shall not be obligated to process any payment to Consultant until thirty (30) days after a correct and complying invoice has been submitted by Consultant. The City shall process undisputed portion immediately.
5. Meet and Confer. Consultant agrees to meet and confer with City or its agents or employees with regard to services as set forth herein as may be required by the City to ensure timely and adequate performance of the Agreement.
6. Additional Copies. If City requires additional copies of reports, or any other material which Consultant is required to furnish as part of the services under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate Consultant for the actual costs related to the production of such copies by Consultant.
7. Responsibility of Consultant. By executing this Agreement, Consultant agrees that the services to be provided and work to be performed under this Agreement shall be performed in a fully competent manner. By executing this Agreement, Consultant further agrees and represents to City that the Consultant possesses, or shall arrange to secure from others, all of the necessary professional capabilities, experience, resources, and facilities necessary to provide the City the services contemplated under this Agreement and that City relies upon the professional skills of Consultant to do and perform Consultant’s work. Consultant further agrees and represents that Consultant shall follow the current, generally accepted practices in this area to the profession to make findings, render opinions, prepare factual presentations, and provide professional advice and recommendations regarding the projects for which the services are rendered under this Agreement.
8. Responsibility of City. To the extent appropriate to the projects to be completed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, City shall:
(A) Assist Consultant by placing at its disposal all available information pertinent to the projects, including but not limited to, previous reports and any other data relative to the projects. Nothing contained herein shall obligate City to incur any expense in connection with completion of studies or acquisition of information not otherwise in the possession of City.
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 6 of 15
Bear Electric Solutions, Inc.
December 2023
(B) Examine all studies, reports, sketches, drawings, specifications, proposals, and other documents presented by Consultant, and render verbally or in writing as may be appropriate, decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not to delay the services of Consultant. (C) Jim Pia, Interim City Manager, or his designee, shall act as City’s representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. Such person shall have the complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define City’s policies and decisions with respect to materials, equipment, elements, and systems pertinent to Consultant’s services. City may unilaterally change its representative upon notice to the Consultant.
(D) Give prompt written notice to Consultant whenever City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in a project.
9. Acceptance of Work Not a Release. Acceptance by the City of the work to be performed under this Agreement does not operate as a release of Consultant from professional responsibility for the work performed.
10. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, employees, volunteers, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expense, costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Consultant’s performance of work hereunder, including the performance of work of any of Consultant’s subcontractors or agents, or Consultant’s failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in the agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
11. Insurance. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance meeting the requirements specified in Exhibit A hereto.
12. Access to Records. Consultant shall maintain all preparatory books, records, documents, accounting ledgers, and similar materials including but not limited to calculation and survey notes relating to work performed for the City under this Agreement on file for at least three (3) years following the date of final payment to Consultant by City. Any duly authorized representative(s) of City shall have access to such records for the purpose of inspection, audit, and copying at reasonable times during Consultant’s usual and customary business hours. Consultant shall provide proper facilities to City’s representative(s) for such access and inspection.
13. Non-Assignability. It is recognized by the parties hereto that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was, and is, the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. This Agreement is personal to Consultant and shall not be assigned by it without express written approval of the City.
14. Changes to Scope of Work. City may at any time, and upon a minimum of ten (10) days written notice, seek to modify the scope of services to be provided for any project to be completed under this Agreement. Consultant shall, upon receipt of said notice, determine the impact on both time and compensation of such change in scope and notify City in writing. Upon agreement Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 7 of 15
Bear Electric Solutions, Inc.
December 2023
between City and Consultant as to the extent of said impacts to time and compensation, an amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared describing such changes. Execution of the amendment by City and Consultant shall constitute the Consultant’s notice to proceed with the changed scope.
15. Ownership of Documents. Title to all final documents, including drawings, specifications, data, reports, summaries, correspondence, photographs, computer software (if purchased on the City’s behalf), video and audio tapes, software output, and any other materials with respect to work performed under this Agreement shall vest with City at such time as City has compensated Consultant, as provided herein, for the services rendered by Consultant in connection with which they were prepared. City agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant against all damages, claims, lawsuits, and losses of any kind including defense costs arising out of any use of said documents, drawings, and/or specifications on any other project without written authorization of the Consultant.
16. Termination.
(A) City shall have the authority to terminate this Agreement, upon ten days written notice to Consultant, as follows:
(1) If in the City’s opinion the conduct of the Consultant is such that the interest of the City may be impaired or prejudiced, or
(2) For any reason whatsoever.
(B) Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to payment of such amount as fairly compensates Consultant for all work satisfactorily performed up to the date of termination based upon the Consultant’s rates shown in Exhibit B and/or Section 3 of this Agreement, except that:
(1) In the event of termination by the City for Consultant’s default, City shall deduct from the amount due Consultant the total amount of additional expenses incurred by City as a result of such default. Such deduction from amounts due Consultant are made to compensate City for its actual additional costs incurred in securing satisfactory performance of the terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to, costs of engaging another consultant(s) for such purposes. In the event that such additional expenses shall exceed amounts otherwise due and payable to Consultant hereunder, Consultant shall pay City the full amount of such expense.
(C) In the event that this Agreement is terminated by City for any reason, Consultant shall:
(1) Upon receipt of written notice of such termination promptly cease all services on this project, unless otherwise directed by City; and (2) Deliver to City all documents, data, reports, summaries, correspondence, photographs, computer software output, video and audio tapes, and any other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement. Such material is to be delivered to City in completed form; however, Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 8 of 15
Bear Electric Solutions, Inc.
December 2023
notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15 herein, City may condition payment for services rendered to the date of termination upon Consultant’s delivery to the City of such material.
(D) In the event that this Agreement is terminated by City for any reason, City is hereby expressly permitted to assume the projects and complete them by any means, including but not limited to, an agreement with another party.
(E) The rights and remedy of the City and Consultant provided under this Section are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or appearing in any other section of this Agreement.
17. Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations. Services performed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in accordance and full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and City laws and any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder.
18. Exhibits Incorporated. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and attached to it are hereby incorporated in it by this reference. In the event there is a conflict between any of the terms of this Agreement and any of the terms of any exhibit to the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement shall control the respective duties and liabilities of the parties.
19. Independent Contractor. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that Consultant, while engaged in carrying out and complying with any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. Consultant expressly warrants not to represent, at any time or in any manner, that Consultant is an employee or servant of the City.
20. Integration and Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters contained herein. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except by amendment in writing signed by both parties.
21. Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, County of Monterey, and City of Salinas.
Jurisdiction of litigation arising from this Agreement shall be in the State of California, in the County of Monterey or in the appropriate federal court with jurisdiction over the matter.
22. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null and void insofar as it is in conflict with said laws, but the remainder of the Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect.
23. Notices.
(A) Written notices to the City hereunder shall, until further notice by City, be addressed to:
City Manager
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 9 of 15
Bear Electric Solutions, Inc.
December 2023
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901
With a copy to:
City Attorney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901
(B) Written notices to the Consultant shall, until further notice by the Consultant, be addressed to:
Brent Paulson, VP of Operations
Bear Electric Solutions, Inc.
1252 State Street, P.O. Box 924
Alviso, CA 95002
(C) The execution of any such notices by the City Manager shall be effective as to Consultant as if it were by resolution or order of the City Council, and Consultant shall not question the authority of the City Manager to execute any such notice. (D) All such notices shall either be delivered personally to the other party’s designee named above, or shall be deposited in the United States Mail, properly addressed as aforesaid, postage fully prepaid, and shall be effective the day following such deposit in the mail.
24. Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, ancestry, creed, sex, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, age (over 40 years) or disability. Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, ancestry, creed, sex, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, age (over 40 years) or disability.
25. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and declares that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, in any manner or degree which will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable local, state or federal law. Consultant further declares that, in the performance of this Agreement, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code section 81000 et seq.) and Salinas City Code Chapter 2A that apply to Consultant as the result of Consultant’s performance of the work or services pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 10 of 15 Bear Electric Solutions, Inc.
December 2023
26. Headings. The section headings appearing herein shall not be deemed to govern, limit, modify, or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of this Agreement.
27. Attorneys’ Fees. In case suit shall be brought to interpret or to enforce this Agreement, or because of the breach of any other covenant or provision herein contained, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to such costs as may be allowed by the Court. City’s attorneys’ fees, if awarded, shall be calculated at the market rate.
28. Non-Exclusive Agreement. This Agreement is non-exclusive and both City and Consultant expressly reserves the right to contract with other entities for the same or similar services.
29. Rights and Obligations Under Agreement. By entering into this Agreement, the parties do not intend to create any obligations express or implied other than those set out herein; further, this Agreement shall not create any rights in any party not a signatory hereto.
30. Licenses. If a license of any kind, which term is intended to include evidence of registration, is required of Consultant, its representatives, agents or subcontractors by federal, state or local law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and that any applicable bond posted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
31. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute a single agreement.
32. Legal Representation. Each party affirms that it has been represented, if it so chose, by legal counsel of its own choosing regarding the preparation and the negotiation of this Agreement and the matters and claims set forth herein, and that each of them has read this Agreement and is fully aware of its contents and its legal effect. Neither party is relying on any statement of the other party outside the terms set forth in this Agreement as an inducement to enter into this Agreement.
33. Joint Representation. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any party. No presumptions or rules of interpretation based upon the identity of the party preparing or drafting the Agreement, or any part thereof, shall be applicable or invoked.
34. Warranty of Authority. Each party represents and warrants that it has the right, power, and authority to enter into this Agreement. Each party further represents and warrants that it has given any and all notices, and obtained any and all consents, powers, and authorities, necessary to permit it, and the persons entering into this Agreement for it, to enter into this Agreement.
35. No Waiver of Rights. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. The failure to provide notice of any breach of this Agreement or failure to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver thereof.
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 11 of 15 Bear Electric Solutions, Inc.
December 2023
Failure on the part of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of the right to compel enforcement of such provision or any other provision. A waiver by the City of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance under this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement on the date first written above.
CITY OF SALINAS
__________________________________
Jim Pia
Interim City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
□ Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney or
□ Rhonda Combs, Assistant City Attorney
CONSULTANT
___________________________________
By (Printed Name):__Brent Paulson______
Its (Title):__VP of Operations___________
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 12 of 15 Bear Electric Solutions, Inc.
December 2023
Exhibit A- Insurance Requirements
Insurance Requirements
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors. With respect to General Liability, coverage should be maintained for a minimum of five (5) years after Agreement completion.
MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (“CGL”): Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form CA 0001 covering any auto, or if Consultant has no owned autos, hired and non-owned autos, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation: Insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Professional Liability (also known as Errors and Omissions): Insurance appropriate to the work being performed, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 aggregate per policy period of one year.
If the Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Salinas requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status
Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, the Consultant shall provide coverage to reduce or eliminate such self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the Consultant shall provide evidence satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 13 of 15 Bear Electric Solutions, Inc.
December 2023
administration, and defense expenses. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.
Other Insurance Provisions
A. The General Liability, Automobile Liability, Contractors Pollution Liability, and/or Asbestos Pollution policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City of Salinas, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Forms CG 20 10, CG 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City of Salinas, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or selfinsurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.
B. The Automobile Liability policy shall be endorsed to include Transportation Pollution Liability insurance, covering materials to be transported by Consultant pursuant to the contract. This coverage may also be provided on the Contractor’s PLL policy.
C. If General Liability, Contractors Pollution Liability and/or Asbestos Pollution Liability and/or Errors & Omissions coverages are written on a claims-made form:
1. The retroactive date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of Agreement of work.
2. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the Agreement of work.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of Agreement work.
4. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review.
5. If the services involve lead-based paint or asbestos identification / remediation, the Contractor’s PLL policy shall not contain lead-based paint or asbestos exclusions. If the services involve mold identification / remediation, the Contractor’s PLL shall not contain a mold exclusion and the definition of “Pollution” shall include microbial matter including mold.
Acceptability of Insurers
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 14 of 15 Bear Electric Solutions, Inc.
December 2023
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VII if admitted in the State of California. If Contractor’s Pollution Liability, Asbestos Pollution and/or Errors & Omissions coverages are not available from an admitted insurer, the coverage may be written by a non-admitted insurance company. A non-admitted company should have an A.M.
Best rating of A:X or higher. Exception may be made for the California State Compensation Insurance Fund if not rated.
Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates of insurance and amendatory endorsements, or copies of the applicable insurance policy language effecting coverage required by this contract and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsements page of the policy listing all policy endorsements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant hereby grants to City a waiver of subrogation which any insurer may acquire against City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, from Consultant by virtue of the payment of any loss. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City of Salinas for all work performed by the Consultant, its employees, agents, and subcontractors.
Subcontractors
Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Consultant shall ensure that City of Salinas is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors. For CGL coverage subcontractors shall provide coverage with a form at least as broad as ISO CG 20 38 04 13.
Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
Maintenance of Insurance
Maintenance of insurance by Consultant as specified shall in no way be interpreted as relieving Consultant of its indemnification obligations or any responsibility whatsoever and the Consultant may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it deems necessary.
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 15 of 15 Bear Electric Solutions, Inc.
December 2023
Exhibit B- Fee Schedule
MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT
FOR ON-CALL STREETLIGHT
MAINTENANCE SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SALINAS AND ST
FRANCIS ELECTRIC, LLC.
Contents
RECITALS................................................................................................................................. 4 TERMS....................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Scope of Service. ................................................................................................................. 4
2. Term; Completion Schedule. ............................................................................................... 4
3. Compensation ...................................................................................................................... 4
4. Billing .................................................................................................................................. 4
5. Meet and Confer. ................................................................................................................. 5
6. Additional Copies. ............................................................................................................... 5
7. Responsibility of Consultant................................................................................................ 5
8. Responsibility of City. ......................................................................................................... 5
9. Acceptance of Work Not a Release. .................................................................................... 6
10. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. ................................................................................... 6
11. Insurance.............................................................................................................................. 6
12. Access to Records................................................................................................................ 6
13. Non-Assignability................................................................................................................ 6
14. Changes to Scope of Work. ................................................................................................. 6
15. Ownership of Documents. ................................................................................................... 7
16. Termination.......................................................................................................................... 7
17. Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations. ................................................................ 8
18. Exhibits Incorporated........................................................................................................... 8
19. Independent Contractor........................................................................................................ 8
20. Integration and Entire Agreement........................................................................................ 8
21. Jurisdiction and Venue......................................................................................................... 8
22. Severability. ......................................................................................................................... 8
23. Notices. ................................................................................................................................ 8
24. Nondiscrimination................................................................................................................ 9
25. Conflict of Interest. .............................................................................................................. 9
26. Headings. ........................................................................................................................... 10
27. Attorneys’ Fees.................................................................................................................. 10
28. Non-Exclusive Agreement................................................................................................. 10
29. Rights and Obligations Under Agreement......................................................................... 10
30. Licenses.............................................................................................................................. 10
31. Counterparts....................................................................................................................... 10
32. Legal Representation. ........................................................................................................ 10
33. Joint Representation........................................................................................................... 10
34. Warranty of Authority........................................................................................................ 10
35. No Waiver of Rights. ......................................................................................................... 10 Exhibit A- Insurance Requirements.......................................................................................... 12 Exhibit B- Fee Schedule........................................................................................................... 15 Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 4 of 15
St Francis Electric, LLC.
December 2023
MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE
SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SALINAS AND ST FRANCIS ELECTRIC, LLC
This Master Service Agreement for Professional Services (the “Agreement” and/or “Contract”) is made and entered into this 5th day of December 2023, between the City of Salinas, a California Charter city and municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”), and St Francis Electric, LLC., a limited liability company, (hereinafter “Consultant”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Consultant represents that he, she or it is specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Consultant is willing to render such professional services, as hereinafter defined, on the following terms and conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Consultant agree as follows:
TERMS
1. Scope of Service. It is understood by City and Consultant that Consultant performs or secures the performance of On-Call Streetlight Maintenance and related services for the City on an on-going basis. On each occasion Consultant performs services for City, Consultant shall advise the City in writing of the scope of services to be provided, and the cost of, and estimated time to perform the services. Consultant shall not proceed to perform any such service until City and Consultant have established a project cost, a completion schedule or a time period for performance, and the City has given its written authorization to perform. Written approval for performance and compensation may be granted by the appointed City Project Manager.
2. Term; Completion Schedule. This Agreement shall commence on December 5, 2023, and shall terminate on December 5, 2025, unless extended in writing by either party upon (30) days written notice. This Agreement may be extended only upon mutual written consent of the parties and may be terminated only pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the original RFQ.
3. Compensation. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant for services rendered the City pursuant to this Agreement on a time and materials basis according to the rates of compensation as shown on Exhibit B.
4. Billing. Consultant shall submit to City an itemized invoice, prepared in a form satisfactory to City, describing its services and costs for the period covered by the invoice. Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant’s bills shall include the following information to which such services cost or pertain:
(A) A brief description of services performed;
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 5 of 15
St Francis Electric, LLC.
December 2023
(B) The date the services were performed;
(C) The number of hours spent and by whom;
(D)A brief description of any costs incurred; and
(E) The Consultant’s signature.
Any such invoices shall be in full accord with any and all applicable provisions of this Agreement.
City shall make payment on each such invoice within thirty (30) days of receipt; provided, however, that if Consultant submits an invoice which is incorrect, incomplete, or not in accord with the provisions of this Agreement, City shall not be obligated to process any payment to Consultant until thirty (30) days after a correct and complying invoice has been submitted by Consultant. The City shall process undisputed portion immediately.
5. Meet and Confer. Consultant agrees to meet and confer with City or its agents or employees with regard to services as set forth herein as may be required by the City to ensure timely and adequate performance of the Agreement.
6. Additional Copies. If City requires additional copies of reports, or any other material which Consultant is required to furnish as part of the services under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate Consultant for the actual costs related to the production of such copies by Consultant.
7. Responsibility of Consultant. By executing this Agreement, Consultant agrees that the services to be provided and work to be performed under this Agreement shall be performed in a fully competent manner. By executing this Agreement, Consultant further agrees and represents to City that the Consultant possesses, or shall arrange to secure from others, all of the necessary professional capabilities, experience, resources, and facilities necessary to provide the City the services contemplated under this Agreement and that City relies upon the professional skills of Consultant to do and perform Consultant’s work. Consultant further agrees and represents that Consultant shall follow the current, generally accepted practices in this area to the profession to make findings, render opinions, prepare factual presentations, and provide professional advice and recommendations regarding the projects for which the services are rendered under this Agreement.
8. Responsibility of City. To the extent appropriate to the projects to be completed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, City shall:
(A) Assist Consultant by placing at its disposal all available information pertinent to the projects, including but not limited to, previous reports and any other data relative to the projects. Nothing contained herein shall obligate City to incur any expense in connection with completion of studies or acquisition of information not otherwise in the possession of City.
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 6 of 15
St Francis Electric, LLC.
December 2023
(B) Examine all studies, reports, sketches, drawings, specifications, proposals, and other documents presented by Consultant, and render verbally or in writing as may be appropriate, decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not to delay the services of Consultant. (C) Jim Pia, Interim City Manager, or his designee, shall act as City’s representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. Such person shall have the complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define City’s policies and decisions with respect to materials, equipment, elements, and systems pertinent to Consultant’s services. City may unilaterally change its representative upon notice to the Consultant.
(D) Give prompt written notice to Consultant whenever City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in a project.
9. Acceptance of Work Not a Release. Acceptance by the City of the work to be performed under this Agreement does not operate as a release of Consultant from professional responsibility for the work performed.
10. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, employees, volunteers, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expense, costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Consultant’s performance of work hereunder, including the performance of work of any of Consultant’s subcontractors or agents, or Consultant’s failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in the agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
11. Insurance. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance meeting the requirements specified in Exhibit A hereto.
12. Access to Records. Consultant shall maintain all preparatory books, records, documents, accounting ledgers, and similar materials including but not limited to calculation and survey notes relating to work performed for the City under this Agreement on file for at least three (3) years following the date of final payment to Consultant by City. Any duly authorized representative(s) of City shall have access to such records for the purpose of inspection, audit, and copying at reasonable times during Consultant’s usual and customary business hours. Consultant shall provide proper facilities to City’s representative(s) for such access and inspection.
13. Non-Assignability. It is recognized by the parties hereto that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was, and is, the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. This Agreement is personal to Consultant and shall not be assigned by it without express written approval of the City.
14. Changes to Scope of Work. City may at any time, and upon a minimum of ten (10) days written notice, seek to modify the scope of services to be provided for any project to be completed under this Agreement. Consultant shall, upon receipt of said notice, determine the impact on both time and compensation of such change in scope and notify City in writing. Upon agreement Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 7 of 15
St Francis Electric, LLC.
December 2023
between City and Consultant as to the extent of said impacts to time and compensation, an amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared describing such changes. Execution of the amendment by City and Consultant shall constitute the Consultant’s notice to proceed with the changed scope.
15. Ownership of Documents. Title to all final documents, including drawings, specifications, data, reports, summaries, correspondence, photographs, computer software (if purchased on the City’s behalf), video and audio tapes, software output, and any other materials with respect to work performed under this Agreement shall vest with City at such time as City has compensated Consultant, as provided herein, for the services rendered by Consultant in connection with which they were prepared. City agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant against all damages, claims, lawsuits, and losses of any kind including defense costs arising out of any use of said documents, drawings, and/or specifications on any other project without written authorization of the Consultant.
16. Termination.
(A) City shall have the authority to terminate this Agreement, upon ten days written notice to Consultant, as follows:
(1) If in the City’s opinion the conduct of the Consultant is such that the interest of the City may be impaired or prejudiced, or
(2) For any reason whatsoever.
(B) Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to payment of such amount as fairly compensates Consultant for all work satisfactorily performed up to the date of termination based upon the Consultant’s rates shown in Exhibit B and/or Section 3 of this Agreement, except that:
(1) In the event of termination by the City for Consultant’s default, City shall deduct from the amount due Consultant the total amount of additional expenses incurred by City as a result of such default. Such deduction from amounts due Consultant are made to compensate City for its actual additional costs incurred in securing satisfactory performance of the terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to, costs of engaging another consultant(s) for such purposes. In the event that such additional expenses shall exceed amounts otherwise due and payable to Consultant hereunder, Consultant shall pay City the full amount of such expense.
(C) In the event that this Agreement is terminated by City for any reason, Consultant shall:
(1) Upon receipt of written notice of such termination promptly cease all services on this project, unless otherwise directed by City; and (2) Deliver to City all documents, data, reports, summaries, correspondence, photographs, computer software output, video and audio tapes, and any other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the City in connection with this Agreement. Such material is to be delivered to City in completed form; however, Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 8 of 15
St Francis Electric, LLC.
December 2023
notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15 herein, City may condition payment for services rendered to the date of termination upon Consultant’s delivery to the City of such material.
(D) In the event that this Agreement is terminated by City for any reason, City is hereby expressly permitted to assume the projects and complete them by any means, including but not limited to, an agreement with another party.
(E) The rights and remedy of the City and Consultant provided under this Section are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or appearing in any other section of this Agreement.
17. Compliance with Laws, Rules, and Regulations. Services performed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in accordance and full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and City laws and any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder.
18. Exhibits Incorporated. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and attached to it are hereby incorporated in it by this reference. In the event there is a conflict between any of the terms of this Agreement and any of the terms of any exhibit to the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement shall control the respective duties and liabilities of the parties.
19. Independent Contractor. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that Consultant, while engaged in carrying out and complying with any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. Consultant expressly warrants not to represent, at any time or in any manner, that Consultant is an employee or servant of the City.
20. Integration and Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters contained herein. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except by amendment in writing signed by both parties.
21. Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, County of Monterey, and City of Salinas.
Jurisdiction of litigation arising from this Agreement shall be in the State of California, in the County of Monterey or in the appropriate federal court with jurisdiction over the matter.
22. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null and void insofar as it is in conflict with said laws, but the remainder of the Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect.
23. Notices.
(A) Written notices to the City hereunder shall, until further notice by City, be addressed to:
City Manager
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 9 of 15
St Francis Electric, LLC.
December 2023
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901
With a copy to:
City Attorney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, California 93901
(B) Written notices to the Consultant shall, until further notice by the Consultant, be addressed to:
Guy Smith, President
St. Francis Electric, LLC
975 Carden Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
(C) The execution of any such notices by the City Manager shall be effective as to Consultant as if it were by resolution or order of the City Council, and Consultant shall not question the authority of the City Manager to execute any such notice. (D) All such notices shall either be delivered personally to the other party’s designee named above, or shall be deposited in the United States Mail, properly addressed as aforesaid, postage fully prepaid, and shall be effective the day following such deposit in the mail.
24. Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, ancestry, creed, sex, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, age (over 40 years) or disability. Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, ancestry, creed, sex, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, age (over 40 years) or disability.
25. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and declares that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, in any manner or degree which will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable local, state or federal law. Consultant further declares that, in the performance of this Agreement, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code section 81000 et seq.) and Salinas City Code Chapter 2A that apply to Consultant as the result of Consultant’s performance of the work or services pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 10 of 15 St Francis Electric, LLC.
December 2023
26. Headings. The section headings appearing herein shall not be deemed to govern, limit, modify, or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of this Agreement.
27. Attorneys’ Fees. In case suit shall be brought to interpret or to enforce this Agreement, or because of the breach of any other covenant or provision herein contained, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to such costs as may be allowed by the Court. City’s attorneys’ fees, if awarded, shall be calculated at the market rate.
28. Non-Exclusive Agreement. This Agreement is non-exclusive and both City and Consultant expressly reserves the right to contract with other entities for the same or similar services.
29. Rights and Obligations Under Agreement. By entering into this Agreement, the parties do not intend to create any obligations express or implied other than those set out herein; further, this Agreement shall not create any rights in any party not a signatory hereto.
30. Licenses. If a license of any kind, which term is intended to include evidence of registration, is required of Consultant, its representatives, agents or subcontractors by federal, state or local law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and that any applicable bond posted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
31. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute a single agreement.
32. Legal Representation. Each party affirms that it has been represented, if it so chose, by legal counsel of its own choosing regarding the preparation and the negotiation of this Agreement and the matters and claims set forth herein, and that each of them has read this Agreement and is fully aware of its contents and its legal effect. Neither party is relying on any statement of the other party outside the terms set forth in this Agreement as an inducement to enter into this Agreement.
33. Joint Representation. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any party. No presumptions or rules of interpretation based upon the identity of the party preparing or drafting the Agreement, or any part thereof, shall be applicable or invoked.
34. Warranty of Authority. Each party represents and warrants that it has the right, power, and authority to enter into this Agreement. Each party further represents and warrants that it has given any and all notices, and obtained any and all consents, powers, and authorities, necessary to permit it, and the persons entering into this Agreement for it, to enter into this Agreement.
35. No Waiver of Rights. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. The failure to provide notice of any breach of this Agreement or failure to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver thereof.
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 11 of 15 St Francis Electric, LLC.
December 2023
Failure on the part of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of the right to compel enforcement of such provision or any other provision. A waiver by the City of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance under this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement on the date first written above.
CITY OF SALINAS
__________________________________
Jim Pia
Interim City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
□ Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney or
□ Rhonda Combs, Assistant City Attorney
CONSULTANT
__________________________________
By (Printed Name):__Guy Smith________
Its (Title):___President________________
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 12 of 15 St Francis Electric, LLC.
December 2023
Exhibit A- Insurance Requirements
Insurance Requirements
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors. With respect to General Liability, coverage should be maintained for a minimum of five (5) years after Agreement completion.
MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (“CGL”): Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form CA 0001 covering any auto, or if Consultant has no owned autos, hired and non-owned autos, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation: Insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Professional Liability (also known as Errors and Omissions): Insurance appropriate to the work being performed, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 aggregate per policy period of one year.
If the Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Salinas requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status
Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, the Consultant shall provide coverage to reduce or eliminate such self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the Consultant shall provide evidence satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 13 of 15 St Francis Electric, LLC.
December 2023
administration, and defense expenses. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.
Other Insurance Provisions
A. The General Liability, Automobile Liability, Contractors Pollution Liability, and/or Asbestos Pollution policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City of Salinas, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Forms CG 20 10, CG 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).
2. For any claims related to this project, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City of Salinas, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or selfinsurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.
B. The Automobile Liability policy shall be endorsed to include Transportation Pollution Liability insurance, covering materials to be transported by Consultant pursuant to the contract. This coverage may also be provided on the Contractor’s PLL policy.
C. If General Liability, Contractors Pollution Liability and/or Asbestos Pollution Liability and/or Errors & Omissions coverages are written on a claims-made form:
1. The retroactive date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of Agreement of work.
2. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the Agreement of work.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of Agreement work.
4. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review.
5. If the services involve lead-based paint or asbestos identification / remediation, the Contractor’s PLL policy shall not contain lead-based paint or asbestos exclusions. If the services involve mold identification / remediation, the Contractor’s PLL shall not contain a mold exclusion and the definition of “Pollution” shall include microbial matter including mold.
Acceptability of Insurers
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 14 of 15 St Francis Electric, LLC.
December 2023
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:VII if admitted in the State of California. If Contractor’s Pollution Liability, Asbestos Pollution and/or Errors & Omissions coverages are not available from an admitted insurer, the coverage may be written by a non-admitted insurance company. A non-admitted company should have an A.M.
Best rating of A:X or higher. Exception may be made for the California State Compensation Insurance Fund if not rated.
Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates of insurance and amendatory endorsements, or copies of the applicable insurance policy language effecting coverage required by this contract and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsements page of the policy listing all policy endorsements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant hereby grants to City a waiver of subrogation which any insurer may acquire against City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, from Consultant by virtue of the payment of any loss. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City of Salinas for all work performed by the Consultant, its employees, agents, and subcontractors.
Subcontractors
Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Consultant shall ensure that City of Salinas is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors. For CGL coverage subcontractors shall provide coverage with a form at least as broad as ISO CG 20 38 04 13.
Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
Maintenance of Insurance
Maintenance of insurance by Consultant as specified shall in no way be interpreted as relieving Consultant of its indemnification obligations or any responsibility whatsoever and the Consultant may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it deems necessary.
Master Services Agreement v. January 2021 Page 15 of 15 St Francis Electric, LLC.
December 2023
Exhibit B- Fee Schedule
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-700, Version: 1
Miracle Playsystems, Inc. Agreement for Playground Repairs Approve a Resolution authorizing the Interim City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. for the purchase and installation of playground equipment at designated park locations in an amount not to exceed $67,781.29.
City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/30/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1
CITY OF SALINAS
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2023
DEPARTMENT: LIBRARY & COMMUNITY SERVICES
FROM: KRISTAN LUNDQUIST, DIRECTOR
TITLE: AGREEMENT WITH PLAYSYSTEMS, INC. FOR SYSTEM-WIDE
PLAYGROUND REPAIRS
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
A motion to approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. for the purchase and installation of playground equipment at designated park locations in an amount not to exceed $67,781.29.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. for the purchase and installation of playground equipment at designated park locations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which provided the City of Salinas with $51,567,313 in relief funds. In September 2021, the City Council allocated ARPA funds for a number of government service projects, including $2 million for playground structures, park benches, and barbeque grills, the majority of which was to be spent in the 93905 and 93906 zip codes which were hit hardest by the COVID-19 pandemic.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Salinas has 35 playgrounds located in parks/facilities across the city. An assessment of the playgrounds was conducted as part of the Parks, Recreation & Libraries Master Planning effort in 2017. The majority of the playgrounds were found to be in fair and/or good condition.
The playground at Williams Ranch Neighborhood Park was found to be in poor condition and in need of replacement.
In May 2022, staff provided an update to the Finance Committee on the recommended projects identified for ARPA funding. This report included playground surfacing material system-wide, two new playground structures at Williams Ranch and Northgate Neighborhood Parks, and tables, benches, and barbeque grills.
Page | 2
Following the review with the Finance Committee in May 2022, staff, in conjunction with the playground manufacturing companies associated with each park, conducted an assessment to identify costs for necessary playground repairs. Across the system, we have playground apparatus from four different playground manufacturing companies including Miracle Playsystems, Inc, Ross Recreation, Playcraft and Play World.
In September 2022, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. in the amount of $165,128.09 and with Ross Recreation in the amount of $64,886.33 for system wide playground repairs. A breakdown of the original repair costs is included below:
The City has Miracle Playsystems, Inc. playgrounds in twelve (12) parks.
Park Zip Code Repair Costs
Claremont Manor Neighborhood
Park
93901 $ 74,572.94
Clay Street Play Lot 93901 $ 5,794.71
El Dorado Park 93906 $16,050.00
Laurel Heights Neighborhood
Park
93905 $ 7,589.40
Laurel Neighborhood Park 93906 $ 7,996.84
Laurelwood Neighborhood Park 93906 $10,136.98
Maple Play Lot 93901 No repairs identified
Mission Park 93901 $ 5,362.057
Northgate Tot Lot 93906 $13,151.63
Santa Rita Neighborhood Park 93906 $13,052.09
Soto Square 93906 $ 5,096.37
Woodside Neighborhood Park 93901 $ 6,324.56
The City has Ross Recreation playgrounds in twelve (12) parks.
Park Zip Code Repair Costs
Azahel Cruz Pocket Park 93905 No repairs identified
Central Community Park 93901 $ 1,236.90
Closter Park 93905 Prop 68 Total Renovation
Creekbridge Neighborhood Park 93906 $10,563.25
El Gabilan Play Lot 93905 $ 5,817.82
Jaycees Tot Lot 93905 $ 5052.96
Los Padres Neighborhood Park 93905 No repairs identified McKinnon Neighborhood Park 93906 $16,756.75
Monte Belle Community Park 93905 $ 5,818.68
Myrtle Court Play Lot 93905 No repairs identified
Natividad Creek Park 93905 $13,817.05
Sobranes Neighborhood Park 93905 $ 5,822.92
Page | 3
Given the age of most of our playgrounds and wear and tear, staff can encounter damaged equipment any given day. Since the original agreement with Miracle Playsystems was executed, we have identified additional equipment needing repairs. The new repairs total $67,781.29 and are identified in the chart below.
Park Zip Code Repair Costs
Claremont Park 93901 $1,685.75*
El Dorado Park 93906 $13,980.68
Hartnell Neighborhood Park 93901 $7,841.11
Laurelwood Neighborhood Park 93906 $ 23,147.34
Santa Rita Neighborhood Park 93906 $18,626.41
Bonds $2,500
*Freight charges that were omitted from the original agreement with Miracle.
The new repairs included in this agreement continue to meet the City Council’s direction of spending the majority of the funding in the 93905 and 93906 zip codes.
The repairs to these playgrounds are considered sole source as other playground manufacturing companies’ equipment is not compatible with another manufacturer’s equipment. Consistent with Purchasing Policies and ordinance (2576) the purchase of equipment in the amount of more than $30,000 with one vendor requires City Council authorization.
CEQA CONSIDERATION:
Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
The playground repairs are consistent with the City Council Goals of Youth and Seniors.
FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:
Funds are appropriated and available in account 3911.55.8171.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Agreement with Miracle Playsystems Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. _____________________(N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE AND
INSTALLATION OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT DESIGNATED PARK LOCATIONS WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) which provided the City of Salinas with $51,567,313 in relief funds; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 2021, the City Council allocated ARPA funds for a number of governmental service projects, including $2 million dollars for playground structures, park benches and bar-be-que grills, the majority of which was to be spent in the 93905 and 93906 zip codes; and WHEREAS, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. in September of 2022; and
WHEREAS, additional repairs of playground equipment are needed at designated park location totaling $67,781.29.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL that the City Manager of Salinas is authorized to negotiate and execute an agreement with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $67,781.29 for the purchase and installation of playground equipment at designated locations.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 5th day of December, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
________________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page 1 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SALINAS AND MIRACLE PLAYSYSTEMS INC.
Playground Repairs
THIS AGREEMENT is executed this ____ day of ___________, 2023, (“Agreement” or “Contract”) between the City of Salinas, a California Charter city and municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”) and Miracle Playsystems Inc. a California corporation (hereinafter “Contractor”).
IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Scope. Contractor hereby agrees to provide to the City, as the scope of services under this Agreement, the following services: Playground equipment and installation at designated parks. Scope of work is further discussed in Attachment B.
2. Timeliness. Contractor shall perform all tasks in a timely fashion, as set forth more specifically in Section 3 below. Failure to so perform is hereby deemed a material breach of this Agreement, and City may terminate this Agreement with no further liability hereunder, or the city may agree in writing with Contractor to an extension of time.
3. Term. The work under this Agreement shall be deemed to have commenced on July 1, 2023 and shall be completed by April 30, 2024 unless City grants a written extension of time as set forth in Section 2 above.
4. Payment. City agrees to pay and Contractor agrees to accept as full and fair consideration for the performance of this Agreement an amount not to exceed, Sixty-seven Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-one and Twenty-nine Hundredths ($67,781.29), as more fully described in Attachment B. Contractor has no right of reimbursement for expenses under this Agreement. Compensation shall become due and payable 30 days after City’s approval of Contractor’s submission of monthly written invoices to the City. The payment of any compensation shall be contingent upon performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the City. If City determines that the work set forth in the written invoice has not been performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, City shall not be responsible for payment until such time as the work has been satisfactorily performed.
5. Meet & Confer. Contractor agrees to meet and confer with City or its agents or employees with regard to services as set forth herein as may be required by City to insure timely and adequate performance of this Agreement.
6. Insurance. Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance meeting the requirements specified in Attachment A hereto.
7. Indemnification. Contractor shall hold harmless, defend at its own expense, and indemnify City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against all Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page 2 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
liability, claims, damages, losses, and/or expenses including reasonable City attorney fees arising from all acts or omissions of Contractor or its officers, agents, or employees arising out of the performance of the work under this Contract, caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the Contractor, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, except where caused by the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
8. Licensing. Contractor warrants that it is properly licensed to perform the work specified under this Agreement, including but not limited to possession of a current City business license.
9. Termination. City may terminate this Agreement upon ten days’ written notice. The amount of damages, if any, as a result of such termination may be decided by negotiations between the parties or before a court of competent jurisdiction.
10. Agency. In performing the services specified under this Agreement, Contractor is hereby deemed to be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of City.
11. Non-Assignability. The rights and obligations of Contractor hereunder are not assignable and cannot be delegated without written consent of City.
12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties hereto and supersedes any and all prior agreements, whether oral or written, relating to the subject matter thereof. Any modification of the Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing signed by both parties hereto.
13. Validity. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts.
15. Laws. Contractor agrees that in the performance of this Agreement it will comply with all applicable State, Federal and local laws and regulations, including those outlined in Attachment C. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, County of Monterey, and City of Salinas.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is entered into by the parties hereto on the day and year first written above.
Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page 3 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
CITY OF SALINAS
__________________________________
Jim Pia
Interim City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney, or
Rhonda Combs, Assistant City Attorney
CONTRACTOR
___________________________________
By (Printed Name):___________________
Its (Title):___________________________
Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page 4 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
Attachment A
Insurance Requirements
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, and for three years thereafter, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, his/her/its officers, agents, representatives, employees, and/or subcontractors.
MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (“CGL”): Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an occurrence basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO Form CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form CA 0001 covering Code 1 (any auto), with limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employers’ Liability insurance with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Contractors’ Pollution Legal Liability and/or Asbestos Legal Liability and/or Errors and Omissions (if project involves environmental hazards): with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 policy aggregate, on an annual basis.
If the Contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Contractor requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the Contractor shall cause the insurer shall to reduce or eliminate such self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the Contractor shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City.
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations and automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page 5 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
or on behalf of the Contractor. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, CG 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).
2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City.
4. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted by Contractor to the City.
5. If the services involve lead-based paint or asbestos identification/remediation, the Contractor’s Pollution Liability policy shall not contain lead-based paint or asbestos exclusions. If the services involve mold identification/remediation, the Contractor’s Pollution Liability policy shall not contain a mold exclusion, and the definition of Pollution shall include microbial matter, including mold.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.
Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby agrees to waive rights of subrogation which any insurer of Contractor may acquire from Contractor by virtue of the payment of any loss. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation. The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors.
Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with original Certificates of Insurance including an additional insured endorsement and all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to City before work begins.
However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements, required by these specifications, at any time.
Subcontractors
Contractor shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that City is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors. For CGL coverage subcontractors shall provide coverage with a form at least as broad as CG 20 38 04 13.
Maintenance of Insurance
Maintenance of insurance by Contractor as specified shall in no way be interpreted as relieving Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page 6 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
Contractor of its indemnification obligations or any responsibility whatsoever and the Contractor may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it deems necessary.
Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page 7 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
Attachment B
Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page
8 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page
9 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page 10 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page 11 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page 12 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page 13 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page 14 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
Attachment C
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS’ STATE LABOR CODE
Labor Law Requirements
(CCR Title 8, Section 16421)
This public works project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). All work shall be in accordance with wage scales and applicable determinations made by the Director of the DIR, as provided by Article 2, Chapter 1, Division 2, Part 7 of the Labor Code of the State of California, commencing with §1771.
Penalties for violations may be applied by the DIR pursuant to the Labor Code §1813 and §1815. The Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City (with counsel reasonably approved by the City) against any claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties, or other amounts arising out of the failure or alleged failure of any person or entity (including Contractor and its subcontractors) to pay prevailing wages as determined pursuant to Labor Code §1720, and hereby agrees to, §§1771-1774; to employ apprentices pursuant to Labor Code §1777.5 etseq., and/or to comply with the other applicable provisions of Labor Code §1720 etseq., §§1771- 1774, §1777.5 et seq., and the implementing regulations of the DIR in connection with the scope of work. This indemnification section shall survive the expiration of the Term.
The Federal and State Labor Law requirements applicable to the Agreement are composed of, but not limited, to the following items:
1. Payment of Prevailing Wage Rates: All contractors, including subcontractors, shall pay no less than the prevailing rate of wages (Labor Code §1775), including the rates for holidays and overtime work (Labor Code §§1813 and 1815), to all workers employed in the execution of the contract (Labor Code §1774), pursuant to Labor Code §§1720-1784.
The prevailing rates are those issued as wage determinations by the DIR, for each craft, classification and type of work. The current wage rate information can be found at the DIR’s website at: https://www.dir.ca.gov/oprl/DPreWageDetermination.htm.
Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City’s Public Works Department (principal place of office). Contractor shall post a copy of the determination of the Director of DIR of the prevailing rate of per diem wages at each job site.
2. Apprentices: Contractor and subcontractors shall employ registered apprentices on this public works Agreement pursuant to Labor Code §1777.5. All contractors on this project (prime and subcontractors) are required to submit the Division of Apprenticeship Standards’ (“DAS”) Public Works Contract Award Information (DAS 140) form to all applicable apprenticeship committees no later than 10 days before commencing work.
Additionally, all contractors are required to request registered apprentices (DAS 142 form).
Penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages (for non-exempt projects) and failure to employ apprentices include forfeitures and debarment under Labor Code §§1775 and 1777.7.
3. Certified Payroll Records: All contractors, including subcontractors, must maintain and file certified payroll records (“CPRs”) pursuant to Labor Code §1776. Additionally, all contractors and subcontractors must furnish certified payroll records into the DIR’s Electronic Certified Payroll Reporting (“eCPRs”) database Agreement for Services v. November 2022 Page 15 of 15
Miracle Playsystems Inc.
July 2023
(https://efiling.dir.ca.gov/eCPR/pages/eCPROnlineForm.jsp). Penalties apply to Contractor and any Subcontractors for failure to do so under Labor Code §1777.
4. Subcontracting: Contractors are required to list all subcontractors hired to perform work on this public works agreement.
5. Proper Licensing/Registration: All contractors and subcontractors are required to be properly licensed, in accordance with the Provisions of Chapter 9 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code and subject to the requirements of §4104 of the Public Contract Code. In addition, all contractors including subcontractors must submit proof of current registration to perform public work, pursuant to Labor Code §1771.1. Contractors are required to be properly licensed and to require all subcontractors to be properly licensed. Penalties for employing workers while unlicensed under Labor Code §1021 and under the California Contractors License Law, found at Business and Professions Code §7000 et. seq.
6. Job Site Notices: Contractors are required to post all required notices (posters) on the job site in an area accessible to all workers, including subcontractors. Posters must be readable and placed in visible areas allowing workers to access the posters before, during, and after work shifts. Jobsites with multiple locations must include a portable poster board to ensure continued access to the information. Posters placed in foreman, supervisor, or employee vehicles, in an offsite job trailer, or inside a temporary restroom do not meet the posting requirement. Posters may be printed from the DIR’s website at:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/wpnodb.html.
7. Nondiscrimination in Employment – Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”):
Employment discrimination is prohibited, pursuant to Labor Code §1777.6, the Government Code, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
8. Kickbacks Prohibited: Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from recapturing wages illegally by accepting or extracting “kickbacks” from employee wages pursuant to Labor Code §1778.
9. Acceptance of Fees Prohibited: Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from accepting fees for registering any person for public work or for filling work orders on public works contracts, pursuant to Labor Code §§1779 and 1780.
10. Unfair Competition Prohibited: Contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from engaging in unfair competition as specified under Business and Professions Code §§17200 - 17208.
11. Workers’ Compensation: Contractors and subcontractors must be properly insured for Workers’ Compensation under Labor Code §1861. Contractor hereby represents that Contractor is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, which require every employee to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Contractor will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement.
12. OSHA: Contractors and subcontractors must abide by the Occupational, Safety, and Health Laws and regulations that apply.
City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-701, Version: 1
Conditional Funding Reservation Letter for Predevelopment Cost of the Proposed 100% Affordable Multifamily Housing Development at 467-479 E. Market Street Approve a Resolution authorizing the Interim City Manager or designee to execute a Conditional Funding Reservation Letter with Envision Housing LLC in the amount of $500,000 from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Prohousing Incentive Pilot (PIP) program funds for predevelopment costs of a proposed 100% affordable multifamily housing development at 467-479 E. Market Street.
City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/30/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1
CITY OF SALINAS
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2023
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: LISA BRINTON, DIRECTOR
THROUGH: ROD POWELL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
BY: LUIS OCHOA, SR. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST
TITLE: CONDITIONAL FUNDING RESERVATION LETTER FOR
PREDEVELOPMENT COST OF THE PROPOSED 100%
AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT
467-479 E. MARKET STREET
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
A motion to approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to prepare and issue a Conditional Funding Reservation Letter to Envision Housing LLC to potentially provide funding in the amount of $500,000 from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Prohousing Incentive Pilot (PIP) program funds for predevelopment costs of a proposed 100% affordable multifamily housing development at 467-479 E. Market Street.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Since 2021, the City of Salinas (City) has collaborated with Envision Housing LLC (Envision), a for-profit developer, on development of a proposed 100% affordable multifamily housing development located at 467-479 E. Market Street. The project is currently poised to secure required City entitlement documents and will fully shift to a predevelopment phase in the near future. With preparations now underway to move towards the development of the project’s building plans and securing required construction permits, Envision is also preparing to act on its intention to identify, seek, and apply for additional supportive funding for the development, such as the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC), which is often strengthened by a demonstrated commitment of other public funding sources.
To support and maximize these efforts, Envision has formally requested $500,000 from the City to support the project funding of predevelopment costs. In response, City staff are proposing the City provide a Conditional Funding Reservation Letter to Envision for the requested amount which is contingent upon the developer successfully securing additional predevelopment funds from several other identified sources including the Monterey County Community Foundation and the Housing Trust of Silicon Valley. Upon meeting the conditions stipulated in proposed letter, the City would then move to enter into a formal funding agreement using its awarded Prohousing Incentive Pilot (PIP) Program funds.
Page | 2
BACKGROUND:
Since 2021, the City has engaged with Envision on a proposed 100% affordable multifamily housing development at 467-479 E. Market Street. This proposed project involves demolition of existing on-site structures and the construction of a new 75-unit rental apartment complex inclusive of ground floor commercial space along E. Market St., designated parking, resident amenities, and driveway improvements.
Along with increasing the supply of affordable rental housing opportunities in Salinas, the development also seeks to provide space for a commercial kitchen incubator program in partnership with El Pajaro Community Development Corporation. The project intends to add value to the community by creating a long-lasting building with low maintenance and operational costs that thoughtfully aligns with the City’s Alisal Vibrancy Plan.
Presently, Envision anticipates obtaining development entitlements from the City in the very near future and is now shifting its focus towards finalization of its design and building plans and the necessary pursuit of additional predevelopment funding from various sources including the City.
Total estimated predevelopment costs for the project are $3,247,765, inclusive of City’s proposed $500,000 contribution.
Envision currently anticipates completion of the project’s predevelopment phase by the end of 2025. Upon completion of the project’s predevelopment phase, final construction financing will be sought from a number of sources including the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, Joe Serna Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program, Silicon Valley Housing Trust, and other private sources.
The City’s commitment of PIP funds is contingent upon Envision providing supportive predevelopment documents (budget, scope of work and timeline) and successfully securing the balance of its predevelopment cost estimate. Upon satisfying these conditions, the City would seek to return to Council with a formal PIP Program Funding Agreement for final approval. It has typically been the City’s practice to provide funding of this type as a 3% simple interest loan under a 55-year term inclusive of a complete subsidy layering and pro-forma.
DEPARMENT COORDINATION:
Several Departments, including the Community Development Department, Public Works, Fire and City Attorney’s Office, have coordinated on moving this project forward.
CEQA CONSIDERATION:
Not a Project. The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
Page | 3
The proposed project and action support the City of Salinas Strategic Plan 2022-2025 Goals and Strategies related to Housing/Affordable Housing.
FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:
Approval of the Conditional Funding Reservation Letter has no impact to the City’s General Fund.
Funding of a potential future HCD PIP Funding Agreement will come directly from previously awarded and allocated HCD PIP funds.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
City of Salinas Conditional Funding Reservation Letter for Predevelopment Funds - Draft 1 RESOLUTION NO. (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF CONDITIONAL FUNDING
RESERVATION LETTER WITH ENVISION HOUSING LLC FOR THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AT 467-479 E. MARKET STREET WHEREAS, since 2021, the City of Salinas has collaborated with Envision Housing LLC (Envision), a for-profit developer, on a proposed 100% affordable multifamily housing development project at 467-479 E. Market Street; and
WHEREAS, Envision is in the process of obtaining the City’s entitlement documents for the development, with the goal of completing this process by the end of 2023, and will soon shift towards predevelopment activities for the project with an estimated cost of $3,247,765; and WHEREAS, Envision has formally requested $500,000 from the City to partially cover predevelopment costs and will seek to cover the remaining estimated balance of pre-development costs of the project from several other identified sources; and WHEREAS, in order to support Envision in its pursuit of additional predevelopment funds, the City is offering a Conditional Funding Reservation Letter in the amount requested ($500,000), contingent upon Envision successfully securing the balance of its estimated predevelopment costs from other identified sources; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2023, the City was awarded $1,660,000 in Prohousing Incentive Pilot program funds from the California Housing and Community Development (HCD), where gap financing for affordable rental housing projects is an allowable activity under this program; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to allocate $500,000 of its PIP funds to Envision, in the form of a 3% simple interest loan with a term of 55 years, towards the predevelopment costs for the affordable housing project at 467-479 E. Market St. once all conditions stipulated in the Conditional Funding Reservation Letter are met; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Salinas City Council authorizes the City Manager or designee to prepare and to issue a Conditional Funding Reservation Letter to potentially provide funding to Envision Housing LLC in the amount $500,000 utilizing available and allowable HCD PIP Program funds for predevelopment costs of the proposed affordable housing project at 467-479 E. Market Street.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 5
th day of December 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
2 ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
______________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
1 December 6, 2023
Envision Housing LLC
Sibley Simon, Managing Director, Envision II, LLC
189 Walnut Ave.
Santa Cruz, CA 95065
SUBJECT: City of Salinas Conditional Funding Reservation Letter for Predevelopment Funds for the 100% Affordable Multifamily Housing Development at 467/479 E. Market Street
Dear Mr. Simon:
The City of Salinas has reserved $500,000 from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP) funds allocated towards the development of affordable housing within the City of Salinas and to be utilized as gap financing in affordable rental housing developments. The intent of these funds is to provide partial financial assistance with costs associated with the predevelopment phase of the 100% affordable multifamily housing project to be located at 467/479 E.
Market Street in Salinas, California. The development will consist of 75 residential units with complementary commercial space, parking, and community amenities on the ground floor.
The terms of the financing will be as follows:
Lender City of Salinas
Borrower Envision Housing LLC
189 Walnut Ave.
Santa Cruz, CA 95065
Loan Amount $500,000 (Predevelopment)
Loan Funding Source Prohousing Incentive Pilot (PIP) Program Interest Rate No more than 3%, simple interest rate
Payment Schedule Interest and then principal to be paid from residual receipts Term 55 Years
Expenditure Deadline City of Salinas funds committed to the 467/479 E. Market Street project must be expended no later than December 31, 2025. Please note the expenditure date is 2 subject to change as the City has not yet received the Standard Agreement for the PIP Program Funds from HCD.
Disbursement Funds will be disbursed on a reimbursement basis.
Conditions Availability of City’s funds are contingent upon the receipt of:
1. The provision of adequate documentation from Envision Housing LLC demonstrating either the receipt of funds or provision of adequate documentation of a specific intent to provide pre-development funds from the following sources:
Monterey County Community Foundation ($1,500,000)
Housing Trust of Silicon Valley ($1,250,000)
Private Impact Loans ($700,000)
Bridge Loans ($1,600,000)
Investor Equity and Deferred ($3,000,000 – $4,000,000) 3CE Grant - Awarded 9/21/21 ($120,000)
DTSC Grant - Awarded 6/6/22 ($800,000)
2. The provision of a 467/479 E. Market Street project predevelopment budget, predevelopment scope of work, and predevelopment project timeline.
The PIP Program funds are conditioned on the receipt by the City of such funds from HCD. The funds will be available at the earliest convenience upon execution of the PIP Funding Agreement between the City and Envision Housing LLC.
Sincerely,
Jim Pia
Interim City Manager
conditional reservation letterreservation letter - 467-479 e. market - final.docx City of Salinas
Legislation Text
200 Lincoln Ave., Salinas,
CA 93901
www.cityofsalinas.org
File #: ID#23-711, Version: 1
Addendum No. 1 to the Jet West, Inc. Facility Lease Agreement at the Salinas Municipal Airport Approve a Resolution approving Addendum No. 1 to the Salinas Municipal Airport Facility Lease Agreement at the Salinas Municipal Airport in consideration of rental abatement for American Disabilities Act (ADA)Tenant Improvements.
City of Salinas Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/30/2023
powered by Legistar™
Page | 1
CITY OF SALINAS
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2023
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS, AIRPORT DIVISION
FROM: DAVID JACOBS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: BRETT J. GODOWN, AIRPORT MANAGER
TITLE: ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE JET WEST, INC. FACILITY LEASE
AGREEMENT AT THE SALINAS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT IN
CONSIDERATION FOR AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT
FACILITY TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
A motion to approve the attached Resolution for Addendum No. 1 to the Salinas Municipal Airport Facility Lease Agreement at the Salinas Municipal Airport in consideration of rental abatement for American Disabilities Act (ADA)Tenant Improvements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Jet West, Inc. (Jet West), lessee of 280 Mortensen Ave. at the Salinas Municipal Airport, made permanent ADA tenant improvements to the [City of Salinas owned] facility. The accompanying staff report, resolution, and lease agreement amendment support staff’s recommendation to reimburse Jet West for 50% of the improvement cost through rental abatement by $1,180.60 per month for 12 months.
BACKGROUND:
In 2009, by way of Resolution No. 19745, the City Council approved a facility lease agreement between the City of Salinas and Jet West at the Salinas Municipal Airport. In 2022, a customer reported possible ADA concerns. In response to the possible concerns, Jet West financed longterm tenant improvements to the facility to meet ADA building standards. The improvements were not considered under the original terms of the lease agreement. The ADA improvements serve the utility of the facility and not just Jet West’s operations. Jet West has requested reimbursement for said improvements.
Tenants often make improvements to facilities. The City does not participate in all rental abatement or other measures to offset improvement costs. For City participation, the criteria include:
Page | 2
1. The improvement improves the building versus the operations of the Lessee/tenant.
2. The City agrees to the benefit the improvement provides to the facility.
3. The improvement is permanent versus temporary in nature.
4. The City agrees to participate in rental abatements.
At the November 16, 2023, Airport Commission meeting, the Airport Commission recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution for Addendum No. 1 to the Salinas Municipal Airport Lease Agreement by and between the City of Salinas and Jet West, Inc.
ANALYSIS:
Improvements/Investments
The improvements included installing ADA-accessible pathways from the primary building entrances to the secondary entryway at the front of the building. The pathway improvements included extending the building frontage concrete sidewalk landing area by approximately 20 linear feet. The landing area improvements comprise two stairs, handrails, an accessible door[way], and appropriate signage. The Lessee secured a City of Salinas Building permit and received a final City of Salinas sign-off on September 13, 2023.
The final cost for the Tenant Improvement is $28,292.34. The Airport agreed to deduct 50% of the improvement costs from the base rent over a 12-month period. The costs of such Tenant Improvement shall be deducted from the Base Rent due from this Lease but shall not exceed $14,146.17. It was stipulated that the Lessee would qualify for Base Rent reduction provided the Improvements were satisfactorily completed and accepted by the Airport Manager, the improvements were contracted in compliance with the State of Californian prevailing wage laws, the project received final approvals from the City of Salinas Building Division, and Lessee provided proof of payment to the contractor. For a period of 12 months following the execution date of this Lease Amendment and having met the above conditions, $14,146.17 ($1,180.60 per month) will be deducted from the Base Rent remitted to the City of Salinas in connection with this facility lease (Customer Account #208) for 280 Mortensen Avenue.
CEQA/NEPA CONSIDERATION:
The City of Salinas has determined that the proposed action is not a project and, therefore, exempt as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:
Approval of this Lease Addendum NO. 1 will support the City Council's goals of Effective, Sustainable Government and Economic Diversity and Prosperity.
DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION:
The lease amendment was reviewed as to form by the City Attorney.
Page | 3
FISCAL AND SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT:
For a period of 12 months following the execution date of this Lease Amendment and having met the above conditions, $14,146.17 ($1,180.60 per month for 12 months) will be deducted from the Base Rent remitted to the City of Salinas in connection with this facility lease (Customer Account #208) for 280 Mortensen Avenue.
ATTACHMENTS:
Jet West, Inc. Facility Lease
Jest West, Inc. Facility Lease Addendum NO. 1
ADA Improvement Supporting Documentation
Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. _____________________ (N.C.S.)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE JET WEST, INC.
FACILITY LEASE AGREEMENT AT THE SALINAS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT IN
CONSIDERATION OF RENTAL ABATEMENT FOR AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT
FACILITY TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, in 2009, by way of Resolution No. 19745, City Council approved a facility lease agreement for 280 Mortensen Ave., between the City of Salinas and Jet West, Inc. (Jet West) at the Salinas Municipal Airport; and
WHEREAS, the City of Salinas owns 280 Mortensen Ave. in title; and WHEREAS, Jet West financed long-term tenant improvements to the facility to meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) building standards; and WHEREAS, the improvements were not considered under the original terms of the lease agreement. Jet West has requested reimbursement for said improvements; and WHEREAS, the Airport has established criteria for participating in offsetting costs for tenant improvements if the improvement improves the building versus the operations of the Lessee/tenant, the City agrees to the benefit the improvement provides to the facility, the improvement is permanent versus temporary in nature, and the City agrees to participate in rental abatements; and
WHEREAS, the ADA improvements serve the utility of the facility and not [only] Jet West’s operations; and
WHEREAS, the City is agreeable to participate in offsetting the costs of the improvements provided they were satisfactorily completed and accepted by the Airport Manager, the improvements were contracted in compliance with the State of Californian prevailing wage laws, the project received final approvals from the City of Salinas Building Division, and Lessee provided proof of payment to the contractor; and
WHEREAS, the City agrees to reimburse Jet West 50% (fifty percent) of the contracted improvement value of $14,146.17 at a rate of $1,180.60 per month until the reimbursement is fully satisfied; and
WHEREAS, when the reimbursement is fully satisfied, the monthly rental amount will return to the regularly scheduled monthly payment; and
WHEREAS, at the November 16, 2023, Airport Commission meeting, the Airport Commission recommended that the City Council approve the rental abatement terms between the City of Salinas and Jet West for the ADA facility improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of Salinas that the Mayor of Salinas is hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City of Salinas to execute the attached Addendum No. 1 to the Salinas Municipal Airport Lease Agreement by and between the City of Salinas and Jet West, Inc.; and
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED in consideration for ADA Tenant Improvements made to the facility by the Lessee, the monthly rental amount shall be abated by $1,180.60 per month for a period of 12 months for City of Salinas Customer #208 in connection with the facility lease for 280 Mortensen Avenue.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 5
th day of December 2023 by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
APPROVED:
___________________________
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Patricia Barajas, City Clerk
1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO JET WEST
FACILITY LEASE (280 MORTENSEN AVE.)
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE FACILITY LEASE AGREEMENT
(“Amendment”), made and entered into this 1
st day of January 2024, by and between the City of
Salinas, a California charter city and municipal corporation of the State of California (“Lessor”) and Jet West, Inc., a California Corporation (“Lessee”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2009, by way of Resolution No. 19745, the Lessor and Lessee entered into a Facility Lease (“Lease”) for certain real property (the “Leased Premises”) as more particularly described in the Lease; and
WHEREAS, the Lessee financed long-term tenant improvements to the facility to meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) building standards and desires reimbursement for said improvement; and
WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below, desire to amend the Lease for tenant improvement reimbursements through rental abatement as set forth below; and
WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee desire to enter into this Amendment to memorialize these changes; and
WHEREAS, all terms not expressly defined herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Lease.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, representations, and warranties contained in this Amendment, the parties agree to enter into this transaction based on the following terms and conditions:
1. Rent. In consideration for ADA Tenant Improvements made to the facility by the Lessee, the monthly rental amount shall be abated by $1,180.60 per month for a period of 12 months (or the reimbursement is fully satisfied) in connection with the City of Salinas Customer Account #208 for the facility lease for 280 Mortensen Avenue. Following the exhaustion of the reimbursement, the monthly rental amount will return to the regularly scheduled monthly payment amount.
2. Effective Date. This Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2024.
3. No Further Modifications. Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect without amendment or modification. 2 In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have executed this Lease Amendment to the Facility Lease as of the dates written below.
LESSOR:
CITY OF SALINAS
Dated:
Kimbley Craig, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Dated:
Christopher A. Callihan, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Dated:
Patricia M. Barajas, City Clerk
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
Dated:
Brett J. Godown, Airport Manager
LESSEE:
JET WEST, INC.
Dated:
Ryan Gauger, President
EXHIBIT A
ADA IMPROVEMENTS
;--
!f\,n (II,
r~ , . :·.
SALINAS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
LEASE AGREEMENT . .. ···--1 '" :. ___ ., . .... .. . .... .
This Lease Agreement ("Lease") is entered into by and between the City of Salinas, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "Lessor") and Jet West LLC, a Nevada limited liability company hereinafter referred to as "Lessee").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Lessor owns and operates an airport in the City of Salinas, State of California, commonly lmown and described as Salinas Municipal Airport (hereinafter "Airport"); and
WHEREAS, Lessee desires to lease office and hangar space and aircraft parking areas at the Airport in and adjacent to 280 Mortensen Avenue and 70 Mortensen Avenue; and
WHEREAS, it is mutually agreed that the letting hereunder is upon and subject to the following terms, covenants, conditions, and provisions, and Lessee covenants, as a material part of the consideration of this Lease, to keep,perform, and comply with each and all of said terms, covenants, conditions, and provisions by Lessee to be kept, performed, and complied with, and this Lease is made upon the condition of such performance and compliance.
NOW, THEREFORE, in mutual consideration of the terms, covenants, and conditions contained herein the parties hereby agree as follows:
TERMS
1. Leased Premises. The premises leased to Lessee are herein referred to as the "Leased Premises", are a portion of the Airport, and are more accurately described and shown on the Exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Such Leased Premises include hangar and office space consisting of a 6,400 sq. ft. maintenance hangar, 4,500 sq. ft. of office and classroom space and 1,400 sq. ft. of shop and warehouse space (all as shown on Exhibit A), 144 sq. ft. of terminal building office space ( as shown on Exhibit ID, a City-owned underground fueling facility comprised of two 12,000 gallon fuel storage tanks, one for 10011 and one for Jet A(in the location shown on Exhibit C), and 50,000 sq. ft. of aircraft parking ramp located adjacent to the hangar; office and other spaces described above (as shown on Exhibit D).
2. Use of Leased Premises.
A. Permitted Uses. Lessee hereby leases the Leased Premises for the following purposes:
Salinas Municipal Airport
Jet West FBO Lease
August 27, 2009