Salinas City Council
December 5, 2023

Policy Action H-7: Historic
Resources
Promote tax credits available for historic
preservation through a Mills Act program
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 1, 2016, and unanimously recommended that the City Council establish a Mills Act Program.

On June 28, 2016, the City Council acted on that recommendation and adopted a five-year ordinance for designated historic properties. The Mills act is a California statewide economic incentive program to provide tax breaks for properties that have historic significance so that the owners can utilize the money gained through tax abetment toward the refurbishing and restoration of the historic property. The first two Mills Act tax-savings contracts under this program were approved by the City Council on November 7, 2017 (147 Central Ave. and 15 Los Laureles Ave.), and a third contract was approved by the City Council on September 18, 2018 (301 Main St). The Mills Act Tax program was implemented through an amendment to the City of Salinas chapter 2 Municipal Code Ordinance, which is still in effect, despite the pilot program expired in 2022. The City intends to reinstate the program moving forward.

Appendix A 12
H-7. Historic Resources Provide technical assistance to property owners, and help identify grant and funding
opportunities, when available for preservation
and rehabilitation activities.

The City's historic resource board coordinator is available to provide technical assistance to property owners on matters pertaining to the Mills Act property tax savings as well as other grant sources and financing options available towards preservation and rehabilitation activities. The coordinator contact information is posted on the City's website. The City also contributes to these efforts by conducting policy analysis and being proactive in locating and maintaining a working list of potential financing sources for preservation and rehabilitation activities. The City recently entered into a Purchase and Sales Agreement for two properties in Chinatown which are of historic significance.

One of the properties in on the National Register and the second one is of local historical significance. The City intends to preserve and remodel both of these properties once they formally become under the ownership of the City.

Policy Action H-8: Inclusionary
Housing
Complete update to the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance and nexus study by 2016.

City Council authorized updating the existing 2005 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (No. 2451) along with a nexus study under Action H-8 as part of the 2015-23 Housing Element update. The nexus study was completed in 2016.

Also in 2016, a total of 9 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings, 1 CDBG/Housing Subcommittee meeting and 1 City Council Housing Study Session were held regarding the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance update. The new Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Guidelines were updated and adopted in June of 2017 by the City Council. The updated Housing Inclusionary Ordinance and Guidelines are currently available in the City’s website. The City accomplish this objective and is currently beginning the work to update and make improvements to the existing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The City is projecting to be done with these updates by December of 2023.

Policy Action H-9: Affordable
Housing Development
Continue to promote density bonus,
inclusionary units, and other incentives to
facilitate affordable housing development.

As a tool for developing affordable housing the City of Salinas Housing and Community Development Division staff continuous to promote the State’s Density Bonus Law and the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

For the 5th Housing Element Cycle covering the planning period of December 31, 2015- December 31, 2023, the following six (6) projects produced or are set to produce inclusionary units:
• In 2016, Haciendas Phase IV – Senior Project, also known as Dai-Ichi Village, designated 20% of the project units as inclusionary units. • In 2021, MidPen Housing developed the Moon Gate Plaza Project which constructed eighteen (18) inclusionary low-income rental units within the 90-unit development.
• In 2018, Haciendas Phase III, also known as Hikari Apartments, designated ten (10) units as low‐income rental inclusionary units. • In 2019, KB Home Montebella Subdivision produced seven (7) lowincome single family inclusionary detached ownership units.

Appendix A 13
• In 2019, U4Ric Investments LLC executed an Affordable Housing and Marketing Plan for 11 Hill Circle which will provide 3-6 low-income single family inclusionary detached ownership units. Development is currently under entitlement.
• In 2022, a property at the intersection of Boronda Rd. and Hemmingway Dr. is currently being proposed by Stonebridge Homes Inc. and the development is set to construct 1,053 ownership units and 500 rental units. A portion of these units will be regulated by the 2017 Inclusionary Ordinance. This project could produce both, rental, and ownership, inclusionary units.

For the 5th Housing Element Cycle covering the planning period of December 31, 2015- December 31, 2023, the following projects produced density bonus units:
• In 2018, the 401 Monterey Street Project produced (2) very low-income units density bonus units.
• In 2021, the Sun Rose Apartments, an 11-unit development produced 2 density bonus units. Construction of this development started on mid2021 and it is expected to be completed by Summer 2023. • In 2021, Parkside Manor Phase I and II, which consist of a 160 units included 63 density bonus units. Construction for Phase I (an 100% affordable senior housing project) started in 2021 demolished 48 units and replaced with 80 new housing units. This project obtained a 67% density bonus and 3 concessions. Construction was finalized in December of 2022.
• In 2022, a property at 467-479 E. Market St. is being proposed by Workbench and the development is set to construct 75 units. A portion of these units will be regulated by the Density Bonus Ordinance.

Affordable Housing Plan for the Density Bonus units is currently being finalized.

H-9. Affordable Housing
Development
Encourage developers to assist in site
identification.

The City of Salinas meets periodically with affordable housing developers to assist in identifying suitable sites for affordable housing. Agricultural employers have also maintained regular communication with the City regarding potential workforce housing sites. The Farmworker Housing Oversight Committee and the Housing Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) are two more ways in which the City involves stakeholders in identifying new potential development sites.

In 2020, the City of Salinas Economic Division released a notice categorizing 17 parcels and 12 sites as surplus land in accordance with the California Surplus Land Act. With the notice, the City of Salinas sought proposals that would help implement the City's Downtown Vibrancy Plan, including the development of housing and mixed-use projects as well as a new parking Appendix A 14
garage to serve civic facilities and private development in the area. Included in its Surplus Land Act Designation were several parcels that included actively used City facilities. In 2021, the City received 10 letters of interest and proposal were under consideration. In 2022, the City commenced negotiations related to the selling property located at 128 Salinas St., also known as Lot 10. The parcel is approximately 6,090 square feet and is currently used as a City Permit Parking lot offering a total of 11 parking stalls. In October 2020, the City Council declared this property as surplus.

Also, in 2020, and through the Farmworker Oversight Committee, two GIS Mapping Tools were created. The first map identified opportunities for farmworker housing projects on Monterey County land, but adjacent to City limits. The second map identified opportunity sites for permanent farmworker housing projects within City limits.

H-9. Affordable Housing
Development
Work closely with qualified Community
Housing Development Organizations
(CHDOs) and other nonprofit housing
developers to expand affordable housing
opportunities. Assist in gap-financing and
funding applications for affordable housing.

Housing and Community Development Division staff launched and promoted CHDO certification annually through an online application portal through City Data Services. Staff identified and worked closely with nonprofit housing developers such as Mid Pen Housing, Eden Housing, Housing Authority of the County of Monterey (HACM), the Monterey County Housing, Inc. (MCHI), and Community Housing Improvement Systems and Planning Association, Inc. (CHISPA). The following CHDOs received gap financing for the following projects:
• CHISPA Inc.
o Vista de La Terraza – the City provided over $2.3 Million in gap financing over multiple fiscal years, and it involved the rehabilitation of 40 units. This resulted in the creation of HOME, CDBG and SRA units.
• HACM
o Haciendas Phase I – the City provided $1.7 Million in gap financing for the project, and it involved the construction of a 53 unit apartment complex. This resulted in the creation of HOME and SRA units.
o Haciendas Phase II – the City provided $0.5 Million in gap financing for the project, and it involved the construction of a 46 unit apartment complex. This resulted in the creation of HOME units.
o Haciendas Phase III- Hikari Apartments - the City provided $1.5 Million in gap financing for the project, and it involved the construction of a 50 unit apartment complex. This resulted in the creation of HOME units.
o Haciendas Phase IV - Dai-Ichi Village. the City provided $350,000 in gap financing for the project, and it involved the construction of Appendix A 15
a 41 unit apartment complex. This resulted in the creation of HOME units.
o Parkside Manor – Phase I - the City provided over $2.4 Million in gap financing, and it involved the construction of an 80 unit housing development. This resulted in the creation of HOME and PLHA units.
• MidPen Housing Inc.
o Moon Gate Plaza – the City provided over $2.6 Million in gap financing over multiple fiscal years, and it involved the construction of a 90 unit apartment complex. This resulted in the creation of HOME and HSA units.

Aside from assisting CHDO organizations, the City also assisted other local non-profit developers with gap financing:
• Interim Inc.
o Sun Rose Apartments - the City provided over $1 Million in gap financing, and it resulted in the construction of an 11 unit transitional/permanent housing apartment complex. This resulted in the creation of CDBG units.
o Catalyst Apartments Project – The City provided $500,000 in gap financing and it resulted in the rehabilitation a 5-unit apartment complex. This resulted in the creation of CDBG units.

H-9. Affordable Housing
Development
Prioritize funding allocation to affordable
housing projects that include units affordable
to extremely low-income households.

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC), Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program, Homekey Program, American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), Housing Production Fund (General Funds) and Housing Successor Agency (HSA) Funds are among the federal, state, and local funds that the City of Salinas Housing and Community Development Division staff prioritizes for affordable housing projects. This division outlines and prioritizes the use of these funds through the Housing and Land Use Committee, a subcommittee of the City Council. The City then incorporates the City Council's directives into a competitive NOFA process.

Annually, through a NOFA, the City makes HUD CDBG and HOME funding available for affordable housing projects. For the 5th Housing Element Cycle covering the planning period of December 31, 2015- December 31, 2023, the following housing projects included units affordable to extremely low-income Appendix A 16
households and received financing through one of the above-mentioned funding sources:
• In 2016, Haciendas Phase IV – Seniors, it included units for extremely low-income seniors.
• In 2020, the Moon Gate Plaza Apartments, an affordable housing development was completed, and it included 46 extremely low‐income, 19 at below 40% local area median income (AMI), 23 at below 60% AMI and 2 at market rate units.
• In 2020 the Catalyst Apartments, a rehabilitation project that included 5-units for low and extremely low-income individuals with mental health conditions.
• In 2020 the Sun Rose Apartments, an 11-unit construction, received funding from the City for individuals with mental health conditions who have very low incomes and who were homeless, chronically homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless. Nine of the project's units will provide permanent supportive housing. Additionally, one 8-bedroom unit will be a transitional housing unit and it will house very low-income individuals.
• Between 2021 – 2022, the City acquired three Homekey projects now known as: Step Up on Fairview, Step Up on Sanborn, and Step Up in Salinas. These three permanent supportive housing projects will create 202 units of permanent supportive housing for very low-income individuals who are homeless, chronically homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless.

H-9. Affordable Housing
Development
Continue to seek unique partnerships and
regularly meet with other agencies and
housing developers to discuss opportunities
for providing affordable housing and
improving community and neighborhood
conditions.

The Community Development Department staff, particularly the Director and Planning Manager, maintain a regional collaboration in support of the creation and preservation of affordable housing. Although the City of Salinas has its own policies and procedures to support the development of affordable housing and carry out housing assistance programs and activities at the local level, having a working group or consortium of regional stakeholders that meets regularly to share ideas and discuss housing strategies facilitates the identification of shared resources and responsibilities. The regional entities, working groups or committees that City staff regularly interacts and coordinates with as it relates to housing and community development initiatives include:
• City of Salinas Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
• Health In All Policies (HIAP) of Monterey County
• The Housing Pipeline
• Continuum of Care of Monterey County (CoC)
Appendix A 17
• Monterey Bay Economic Partnerships (MBEP) Housing Working Group and Farmworker Oversight Committee.
• Alisal Unified School District (AUSD) - On August 15, 2017, Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA) with the Alisal Unified School District (AUSD) to develop a Childcare Facility at 1081 Buckhorn Drive for the District’s Early Childhood (preschool) and Day Care Programs. • The County of Monterey (On September 27, 2017, Monterey County approved a "Memorandum of Understanding on Homeless Shelter Strategies).
• Coalition of Homeless Service Providers’ Housing Pipeline/Funding Action Team and Leadership Council
• Regional CDBG Coordinators Meetings
• Shangri-La Industries and Step Up Meetings (Homekey Projects) H-9. Affordable Housing
Development
Participate in regional/multi-jurisdictional
agreements and activities to facilitate housing
development in the region.

Multijurisdictional agreements / activities to facilitate housing in the region • Monterey Bay Economic Partnership’s (MBEP) Housing Work Group, which was created in 2015 to expand housing in the tri-county region. • MBEP announced a Housing Initiative in February 2016 that includes support to workforce housing development and creation of a Housing Trust Fund to support the development of affordable housing. • Farmworker Housing Study and Action Plan
• Bi-monthly meetings with the Community Foundation of Monterey County where leaders from Monterey County, including city managers, key city staff, non-profit institutions and the Community Foundation have met to create solutions to alleviate conditions in Chinatown, including housing and resources.
• Community Development staff continues to work with the Alisal Union School District working group regarding the Early Childhood Development Center located at 1081 Buckhorn Drive. Community Development staff accomplish the DDLA and Funding Agreement in August of 2022. The project is expected to be completed by Mid-2025. • In 2019, the City of Salinas continue to be the Administrative Entity for State HCD ESG and CESH on behalf of the Continuum of Care. • Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Monterey County for the development and operation of the year-round navigation center completed in May of 2021 and known as the SHARE Center, which could house up to 100 homeless individuals.

Additionally, the City and the County are collaborating in a future permanent housing project at 855 E. Laurel. In 2021, the City and County were jointly collaborating in the crafting of a Request for Qualifications, which was released in 2022. In October of 2022, Eden Housing was selected as the developer for the project. The City and Appendix A 18
Eden will enter into a predevelopment ARPA Grant Amendment in April of 2023.
• Alisal MOU was executed on November 2022 between the City and County in relation to the ANRSA with a focus on the following 3 activities: 1) master planning the development of City and County owned property, with a primary focus on affordable housing, 2) establishing a trail network connecting City and County facilities and amenities, and 3) the expansion of health and mental health services in the Alisal. This collaboration is assisting in the implementation of strategies to assist in the housing and community development needs of our City.
• Alisal MOU was executed on November 2022 between the City and the County of Monterey in relation to the ANRSA with a focus on the following 3 activities: 1) master planning the development of City and County owned property, with a primary focus on affordable housing, 2) establishing a trail network connecting City and County facilities and amenities, and 3) the expansion of health and mental health services in the Alisal. This collaboration is assisting in the implementation of strategies to assist in the housing and community development needs of our City.

H-9. Affordable Housing
Development
Monitor the State Department of Housing and
Community Development's Notices of
Funding Availability (NOFA) and, where
appropriate, prepare or support applications
for funding for affordable housing for the lower
income households (especially those with
extremely low incomes), farmworkers,
persons with disabilities, (including those with
developmental disabilities), seniors, elderly,
large households, and the homeless.

The City of Salinas Housing and Community Development Division staff are subscribed to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) mailing list and HCDs Notice of Funding Availability Calendar (PDF) which shows targeted release dates for draft guidelines, NOFAs, and awards.

For the fifth Housing Element Cycle covering the planning period of December 31, 2015- December 31, 2023, the following list represents projects and grants where City staff prepared competitive and non-competitive funding applications for the predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households:
• In 2018 , the City applied to HCD for the Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG) and was awarded $298,831.
• In 2018, the City applied for HCD California Emergency Solutions and Housing (CESH) Program and was awarded $1,027,285. The CESH Program provided funds for a variety of activities to assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
• In 2019, the City applied to HCD for ESG Program Funds and was awarded $280,598.
• In 2019 the City applied for CESH program funds and was awarded $562,293.

Appendix A 19
• In 2020 the City applied to HCD for ESG Program Funds and was awarded $242,240.
• In 2020, the City applied for ESG-CV first round and was awarded $857,100. Later in the year the City applied for a second round of funding and was awarded an additional $3,215,000.
• In 2020, the City applied for CESH program and was awarded $562,293.
• In 2020, the City applied to HCD for Project Homekey Program funds and was awarded $9,223,536 for the Step Up in Salinas Project. • In 2020, the City applied to HCD for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program funding and was awarded $1,006,841. • In 2020, the City applied to Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) program Funding through the Monterey/San Benito County Continuum of Care (COC / CA-506) and was awarded $772,815.
• In 2021, the City received the below totals through the following NOFAs:
o The City applied to HCD for the 2021 ESG Program with a projected award of $258,964.
o In October 2021, the City secured $1,796,632 in funding from the California Department of Social Services for phase 3 of Project Roomkey.
o In October 2021, the City received additional ERAP-Round 2 funds in the amount of $10,000,000 to continue to assist recipients in the City of Salinas with rental and utility assistance.
• In December of 2021, the City in collaboration with Shangri La and Step Up submitted two proposals to HCD for funding from HomekeyRound 2 funding. On February 16, 2022, HCD notified the City of a successful award of $29.5 million for Step in Fairview and Step Up in Sanborn projects.
• On November 3, 2022, and following the issuance of an expenditure deadline extension to September 30, 2023, HCD advised the City that it was identified as one of few jurisdictions identified to receive an additional $150,000 in CoC ESG-CV funding specific to the provision of rapid rehousing activities and supports. The City submitted a substantial amendment to HCD requesting this funding.
• In October 2022, the City applied for the 3rd year of Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program from HCD. It is expected that the city will be awarded $1,722,182.

H-9. Affordable Housing
Development
Continue current efforts to streamline and
improve efficiencies in planning and permit
approval and building inspection service.

In FY 2017-18, the Community Development Department (CDD) developed an action plan to address inconsistencies in the building plan submittal and review process using a Kaizen driven process (a strategy where employees at all Appendix A 20
Continue City staff support to affordable
housing developers through the entitlements
and development process.
levels of a company work together to achieve regular, incremental improvements to a process). The new 37-task action plan's objectives were to reduce handoffs between departments and divisions, increase communications, eliminate under- and over-processing, develop new standard operating procedures and shift staff from being reactive to proactive. In 2019 staff updated the City Council on the implementation of the Action Plan, completing twenty-three (23) tasks and making substantial progress on thirteen (13) of them.

The City’s Housing and Community Development Division staff provides technical assistance to prospective developers proposing to provide affordable housing. Housing Division staff performs NEPA reviews in hardcopy and in HUD Environmental Review Online System (HEROS) when there is Federal funding in the project. Reviews include Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) consultations, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) consultations, and reviews of the Affordable Housing Plans required for those projects seeking approval for affordable housing units which are subject to the Housing Inclusionary Ordinance. 100% Affordable Housing Projects are excepted from the Housing Inclusionary Ordinance.

H-9. Affordable Housing
Development
Expand the City’s affordable housing
inventory by a minimum of 700 units (50
extremely low, 100 very low, 150 low, and 400
moderate income units) by 2023.

The City of Salinas expanded its local affordable housing stock and achieved the production of 1,261 new units between 2015 and 2022. Below is a breakdown of the production per income category:
• Extremely low: 202
• Very low: 225
• Low: 98
• Moderate: 10
• Above moderate: 928
Appendix A 21
H-9. Affordable Housing
Development
Coordinate with the City’s Public Works
Department, MST, and TAMC to better align
the development of high-quality transit and
future housing.

The City participates in the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments’ (AMBAG) implementation of its 2040 Metropolitan Transportation and Sustainable Communities Strategy aimed at making it possible for infill development to become a reality in high quality transit corridors. The City’s Advanced Planning Division has coordinated with the City’s Public Works Division, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), MontereySalinas Transit (MST), and AMBAG to ensure coordinated planning processes.

Projects that have derived form that coordination during the 5th Housing Element Cycle include:
• Downtown Complete Streets Project
• East Alisal Corridor Plan
• Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) and extension of rail service • Rezoning 6 city owned sites from public/semipublic or commercial retail to mixed use and expand the Downton Core Area Overlay District to include the Intermodal Transportation Center
• Updating local place type/land use mapping and distributing jobs/housing projections through their Transportation Analysis Zones (2022). This study is focused on promoting Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and multimodal improvements in four study areas in the County of Monterey (The report will provide a high-level summary of TOD opportunities and constraints for each of the study areas).
• MST led comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) which was used to develop the Better Bus Network (the analysis made
recommendations to change route alignment and bus stops to provide a wider geographic coverage and increase service frequencies on high ridership lines). The analysis resulted in the City installing new bus zones and landings for the new Better Bus Network stops (2022). • The Alisal Streetscape Masterplan request for proposals (2022). • MST implemented free transit service during weekends in Salinas to further increase the usage of public transportation.
• Safe Routes to School Program
• Regional Development Impact Fee Program and Expenditure Plan (supporting major road projects near Salinas including the Davis Road widening (bike lanes) and capacity improvements on the US 101 corridor
• Downtown Parking Program
• The development of the platform project to bring Cal Train passenger rail service to Salinas (Joint planning efforts between City of Salinas Current Planning and TAMC).

Appendix A 22
H-9. Affordable Housing
Development
Coordinate with the City’s Public Works
Department, Transportation Agency of
Monterey County (TAMC), and MST to target
funding for public, transit, bike, and pedestrian
infrastructure investment for the development
of high-quality transit corridors in order to
leverage new Cap and Trade Affordable
Housing funding.

The City of Salinas staff continuously collaborates with transportation professionals like the Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC), Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) and community stakeholders to achieve sustainable transportation. For the fifth cycle of the Housing Element the following projects leveraged cap and trade funding towards Integrated Housing, Land Use, and Transportation Planning.
• In 2016 the City in partnership with the local government Commission and Building Healthy Communities was awarded a $260,782 Caltrans Sustainable Community Transportation Grant (SCTG) which the City allocated towards the East Alisal Corridor Plan. Additionally In 2016 the City continued to partner with The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) on the plan to redevelop the area surrounding the existing Amtrak station into an Intermodal Transportation Center and Transit Oriented Development (TOD). • In 2017, the City of Salinas Public Works Department staff developed plans and specifications for the Downtown Complete Streets Project which provides improvements on West Alisal Street from Blanco Road to Front Street. Complete streets refer to the approach to streets design that considers all street users.
• In 2018, MST implemented free transit service during weekends in Salinas to further increase the usage of public transportation. • In 2018, the City Council adopted the Regional Development Impact Fee Program (that collects impact fees from development projects to address the traffic impacts on the City’s transportation network) and the new Expenditure Plan which includes major road projects near Salinas including the Davis Road widening (bike lanes), widening the US 101 corridor through Salinas, and improvements on the US 101 or SR 68 corridors—roads needed for regional travel. These projects will help address traffic concerns associated with the development of housing projects.
• In 2019, Measure X funds in the amount of $168,978 were leveraged to secure $954,502 Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant focused on Salinas routes to schools. Under the grant, TAMC partnered with the Monterey County Health Department, Ecology Action, and City to develop the Salinas Safe Routes to School Plan (“Salinas SRTS Plan”).
• In 2020, the City has initiated re-zoning of the property and has also submitted proposals for technical assistance to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grant for potential development. • In February 2020, the City was awarded $310,000 of State SB2 Planning Grant and between 2020 and 2021, the City worked with Appendix A 23
property owners to change the zoning in four underutilized areas of the City to increase its development capacity.
• In 2022 TAMC completed Package 1 improvements that include the extension of Lincoln Avenue into the Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) and parking lot improvements including, circulation, bus stalls, lighting, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities such as bike racks, bus shelters and benches. Improvements are to support the ITC as a transit facility that would serve as a stop for train service to locations outside of the region, as well as regional bus service. The property was transferred to the City in December 2022.

H-9. Affordable Housing
Development
Review Zoning Code and revise as necessary
to promote alternative housing solutions (e.g.,
transit-oriented development, SRO, small
houses, co-housing/co-living, etc.).

The City of Salinas has adopted comprehensive rezoning and land use strategies as necessary to allow for a variety of housing types including multifamily rental housing, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing projects.

Starting in 2016 the City of Salinas amended provisions of Chapter 37 of the Salinas Municipal Code allowing for an increase of the maximum size of a single room occupancy from 350 to 500 square-feet, as per state regulation Section 10325(g) (A) through (L). Single-room occupancy units diversify affordable housing stock and can serve as an entry point into the housing market for people who previously experienced homelessness.

As it relates to the streamlining of ADUs, Senate Bill 1069 went into effect in 2017. It recognizes ADUs as a crucial part of California's housing supply and permits their development on single-family or multifamily residential zones with ministerial approval. To reflect the changes in the State's accessory dwelling unit laws, the city modified its Zoning Code (ZCA 2016-1) with City Council approving the ordinance on December 13, 2016. In addition, in March of 2019, the City Council voted unanimously to adopt an ordinance to exempt Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) from development impact fees for a five-year period.

Using a LEAP grant, the City finalized and made available for use a set of preapproved detached ADU plans in July of 2022 to encourage ADU construction and streamline the development process. These pre-approved ADU plans were Appendix A 24
updated in early 2023 to reflect the last updates to the building and energy codes.

As it relates to vacant and underutilized sites the City of Salinas has been proactive in repurposing it for housing. Recognizing that the adaptive reuse of structure can both revitalize the City’s downtown core and downtown neighborhood are while addressing the regions housing shortage in 2018, the City established an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance that would allow for the change of use of underutilized buildings into housing. Since the adaptive reuse ordinance was implemented, a mixed-use project with 19 units on 300 Main St. and a project with 49 units on 301 Main St. were both completed. In addition, in 2019 the City authorized a site plan for the adaptive reuse conversion of 123 W. Alisal St. into 40 apartments and some commercial space on the ground floor.

In 2020, the City was awarded $310,000 of State SB2 Planning Grant to change the zoning in underutilized areas of the City to increase its development capacity. The City employed the funding to change the land use and zoning designation of six (6) sites in the Salinas Central City (CC) Overlay District from Public/Semipublic (PS)/Commercial Retail (CR) to Mixed Use (MX) and to expand the Downtown Core Area (DC) Overlay to include the Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) site. Selected sites include four (4) downtown City- owned parking lots, the City’s Permit Center, and adjacent parking garage (Permit Center and Parking Garage site), and portions of the City’s Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC). The proposed Amendments would affect 10.4 acres and could facilitate the development of up to approximately 500 housing units. In addition, on November 16, 2021, the City approved a Professional Service Agreement with Precision Civil Engineering, Inc (Precision) to prepare Amendments and associated environmental documents for opportunity sites including Alisal Marketplace, Large Shopping Centers and Edge of Downtown/ Soledad and John Street. Precision is currently working on preparing the technical and environmental documents for Amendments for the opportunity sites listed below. Proposed Amendments will change designated land use and zoning to the “Mixed Use” from their current base districts.

As it relates to the City’s General Plan Update ( Visión Salinas 2040) in its new Land Use Element the City is shifting away from strict use-based classifications to Place Types. These Place Types will encourage more housing opportunities and a variety of units. Even the lowest density Place Type (Traditional Neighborhood) would encourage different kinds of single- and small-scale multi-family units (detached homes, small-lot homes, ADUs, duplexes, and bungalow courts).

Appendix A 25
As it relates to employee housing, in 2019 several zoning code amendments were approved by the City allowing for the temporary use of hotels and motels for workforce and interim housing with a Temporary Use of Land Permit (TULP), employee housing for up to 14 employees in low and medium density residential zones with an approved Conditional Use Permit (ZCA 2019-002) and residential uses to be located in the Public/Semipublic (PS) District with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (ZCA 2019-003).

Policy Action H.10: Rental
Assistance
Refer people seeking information about the
Housing Choice Voucher program to HACM.

The Housing and Community Development Staff continue to refer individuals seeking information about the Housing Choice Voucher to the Housing Authority of Monterey County (HACM). The waiting list for the Housing Choice Voucher program is currently. When the waiting list opens again, the Housing Authority will announce that in the local newspapers.

H.10. Rental Assistance Collaborate with HACM to promote program to property owners to increase participation of
rental properties in the program and expand
locational choices for voucher recipients.

To increase rental opportunities for voucher recipients, the City works with the HACM to inform landlords on the benefits of the voucher program, making the program more attractive and feasible. The City has used engagement tools such as landlord workshops and flyer distribution. Furthermore, the City recently changed its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which now allows developers to pay a rental impact fee and make 12% of the units available to the Section 8 Voucher Program.

H.10. Rental Assistance Support HACM’s petition to HUD for increased Section 8 funding as requested.

The City has worked with HACM to increase the number of project-based Section 8 Vouchers. In 2017, HACM increased its project-based vouchers from 42 to 53 through the Moon Gate Plaza Project. In 2020 HACM increased their project-based Section 8 Vouchers by 160 units through the Parkside Manor Phase 1 and Phase 2 Projects. That same year, the Step Up in Salinas Project secured 85 Project Based Vouchers (PBVs) (formerly known as the Good Nite Inn). HUD is currently reviewing this project before approving the disbursement of the 85 PBVs for the next 25 years.

H.10. Rental Assistance Work with stakeholders to consider adoption of a City ordinance that prohibits housing
discrimination based on a tenant’s source of
income, specifically Housing Choice
Vouchers (Section 8). Continue to support the
Housing Authority of Monterey County’s
efforts to educate landlords about the Section
8 program.

Since 2017, the City has contracted with Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) to provide fair housing education and counseling services, as well as tenant landlord services, to ensure that all residents of the City have equitable access to housing. Additionally, the City has contracted with Legal Services for Seniors who support and educate landlords regarding the Housing Choice Voucher Program. To further this effort, the City participated in a regional effort between the County of Monterey - Urban County, the City of Monterey, the City of Seaside, and the County and HACM to study fair housing impediments through the 2020-2025 Assessment of Fair Housing process required by the US Department of Urban Development (HUD).The City is developing a more robust fair housing program to continue supporting the HACM’s efforts to educate landlords on the benefits of the housing voucher program as well as well to engage possible section 8 recipients, primarily Appendix A 26
through strategies such as the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The City of Salinas Outreach & Response Team (SORT), and a five-year Limited-Term Community Development Analyst. The role of this new staff person is to act as a liaison between residents and landlords, and service providers.

Policy Action H-11: Homebuyer
Resources

Refer information about the CalFHA
homebuyer assistance programs as
requested.

On a case-by-case basis, City staff continued to refer Salinas residents to CalFHA’s first time homebuyer's programs like First Mortgage Programs and Down Payment Assistance Programs. The City also assists homebuyers through the Inclusionary Housing and Density Bonus programs.

H-11. Homebuyer Resources Promote CalFHA programs to local loan officers to increase participation in these
programs.

The City continuous to reach out to local realtors and loan officers in order to familiarize them with the loan programs offered by CalHFA, as well as their various requirements, options, and benefits. In 2017-2019 the city worked with Century Communities and KB Homes (Developers) with regard to Tierra at Monte Bella (Phase 5A and 5B) an 85-unit subdivision in which the Developer provided seventeen (17) low-income inclusionary ownership units, some of which inclusionary applicants obtained CalHFA financing to help cover their down payment and/or closing costs.

H-11. Homebuyer Resources Work with the Housing Resource Center or other agencies in annual monitoring to ensure
the homebuyer education program(s) meet
CalFHA requirements.

City staff continued to refer homebuyers to the Housing Resource Centers and California Housing Finance Agency's (Cal HFA) on-line homebuyer education programs. For the Tierra at Monte Bella development, the City worked with the Housing Resource Center to offer homebuyer education for all 17 households that got a chance to own an inclusionary ownership unit.

H-11. Homebuyer Resources Continue to support first-time homebuyer education and foreclosure prevention
services.

For eviction and foreclosure prevention counseling and services, the City has referred residents to the California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) and Legal Services for Seniors. Additionally, the City contracts with ECHO Housing, a HUD-approved Housing Counseling Agency to provide rental assistance programs, first time homebuyers counseling, homebuyer education as well as informational resources related to loss mitigation.

Appendix A 27
Policy Action H-12: Housing for
Persons with Disabilities
Complete the ADA Transition Plan in 2020
and annually identify funding for public
improvements through Capital Improvement
Planning.

The City of Salinas is committed to ensuring access to City Programs, activities, and services for all regardless of their abilities. With this objective in mind, City staff worked with the ADA advisory committee and outside experts (Sally Swanson Architects) to develop an ADA Transition Plan as required and prescribed by the ADA Act to prioritize future efforts to ensure adequate access exists in the city. The ADA Advisory Committee worked diligently to identify the eight highest priority city parks and seven highest priority City buildings for ADA retrofits.

On July 22, 2021, the City made the final draft of the ADA Transition Plan available to the public for a 30-day public review period. On August 23, 2021, the City did not receive any public comments on the final draft ADA Transition Plan. The City Council adopted a resolution accepting the ADA Transition Plan on September 21, 2021. Also, the City has given priority to public improvements like bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure through capital improvements plans (CIP), the tool used by local governments to outline their capital expenditures and assign with funding.

H-12. Housing for Persons with
Disabilities
Establish a formal reasonable
accommodation procedure by the end of
2015, whereby certain requests could be
reviewed and approved administratively
without a variance or a public hearing.

The City Council adopted the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance on September 01, 2015. This ordinance added Section 17.21 to the Municipal Code. The addition to the Municipal Code provides a procedure to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies, and procedures. Additionally, a request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, their representative, or any entity (such as a developer or provider of housing for individuals with disabilities), when the application of a zoning law or other land use regulation, policy or practice acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities.

The request may be made in a form provided by the City.

H-12. Housing for Persons with
Disabilities
Through the annual planning process of the
CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds, evaluate and
allocate funding for supportive services and
housing for persons with disabilities.

Through the Annual Action Plan process and guided by local strategic planning documents the City evaluates the CDBG, HOME, and ESG program funds projected allocation and assesses their affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions in order to make data-driven, placebased investment decisions. After that, funding allocations are prioritized and reserved for projects and activities according to how well they align with the City’s key strategic objectives. The City Council then determines and consents to the final allocation of funds for the Annual Action Plan. Additionally, the City streamlines state and local funding resources through an annual City NOFA where it evaluates proposals for affordable housing, acquisition, rehabilitation, and supportive services.

Appendix A 28
The City has consistently allocated funding to community organizations or Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) that offer supportive services or produce housing for people with disabilities through projects like:
• Bay Area Community Services
• The Salinas Street Outreach Program
• Housing Accessibility Assistance (HAA) Grants for low‐income homeowners with approved disabilities within city limits • Central Coast Center for Independent Living’s Housing Access Project • Interim Inc.’s McHOME Program
• Alliance on Aging (Local)
• Meals on Wheels
• Legal Services for Seniors
• The City provided FY 2019-20 CDBG Funding to Interim Inc. for the rehabilitation of the Catalyst Apartments Project and for the development of Sun Rose Apartments Project, a new 11-unit project for adults with mental illnesses.
• In 2021, the City also awarded the Parkside Manor - Phase I, an 80-unit senior housing project, HOME and PLHA funding along with a Fee Deferral for the development impact fees.
• In 2021, Bay Area Community Services received FY 2021-22 HUD ESG funding in the amount of $80,684 for the operations and rapid re-housing activities at the SHARE Center. Additionally, it earned $86,521 from HUD and ESG for efforts including rapid re-housing in FY 2022–23.

Policy Action H-13: Housing for
Local Workforce
Annually, outreach to large employers to
discuss the housing needs of their employees
and participate in a regional partnership for
agricultural employers to contribute to
farmworker housing.

The City, and its partners, hosted a regional forum to address the housing needs of the agricultural workforce. The City also co-sponsored the regional Farmworker Housing Oversight Committee in collaboration with the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) to convene quarterly with jurisdictions, industry stakeholders, community groups, and nonprofit developers from across the Pajaro Valley region to advance employee-housing initiatives.

Additionally, the City developed a property owner working group to inform and support a code amendment that allows for the temporary conversion of hotels and motels for employees, including agricultural workers (H2-A workers).

Lastly, the City finalized a Farmworker Housing Study and Action Plan in June 2018, and quarterly meetings have been happening since then to support the implementation efforts with support from the agricultural industry representatives.

Appendix A 29
H-13. Housing for Local
Workforce
Assist in identifying potential funding sources
for employee housing.

The Farmworker Housing Oversight Committee (FHOC) actively track federal, state, and local notices of funding availability. A Farmworker Housing Finance subcommittee was developed in 2020 to pursue funding opportunities, and address barriers. In 2021, the City was awarded PLHA funds in the amount of $1.5 million to finance the production of multi-family affordable housing for households at 60% AMI. The City and FHOC are actively engaging non-profit developers to pursue funding under the Joe Serna Jr. Program (California’s mainstay program for financing the new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of year-round rental and owner-occupied housing for qualified agricultural workers and, to a lesser extent, housing for migrant, seasonal workers, with a priority for lower-income households).

H-13. Housing for Local
Workforce
Periodically review City codes and regulations
to promote alternative housing types that may
be appropriate for accommodating seasonal
farmworkers and laborers, including motel
conversions to SRO housing.

Zoning Code Amendment 2022-001 (ZCA 2022-001) amended the Salinas Zoning Code in 2022 to allow hotels/motels in certain zoning districts to operate as extended stay uses with occupancy up to ten (10) months in a year through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City has approved 5 CUP’s consequent to this amendment and there many other motels/hotels in the process of getting their CUPs approved.

H-13. Housing for Local
Workforce
As funding permits, assist in gap-financing of
employee housing that benefits lower income
households.

In 2017 the City Council approved a resolution that allocated $500,000 over three years towards The Monterey Bay Housing Trust Fund (MBHT) a revolving loan fund sponsored by the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) and Housing Trust Silicon Valley. The goal of this fund is to increase the supply of affordable housing for low-income households while it can also be used for employee housing. MBHT loans can finance acquisition, pre-development, or construction of affordable housing in the Monterey Bay Region, inclusive of Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey counties.

Later, in 2020, and wanting to have more local control and provide long term financing for affordable housing projects, the City pursued and received Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding and designated a percentage of the funds toward the establishment of a local housing trust fund that will enable the City to provide construction loans and/or permanent financing loans for payment of predevelopment costs, acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation associated with affordable rental housing projects.

Additionally, the city allocated a separate sum from the PLHA funds for gap financing that can help support projects for multifamily and employee housing.

Additionally, the City also continues to seek partnerships with affordable housing developers focused on providing affordable housing for our agricultural workforce, especially through the Joe Serna Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant.

Appendix A 30
H-13. Housing for Local
Workforce
Review the Zoning Code to explore potential
update to standards for employee (i.e.,
farmworker) housing.

The City of Salinas reviewed its Zoning Code from 2018–219 to investigate potential updates to better regulate the City's land use in response to employers using single family homes in residential neighborhoods as well as motels for workforce housing, which had the unsustainable effect of displacing long-term residents. In 2019 the City updated its zoning code to allow for the temporary use of hotels and motels for employee housing with a Temporary Use of Land Permit (TULP) employee housing of up to 14 employees with an approved Conditional Use Permit in some residential zones.

In 2021, the Zoning Code was revised again to allow hotels/motels in certain zoning districts to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to fully operate as an Extended Stay with occupancy up to 10 months in a year. Allowing the use of hotels and motels as extended stay units provides additional short-term housing opportunities.

H-13. Housing for Local
Workforce
Continue to consult with affordable housing
developers to identify any additional sites,
which may be considered appropriate for
affordable housing development.

The City has continued to consult with affordable housing developers to identify new sites for potential new affordable housing projects. Below are relevant updates for this objective:
• The City owns seven parcels of land along Division Street that are designated as Surplus Land.
• The City also owns 17 parcels of land on or near Lincoln Avenue in Downtown Salinas that are designated as Surplus Land. In 2021, the City received ten responses from different entities and is in the process of negotiating the sale/transfer/ lease of these properties. • Through the Farmworker Housing Study and Action Plan Committee, the City finalized a map that identifies potential parcels within city limits for permanent employee housing projects.
• The City and County updated a Memorandum of Understanding establishing a collaborative process for identifying an affordable housing developer to build a very-low and low-income multi-family rental housing project and associated amenities on County-owned property at 855 E. Laurel Drive. City staff drafted a RFQ seeking a developer that will be released early 2022. In October 2022, the City and County selected Eden Housing as the preferred developer. Project is currently under development with a projected completion of 2025 for the 1st phase of the project. The project will be composed of two phases.
• Using SB2 grant funding, the City entered into a professional service agreement with a planning and environmental consultant to prepare the required zoning amendment and environmental documents to rezone 1 Preston Street from medium density residential to high Appendix A 31
density residential. The City has had conversations with a developer proposing to construct permanent supportive housing at this site.

H-13. Housing for Local
Workforce
Contribute a share of funding to participate in
and conduct a special countywide study that
requires a scientific community survey and/or
a survey of agricultural employers in the
County to further define housing needs of
farm labor workforce, financing constraints
and opportunities, and best practices by the
end of 2016. Based on the outcomes of the
study, develop appropriate
programs/strategies to address the housing
needs of farmworkers.

The Farmworker Housing Study and Action Plan for the Salinas Valley and Pajaro Valley was finalized in June of 2018. The Oversight Committee for the Farmworker Housing Action Plan has meet quarterly since the plan was finalized to plan and discuss affordable employee housing developments and guide regional collaboration. The AmeriCorps Housing VISTA Volunteer, City staff, MBEP staff, County staff among other regional partners attend the quarterly meetings to participate in the implementation efforts of this plan.

Policy Action H-14: Continuum
of Care for the Homeless
Continue support for inclement warming
shelter during the winter months in FY 2015-
16 and subsequent years if funding permits.

An MOU with the County allowed for operations of a Winter Warming Shelter in Salinas. The warming shelter was closed when the City and County collaborated to open a permanent navigation center known as the SHARE Center that serves up to 100 residents experiencing homelessness. Bay Area Community Services (BACS) has been operating the SHARE Center since May of 2021 with joint funding from the City and County. The Chinatown Navigation Center (CNC) and Sprung Shelter was also put in operations during the Covid19 Pandemic and can house up to 66 residents experiencing homelessness.

H-14. Continuum of Care for
the Homeless
Complete the renovation of 10 Soledad into a
homeless sanitation facility by 2017.

The proposal for the homeless sanitation facility was moved from 10 Soledad St. to a property on E. Lake Street. The facility was operated under the name of Chinatown Health Services Center (115-119 E. Lake St.) and provided services like restrooms and showers thanks to Measure G funds. Upon further reconsideration, the building on 10 &12 Soledad Street was demolished due to its hazardous conditions. This parcel is currently utilized by City employees and clients as parking for the nearby Chinatown Navigation Center and the City office within the Moon Gate Plaza development.

H-14. Continuum of Care for
the Homeless
Support rehabilitation of 113-115 East Lake
Street for the CSUMB Learning Center and
health center.

The rehabilitation of the Chinatown Health Services located at 115-119 E Lake Street was completed and operated by Franciscan Workers of Junipero Serra.

After the operator closed in July 2019, the facility was rehabilitated and reopened in December 2020 as the Chinatown Navigation Center and is currently operated by Community Homeless Solutions (CHS). The building upgrades consisted of an ADA shower, three (3) standard showers, men and women restrooms, and flooring improvements. The CNC is open 24/7 and with a Sprung Structure next to the original and existing building, it has 51-bed capacity and five trailers with a capacity of 15 beds for a maximum capacity of Appendix A 32
66 residents at the site. Hygiene services (restrooms and showers are also available). Electrical upgrade and sewer connection to the existing infrastructure will begin in 2023 to install a six-station portable shower trailer unit.

H-14. Continuum of Care for
the Homeless
Through the annual planning process of the
CDBG, HOME, and ESG funds, evaluate and
allocate funding for services and facilities for
the homeless and at-risk homeless to
implement the Continuum of Care.

The City annually awards entitlement (CDBG, HOME, and ESG) funds to nonprofit partners who work directly with homeless and at-risk individuals and households. Funding for services was awarded to the following projects and organizations:
• CDBG funds for improvements to the City’s Chinatown Navigation Center.
• ESG funds for street outreach, homeless prevention, rapid re-housing, HMIS, shelter operations, employment opportunities, and permanent supportive housing.
• Emergency Rental Assistance Program Funds (ERAP) funds for rental and utility assistance
• CDBG funds to the Methodist Church Neighborhood Services Program to renovate the kitchen and laundry room serving 150 homeless individuals daily
• CDBG funds to the Franciscan Workers of Junipero Serra’s Dorothy’s Place Hospitality Center emergency shelter facility in the Salinas’ Chinatown neighborhood.
• ESG funds to the Downtown Streets Team for employment and cleanup efforts in Chinatown and Downtown.
• Central Coast Center for Independent Living (CCCIL)
• Housing Resource Center (HRC)
• Interim Inc.
• Community Homeless Solutions
H-14. Continuum of Care for
the Homeless
Continue participation in CHSP and expand
regional collaboration, especially Monterey
County, to explore the feasibility of Social
Investment bonds and joint
development/funding of facilities and
services.

The City accepted the regional responsibility of administering State, nonentitlement, Emergency Services Grants (ESG) funds for San Benito and Monterey Counties in the amount of $600,878. ESG funding allowed the City to implement a variety of instrumental programs like street outreach, emergency shelter, and rapid re-housing to expand affordable housing, homelessness prevention services, and establish partnerships with public service organizations to address the needs of low-income, elderly, and special needs communities.

On September 26, 2017, a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Salinas, Monterey County, and the Continuum of Care (CoC) was executed Appendix A 33
to implement Homeless Shelter Strategies. This partnership resulted in shared cost of a warming shelter and the development of a permanent year-round shelter known as the SHARE Center located at 845 E. Laurel Drive. The SHARE Center facility was completed in May 2021 and is currently being operated by Bay Area Community Services (BACS). The City continues to collaborate with CHSP and CoC in a variety of projects for housing facilities and services.

In 2022, the City partnered with the Coalition of Homeless Service Providers for the Encampment Resolution Funds and was awarded $4.1 million to provide street outreach, case management, housing navigation, rapid rehousing, and interim/permanent housing options to a priority encampment on the Gabilan Creek waterway in Salinas.

H-14. Continuum of Care for
the Homeless
Continue to collaborate with CHAT to
implement a comprehensive strategy for
addressing the homeless issues in the
Chinatown area.

Collaboration with the Chinatown Homeless Action Team (CHAT) includes representatives of the Coalition of Homeless Service Providers, Interim Inc., California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB), Sun Street Centers, MidPeninsula Housing coalition, Housing Resource Center of Monterey County, and the Franciscan Workers of Junipero Serra (FWJS). CHAT is a subcommittee of the Salinas Downtown Board Meeting (SDBM), and monthly board meetings are conducted on the first Wednesday of each month. The Chinatown Revitalization Plan was finalized in December 2019 and implementation came to a halt as the City pivoted to provide emergency response services due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

H-14. Continuum of Care for
the Homeless
Beginning in FY 2015-16, allocate funding for
Homelessness Response Program and
Outreach Coordinator to coordinate multiagency response to encampments and facilitate access to services by unhoused
persons and families, and to further support
the City/County/Coalition partnership to
develop joint facilities and co-located
services.

Multi-agency collaboration successfully funded and implemented joint facilities and co-located services to unhoused individuals and families. The City partnered with the County of Monterey, the Coalition of Homeless Services Providers, the Salinas Chinatown Community Board (SDCB), and other service providers to develop and operate joint facilities like the Salinas Homekey Projects, SHARE Center, and the Chinatown Navigation Center. A Homeless Outreach Coordinator position was funded to assist with coordination for facilities and social services among service providers. A Salinas Outreach Response Team (SORT) was funded with a team of 4 full time positions and 2 peer outreach workers with lived experiences. The CSUMB Community Health Engagement agency provides street outreach services through their Homeless Engagement and Response Team (HEART) Program. HEART and SORT lead street outreach efforts to unhoused individuals and families. Both teams connect those in need to resources like food provisions, sanitation supplies, hygiene products, resource referrals as needed, and access to emergency shelter.

Policy Action H-15: Fair
Housing
Provide fair housing resources information on
City website, at public counters, and through
public service agencies.

Fair housing resource information is available at local libraries, City’s website, permit center counters, social media and through public service agencies.

Special events like community meetings, pop-ups, and resource fairs are also Appendix A 34
effective opportunities for dispersing outreach material on fair housing resources. All material is made available in English and Spanish in accordance with the City’s Citizen Participation Plan. Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) and the Watsonville Law Center (WLC) are examples of public service agencies who offer resource information on fair housing services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please Start Here, Instructions in Cell A2, Table in
A3:B17 Form Fields
Site Inventory Forms must be submitted to HCD for a
housing element or amendment adopted on or after
January 1, 2021. The following form is to be used for
satisfying this requirement. To submit the form,
complete the Excel spreadsheet and submit to HCD
at [email protected]. Please send the Excel
workbook, not a scanned or PDF copy of the tables.

General Information
Jurisidiction Name SALINAS
Housing Element Cycle 6th
Contact Information
First Name Jonathan
Last Name Moore
Title Senior Planner
Email [email protected]
Phone 8317754247
Mailing Address
Street Address 65 W Alisal Street, Ste 201
City Salinas
Zip Code 93901
Website
https://www.cityofsalinas.org
Table A: Housing Element Sites Inventory, Table Starts in Cell A2 For Napa County jurisdictions, please format the APNs as follows: 999-999-999-999 Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan Designation
(Current)
Zoning Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Maximum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total Capacity Optional Information1 Optional Information2 Optional Information3 SALINAS 1486 Constitution Boulevard 93905 153-621-013-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 2.7 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 0 44 50 Replacing an existing gym and adding constructing multi-family units. Six un Project fully approved and under construction. Anticipated completion in 2024 or 2025.

SALINAS 1108 Parkside Street 93906 003-773-060-000 Residential High Density R-H-2.1 15 20 2.6 Residential YES - Current YES - County-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 79 0 1 80 Would replacing 40 existing affordable units with 79 new affordable units an All units are entitled and Phase I has been constructed. Phase 2 could move forward when MCHI is able to secure funding. Anticipated completion 2027-2028.

SALINAS 545 Work Street 93901 003-011-048-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 2.9 Hotel/motel YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 99 0 2 101 Homekey project converting hotel to permanent housing for homeless. Project is entitled pending approval of change of ownership of majority of property, with the city retaining a small portion in a FEMA floodway that may eventually be transfered to the Water Resources Agency of Monterey County. This matter is expected to be resolved by early-mid 2024 and construction could be complete by the end of 2025 SALINAS 1030 Fairview Avenue 93905 003-474-002-000 Retail Commercial Thoroughfare 15 24 0.8 Hotel/motel YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 42 0 1 43 Another Homekey project converting hotel to permanent housing for homele Project is under construction and could receive certificate of occupancy by December 2023 or early 2024.

SALINAS 11 Hill Circle 93905 004-601-066-000 Residential Low Density R-L-5.5 6 8 7.5 Vacant YES - Potential YES - City-Owned Pending Project Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 6 0 31 37 Single-family small-lot PUD. Six affordable units from Inclusionary City PUD approved. Developer is working through subdivision map approval with state Department of Fish and Wildlife. Pending successful approval in 2024 construction anticipated to complete by 2027 or 2028.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-481-029-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 4.6 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 10 0 75 85 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8. Developer is preparing PUD and application for submittal. This project includes consolidating 14 existing parcels to 10 parcels and a new road dedication. All proposed phases are intended to be complete by 2031.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SALINAS 467 E Market Street 93905 004-011-029-000 B Arterial Frontage Mixed Arterial Frontage (M 15 24 1.1 Commercial YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 37 0 1 38 B - Affordable housing project with 1 manager unit Currently in site-plan review. Assuming permitting can be completed in 2024 project could be constructured by 2026.

SALINAS 469 E Market Street 93905 004-011-031-000 B Arterial Frontage Mixed Arterial Frontage (M 15 24 1.3 Vacant YES - Potential YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 37 0 0 37 B - Affordable housing project with 1 manager unit SALINAS 122 Lincoln Avenue 93901 002-245-008-000 C Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.2 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 12 0 0 12 Large surface parking lot owned by City, surplused. Could RFP for affordable Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre. Calculating conservative capacity at 70%.

SALINAS 128 Lincoln Avenue 93901 002-245-007-000 C Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.2 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 12 0 0 12 Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre. Calculating conservative capacity at 70%.

SALINAS 120 Lincoln Avenue 93901 002-245-006-000 C Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.2 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 12 0 0 12 Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre. Calculating conservative capacity at 70%.

SALINAS 118 Lincoln Avenue 93901 002-245-005-000 C Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.1 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 0 0 6 Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre. Calculating conservative capacity at 70%.

SALINAS 112 Lincoln Avenue 93901 002-245-004-000 C Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.1 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 0 0 6 Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre. Calculating conservative capacity at 70%.

SALINAS 108 Lincoln Avenue 93901 002-245-003-000 C Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.1 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 0 0 6 Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre. Calculating conservative capacity at 70%.

SALINAS 98 Kip Drive 93906 261-661-011-000 Public/Semipublic Public/Semi-Public (PS) 8 15 2.3 Educational/institutio YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 39 0 0 39 Senior housing project on vacant land owned by a church on the same site. Doing a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to R-H-1.8, which should go to Council in January 2024. Assuming all permitting can be completed in 2024, project could be constructed by 2026.

SALINAS 1182 E Alisal Street 93905 003-901-022-000 Residential High Density R-H-1.8 15 20 1.6 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 34 0 0 34 Vineyard Church is interested in building affordable housing on the vacant lot adjacent to their church building. They have partnered with an affordable housing developer and are developing sites plans.

Church owners and development team has met with staff with preliminary plans. They are currently developing site plans and applications. Assuming permitting in 2024-2025, project could be constructed by 2027-2028.

SALINAS 740 E Romie Lane 93901 002-721-033-000 Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 0.6 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 6 0 6 Vacant undeveloped parcel. Applying additional 25% discount rate to all CO, CO/R, and PS sites. See Section 5.1.4.A SALINAS 121 E Gabilan Street 93901 002-192-019-000 D Residential High Density R-H-1.8 15 24 0.6 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 12 0 12 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 16 N Wood Street 93905 004-042-026-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 0.4 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 4 0 4 Vacant undeveloped parcel. Applying additional 50% discount rate to all CR sites, see Section 5.1.4.A SALINAS 303 Martella Street 93901 003-151-036-000 Residential Medium Density R-M-3.6 8 12 0.6 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 0 5 5 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 561 N Sanborn Road 93905 004-601-062-000 Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 2.8 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 29 0 29 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 35 Sun Street 93901 003-101-033-000 Residential High Density R-H-2.1 15 20 0.9 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 12 0 12 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 2217 N Main Street 93906 253-081-004-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 0.6 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 5 0 5 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 2357 N Main Street 93906 253-012-066-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 2 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 17 0 17 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 200 Casentini Street 93907 003-161-030-000 Residential High Density R-H-2.1 15 20 4.8 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 67 0 67 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 1970 N Davis Road 93907 253-332-035-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 5.9 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 49 0 49 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

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

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

SALINAS 123 W Alisal Street 93901 002-335-005-000 Office Commercial Office/Reside 15 20 0.9 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 9 0 9 Vacant former home of Californian newspaper. Historic and great candidate for adaptive reuse.

SALINAS 101 W Alisal Street 93901 002-331-010-000 Public/Semipublic Public/Semi-Public (PS) 8 15 1.1 Public facilities YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 9 0 9 Only measuring large surface lot fronting Alisal, which has had temporary office and shelter uses in the past.

SALINAS Constitution Boulevard near Laurel D 93906 003-851-039-000 Public/Semipublic Public/Semi-Public (PS) 8 15 24.3 Parking YES - Current YES - County-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 191 0 191 Large County-owned parcel used for parking, across the street from 845 Laurel project parcel, could pursue similar partnership.

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

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

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

SALINAS 230 Martella Street 93901 003-142-018-000 Arterial Frontage Mixed Arterial Frontage (M 15 24 0.25 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 4 0 4 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

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

SALINAS 207 N Sanborn Road 93905 004-131-004-000 G Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 0.6 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 18 0 0 18 G -Owned by Teamsters. Open to devloping with Division Ave site. Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 130 Division Street 93905 004-131-001-000 G Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 0.8 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 24 0 0 24 G -Owned by Teamsters. Open to devloping with Division Ave site. Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 34 Soledad Street 93901 002-194-029-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.5 Commercial YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 26 0 0 26 Now City-Owned. Located in Chinatown in Focused Growth Overlay 2. City may seek additional parcels in the area. Less than 200 feet from recent 90-unit affordable mixed use development Moon Gate Plaza. Local Housing Trust Fund money allocated as well. Applied for REAP 2.0 entitlement and competitive funding to cover predevelopment activities.

SALINAS 108 E San Luis Street 93901 002-353-001-000 H Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 24 0.3 Parking YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 5 0 5 H- Separate surface parking lot downtown. Not in high-parking demand area.

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

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

SALINAS 295 Main Street 93901 002-234-028-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.6 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 32 0 0 32 Office tower directly across from two recent adaptive reuse projects, includin Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre and adaptive reuse projects can exceed max. Calculating conservative capacity at 70%.

SALINAS 1121 Baldwin Street 93906 003-272-005-000 Arterial Frontage Mixed Arterial Frontage (M 15 24 0.7 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 11 0 11 Current office space, owner has expressed interest in converting to housing.

SALINAS 30 W Romie Lane 93901 002-542-013-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 5.2 Parking YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 157 0 0 157 Extremely over-parked surface lot serving lower volume commercial.

SALINAS 1067 N Davis Road 93907 261-711-052-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 5.4 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 45 0 45 Vacant former Orchard Hardware Supply store and large parking lot.

SALINAS 1100 Northridge Mall 93906 253-201-540-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 10.2 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 86 0 86 Vacant Sears and parking lot in Northridge Mall. Mall may be interested in redeveloping area with residential component.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SALINAS 710 Abbott Street 93901 002-902-048-000 J Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 0.6 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 2 1 15 18 J - Owner wants to build multifamily. Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 718 Abbott Street 93901 002-902-047-000 J Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 2.3 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 8 2 59 69 J - Owner wants to build multifamily. Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge A (NE 5 6 27.4 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 67 67 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone. Based on CASP Appendix G. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E.

SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge B (NE 7 8 14.5 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 102 102 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone.

SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General A ( 8 9 8.3 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 67 67 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone.

SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General B ( 9 10 19.1 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 172 172 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone.

SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General C ( 14 16 9.7 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 135 135 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone.

SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Mixed Use Village Center A (VC-A) - 18 24 27.4 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 492 0 492 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites Village Center mixed use buildings can achieve even higher densities. Using multifamily density as conservative estimate.

SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Mixed Use Village Center B (VC-B) - 24 31 17.1 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 410 410 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites Village Center mixed use buildings can achieve even higher densities. Using multifamily density as conservative estimate.

SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-001-000 L Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge A (NE 5 6 9.6 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 57 57 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and units evenly.

SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-001-000 L Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge B (NE 7 8 3.7 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 29 29 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and units evenly.

SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-001-000 L Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General A ( 8 9 14.7 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 132 132 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and units evenly.

SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-001-000 L Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General B ( 9 10 1.4 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 14 14 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and units evenly.

SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-001-000 L Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General C ( 14 16 9.2 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 147 147 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and units evenly.

SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-002-000 L Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge A (NE 5 6 9.6 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 58 58 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and units evenly.

SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-002-000 L Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge B (NE 7 8 3.7 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 30 30 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and units evenly.

SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-002-000 L Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General A ( 8 9 14.7 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 133 133 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and units evenly.

SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-002-000 L Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General B ( 9 10 1.4 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 15 15 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and units evenly.

SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-002-000 L Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General C ( 14 16 9.2 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 147 147 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and units evenly.

SALINAS WASP Rexford Title (formerly Clover 93906 211-231-062-000 M Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge (NE) 4.5 7 34.6 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 211 211 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone. Units based on projected units from WASP table 2-1. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E.

SALINAS WASP Rexford Title (formerly Clover 93906 211-231-062-000 M Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General 1 ( 7 14 58 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 563 563 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone. Units based on projected units from WASP table 2-1. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E.

SALINAS WASP Rexford Title (formerly Clover 93906 211-231-062-000 M Residential High Density Neighborhood General 2 ( 16 24 7.66 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 156 0 156 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone. Units based on projected units from WASP table 2-1. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E.

SALINAS WASP Rexford Title (formerly Clover 93906 211-231-062-000 M Mixed Use Village Center (VC) - WAS 20 20 1.55 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 31 0 31 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Village Center assumes 20 du/acre to get to minimum units (91 for total area), but can reach much higher densities with conversion of commercial floor area (max 341 units Units based on projected units from WASP table 2-1. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E.

SALINAS WASP Aaroe (formerly Kantro) 93906 211-011-003-000 N Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge (NE) 4.5 7 64.7 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 370 370 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone. Units based on projected units from WASP table 2-1. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E.

SALINAS WASP Aaroe (formerly Kantro) 93906 211-011-003-000 N Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General 1 ( 7 14 15.1 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 134 134 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone. Units based on projected units from WASP table 2-1. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E.

SALINAS WASP Aaroe (formerly Kantro) 93906 211-011-003-000 N Residential High Density Neighborhood General 2 ( 16 24 16.2 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 260 0 260 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone. Units based on projected units from WASP table 2-1. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E.

SALINAS WASP Harrod Construction (formerly 93906 211-231-016-000 O Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge (NE) 4.5 7 25.3 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 154 154 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone. Units based on projected units from WASP table 2-1. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E.

SALINAS WASP Harrod Construction (formerly 93906 211-231-016-000 O Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General 1 ( 7 14 6.9 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 57 57 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone. Units based on projected units from WASP table 2-1. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E.

SALINAS WASP Harrod Construction (formerly 93906 211-231-016-000 O Residential High Density Neighborhood General 2 ( 16 24 8.57 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 158 0 158 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone. Units based on projected units from WASP table 2-1. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E.

SALINAS WASP Harrod Construction (formerly 93906 211-231-016-000 O Mixed Use Village Center (VC) - WAS 20 20 3 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 60 0 60 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Village Center assumes 20 du/acre to get to minimum units (91 for total area), but can reach much higher densities with conversion of commercial floor area (max 341 units Units based on projected units from WASP table 2-1. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E.

SALINAS WASP Bondesen 93906 211-231-012-000 P Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General 1 ( 7 14 22.6 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 265 265 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone.

SALINAS WASP Bondesen 93906 211-231-012-000 P Residential High Density Neighborhood General 2 ( 16 24 8.1 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 135 0 135 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone.

SALINAS WASP Bondesen 93906 211-231-013-000 P Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge (NE) 4.5 7 21.3 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 137 137 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone.

SALINAS WASP Bondesen 93906 211-231-013-000 P Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General 1 ( 7 14 7.23 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 62 62 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zone.

SALINAS 180 S Sanborn Road 93905 004-601-066-000 Retail Commercial Thoroughfare 15 24 0.89 Hotel/motel YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 57 0 1 58 Hotel conversion to permanent supportive housing through Homekey Round Project is anticipated to complete entitlements by the end of 2023 and construction could be complete by end of 2024.

SALINAS 37 Soledad Street 93901 002-191-012-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.15 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 0 0 5 City is purchasing this parcel, the historic Republic Café in Chinatown, with In escrow, with dedicated project management funding ready when it closes. City would complete predevelopment activities and issue RFP by 2025, with project completion by 2028.

SALINAS 942 Lupin Drive 93906 003-644-007-000 Office Commercial Office/Reside 15 20 0.17 Residential YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 0 0 5 Lot in commercial area with burned single family structure. Owner has appro Owner has met with city staff and is developing preliminary plans. Assuming permitting in 2024-2025 this small project could be constructed by 2026-2027.

SALINAS 443 W Market Street 93901 002-061-008-000 General Commercial/Light In Industrial - General Comm 0 0 1.04 Hotel/motel YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 26 0 0 26 Motel on a split zoned lot (IGC and R-L-5.5) that City is purchasing to convert to affordable housing.

SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
SALINAS 0
Table C: Land Use, Table Starts in A2
Zoning Designation
From Table A, Column G
and Table B, Columns L and N (e.g.,
"R-1")
General Land Uses Allowed
(e.g., "Low-density residential")
R-L-5.5 Low-density residential
R-M-3.6 Medium-density residential
R-M-2.9 Medium-density residential
R-H-2.1 High-density residential
Public/Semi-Public (PS) Educational, governmental, relgious uses. Also allows medium d Commercial Office (CO) Offices, services, medium-density residential. Mixed use residen Commercial Office/Residential (CO/R) Medium-density residential, limited commercial, institutional, offic Commercial Retail (CR) Primarily retail and commercial, high-density residential and mixe Mixed Arterial Frontage (MAF) Combination of mixed use, commercial, and small-scale industry Mixed Use (MX) Mixed use buildings with active ground floors, high-density reside Neighborhood Edge (NE) - WASP Low-density residential
Neighborhood General 1 (NG-1) - WASP Medium-density residential Neighborhood General 2 (NG-2) - WASP High-density residential, limited live-work Village Center (VC) - WASP Commercial, mixed use buildings, high-density residential mixed Neighborhood Edge A (NE-A) - CASP Low-density residential Neighborhood Edge B (NE-B) - CASP Low-density residential Neighborhood General A (NE-A) - CASP Low-density residential, limited multifamily Neighborhood General B (NE-B) - CASP Low-density residential, limited multifamily Neighborhood General C (NE-C) - CASP Medium-density residential, limited commercial and retail Village Center A (VC-A) - CASP High-density residential, commercial and retail.

Village Center B (VC-B) - CASP Mixed use buildings with active ground floors, high-density reside Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) Primarily commercial uses for traveling, such as hotel/motel, serv R-H-1.8 High-density residential
Industrial - General Commercial Light industrial and commercial uses Appendix C 1
Appendix C: Summary of Community Participation
The City has conducted extensive community outreach following the adoption of the last housing element through various past planning efforts and the current General Plan Update process (Visión Salinas 2040).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix C 7
Marketing Materials:

Appendix C 8
Examples of Meeting Materials:

Appendix C 9
Meeting Images:

Appendix C 10
Appendix C 11
Feedback Map:

Appendix C 12
Collective Feedback:

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix C 20
Marketing Materials:

Appendix C 21
Collective Feedback:

Existing Conditions Discussion Notes
Main Group:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix C 27
Marketing Materials:

Collective Feedback:

Meeting #1
Group 1:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marketing Materials:

Appendix C 33
Collective Feedback and Poll Results:

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

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

Appendix C 39
Meeting Materials:

Appendix C 40
Meeting Images:

Appendix C 41
Collective Feedback:

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

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

Housing Element Workshops
Summary:

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

Marketing Materials:

Appendix C 45
Meeting Materials:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disputes over parking
infractions.

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

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

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

Presentations & Community Conversations:

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

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

Presentation Materials:

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

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

Appendix C 66
Pop-up Activities:

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

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

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

Pop-up Images:

Appendix C 69

Appendix C 70
House Meetings:

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

House Meetings Images:

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

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

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

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

18.03% 20.68% 19.69%
Homeless Outreach &
Support

31.83% 27.04% 28.82%
Homeownership
Promotion & Support

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

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

Appendix C 74

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

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

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

VIII. Comment Letters and Responses
Summary of Comment Letters on the Draft City of Salinas 6th Cycle Housing Element
This table summarizes responses to comments received on the Draft Housing Element between May and November 2023. Full copies of each letter are included after this table.

Building Healthy Communities
We recommend the use of “Community
Benefits Agreements” to all large scale
projects (defined as $5 million or larger in
Total Development Costs) to ensure that
housing or mixed use projects with
commercial components invest in the
neighborhood and not just the site that they
are developing. We also recommend that
“community benefits agreements” have local
hiring provisions. These CBA’s should include
partnerships with schools, and the
improvement of parks and recreational
facilities and or have amenities onsite that are
available to the community at large. By
facilitating CBA’s we can ensure that
engagement between residents and City staff
and public servants will happen, and that this
engagement contributes to the culture of
resident centered involvement.

Staff will conduct additional research on
CBAs and meet with BHC to discuss. A $5
million threshold would apply to virtually all
multifamily projects, which could
considerably slow production. Some of the
common benefits of a CBA may be achieved
through other measures such as
inclusionary housing, park impact fees, and
changes to the zoning code.

The City should provide housing education
workshops on a quarterly basis in different
parts of the City to ensure all residents have
access to current information and legal
services.

Increased number of yearly educational
workshops to four in Program 10 and the
Summary of Meaningful Actions (Table 63)
The City must fully implement its Rental
Registry Program and fully fund Rental
Assistance and Legal Assistance Programs. If
landlords are not making necessary
improvements to maintain habitability and
Comment noted. Please see Programs 8 and
9 for Rental Registry implementation and
fair housing outreach.

Appendix C 78
meet Fair Housing Laws then the City should
work with local housing advocacy groups to
implement additional code enforcement and
fair housing protections.

According to the Draft Housing Element,
approximately 37.8% of the City’s renter
occupied units (8,138/ 21,530) were built
before 1970 suggesting that these 50 year old
housing units are likely in need of
rehabilitation and should be among the
primary targets for code enforcement.

Comment noted. Program 11 discusses code
enforcement and Program 14 details
reinstating the Housing Services Program to
assist low-income households with
rehabilitation assistance.

It is also important for the City to be clear, and
to report out, how much more of this type of
housing is planned, and if it will impact the
City.

See comment response below.

We see the value that good quality H2A
housing can bring by helping to reduce
overcrowding, however we do not know what
the long term strategy is for these
developments? What is the current need
and projected demand for H2A housing? How
many more H2A developments are planned in
or near Salinas? How does this impact City
infrastructure services like sanitation, water,
streets, motel vacancies, neighborhoods? Are
there plans to redevelop the large
development sites such as Casa Boronda (75
units/ 600 beds) or Harvest Moon (150 units/
1,200 beds) into family housing? It is highly
recommended that the City commission a
study to answer these important questions.

The only other H2A currently in planning
adjacent to city limits is the Sconberg
Farmworker Housing Project. The County
has final controls on approvals of projects
like this but must work with the City to
connect to its infrastructure and mitigate
impacts. The development owner would
have to initiate any plans to convert existing
projects to family housing or housing for
permanent residents. This may be unlikely
in the short term as there is still unmet need
for H2A worker housing.

The City passed an ordinance in 2021
allowing hotels/motels to obtain a CUP to
fully operate as extended stay for H2A or
other seasonal workers, in part to relieve
pressure on other forms of housing in city
limits for permanent residents.

Farmworker housing is discussed in Program
24, which seeks to implement the 2018
Farmworker Housing Study and Action Plan
for Salinas Valley and Pajaro Valley. Due to
the high numbers of year-round/permanent
farmworkers in Salinas, this document
prioritized working with the County and
growers to develop seasonal housing
outside city limits, while focusing on
affordable housing within.

Understanding that the H2A housing vacancy
is only for a segment of the year, the City
Added action to Program 24: Farmworker
Housing -
Appendix C 79
should explore opportunities to work with the
Ag industry and the County of Monterey to
allow occupancy of vacant units for temporary
housing during the off season.
“Explore opportunities to utilize H2A and
other farmworker housing that is vacant offseason for rapid rehousing or other shortterm housing uses.” Many residents are opposed to the idea of
higher density because of parking concerns.

Given this, we need to stress multimodal
transportation opportunities especially in
transit rich corridors in the Alisal and other
areas of the City to encourage walkable
neighborhoods and less reliance on vehicles
wherever this is possible.

Comment noted. Increasing transit use and
active transportation is important to the
City and mentioned in polices and programs
under Goal 1. The City is also updating its
Circulation Element, Active Transportation
Plan, and creating a Climate Action Plan,
where these alternatives will be discussed in
more detail.

The need for open space was a recurring topic
throughout the Alisal Vibrancy Plan
community engagement, with a primary
concern for our youth. We thank the City for
moving the Carr Lake project forward, and
acknowledge the work done by Big Sur Land
Trust in this effort and the partnership with
Monterey County. We ask the City to prioritize
the build out of this regional
park and ensure the local neighborhood, La
Posada, is connected, and that these renters
have access to resources to improve this older
housing stock.

Comment noted.

We fully support HE Goal 4.1 Advance Rent
Stabilization and further request that a specific
timeline for implementation be established
immediately. There is no reason why a strong
rent stabilization ordinance can not be
enacted by the end of 2023.

Added the following as a Quantified
Objective to Program 8: “Complete an
analysis of rent stabilization options by end
of 2024 and implement any chosen
ordinance by 2025.”
Considering current capacity, 2023 is not
feasible.

The City should establish an annual Affordable
Housing Month and work with local and
regional partners to present current and near
term housing opportunities... As an example,
the primary developer of the Central Area Plan
agreed to build affordable homes in each
phase of their project and not just the end as
other developers have done; these homes
must be made available to eligible first time
homebuyers.

The City currently recognizes April as Fair
Housing month and can work to expand city
activities to further recognize affordable
housing.

BHC has actively participated in the City’s
Housing Technical Advisory Committee. We
see value in this diverse group and being able
to advise the City’s many housing related
The City’s Housing Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) is an informal stakeholder
committee formed to study a particular
issue, not a standing official Commission
Appendix C 80
policies. However, the needs of renters is not
always a priority for the TAC. We strongly
recommend that the City establish a Renters
Commission that focuses solely on issues
impacting renters and helps the City to move
its body of rental housing policies forward on a
more expeditious timetable.
such as the Planning or Transportation
Commissions. TAC membership can change
depending on the subject and includes
viewpoints from multiple sides to attempt
to reach consensus.

Given the large number of residents working in
agriculture, we recommend that the City
continue to grow partnerships within the Ag
industry to create childcare centers for their
workers. Partnerships should also exist in the
Alisal Union School District and its schools, as
well as with other industries that would help
to address this significant barrier to income
generation, and therefore, housing.

Comment noted. Childcare and workforce
support/development will be discussed
more in the Economic Development
Element update as part of the General Plan
update that is underway.

We support the City taking 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.” And we
would like to underscore
the City’s view of the importance of ensuring
that these Plans “have the resources to
reverse the effects of historic neglect.”
Comment noted.

LandWatch
Parking: The Housing Element should include a
policy to minimize parking requirements
and a program to review and reduce or eliminate
parking requirements for development
proximate to transit facilities. An implementing
program should also review and require
separate pricing for parking in rental units as an
inducement to minimize car ownership
and parking requirements.

Comment noted. State law AB 2097 currently
prohibits minimum parking requirements for
housing projects near transit. Further reductions
and code changes will be considered during the
zoning code update.

Local Density Bonus: The Housing Element should
include a policy and implementing
program to adopt a local density bonus that goes
beyond the mandates of the State DB
law. For example, the percentage bonuses could
be increased at all levels of affordability
and the number of concessions could be
increased.

Comment received. The City is currently updating
its density bonus ordinance.

Appendix C 81
LandWatch opposes making the East Area
Specific Plan a priority in the Housing Element
because it is not needed to meet the 6th Cycle
RHNA, and the housing element acknowledges
that it is not likely to produce units during the 8-
year planning period.

If the City chooses to pursue it, the EASP should
equally balance affordable and market rate units
and should not perpetuate the imbalance
reflected in the WASP and CASP.

The EASP is important for longer term provision
of housing. Program 5 strengthens consistency
with the rest of the General Plan update and
establishes the City’s commitment to leading the
EASP process.

The EASP will strive to include more affordable
housing by providing a wider range of housing
product types at higher densities than other
Specific Plans through the application of the draft
Place Types, as well as the application of the
City’s inclusionary housing ordinance.

Current by-right permitting unclear: Tables 44
and 45 indicate that by-right permitting only
occurs for single family detached uses in low and
medium density areas and that site plan review
(SPR) is required for uses such as multiple
detached, multifamily, and duplex units.

However, the housing element states that site
plan review is ministerial, implying that it is based
on objective standards and does not involve
discretionary determinations. (HE, p. 109.) If so,
approval of uses such as multiple detached,
multifamily, and duplex units would seem to be
ministerial and therefore in effect also “by-right.”
This conclusion is supported by the housing
element’s explanation that MFR is by right in
higher density areas and SFR is by right in lower
density areas. (HE, p. 111.)
However, the Housing Element also states that, in
the approval process, staff determine whether
MFR units are exempt from CEQA after
completing the site plan review. (HE, p. 81.) This
implies that there is some discretionary decision
making for MFR approvals, because CEQA review
is only required for discretionary decisions. If SPR
is ministerial and it is the only review required for
MFR, it is not clear how CEQA could be required.

If there is some additional discretionary review
required for MFR in the areas in which Table 45
identifies only SPR, e.g., a discretionary design
review or a subdivision approval, this should be
clarified in the section 4.1.7 discussing local
processing and permit procedure, which does not
mention design review. If not, the Housing
Element should explain why any MFR in these
SPR is ministerial. Text on Pg. 81 was an
inaccurate description of the review process.

Prior to deeming an application is complete, the
planner would confirm that SPR is the correct
review process (i.e. that the use/project is not
subject to a CUP or another discretionary/nonministerial form of review). The text has been revised to:
“To initiate the Site Plan Review Process (SPR),
the applicant files a Development Review
Application with the Community Development
Department. The City Planner confirms that the
proposed project/use is subject to SPR, not a
discretionary/non-ministerial process as part of
deeming an application complete. If the
application is deemed complete and that it
complies with all relevant requirements, the City
Planner must approve the application.”
Appendix C 82
areas that does not require subdivision would be
subject to CEQA.

Over-reliance on Focused Growth and
Underutilized Mixed Use sites for lower income
units: Tables 58, 61, and 62 indicate that about
80% of the sites identified for very low and low
income units are in Focused Growth Areas 2, 3, 4,
and 5 (956 units) and only about 20% are in the
Future Growth Area (410 units in the Central Area
Specific Plan). Conversely, a disproportionate
share of the sites for moderate and market rate
units are identified in the Future Growth Area.

Developing high density infill units in the Focused
Growth Areas is a good idea. However, we
suggest that the mix of affordable and market
rate units should be roughly equal among all of
the sites for several reasons.

The City encourages and supports affordable
housing throughout Salinas. For the purposes of
the Sites Inventory location of future affordable
projects is estimated based on zones which allow
30+ units per acre, though recent projects show
such affordable housing can be built in other
zones. For example, the 100-percent affordable
Sun Rose Apartments and Parkside Manor Phase
1 projects are built in R-M and R-H districts
respectively. The allocation also cannot consider
inclusionary units or density bonus units in future
projects, which will also spread affordable units
beyond the identified sites. While it can’t be
considered at this time, the adoption of the draft
Place Types and implementation through zoning
would significantly increase the areas of the city
where 30+ units per acre is allowed.

Program 1, Provision of Adequate Sites for RHNA:

As discussed above, the mix of affordable and
market rate units should more nearly reflect the
mix of income levels in the City’s RHNA in the
infill and Future Growth Area sites to reflect the
AFFH commitment and to ensure that
development of affordable units is not tied to the
success of the Focused Growth Areas program.

See response above.

Program 2, Financial Assistance and Gap
Financing: Although the City is not in position to
guarantee financing, the action proposed does
not provide measurable objectives for success of
the program. Almost all of the actions only call
for the City to “explore” or “promote” or
“discuss” something, and to do so without any
timeline for completion. The program would
benefit from identification of specific actions to
be completed in a specific timeline. For example,
the actions in this program could benefit by
defining specific targets for leveraging funds,
allocating federal passthrough funds, and
exploring the development of a
commercial/industrial linkage fee.

Comment received. Program 2 updated with
more specific discussion and timelines.

Program 4, ADUs: The third and fourth bullets in
the action items conclude with the question,
“Timeline?” Presumably this reflects incomplete
drafting. At any rate, specific deadlines for these
actions should be identified.

Comment received. Program timeline updated.

Appendix C 83
Program 5, East Area Specific Plan: The EASP is
not needed to meet the RHNA, and the housing
element acknowledges that it is not likely to
produce units during the 8-year planning period.

Accordingly, adoption of the EASP should not be
a priority in the 6th Cycle. If the City chooses to
pursue it, the EASP should equally balance
affordable and market rate units and should not
perpetuate the imbalance reflected in the WASP
and CASP.

See previous response regarding the EASP.

Program 6, GP, Zoning Code, and Approval
Process Updates: The proposal to adopt Place
Types and Objective Design Standards sounds like
a beneficial movement toward streamlined
development approvals. The Housing Element
should clarify what is meant by “Objective Design
Standards.” Some jurisdictions and some
statutory mandates distinguish objective
development standards (e.g., height, setbacks,
FAR, density) from objective design review
standards (e.g., criteria for colors, facades, etc.).
(See, e.g., SB 2295.) Both objective development
and objective design review standards are
essential to ministerial by-right permitting, which
should be a key goal of Program 6 for qualifying
sites.

Accordingly, Program 6 should be revised to call
for revision of the GP and Zoning code to provide
for ministerial permitting of residential units on
infill sites that are not on environmentally
sensitive lands. Infill could be defined “in an
implementing ordinance using the language from
Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(2) [SB 35]
or Public Resources Code Section
21094.5(e)(1)(B) [CEQA infill exemption].

Ministerial permitting of residential projects in
infill areas in Salinas is appropriate because CEQA
review should be accomplished at the program
rather than the project level. That is, CEQA
review should take place when the City amends
its General Plan or zoning code, not when a
developer comes to the City with a conforming
project.

Environmentally sensitive sites, sites subject to
gentrification, and historic sites should be
With the new Place types, zoning code updates,
and Objective Design Standards, the intent is to
increase the amount of objective (ministerial)
development review and design review. The third
action of Program 6 has been updated to
“Develop and adopt Objective Design Standards
for residential and mixed-use development
consistent with the Housing Accountability Act
and increase opportunities for ministerial
review.”
The City is committed to increasing tenant
protections and anti-displacement efforts. See
Appendix C 84
excepted from ministerial permitting. These sites
could be defined in an implementing ordinance
using the language from Government Code
Section 65913.4(a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(10) [SB35]. The
City should continue to require discretionary
review of development approvals at such sites.

Programs on Rental Registry and Rent
Stabilization and expanding Fair Housing services
including establishing a just cause eviction
ordinance, as well as responses to BHC comments
above.

Program 7, Reduce Fees and Housing Production
Constraints: We support the intent behind this
policy, particularly if it includes a focus on
reducing fees for affordable units. To strengthen
this policy, it would be beneficial to provide more
objective and measurable standards to enable
tracking progress. We suggest the following
Annually review the City's planning and
development fees to ensure they are appropriate
and do not unduly constrain affordable housing
development.
o Objective and measurable standard: Conduct a
comparative analysis of the City's
planning and development fees with similar
jurisdictions to determine if they are
within an acceptable range. Use specific metrics
such as percentage of total
development costs or affordable housing project
budgets to assess affordability
Impact.

Update the impact fee schedule to reduce
minimum net land area per unit requirements.
o Objective and measurable standard: Evaluate
the minimum net land area per unit
requirements by considering factors such as
average unit sizes, local market
conditions, and density targets. Set a specific
percentage reduction goal (e.g., 10%
reduction) and track the progress toward
achieving it.

As funding permits, assist in gap financing
affordable development by nonprofit developers
to help offset the cost of development through
deferred impact fees.
o Objective and measurable standard: Allocate a
specific amount of funding each year to support
gap financing for nonprofit developers. Set a
target for the number of affordable housing units
Added the following to action one: 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.
“
Gap financing opportunities change year-to-year
based on availability of grant sources and the
number of proposed projects. Focal point of this
Appendix C 85
to be created through this assistance program
annually, and regularly evaluate the program's
effectiveness in achieving this target.

Periodically review the effectiveness of the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Density
Bonus Program to implement revisions as
appropriate to incentivize additional housing
development.
o Objective and measurable standard: Establish a
review cycle (e.g., every three years) to assess the
impact and effectiveness of the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance and Density Bonus Program.

Use metrics such as the number of affordable
units produced, the percentage of affordable
units in new developments, and feedback
from developers and housing advocacy groups to
inform potential revisions. Estimate empirically
the optimal percent of inclusionary units, i.e., the
percent that maximizes the production of
affordable units considering potential loss of
“filtering” units produced by market rate units.

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.
o Objective and measurable standard: Track the
average processing time for planning and permit
approvals and set a target for reducing it by a
specific percentage (e.g., 20%). Regularly survey
developers to assess their satisfaction with the
process and identify areas for improvement.

Measure the number of affordable housing
projects that receive support through the
entitlement and development process.

Implement a ministerial approval process using
objective development and design review
standards applicable to all infill residential
projects not on environmentally sensitive lands
and not requiring subdivision.
action is fee deferral, rather than overall gap
financing.

Review of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is
currently part of Program 7 and the City is
currently working on a review/nexus study of the
2017 ordinance. The Density Bonus ordinance is
also currently being updated.

Added: “Track the average processing time for
housing planning and permit approvals and
reduce time by 10 percent by the end of 2026. “
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Appendix C 86
MBEP encourages the City of Salinas to enable
ministerial approval for development types that
most effectively increase housing supply,
especially those which create opportunities for
lower income households to live close to jobs,
public transit, and other critical public services
and amenities.

Comment noted. Program 6 discusses updating
land use/zoning to allow for more housing supply
and streamlining. Changed third action under
Program 6 to include increasing opportunities for
ministerial review, though the current zoning
code often allows ministerial review for many
high-density/mixed-use projects (see Chapter 4).

MBEP recommends that the City ensure
adequate staffing and programs to fully leverage
the funding granted by the Prohousing Incentive
Pilot and other sources.

The City has increased staff levels for the Housing
division and is actively pursuing additional
funding, including the Prohousing Incentive Pilot.

According to the HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing Mapping tool, WASP and CASP are in
areas of low and moderate resource and
currently well outside the half mile radius of high
quality transit. MBEP recommends that the City
ensure these planned areas receive high quality
service in proportion to demand as they develop,
especially in areas developed with lower income
housing and lower parking ratios. The City can
establish memoranda of understanding (MOUs)
with transit authorities well in advance of housing
development in these areas to guarantee needed
service that will increase public transit access and
ensure reduced vehicle miles traveled. Such
MOUs could ensure service to any other
areas targeted for development, such as the
Focused Growth Overlays radiating out from the
Downtown Core and Neighborhood Area.

Created new policy – 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.

MBEP recommends that the City ensure all of the
areas targeted for lower income housing have
access to high quality transit as they develop,
ideally through MOUs for demand-proportional
service.

Comment incorporated into new policy above.

As most of the City of Salinas’ sites inventory falls
inside existing low-moderate resource areas – or
areas of high poverty and segregation such as the
Downtown Core – MBEP would highlight the
need for broad investment in attracting and
incentivizing businesses and institutions to
develop alongside housing for lower and
moderate income households in the Mixed Use
Vacant and Underutilized Mixed Use areas of the
City. Having higher paying jobs in proximity to
housing that serves a range of income levels will
create a more vibrant community.

Comment received. The City is expanding its
Economic Development Division in order to
support increased economic growth city-wide,
including expanding opportunities in low and
moderate resource areas. Program 25 discusses
further investment in the downtown and other
low-resource areas.

Appendix C 87
Finally, MBEP would recommend finding as many
opportunities for streamlined, lower cost
permitting as possible... Program 7 details
reducing fees for housing development,
streamlining, and deferral of fees for at least one
affordable housing project annually. MBEP
recommends even higher goals for deferment
and reduction of fees and creating ministerial
approval processes for many or all housing
projects that integrate affordable housing using
objective development and design guidelines to
reduce risk and cost for developers.

Raised number of affordable project fee deferrals
to two annually (16 total). The number of
affordable projects year-to-year is not consistent,
which makes this estimate challenging.

Monterey-Salinas Transit
MST recommends adding a policy under Goal 1
that encourages the development of high-density
and mixed-use housing in areas served by public
transportation and have safe pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure. This recommended policy
can further the City’s goal to support sustainable
housing developments through design and
location.

Created new policy – HE Policy 1.7: Develop highdensity and mixed-use housing in areas with existing public and active transportation, and
create additional safe bike and pedestrian
infrastructure.

MST also recommends adding an action under
Goal 1 that encourages housing developers to
incorporate transit into their designs by installing
bus stop facilities on a developments site. Bus
stop layouts and designs are evaluated using
MST’s Designing for Transit Guidelines (2020) and
all bus stops should closely adhere to these
guidelines to ensure adequate access pertinent to
the standards of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA).

Comment received. Additional action added to
Program 1 to coordinate with MST on new
housing developments.

MST also recommended that the Housing
Element reference the MST Transit Oriented
Development Study, being finalized in 2024, and
that there be minor edits to Page 48 and Page
145.

Comment received. Housing Element updated to
include these recommendations.

Housing Choices
Housing Choices provided a letter with
background data related to persons with
developmental disabilities, and recommending
that the Housing Element provide additional
discussion of resources and services targeted to
Comments received. The City has updated it’s
programs related to housing for persons with
disabilities.

Appendix C 88
persons with development disabilities, and
strengthen programs that will support housing
for persons with developmental disabilities.

Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP)
CHOMP provided a letter commenting on
challenges related to employee housing and
recommending that the City adopt an ordinance
to provide ministerial permitting for employer
housing.

Comment received. The City does provide
streamlined permitting for employee housing.

Carpenters Local 605
Carpenters Local 605 provided a comment letter
outside of the Public Review period and shortly
before the release of the Final 2023-2031
Housing Element. The Letter discusses how a lack
of skilled labor is an impediment to housing
production. The letter discusses programs other
jurisdictions have implemented and recommends
that the Salinas Housing Element include such
programs. The Letter also recommends that
Salinas bar the issuance of building permits for
projects with 10 or more units unless the
developer has a viable apprenticeship program
and hires locally.

Comment received. Due to the late nature of the
submittal, the City is not able to analyze the
impacts of the recommended action, or complete
adequate public outreach for the recommended
actions.

IX. Final Public Meetings and Hearings
The released the Final 2023-2031 Housing Element on November 9, 2023. The following is the schedule for public hearings and consideration of adoption:
• November 15, 2023: Planning Commission
• November 28, 2023: Housing and Land Use subcommittee
• December 5, 2023: City Council adoption

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

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

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

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

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

1.3 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harvard University Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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