The City has recently been attempting to take action in order to increase its supply of available water. In 2022 the City entered into an agreement to utilize non-potable water to water the Black Horse and Bayonet Golf Course in northern Seaside. The City has also purchased a property located at 1271 Canyon Del Rey which contains a well that produces non-potable water.
The non-potable water can then be used to offset water usage that does not require a potable source (such as landscape areas), freeing up potable water for development (including residential development). At this point the amount of water which can be saved is unknown; further, additional infrastructure must be built to support this transfer. It is unlikely that the Packet Page 284
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-74
water will be available to support development until 2025 at the earliest. In the meantime, the lack of regional water supply during the short term, and perhaps longer, will continue to constrain the production of housing in Seaside proper.
The City also continues to require new public and private development and redevelopment projects to install and utilize water conservation measures per Section 13.18.010 of the Seaside Municipal Code. Section 13.18.010 requires:
• The installation of low water-use plumbing fixtures, and low water-use landscape materials in new construction;
• The installation of low water-use plumbing fixtures in existing hotels and motels; and • The retrofitting of plumbing fixtures in all existing residential buildings at the time of change of ownership or physical expansion, or in the cases of commercial property, at the time of change of ownership, or change or expansion of use.
Senate Bill 1087 (enacted 2006) requires that water providers develop written policies that grant priority to proposed development that includes housing affordable to lower-income households.
The legislation also prohibits water providers from denying or conditioning the approval of development that includes housing affordable to lower income households, unless specific written findings are made. The City will provide a copy of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element to the water service providers within 30 days of adoption. The City will also continue to coordinate with the water service providers to ensure affordable housing developments receive priority water service provision.
6. Sanitary Sewer
Outside of the boundaries of the former Fort Ord, sanitary sewer service is provided by the Seaside County Sanitation District, a Monterey County Special District, which serves the cities of Seaside, Del Rey Oaks and Sand City. Within the boundaries of the former Fort Ord, sanitary sewer service is provided by the Marina Coast Water District. Wastewater discharged to the either District’s sanitary sewer system is ultimately pumped to the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant located north of Marina. Monterey One Water, formerly known as the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, operates the treatment plant. Monterey One Water (M1W) provides wastewater treatment, disposal, and reclamation services for the cities of Seaside, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Del Rey Oaks, Sand City, Marina, and Salinas; Castroville, Moss Landing, and Boronda Community Service Districts; and the former Fort Ord military base.
M1W’s Sewer System Management Plan (2019) includes a capacity analysis of the treatment plan to ensure capacity for future growth and demand based upon regional population growth estimates through 2040. The plan states that due to significant conservation efforts, flows have decreased in recent years and no capacity issues are anticipated in future years. The plan also indicates that M1W’s annual capital improvement master plan addresses identified maintenance needs and deficiencies to ensure ongoing capacity. Therefore, the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant has capacity to meet the wastewater treatment demands that would be generated from the development and growth envisioned for the General Plan Area in the 2040 General Plan in the long term and certainly adequate capacity to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) in the short term. Expansion or construction of a new wastewater treatment facility to meet the demands of the 2040 General Plan would not be required.
7. Energy Conservation
Housing Element statutes require an analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. The energy conservation section of the element must inventory and analyze the opportunities to encourage the incorporation of energy saving features, energy saving materials, and energy efficient systems and design for residential development.
Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation and green building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters, in Packet Page 285
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-75
addition to promoting sustainable community design and reduced dependence on vehicles. Such planning and development standards can also significantly contribute to reducing greenhouse gases.
The City promotes energy conservation by implementing State Title 24 energy performance requirements through building codes. The City also implements energy conservation measures in public buildings by promoting energy efficient buildings and site design for all new public buildings during the site development permit process and installing energy saving devices in new public buildings and retrofitting existing public buildings.
The City also supports building design that incorporates the principles of Sustainable Development, Transit Oriented Development and Environmentally Friendly Building Design, including using “green” building material and energy conservation measures of the “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program.
The City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element includes a resource conservation policy to “offer incentives to promote the use of energy-efficient and water-conserving features and materials for residential rehabilitation projects” as well as a sustainability policy to “promote sustainability through the use of green building techniques and materials for new construction and substantial rehabilitation of residential development.” The City of Seaside has joined the Central Coast Community Energy (3CE). 3CE is a community-owned public agency that sources competitively priced electricity from clean and renewable energy resources. Revenue generated by 3CE stays local and helps keep electricity rates affordable for customers, while also funding innovative energy programs designed to lower greenhouse gas emissions and stimulate economic development. 3CE serves more than 400,000 customers throughout the Central Coast, including residential, commercial and agricultural customers in communities located within Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz counties. 3CE promotes electrification, incentives for Building Reach Codes, and low interest loans for generators. 3CE offers rebates for all electrification upgrades, with even bigger incentives for income-qualified customers and small businesses.
As part of Program 5 of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element, the City will review proposed developments for solar access, site design techniques, and use of landscaping that can increase energy efficiency and reduce lifetime energy costs without significantly increasing housing production costs. The City will also provide and annually update information on energy conservation and financial incentives (e.g., tax credit, utility rebates, etc.) on the City’s website.
Packet Page 286
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-76
Section 4: Housing Resources
This section analyzes the resources available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in Seaside. This includes an evaluation of the availability of land for potential future residential development; the City’s ability to satisfy its share of the region’s future housing needs, and the financial and administrative resources available to assist in implementing the City’s housing programs.
A. Future Housing Needs
State law requires communities to demonstrate that they encourage and facilitate housing production commensurate with their fair share of the region’s future growth from 2023-2031. The City’s fair share is assigned by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) and outlined in their Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan (RHNP). Therefore, an important component of the Housing Element is the identification of suitable sites to accommodate housing that is affordable in accordance with the RHNP.
1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation
AMBAG has assigned a portion of the region’s future need for housing to each community within the counties of Santa Cruz and Monterey as part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan (RHNP). Seaside’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 6th Cycle planning period from June 30, 2023 to December 15, 2031 is 616 housing units (Table App-40).
Table App-40: Regional Housing Needs Share for Seaside
Income Category Income Threshold Number of Units
Extremely Low/Very Low 50% or less of the AMI 86
Low 51% to 80% of the AMI 55
Moderate 81% to 120% of the AMI 156
Above Moderate Over 120% of the AMI 319
Total 616
Source: AMBAG, October 2022.
The City has a RHNA allocation of 86 very low income units. Pursuant to new state law (AB 2634), the City must project the number of extremely low income (30% or less of AMI) housing needs based on Census income distribution or assume 50% of the very low income units as extremely low. According to the CHAS data developed by HUD using 2015-2019 ACS data, the City had 3,160 households with incomes at or below 50% AMI, 1,425 (45%) extremely low and 1,735 (55%) very low income as shown in Table App-30. Therefore, the City’s RHNA of 95 very low income units may be split into 39 extremely low and 47 very low income units. However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites for the RHNA, State law does not mandate the separate accounting for the extremely low income category.
2. Credits toward RHNA
Jurisdictions may count toward their RHNA units that have received building permits, planning approvals, and other discretionary approvals that will be constructed during the 2023-3031 RHNA period (June 30, 2023 to December 15, 2031). Jurisdictions may also credit anticipated ADU units towards its RHNA. Table App-41 summarizes the number of units expected to be produced after June 30, 2023 that can be credited toward the City’s RHNA. For the Housing Element planning period, the City has a remaining RHNA of 66 lower income units and nine moderate income units.
Packet Page 287
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-77
Table App-41: Summary of Credits toward RHNA
Income Categories
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
RHNA 86 55 156 319 616
Potential ADU (based on trends) -- -- 112 -- 112
Projects 36 39 35 1,346 1,456
Total Credits 36 39 147 1,346 1,568
Remaining Need 50 16 9 0 75
Combined Remaining Need 66 9 0 75
a. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Pursuant to State law, the City may credit potential ADUs to the RHNA requirements by using the trends in ADU construction to estimate new production. Between 2018 and 2022, 69 ADU units were built in the City for an average of 14 ADUs per year (Table App-42). Assuming that 14 ADU units will be built per year, the City has assumed a total of 112 ADUs will be built between June of 2023 and December of 2031. This is a conservative estimate considering that as of December 1, 2022, 17 ADUs had been built in 2022 and an additional 56 had been approved, issued permits, or in construction but had not been completed. In addition, the City of Seaside actively promotes ADUs as a means of expanding housing opportunities and providing homeowners with extra rental income. To that end, the City’s website contains a complete “ADU Guide” which lays out the step-by-step process for obtaining building permits through the City. The City has also contracted with an architectural firm to create Pre-Approved ADU Plans that have been reviewed and stamped by the City’s Chief Building Official. Residents may utilize these plans free of charge and only need to submit an accompanying specific site plan for review prior to approval. In 2022, the City also began the process of implementing its $1,000,000 CalHome ADU Loan Program grant.
Table App-42: ADU Trends (2018-2022)
Year ADUs Built Approved/Permitted/In Construction
2018 3 0
2019 7 0
2020 14 0
2021 28 5
2022 17 51
Total 69 56
Average 14 –
To determine the affordability of ADUs, the City conducted survey of online rentals posted on Zillow in Seaside and other surrounding cities and compared the sizes of rental units with the sizes of ADUs built in Seaside. The average size of ADUs constructed in Seaside between 2018 and 2022 is 547 square feet. Table App-43 shows the average size and market rents of studios, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units in Seaside, Marina, and Salinas. ADUs constructed in Seaside are closest in size to one-bedroom units posted on Zillow in Seaside (523 square feet) and surrounding cities. Based on an average rental price if $1,995 for one-bedroom units in Seaside, ADUs of similar size would only be affordable to moderate income households (Table App-18). As a result, the City is assuming all potential 112 ADUs as affordable to moderate income households.
Packet Page 288
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-78
Table App-43: Size and Cost of Studio, 1-BR, and 2-BR Rentals – Seaside and Surrounding Areas
City
Average of Size (sq/ft) Average of Cost
Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom
Seaside N/A 523 925 $1,518 $1,995 $3,061
Marina N/A 596 1549 N/A $2,107 $2,534
Salinas 420 667 950 $1,654 $1,991 $2,614
Combined 420 646 938 $1,635 $2,004 $2,649
Zillow, October 2022.
b. Approved Projects
Residential developments approved and permitted, but not yet built (“pipeline projects”) can be credited towards the City’s RHNA for the 6th cycle Housing Element provided the City can demonstrate the units can be built by the end of the 6th cycle’s planning period. Similarly, units within completed projects which have received a certificate of occupancy after June 30, 2023 can also be credited towards the RHNA. The City currently has two active projects, one of which is associated with the buildout of previously approved development plans. c. Enclave at Cypress Grove (Phase 2 and 3)
The Seaside Estates Subdivision (known as the Enclaves at Cypress Grove) was approved by City Council on July 20, 2005 as a 125-parcel residential project for the construction of detached single-family residential home sites in conjunction with the Seaside Resort Development. The residential lots have an average lot size of 11,500 square feet for a total of 46.77 acres. The Seaside Resort Development also included the approval of a 330-unit hotel and 170 Timeshare units. The entire development will be constructed around the two existing 18 hole golf courses (Bayonet and Blackhorse). A total of 46 units from Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the Enclave development are not expected to be finalized until after June 30, 2023. As of October 2023, of the 16 units of Phase 2 that have been permitted, all units in Phase 2A have been finalized and five more units from Phase 2B are expected to be finalized soon. The 30 units in Phase 3 have been entitled and/or permitted homes will final and close escrow after 7/1/23. As of October 2023, nine foundations of Phase 3 units have been approved and foundations for three more units have been poured. There are no barriers or constraints that would impede Phase 2 and Phase 3 units from being completed within the planning period. d. Campus Town Specific Plan
The Campus Town site comprises about two neighboring tracts called the "Surplus II site" south of Gigling Road and the “26 Acres” site south of Lightfighter Drive. The following parcels make up the Specific Plan area:
031-151-013 (Portion)
031-151-018
031-151-024
031-151-029
031-151-031
031-151-032
031-151-036 (Portion)
031-151-037
031-151-038
031-151-039
031-151-040
031-151-041
031-151-042
031-151-043
031-151-044
031-151-054
031-151-055
031-151-056
031-261-003
031-261-004
This planning area consists of 120 acres of vacant and underutilized properties just south of California State University Monterey Bay on the former Fort Ord. Most of the existing buildings were originally a part of the Fort Ord base and will be demolished by FORA. As of July 2019, Packet Page 289
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-79
FORA had removed most of the buildings in the Specific Plan Area that had been identified for demolition, with the exception of eight buildings.
In May 2017, the City issued a Request for Proposal to develop a specific plan for this area, envisioned to provide arts, entertainment, retail, recreation, and housing opportunities to students, faculty, and to the region at-large. The Campus Town Specific Plan was approved by the City Council in March 2020.
Overall, the Specific Plan provides for a maximum 1,485 housing units to be developed,21 including 648 apartments, 228 townhomes, and 609 single-family homes (Figure App-10).
Campus Town is required to provide 20% affordable housing. The developer, KB-Bakewell, opted to provide deeper affordability for 15% affordable units. The City Inclusionary Housing Ordinance allows the equivalent inclusionary units at the following ratios: very low income units – 2:1; low income units – 1.5:1; and moderate income units – 1:1. At buildout, the inclusionary housing plan for Campus Town offers 225 affordable units (15.2% – 74 very low, 78 low, and 73 moderate income units), equivalent to 350 affordable units (23.6% – 148 very low, 129 low, and 73 moderate income units).
21 While there is a maximum capacity for 1,485 units within the Campus Town Specific Plan Area, 45 inclusionary units are expected to be built offsite. Thus, the total number of units expected from the Campus Town Project are 1,530.
Packet Page 290
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-80
Figure App-10: Campus Town Phasing and Timing
Source: Campus Town Specific Plan Phasing Schedule, February 6, 2020 Notes. 1. Equivalent Inclusionary Units. 2. Income breakdown of those 20 units post- 8 year units unknown so the City assumed 5 units from each income level (VLow, Low, Mod, Above Mod).
Packet Page 291
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-81
Figure App-11: Campus Town Specific Plan
Packet Page 292
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-82
Campus Town Phasing and Timing
Figure App-10 also shows the phasing and timing for the Campus Town Specific Plan Area. The phasing and timing information was obtained from the developer in April 2023. Of the total 1,485 proposed units in the Campus Town Specific Plan, 1,365 are expected to be built within the 6th Cycle Planning Period (next eight years). Only 120 units – 100 units in the Burger King and Existing Fire Station Site of Phase 1 and 20 units between 6th and 7th Avenues in Phase 2) are expected to be built after the next eight years. With the addition of 45 offsite inclusionary units, 1,410 units are expected to result from the Campus Town Project within the planning period (Table App-44).
Table App-44: Campus Town Units Expected by Income Level VL L Mod AM Total
Phase 1A 21 24 4 239 288 243 onsite units plus 45 offsite inclusionary units Phase 1B 0 0 16 578 594 excluding 100 units in Burger King & Existing Fire Station Site
Phase 2 15 15 15 483 528 excluding 20 units in 6th and 7th Ave Total 36 39 35 1,300 1,410
Source: Kimley-Horn (2023), KB Bakewell Seaside Venture II, LLC (developer). e. Remaining Need
Based on the City’s potential ADUs and approved projects (Enclave and Campus Town), the City has a total of 1,568 credit units. Since most of these units (1,346) are above moderate, the City still has a remaining need of 66 lower income units and nine (9) moderate units.
Table App-45: Summary of Credits toward RHNA
Income Categories
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
RHNA 86 55 156 319 616
Potential ADU (based on trends) 0 0 112 0 112
Projects 36 39 35 1346 1,456
Enclave- Phase 2 0 0 0 16 16
Enclave- Phase 3 0 0 0 30 30
Campus Town 36 39 35 1,300 1,410
Total Credits 36 39 147 1,346 1,568
Remaining Need 50 16 9 0 75
Combined Remaining Need 66 9 0 75
B. Inventory of Sites
This section assesses available land for near-term residential development to accommodate the remaining RHNA for this Housing Element planning period. The inventory was compiled based on a careful review of the existing and proposed Community and Land Use Element of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Specific Plans, and other reports such as the Long-Range Property Management Plan, as well as field and aerial photo observations. As the General Plan is not yet adopted, the sites inventory provides estimates of development capacity based on both the existing and proposed General Plan.
1. Vacant and Underutilized Sites Inventory Selection
Residential growth in Seaside could occur on a variety of residential and mixed-use acreage throughout the community. Since the City completed its Mid-Term Housing Element Update Packet Page 293
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-83
recently (2020), the City focused its efforts on re-evaluating the suitability of 5th Cycle element sites based on HCD’s 6th Cycle Element requirements.
To evaluate potential land resources for residential development, a parcel-specific site analysis was performed using a Geographic Information System (GIS) data, field observations, aerial photos, and building records. The vacant and underutilized land survey was conducted by reviewing individual parcels, the current development and density on those parcels, and potential units based on maximum and average densities. A vacant parcel is one that has no development on site. An underutilized parcel is or one that has built structures that are currently vacant, is a parking lot, or where the structure on the site does not maximize its potential, such as taking advantage of a land use designation or location to benefit both the property/business owner and the community. Many businesses are marginally operating and have not gone through major upgrades, and retrofitting/renovating for modern uses would not be cost-effective.
Various sources of information were used to help identify vacant and underutilized sites:
• West Broadway Specific Plan Existing Conditions Report: The West Broadway Urban Village Specific Plan (WBSP) was created to revitalize and enhance the economic, social, cultural, and recreational fabric of the City of Seaside's West Broadway Avenue. The Specific Plan describes and illustrates a vision for the area and provides a framework for creating an Urban Village around West Broadway Avenue as the City's downtown commercial core. In developing the Specific Plan, the City reviewed the existing conditions of properties within the Specific Plan area. Underutilized sites with potential for redevelopment were identified during this process. The Specific Plan noted vacant and underutilized properties throughout the entire Specific Plan area. They range in size and location, with some at significant and strategic locations. More details on the WBSP are provided in the next section.
• Long Range Property Management Plan: Several properties owned by the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency were identified in the LRPMP as appropriate for residential/mixed use development and to be sold to private developers. • Field Surveys and Aerial Photos: Sites were also identified as a result of field surveys and review of aerial photos.
• Building and Assessor Records: Building and Assessor records were reviewed to confirm recent activities on site.
• AFFH Conditions: AB 686 now requires that a jurisdiction identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) and the findings of its assessment of fair housing (see Section 7). In the context of AFFH, the site identification requirement involves whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. The analysis found that the Olympia and Terrace neighborhoods (Census Tract 137) had the highest concentrations of minorities, low and moderate income persons, limited access to opportunities, and that Terrace had the highest need for substantial repair and property maintenance. The Cabrillo neighborhood was also found to have low economic scores and is known to have some of the oldest housing in the City (developed around 1930s and 1940s). Northernmost parts of Cabrillo overlap within the West Broadway Specific Plan, making sites within this area suitable for development as they have been identified as having the potential to create strong linkages between activity centers within the City of Seaside and throughout the Monterey Peninsula, to help create a vibrant revitalized downtown that will provide economic growth and stability, and to and provide diverse housing opportunities for all income levels through the Specific Plan process.
The resulting sites inventory is made up of 30 sites. A majority of these sites (20 of 30) are vacant. However, for lower income RHNA, only 40% of sites (two of five) are vacant. These two vacant sites only accommodate about 12% of the City’s lower income RHNA. Per State law, if the inventory identifies non-vacant sites to address more than 50% of the regional Packet Page 294
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-84
housing need allocation, analysis is required to demonstrate the viability of sites for redevelopment with housing during the planning period.
The City identified three different types of non-vacant sites: Commercial sites, residential sites, and church sites.
• Commercial Sites: Three main criteria were employed to identify with underutilized potential: Improvement to land ratio (ILR), floor-to-area ratio (FAR), and existing use. The ILR assesses the relationship between the land's value and the structures erected upon it. In cases where the land's value significantly outweighs that of the buildings on it, it becomes advantageous for the owner to contemplate redevelopment with higher-rent or higher-sales-value uses. Similarly, a low FAR implies that the building square footage is minimal compared to the overall site size, suggesting potential for alternative redevelopment options. For example, a commercially zoned property featuring a low-rise shopping center with extensive surface parking areas may be categorized as underutilized. As detailed later, there is a recent project in the City (the Ascent) where a commercial structure with a beauty shop and barber shop and adjacent parking is being replaced with a new mixed-use development. In another recently approved projects (Seaside Marketplace), a grocery store and tattoo parlor are being demolished and replaced with another mixed-use project. ILR and FAR are only available for Seaside Market. In Seaside Market, the FAR for the parcel with a structure was 0.31 and the ILR ranged from 0.30 in the parking areas to 2.24 in the parcels with structured. These trends are similar to the ones cited by the City of Monterey. In their sixth cycle housing element draft (September 2023), they reported that the following characteristics are comparable to recent projects in the City and can be uses as evidence of viability to redevelop: Sites with existing commercial use and parking lot uses, FAR 0.26, and location along corridors or intersections.
Based on local trends, Seaside determined that non-vacant commercial sites were suitable for redevelopment if:
• FAR <0.30
• ILR <0.522
• Current age of structure is over 30 years old
• Commercial use: personal services, retail
o There are only two sites in the inventory with a current commercial useone is a beauty shop and another is a restaurant. Both have adjacent parking lot that also adds to the underutilization of the total area. • Residential Sites: The City also identified one residential site. This residential site was considered to be suitable for redevelopment if it met the FAR and ILR factors (ILR <0.5, FAR <0.30) to determine underutilization. In addition, a residential site was considered suitable for redevelopment if the number of potential units could at least be quadrupled.
In the case of the residential site selected, there is a potential for replacing a single unit with at least 20 units.
• Church Sites: AB 1851, approved in 2020, encourages religious institutions to pursue housing development by allowing these institutions to eliminate up to 50% of their parking spaces for housing. Cities may not require churches to replace that parking. The City identified three church sites (five parcels) with vacant and underutilized land that could be suitable for moderate income housing. For church sites, underutilization was 22 A 1:1 improvement to land ratio is usually used to determine the potential of sites to be redeveloped.
Packet Page 295
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-85
determined based on FAR (FAR <0.3). Church sites with large parking areas or vacant areas are more likely to accommodate housing.
a. West Broadway Urban Village Specific Plan
Parcels in the West Broadway Urban Village Specific Plan Area are designated for a range of residential densities. For example, the Mixed-use (MX) designation for parcels in the Specific Plan Area allows between 30 and 60 units per acre within a total FAR of 3.0, including high intensity residential, commercial, office, and civic uses. Residential High and Mixed Use (RH/MX) designation allows residential and mixed use developments using the Residential High development standards at a density of 25 units per acre. The Specific Plan area currently contains about 80 units but envisions close to 500 units at buildout along with approximately 317,000 square feet of nonresidential development, as shown in Table App-46. As stated earlier, underutilized sites with potential for redevelopment were identified during this process. The Specific Plan noted vacant and underutilized properties throughout the entire Specific Plan area.
The City reviewed the suitability of these vacant and underutilized properties to be included in the 6th Cycle sites inventory.
Table App-46: Development Potential in West Broadway Urban Village Plan New Use
Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV
Sq. Ft. DU Sq. Ft. DU Sq. Ft. DU Sq. Ft. DU
Mixed-Use Residential 15,100 41 87,600 58 58,000 114 160,700 213 Mixed-Use Office -- -- 116,100 -- -- -- 116,100 --
Library/Parking Project1 40,000 82 -- -- -- -- 40,000 82 Transit Center2 28,700 -- -- -- -- -- 28,700 --
Gateway Hotel Project 50,000 -- -- -- -- -- 50,000 --
Multi-family Housing -- 14 -- 61 -- 124 -- 199
Total per Phase 133,800 137 203,700 119 58,000 238 395,500 494 Notes:
1. Square footage of the library/parking mixed-use project includes the library, retail and housing, but does not include the parking structure.
2. Square footage in the transit station project accounts for office above the ground floor.
Source: City of Seaside, West Urban Village Specific Plan, 2010
2. Development Trends
Most of the City’s recent projects have been within former Fort Ord or Campus Town Specific Plan areas, such that trends and conditions from these projects are not applicable to the sites considered in the Sites Inventory. The Seaside Senior Living Project, Seaside Resort (which includes the Enclave homes), and Parker Flats are all projects within former Fort Ord. There are only two recent projects with residential components in the past planning period in the City that fall within the City limits- the Ascent and Seaside Market.
Packet Page 296
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-86
Figure App-12: Seaside Recent Projects
One of the City’s only recent infill redevelopment project is the Ascent—a ten-building workforce rental housing consisting of 105 one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom units and townhouses. Pursuant to the development agreement, the project set aside 14 units affordable to low income households. The project also included 4,000 square feet of retail space, a shared vehicular court and green space areas for residents. The Ascent Project used lot line adjustment to combine 13 parcels into six adjusted parcels with a total area of 2.85 acres. The project also used density bonus to increase its unit potential from a code-permitted 78 units to 105 units.
The Ascent was Seaside’s first multi-family project redevelopment in over 20 years which converted a one-story, 3,240 square foot commercial building occupied with a barber shop and beauty shop and a one-story, 5,760 square-foot vacant commercial building and its associated parking into a mixed-use space. This development realized the City priorities of growing upward, increasing affordable housing supply and becoming more transit and pedestrian-friendly and will accelerate the City’s improvements for the Downtown district.
Figure App- 13: The Ascent
Packet Page 297
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-87
In addition, the Planning Commission recently approved Seaside Market, a 32-unit mixed-use project in the West Broadway Specific Plan.
23 The project will demolish a commercial space and
adjacent parking in four parcels totaling 0.59 acres and convert it into a five-story mixed-use space with commercial on the ground floor. The project has set-aside 20% of units to be affordable (two very low-, two low, and three moderate income). The project will also consolidate the four existing parcels on the property. The project achieved a density of 54 units per acre in a zone that allows for up to 60 units per acre- achieving 90 % of the maximum allowable density. Table App-47 shows detailed project characteristics for both the Ascent and Seaside Market.
Figure 14: Seaside Market
23 The Seaside Market project is located in the site previously identified as Site D in the first draft of the Housing Element. The Site has been removed from the sites inventory. However, the conditions of the project support the assumptions made in the sites inventory for the development potential and consolidated potential of these sites due to common ownership.
Packet Page 298
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-88
Packet Page 299
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-89
Table App-47: Recent Redevelopment Projects
Zoning Existing Use Size
(acres)
Units Max
Density
Density
achieved
% Max
Density
Lot Consl. Description
Ascent CMX Commercialbarbershop and
beauty salon
2.85 105
14 L
1 du/
1,732 s.f.
(~25 du/ac)
36 du/ac Over 100%, used
density bonus
Yes, 13 parcels
into six
Lot adjustment
TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS, ONE WITH
beauty salon and barber shop,
other vacant, demolished and
replaced with a mixed-use
development consisting of 9 multifamily buildings and one mixed-use building.
Seaside
Market
WBSPRH/MX,
WBSP-MX
Commercial;
Grocery store and
tattoo shop
0.59 32
2 VL,
2L,
3 Mod_
30 du/ac1
60 du/ac
54 du/ac
90% of 60 du/ac
Yes, 4 parcels into
1 Common
ownership
Former Seaside Market grocery
store, which has been
nonoperational for a number of
years and tattoo shop replaced with
a five-story mixed use building with
9,900 sf of commercial
FAR: 0.31 (parcel with structure)
ILR: 0.30, 0.30, 1.34, 2.27
1. The land use designation of WBSP-RH/MX allows housing densities from 20 to 30 du/ac while a designation of WBSP-MX allows housing densities from 30 to 60 du du/ac.
Packet Page 300
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-90
The City expects this recycling trend to continue into the next planning period. In the past three years, a total of two projects have been approved in zoning that allows for 100 percent nonresidential uses as well as mixed-use. One of these projects was the mixed-use Seaside Market project and the other was a 100% non-residential project for the construction a New American Legion project. However, while this implies as 50% trend of sites that allow for both residential and non-residential uses, there is increasing interest in mixed-use development in the City. For example, the City approved the conversion of a commercially zoned storage space to residential use and has not received requests to in the opposite direction. In addition, all expressed inquiries with the City in the mixed-use zones have included a residential component.
Furthermore, the General Plan update will provide significant increase in capacity to buffer losses should sites be developed without residential uses.
3. Estimating Development Potential
To estimate the level of development allowed, each vacant and underutilized parcel was reviewed for appropriateness for residential use. Recognizing the new State law requirements for assessing the City’s continued ability to meet the RHNA (SB 166 and AB 1379), this sites inventory conservatively uses a density factor of 70% of the maximum allowable density. This density factor brings the estimating of realistic capacity to the lower end of the density range of the respective zones and is similar to the density factor used in Salinas based on typical developments in the City. These estimates are more conservative than the densities achieved recently in the City in the Ascent and Seaside Market. The Ascent Project was approved in 2020 and consisted of the construction of a proposed mixed-use development consisting of 10 buildings with 105 residential units in a 2.85-acre site. The project was located in the Commercial Mixed-Use zoning district, which allows for a maximum of 1 unit per 1,742 square feet (approximately 25 units per acre). The project exceeded the maximum allowed density with a 27- unit density bonus.
Seaside Market is a five-story mixed use project with 9,900 square feet of commercial area on the ground floor and a total of 32 residential units. The project is located on four parcels totaling
0.59 acre in the West Broadway Urban Village Specific Plan, zoned both Mixed Use and High Density Residential/Mixed Use. The project has a realized density of 90% (54 du/ac) the maximum allowable density of 60 units per acre, a much higher yield than the 70% than was assumed in the calculations of potential density for the sites inventory.
As the proposed General Plan may be adopted after with the Housing Element, development potential on the vacant and underutilized sites is estimated based on both the existing and proposed General Plan. Table App-48 shows the densities used for the based on the proposed and existing land use designations. With the proposed General Plan, standalone residential uses would be permitted uses in the Mixed Use Low and Mixed Use High neighborhoods and therefore, enhancing the feasibility and capacity for residential development in these areas.
Table App-48: Proposed vs Existing General Plan Land Use Designations and Densities Proposed General Plan
Land Use Designation
Proposed Density
(units/acre)
Existing General Plan (2004) Land Use
Designation
Existing Density
(units/acre)
Neighborhood Low 8 Low Density Single Family Residential 8 Neighborhood Medium 15 Medium Density Single Family Residential 12 Neighborhood General 30 Medium Density Residential 15
Neighborhood High 45 High Density Residential 25
Mixed Use Low
Mixed Use High
45 60
Mixed Use
Community Commercial (CC)
25 WBSP 20-30 WBSP-RH/MX 20-30
WBSP 30-60 WBSP-MX 30-60
Packet Page 301
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-91
4. Lot Consolidation
The City recognizes that many existing parcels in the City are small and lot consolidation may be required to accommodate new affordable housing construction. While the City’s sites inventory contains small parcels, these are expected to be consolidated to form sites that are larger than
0.5 acre. No individual small parcels are used to fulfill the City’s lower income RHNA.
The City has an incentive program to encourage lot consolidation, providing redevelopment funds to affordable housing developers to assist in the acquisition of adjoining properties. The Ascent Project used lot line adjustment to combine 13 parcels into six adjusted parcels with a total area of 2.85 acres (see Figure App-15). The consolidated parcel sizes are as follows: 1) 0.52 acres, 2)
0.53 acres, 3) 0.53 acres, 4) 0.26 acres, 5) 0.33 acres, 6) 0.66 acres.
Figure App-15: Lot Consolidation in the Ascent Project
The Seaside Market project required the consolidation of four parcels into a single 2.85-acre property as a condition of approval. The parcels have common ownership. The site will be redeveloped from vacant commercial space and parking to a 32-unit mixed-use five-story building. Seven of the 32 units have been set-aside as affordable (two very low income, two low income, and three moderate income).
Sites must be at least 0.5 acres to be suitable for lower income sites. However, as shown in the examples above, sites can be consolidated with adjacent sites as part of a larger project. For the Packet Page 302
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-92
Sixth Cycle sites inventory, the City only has one site where lot consolidation would be required (Site H) and one of the parcels in the site is at least 0.5 acres. In Site H, if lot consolidation does not occur due to differences of ownership, there would only be a loss of four lower income units and there would still be enough lower income units (83 units) to satisfy the City’s remaining lower income RHNA of 60 units.
5. Sites to Accommodate Lower Income RHNA
Sites to accommodate lower income RHNA must meet density and size requirements to be deemed appropriate for lower income RHNA. Parcels must be zoned to allow sufficient density to accommodate the economies of scale needed to produce affordable housing. In 2004 state law was amended (AB 2348) to identify “default densities” that are considered suitable for lowerincome housing. For suburban jurisdictions such as Seaside, the default density is “at least” 20 units per acre. “At least” means the density range allowed on the parcel by the zone has to include the default density. Mixed-Use, Community Commercial (CC), High Density Residential, and WBSP land use designations in the Existing General Plan and Mixed-Use Low, Mixed-Use High, Neighborhood General and West Broadway Urban Village Specific Plan land use designations in the Proposed General Plan allow densities within the default density of 20 units per acre and can accommodate lower income units.
In addition to meeting allowing at least 20 units per acre, parcels also need to be appropriately sized (between 0.5 to 10 acres) to achieve financial feasibility of lower income units. The City identified five (5) parcels with capacity for 132 lower income units to meet the City’s remaining lower income need of 66 units under the City’s Existing General Plan. About 12% of the City’s remaining lower income RHNA was accommodated in vacant sites and 88% are in non-vacant sites (Table App-49). Under the Proposed General Plan, these five (5) parcels have the capacity for 240 units, providing a 264% buffer for the remaining need of 66 lower income units.
Table App-50: Lower Income Sites- Vacant vs Underutilized- Proposed General Plan Parcels Units % Total Lower Income RHNA
Vacant 2 26 10.8%
Underutilized 3 214 89.2%
Total 5 240 100.0%
a. Site H
Existing GP: Site H is made up of Site 18 and has a capacity for 8 units. The site is vacant. Site 18 alone meets the requirements to be considered a lower income housing site (is at least half an acre and has a density of at least 20 units per acre).
Proposed GP: Site H has capacity of 20 units under the Proposed General Plan.
Table App-49: Lower Income Sites- Vacant vs Underutilized- Existing General Plan Parcels Units % Total Lower Income RHNA
Vacant 2 16 12.1%
Underutilized 3 116 87.9%
Total 5 132 100.0%
Packet Page 303
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-93
Figure App-16: Site H – Lower Income Site
Site # Acres
Proposed GP
LUD
Proposed
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol.
ID. Owner ID
Existing
Use
Neighborho
od
18 0.51 Mixed Use
Low
45 0.7 16 H 3 vacant Terrace
Total 16
b. Site K
Existing GP: Site K is made up of a single parcel (site 23) which is mostly undeveloped except for a single-family home that covers a portion of site. The homes are old and have not been improved for many years. With a Community Commercial designation, the site has the potential for 20 lower income units. Site 23 is located in a neighborhood (Rousch) that has access to parks and no education issues.
Proposed GP: Site K has a proposed Mixed-Use High land use designation with a potential capacity of 49 units.
Site # Acres
Existing GP
LU
Existing
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol.
ID.
Owner
ID
Existing
Use Neighborhood
18 0.51 Mixed Use 25 0.7 8 H 3 vacant Terrace
Total 8
Packet Page 304
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-94
Figure App-17: Site K – Lower Income Site
Site # Acres Existing GP
LUD
Existing
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
23 1.19 Community
Commercial
25 0.7 20 K 27 SFH with
unimproved lot
Rousch
Total 20
Site # Acres Proposed GP
LUD
Proposed
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
23 1.19 Mixed Use
High
60 0.7 49 K 27 SFH with
unimproved lot
Rousch
Total 49
c. Site N
Existing GP: Site N is a 0.5 acre portion of a 0.95 acre parcel located in the Ord Grove neighborhood. Site is currently vacant, except for a small structure in the northwest quadrant of the parcel (not included in the site). Site N has the capacity for 8 units under the existing General Plan.
Proposed GP: Site N has a proposed land use designation of Neighborhood General and a potential capacity for 10 units.
Packet Page 305
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-95
Site # Acres Existing GP
LUD
Existing
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
27 0.50 High Density
Residential
25 0.7 8 L 28 Vacant Ord Grove
Total 8
d. Site O: Greater Victory Temple Church
Existing GP: Site O is a portion of Greater Victory Temple Church’s two-acre property located at the intersection of Yosemite Street and Broadway Avenue. Victory Temple Church has interest in building affordable housing units on its two-level parking lot. The Church has entered into an agreement with Campus Town to manage 27 off-site units to be built by developer KB Bakewell Seaside Venture II as part of the Campus Town Project. On April 2023, the parcel was rezoned from Medium High Density to High Density Residential. While the land use and zoning changes increased the number of potentially allowed units in the property is 50 units, the actual number of units that could be located in the site and that the church is interested in managing is 36 units due to a large portion of the property continuing to be used as a religious institution.24 24 Duan, Mary. (April 9, 2021). “A historic Black church looks to get into affordable housing as part of the Campus Town development.” https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/a-historic-black-church-looks-to-get-intoaffordable-housing-as-part-of-the-campus/article_c6ebca74-97e8-11eb-bb9d-1fed81bc92dc.html Site # Acres Proposed GP
LUD
Proposed
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
27 0.5 Neighborhood
General
30 0.7 10 L 28 Vacant Ord Grove
Total 10
Packet Page 306
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-96
Units built would not need to be subdivided into separate ownership lots, making the development of housing on the site feasible . In addition, this site is particularly suited for lower income units because :
• It is located at a major intersection, is well-served by mass transit, and is located less than a half-mile from the intersection of two significant bus routes; • It is located across the street from the Seaside Community Seventh-Day Adventist Church, which meets on Saturdays and cooperates with Victory Mission with regards providing parking at the various sites;
• The remainder of the block is already zoned for High-Density and the proposed designation would enable the Property to be developed consistent with the existing development; and
• The site is not located adjacent to any single-family dwellings Given the Church’s interest to manage 36 units in the site, there is an additional capacity for nine lower income units (the remainder after subtracting the 27 campus town units).
Proposed GP: The estimated capacity is nine additional lower income units (above the 27 units that will be Campus Town’s off-site requirement) under both existing and proposed General Plan land use designations. Total capacity on this site is 36 units based on the Church’s expressed interest.
Note: Area within boundary is about one acre. However, area denotes generally where the affordable units can be located. Capacity estimates are based on the Church’s interest. The 9-unit capacity indicated below represents the additional units to the 27 units that are already accounted for under the Campus Town off-site inclusionary housing requirement.
Packet Page 307
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-97
Site # Acres Existing GP
LUD
Existing
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
28 N/A High Density
Residential
25 9 O 29 Vacant Highland
Total 9
Site # Acres Proposed GP
LUD
Proposed
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
28 N/A Neighborhood
High
45 9 O 29 Vacant Highland
Total 9
Note: Units remain at 9 despite increased density in the Proposed GP because the church is interested in managing 36 units and it has already entered into contract to manage 27 off-site units from Campus Town. e. Site P: Parker Flats Site
Site P is a 4.98-acre parcel located in the former Fort Ord. This site formerly had an approved project called “Parker Flats”— a 42-unit infill building remodel of former nurses’ barracks in a high density residential (RH) zoning district (APN: 031-150-011). The project would remodel two building structures. While the project has been approved, the owner has been in contact with the City expressing desire to apply for a different project in the future. Because the Parker Flats project is unlikely to move forward as the previously approved 42-unit project, the City is considering Parker Flats as a potential site.
Existing GP: The 4.98-acre site contains two buildings as well as some paved parking area. With the site’s current zoning (RH), the site has a capacity for 87 units. Given the allowable density, this site can facilitate lower income housing.
Proposed GP: Site P’s proposed General Plan designation is Neighborhood High which allows a maximum of 45 units per acre. The site has a capacity for 156 lower income units under the proposed General Plan.
Packet Page 308
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-98
Site # Acres Existing GP
LUD
Existing
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
34 4.98 High Density
Residential
25 0.7 87 S 33 Former nurses
barracks
Former Fort
Ord
Total 87
Site # Acres Proposed GP
LUD
Proposed
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
34 4.98 Neighborhood
High
45 0.7 156 S 33 Former nurses
barracks
Former Fort
Ord
Total 156
Packet Page 309
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-99
6. Sites to Accommodate Moderate Income RHNA
The City has a remaining need to accommodate six moderate income units. The City identified moderate income sites based on the output of the preliminary analysis to identify underutilized and vacant sites described earlier. Most underutilized sites identified were in or near the WBSP area or were more suitable for lower income units since they met the size and density requirements. The WBSP area is also within an area with a concentration of low and moderate income households. WBSP sites were selected as suitable for moderate income if they did not meet the lower income site requirements. However, to avoid a concentration of moderate income sites in one area, the City also identified vacant sites throughout the City, though they tend to be smaller in size. As stated earlier, the City recognizes that many existing parcels in the City are small and lot consolidation may be required. As a result, sites were considered appropriate for moderate income if they could be developed to fit at least two units alone or in conjunction with adjacent parcels. Most vacant adjacent parcels selected had the same ownership increasing the likelihood of lot consolidation.
City identified 25 sites with a combined capacity of 65 units to meet its remaining moderate income RHNA need under the existing General Plan and 85 moderate income units under the proposed General Plan. The majority of these units are located in vacant sites within the West Broadway Urban Village Specific Plan area and the Mixed Use Low zones (under the proposed General Plan).
The site-by-site analysis below is grouped based on Proposed General Plan land use designations25 but a discussion on capacity based on existing General Plan land use designations is included in each section.
Table App-51: Moderate Income Sites – Existing General Plan Existing GP Designation Parcels Units
% Moderate Income
RHNA
Moderate Income Units
in vacant sites
WBSP 7 29 42.0% 19
Mixed Use 4 5 7.2% 2
Community Commercial 2 6 8.7% 6
High Density Residential 1 3 4.3% 3
Medium Density Residential 6 6 8.7% 6
Low Density Residential 5 16 29.0% 3
Grand Total 25 65 100.0% 39
a. WBSP Sites
Existing GP: There are seven moderate income sites located within the West Broadway Urban Village Specific Plan area. Site C is made up of vacant Sites 5-7 with a combined capacity for nine moderate income units. Sites 6 and 7 have the same owner. Site B is made of up vacant 25 Grouping is done based on the Proposed General Plan since its use designations allow for larger groupings and simplified analysis.
Table App-52: Moderate Income Sites – Proposed General Plan Proposed GP Designation Parcels Units
% Moderate Income
RHNA
Moderate Income Units
in vacant sites
WBSP 7 29 34.1% 19
Mixed Use Low 8 29 34.1% 23
Neighborhood General 6 16 18.8% 11
Neighborhood Medium 1 8 9.4% 0
Neighborhood Low 3 3 3.5% 3
Grand Total 25 85 100.0% 56
Packet Page 310
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-100
Site 3 and underutilized Site 4 with a combined capacity of 14 units. Site 4 is currently being used as an auto body shop and parking for that body shop. The parking lot is both adjacent to a vacant site to the south and adjacent to an existing use that is currently trending as being redeveloped (autoshop uses). Site A is made up of underutilized Site 1 and vacant Site 2 with a combined capacity of six units. Site 1 currently has a beauty salon and a car tinting shop. Site 2 was identified to be sold and appropriate as transit-oriented development in Seaside’s Long Range Property Management Plan. Combined, all WBSP sites have a capacity of 29 moderate income units.
As stated earlier, the WBSP is intended to help create a vibrant revitalized downtown that will provide economic growth and stability, and to and provide diverse housing opportunities for all income levels Sites within the WBSP are intended to incentivize investment in this area and improve local conditions.
Proposed GP: WBSP moderate income sites have the same capacity of 29 sites under the proposed General Plan because the densities are the same as in the existing General Plan.
Figure App-18: Moderate Income Sites within West Broadway Specific Plan Site A and Site B
Packet Page 311
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-101
Site C
Site # Acres
Propose/
Existing GP
LUD
Proposed/
Existing
Density discount
realistic
cap.
Lot
Consol.
ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
1 0.09 WBSP 60 0.7 3 A 24 beauty salon /tinting; N/A
2 0.09 WBSP 60 0.7 3 A 18 Identified in the LRPMP to be sold and appropriate as transitoriented development; vacant and unpaved
N/A
3 0.17 WBSP 60 0.7 7 B 22 Vacant and unpaved; next to
body shop parking
N/A
4 0.17 WBSP 60 0.7 7 B 23 Auto body shop parking Lot N/A 5 0.09 WBSP 60 0.7 3 C 17 vacant Cabrillo
6 0.09 WBSP 60 0.7 3 C 16 vacant Cabrillo
7 0.08 WBSP 60 0.7 3 C 16 vacant Cabrillo
Total 29
b. Mixed-Use Low
Existing GP: The City identified eight sites with a mixed-use low designation under the proposed General Plan that have a variety of land use designations under the existing General Plan: Mixed Use, Community Commercial, and Medium Density Residential. These sites have the potential for a combined 13 moderate income units. Site F is made up of Sites 12 and 13 that are currently in use as a restaurant and parking lot. The parking lot is used by the restaurant and since the use of the restaurant is expected to be recycled, the parking lot could either be developed in conjunction with the restaurant site or could be redeveloped alone since the restaurant use is currently considered underutilized. Site G is located south of Site G and is made up of two adjacent vacant parcels (Site 14 and 15). Site 14 and 15 also have the same owner making development in these two parcels likely and with a capacity for 2 moderate income units. Site S is made up of Sites 16 and 17 and have the same owner, having the combined potential for two moderate income units. Site K is made up of sites 24 and 25 with a combined capacity for 6 moderate income. Sites 24 and 25 are located in Ord Grove, an area outside neighborhoods with a concentration of low and moderate income concentration and minority concentration but still close to transit.
Packet Page 312
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-102
Proposed GP: Sites with a mixed-use low designation have a combined capacity for 29 moderate income units under the proposed General Plan. With a mixed-use low designation these sites are expected to be redeveloped in conjunction with amenities.
Figure App-19: Mixed-Use Low Moderate Income Sites
Packet Page 313
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-103
Site # Acres Existing GP
Existing
Density discount
realistic
capacity
Lot
Consol.
ID.
Owner
ID
Existing
Use Neighborhood
12 0.15 Mixed Use 25 0.7 2 F 5 Parking
lot
Terrace
13 0.08 Mixed Use 25 0.7 1 F 6 restaurant Terrace
14 0.15 Medium Density
Residential
15 0.7 1 G 7 vacant Terrace
15 0.15 Medium Density
Residential
15 0.7 1 G 7 vacant Terrace
16 0.06 Mixed Use 25 0.7 1 S 4 vacant Terrace
17 0.11 Mixed Use 25 0.7 1 S 4 vacant Terrace
24 0.22 Community
Commercial
25 0.7 3 M 1 vacant Ord Grove
25 0.18 Community
Commercial
25 0.7 3 M 1 vacant Ord Grove
Total 13
Packet Page 314
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-104
Site # Acres Proposed GP
Proposed
Density discount
realisti
c
capacit
y
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID
Existing
Use Neighborhood
12 0.15 Mixed Use Low 45 0.7 4 F 5 Parking lot Terrace
13 0.08 Mixed Use Low 45 0.7 2 F 6 restaurant Terrace
14 0.15 Mixed Use Low 45 0.7 4 G 7 vacant Terrace
15 0.15 Mixed Use Low 45 0.7 4 G 7 vacant Terrace
16 0.06 Mixed Use Low 45 0.7 1 S 4 vacant Terrace
17 0.11 Mixed Use Low 45 0.7 3 S 4 vacant Terrace
24 0.22 Mixed Use Low 45 0.7 6 M 1 vacant Ord Grove
25 0.18 Mixed Use Low 45 0.7 5 M 1 vacant Ord Grove
Total 29
c. Neighborhood General Sites
Existing GP: Sites with a proposed Neighborhood General land use designation have Medium and High Density Residential designations under the existing General Plan. Densities for sites range from 15 units per acre in medium density residential sites and 25 units per acre in high density residential sites. These sites have a combined capacity of seven moderate income units.
Proposed GP: The City identified five sites with a proposed Neighborhood General land use designation with a combined capacity of 11 moderate income units. All Neighborhood General sites identified are vacant and located in Terrace or Ord Grove.
Figure App-20: Neighborhood General Sites
Packet Page 315
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-105
Site # Acres Existing GP lUD
Existing
Density discount
realistic
capacity
Lot
Consol.
ID. Owner ID Existing Use Neighborhood
19 0.13 Medium Density
Residential
15 0.7 1 I 11 vacant Terrace
20 0.13 Medium Density
Residential
15 0.7 1 I 11 vacant Terrace
21 0.18 Medium Density
Residential
15 0.7 1 J 10 vacant Terrace
22 0.09 Medium Density
Residential
15 0.7 1 J 10 vacant Terrace
26 0.19 High Density
Residential
25 0.7 3 L 9 vacant Ord Grove
Total 7
Site # Acres Proposed GP LUD
Proposed
Density discount
realistic
capacity
Lot
Consol.
ID. Owner ID Existing Use Neighborhood
19 0.13 Neighborhood
General
30 0.7 2 I 11 vacant Terrace
20 0.13 Neighborhood
General
30 0.7 2 I 11 vacant Terrace
21 0.18 Neighborhood
General
30 0.7 3 J 10 vacant Terrace
22 0.09 Neighborhood
General
30 0.7 1 J 10 vacant Terrace
26 0.19 Neighborhood
General
30 0.7 3 L 9 vacant Ord Grove
Total 11
Packet Page 316
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-106
Church Sites
AB 1851, approved in 2020, encourages religious institution to pursue housing development by allowing these institutions to eliminate up to 50% of their parking spaces for housing. Cities may not require churches to replace that parking. The City identified three church sites (five parcels) with vacant and underutilized land that could be suitable for moderate income housing. A program has been included in the Housing Plan to facilitate development in Faith-Based properties.
d. Site P: Lighthouse Baptist Church
Existing GP: Site P is a portion of Lighthouse Baptist Church at the intersection of Hilby Ave and Wheeler St in the Rousch neighborhood. About 0.93 acres of the 2.3 acre parcel were selected as the possible area for housing. This area is currently used as parking and does not entail the entire parking area available. This area is only used as an estimate and when developed, the area can be reconfigured. This parcel has a low density single family residential land use designation under the existing General Plan and is zoned for RS-8. Under SB 4, projects in faith-based properties located in an area zoned for residential use must be allowed a density deemed appropriate for lower income households per housing element law, or 20 units per acre in Seaside. Using 20 units per acre and with a 70% development adjustment, the site has the potential for 13 lower income units.
Proposed GP: The parcel’s land use designation under the proposed General Plan is Neighborhood General, which allows for a maximum density of 30 units per acre. With a 70% adjustment, the site has an estimated capacity is 19 additional lower income under the proposed General Plan land use designations.
Packet Page 317
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-107
Site # Acres Existing GP
LUD
Existing
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
29 0.93 Low Density
Residential
8 0.7 5 P 30 Parking Rousch
Total 5
Site # Acres Proposed GP
LUD
Proposed
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
29 0.93 Neighborhood
General
8 0.7 19 P 30 Parking Rousch
Total 19
* Per SB 4.
e. Site Q: Hilltop United Methodist Church
Existing GP: Site Q is a portion of Hilltop United Methodist Church at the intersection of Hilby Ave and Noche Buena St in the Kimball neighborhood. About 1.53 acres of the 3 acre parcel were selected as the possible area for housing. This area is currently mostly vacant and unimproved with the exception of a small basketball court in the middle. This area is only used as an estimate and when developed, the area can be reconfigured. This parcel has a low density single family residential land use designation under the existing General Plan and is zoned for RS-8.
Under SB 4, projects in faith-based properties located in an area zoned for residential use must be allowed a density deemed appropriate for lower income households per housing element law, or 20 units per acre. Using 20 units per acre and with a 70% development adjustment, the site has the potential for 21 lower income units.
Proposed GP: The parcel’s land use designation under the proposed General Plan is Neighborhood Medium, which allows for a maximum density of 15 units per acre. However, SB 4 allows the density to be 20 units per acre. With a 70% adjustment, the site has an estimated capacity is 21 lower income units under the proposed General Plan land use designations.
Packet Page 318
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-108
Site # Acres Existing GP
LUD
Existing
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
30 1.53 Low Density
SF Residential
8 0.7 8 Q 31 Vacant part of
parcel
Kimball
Total 8
Site # Acres Proposed GP
LUD
Proposed
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
30 1.53 Neighborhood
Medium
8 0.7 8 Q 31 Vacant part of
parcel
Kimball
Total 8
* Per SB 4. Proposed density for Neighborhood Medium is 15 units per acre. However, per SB 4, 100% affordable projects can have a density of 20 units per acre.
f. Site R: Grace Church Monterey Bay
Existing GP: Site Q is made up of Sites 31, 32, and 33, all of which are part of Grace Church of Monterey Bay located at the intersection of Santa Clara Ave and Waring St in the Ord Grove neighborhood. Sites are labeled based on a single APN. Site 31 comprised the entire 0.35 parcel which is vacant and undeveloped. Site 32 is made up of two areas, a vacant portion to the north and a paved parking area to the south which have a combined area of 0.78 acres. Site 32 is made up of the vacant 0.22 acre portion of a parcel that is undeveloped. These sites have a combined area of 1.35 acres. Given that the Church may elect to configure the land to be developed differently (i.e. only develop the land to the north or south of the existing building, or develop both), the City is conservatively assuming that only half of the area available (0.68 acres) will be Packet Page 319
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-109
developed into lower income housing. These parcels has a low density single family residential land use designation under the existing General Plan and are zoned for RS-8. Under SB 4, projects in faith-based properties located in an area zoned for residential use must be allowed a density deemed appropriate for lower income households per housing element law, or 20 units per acre. Using 20 units per acre and with a 70% development adjustment, the site has the potential for at least right lower income units.
Proposed GP: The parcel’s land use designation under the proposed General Plan is Neighborhood Low, which allows for a maximum density of 8 units per acre. However, SB 4 allows the density to be 20 units per acre. With a 70% adjustment, the site has an estimated capacity is eight lower income units under the proposed General Plan land use designations.
Site # Acres Existing GP
LUD
Existing
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
31 0.35 Low Density
SF Residential
8 0.7 3 R 32 Vacant Ord Grove
32 0.78 Low Density
SF Residential
8 0.7 R 32 Part of parcelparking Ord Grove
33 0.22 Low Density
SF Residential
8 0.7 R 32 Part of parcelvacantOrd Grove
Total 3
Note: Total area available is 1.35 acres both north and south of the Church structure but only half the acreage is considered in the potential capacity to give church flexibility in the configuration of development.
Site # Acres Proposed GP
LUD
Proposed
Density
Den.
Discount
Potential
Capacity
Lot
Consol. ID.
Owner
ID Existing Use Neighborhood
31 0.35 Neighborhood
Low
8 0.7 3 R 32 Vacant Ord Grove
Packet Page 320
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-110
32 0.78 Neighborhood
Low
8 0.7 R 32 Part of parcelparking Ord Grove
33 0.22 Neighborhood
Low
8 0.7 R 32 Part of parcelvacantOrd Grove
Total 3
Note: Total area available is 1.35 acres both north and south of the Church structure but only half the acreage is considered in the potential capacity to give church flexibility in the configuration of development.
7. Adequacy of Sites Inventory
State law requires that adequate sites are available to accommodate the City’s RHNA for the entire duration of the RHNA planning period. This analysis assesses the adequacy of the sites inventory based on two scenarios: the existing General Plan and the proposed General Plan. The proposed General Plan Land Use Element offers increased opportunities for higher density residential development.
Table App-53 shows the capacity in the 30 identified sites in the inventory under the existing General Plan conditions. Under the existing General Plan, the City meets its remaining need of 66 lower income units and nine moderate income units. Pursuant to SB 166, HCD recommends an additional buffer that will provide the City with the capacity to address potential net loss issues over the planning period. HCD recommends that each jurisdiction identify additional candidate sites to accommodate a RHNA buffer of 15% to 30%. The surplus under the existing general plan provides only an 100% buffer and under the proposed General Plan, the buffer is 264% (Table App-54).
Packet Page 321
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-111
Table App-53: Sixth Cycle Sites Inventory – Existing General Plan Income Level
Extremely/
Very Low
(0-50% AMI)
Low
(51%-80%)
Moderate
(81%-120%)
Above
Moderate
(121%+) Total
RHNA 86 55 156 319 616
Total Credits 36 39 147 1,346 1,568
Potential ADUs 0 0 112 0 0
Projects 36 39 35 1346 1,456
Remaining RHNA 66 9 0 75
6th Cycle Sites
WBSP -- 29 -- 29
Mixed Use 8 5 -- 13
Community Commercial 20 6 -- 26
High Density Residential 104 3 -- 107
Medium Density Residential -- 6 -- 6
Low Density Residential -- 16 -- 16
Grand Total 132 65 -- 197
Shortfall/Surplus +66 +56 -- +122
% of Remaining Need +100% +622% -- +163%
Adequate Sites Yes Yes -- Yes
Table App-54: Sixth Cycle Sites Inventory – Proposed General Plan Income Level
Extremely/
Very Low
(0-50% AMI)
Low
(51%-80%)
Moderate
(81%-120%)
Above
Moderate
(121%+) Total
RHNA 86 55 156 319 616
Total Credits 39 42 150 1,379 1,610
Potential ADUs 0 0 112 0 0
Projects 39 42 38 1379 1,498
Remaining RHNA 60 6 0 66
6th Cycle Sites
WBSP -- 29 -- 29
Mixed-Use High 49 -- -- 49
Mixed-Use Low 16 29 -- 45
Neighborhood General 10 16 -- 40
Neighborhood High 165 --
Neighborhood Medium -- 8 30
Neighborhood Low -- 3 -- 8
Grand Total 240 85 325 201
Shortfall/Surplus +174 +76 -- +250
% of remaining Need +264% +844 -- 333%
Adequate Sites Yes Yes -- Yes
Packet Page 322
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-112
Figure App- 21: Sites Inventory Map
Packet Page 323
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-113
8. Availability of Water
Development in the Monterey Bay area has long been constrained by the lack of water and the City of Seaside is among one of the most constrained communities. A cease and desist order from the State Water Resources Control Board prohibits the installation of new water meters until July 2021. Therefore, while the City has rights to a certain amount of water in the next 5 years, the City does not currently have access to that water.
The City of Seaside is pursuing multiple strategies to make water available for development:
• Private Water: Some developers have access to private water for development. For example, the 105-unit project Ascent Project at Broadway and Terrace utilizes private water.
• Diverting Potable Water used at the Bayonet and Black Horse Golf Course: The City of Seaside owns the land but leased it out for the golf course. Currently the golf course is watered with potable water. The City is in the midst of a legal battle to take the potable water from the golf course for human consumption and redirect reclaimed stormwater for the golf course.
• In-Lieu Storage and Recovery Program: The City has proposed partnering with MCWD to develop an in-lieu storage and recovery program involving a portion of MCWD's 600 AF per year entitlement to advanced-treated recycled water from the Pure Water Monterey Project. MCWD has plans to increase the use of recycled water to offset potable water demand, up to 453 AFY by 2035 (MCWD 2016). Additional projects to replace potable water with recycled water for golf course uses (see below) is being considered by the City. The increased use of recycled water will offset the increased potable water demand anticipated by future projects.
• Pure Water Monterey: The City is participating in the Pure Water Monterey project, which will provide a clean, safe and sustainable source of water for Monterey County. It emphasizes advanced water recycling technology, replenishment of the groundwater supply and protection of the environment. Pure Water Monterey provides both purified potable water for domestic use, as well as a supply for irrigating agricultural areas in the Salinas Valley. This project, once implemented, will have the potential of removing the cease and desist order for Seaside.
• California American Water Desalination Project: CalAm Water is pursuing plan to construct a desalination plan that would provide water for the region.
Credited projects already have water allocations and there is enough water for the anticipated 112 ADUs. The City calculated that there is enough water based on the following items:
1) Seaside Municipal Water District (SMWD) does not have a cap on water availability. The SMWS serves about 800 connections. The service area extends from La Salle Avenue south to Hilby Avenue, and from Yosemite Street east to General Jim Moore Blvd. The service area covers about 14% of the City’s developed area and three percent of the City’s total area, including Fort Ord. Other portions of the City are served by California American Water (Cal Am) or by Marina Coast Water District.
2) The City has The City Council allocated 5.0 acre-feet of water for ADUs within the Cal Am Service Area. So far 1.413 acre-feet have been allocated for finaled ADU permits. This leaves 3.587 acre-feet remaining. On average, each ADU that requires water receives an allocation of 0.03 acre feet. Therefore, we have sufficient water for another 119 ADUs, not including any ADUs that are constructed within the Seaside Municipal Water District.
Packet Page 324
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-114
9. Availability of Infrastructure
The sites identified in this Housing Element are located within Seaside Proper or approved specific plan areas. Infrastructure is either existing or will be provided concurrently to serve the development potential anticipated. All of the sites identified are expected to have to dry utilities (gas, electricity, internet). There is sufficient total dry utility capacity to accommodate the City’s regional housing need for the planning period.
10. Future Residential Development Potential
In addition to vacant and underutilized sites identified in the detailed sites inventory, the General Plan update also sets aside areas for future residential development.
Seaside East Future Growth Area
This Seaside East Area is comprised of 495 acres within the City of Seaside, on property that was formerly part of the Fort Ord Army base. The Area includes parcels along both sides of General Jim Moore Boulevard and Eucalyptus Road. The Former Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan identifies the Area as part of the Reuse Plan’s Planned Residential Extension Districts and calls for a variety of uses. As part of the General Plan update, this Area is designated Future Growth Area, envisioning for a range of designations such as Employment, Habitat Management, and Neighborhood Low (at eight units per acre). While land use designations are not specified on the map at this time, the General Plan will include appropriate mix of residential development.
City-Owned Parcels
The City owns five adjacent parcels along Canyon Del Rey Boulevard, two adjacent parcels along Hilby Avenue, and one parcel on Wheeler St. Three out of five sites along Canyon Del Rey Boulevard are vacant sites, while the remaining two parcels each include a single family dwelling.
Of those single family dwellings, one remains occupied as affordable rental housing. Likewise, both parcels on Hilby Avenue include single family dwellings, with only one remaining occupied as affordable rental housing. The Wheeler St. parcel includes a single family dwelling that is occupied as affordable rental housing.
The City recognizes the potential of these sites. Due to their small parcel size, however, the cityowned sites may not be feasible for many developers. To ensure success, in 2021 the City Council established the Seaside Housing Collaborative, an aligned housing non-profit charged with the design, creation, and management of housing that is affordable within Seaside. The Seaside Housing Collaborative began convening in 2023 and will explore development opportunities within the City, including upon its city-owned sites.
Additionally, in 2023, the City received a state Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) grant in the amount of $823,633. Activities under this allocation cycle include exploring development of the Canyon Del Rey sites, acquisition of foreclosed or vacant homes, and constructing ADUs on city-owned sites. The City will continue evaluating funding and development opportunities for these city-owned parcels.
11. Parcel-by-Parcel Sites Inventory
Table App-56 and Table App-55 below shows the site characteristics by parcel for all sites selected for the Sixth Cycle Sites Inventory under the proposed General Plan and existing General Plan, respectively.
Table App-57 shows the criteria for site selection based on the narrative on Vacant and Underutilized Sites Inventory Selection.
Packet Page 325
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-115
For non-vacant sites, selection criteria is shown as follows:
1. FAR <0.3
2. ILR <0.5
3. Age of structure over 30 yrs old
4. Existing use similar to redeveloped use based on local trends (retail, beauty shop)
5. Number of units in site can at least be doubled
6. Church Site
7. Owner interest
Depending on the site type- the number of selection factors needed to be met varied. • If sites are vacant or owner interest, no additional selection factors were needed to be included in the sites inventory. 26
• If sites have a current non-vacant commercial use, they must meet at least two selection factors such as FAR, ILR, age of structure, or have existing use similar to those being redeveloped. 27
• For residential and church sites: they must meet criteria 5- the number of units in the site must at least be doubled. 28
Parking lot sites are similar to vacant in that ILR, FAR, and age of structure characteristics do not apply. Instead, parking lot sites were selected if they were adjacent to other sites that met their respective criteria selection and if the commercial use of the site is expected to be redeveloped, the adjacent parking lot was also expected to be re-developed or no longer needed.
There are only four parking sites- two are parking lots associated with church sites and the other two are parking lots associated with a restaurant use and a body shop. Both uses have seen a trend of recycling.
26 ILR, FAR, and age of structure characteristics do not apply for vacant sites. Owner interest demonstrates likelihood of redevelopment. 27 The Sites inventory only includes two non-vacant commercial sites with current uses as a beauty shop and a restaurant. These uses are currently being recycled. 28 Only vacant or parking portion of Church sites was used in determining site capacity.
Packet Page 326
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-116
Table App-55: Parcel-by-Parcel Site Characteristics- Existing General Plan Site APN Acres Existing GLPU Zoning
Existing
Den Adj.
Pot.
Cap Lot ID
Own.
ID
Infra/
Dry
Utilities Income
Neighborhood Comments
1 11301006 0.09 WBSP WBSP-MX 60 0.7 3 A 24 Y Mod N/A beauty salon 2 11301007 0.09 WBSP WBSP-MX 60 0.7 3 A 18 Y Mod N/A Identified in the LRPMP to be sold and appropriate as transit-oriented
development; vacant and unpaved
3 11301018 0.17 WBSP WBSP-MX 60 0.7 7 B 22 Y Mod N/A Vacant and unpaved ; next to body shop parking
4 11301020 0.17 WBSP WBSP-MX 60 0.7 7 B 23 Y Mod N/A body shop Parking Lot; lot not paved 5 11303004 0.09 WBSP WBSP-MX 60 0.7 3 C 17 Y Mod Cabrillo vacant unimproved lot- next to SFH 6 11303005 0.09 WBSP WBSP-MX 60 0.7 3 C 16 Y Mod Cabrillo vacant unimproved lot- next to SFH 7 11303006 0.08 WBSP WBSP-MX 60 0.7 3 C 16 Y Mod Cabrillo vacant unimproved lot- next to SFH 12 12182006 0.15 Mixed Use CMX 25 0.7 2 F 5 Y Mod Terrace parking lot- paved 13 12182007 0.08 Mixed Use CMX 25 0.7 1 F 6 Y Mod Terrace restaurant 14 12182017 0.15 Medium Density
Residential
RM 15 0.7 1 G 7 Y Mod Terrace vacant
15 12182018 0.15 Medium Density
Residential
RM 15 0.7 1 G 7 Y Mod Terrace vacant
16 12195004 0.06 Mixed Use CMX 25 0.7 1 H 4 Y Lower Terrace vacant 17 12195005 0.11 Mixed Use CMX 25 0.7 1 H 4 Y Lower Terrace vacant 18 12195059 0.51 Mixed Use CMX 25 0.7 8 H 3 Y Lower Terrace vacant 19 12272003 0.13 Medium Density
Residential
RM 15 0.7 1 I 11 Y Mod Terrace vacant
20 12272004 0.13 Medium Density
Residential
RM 15 0.7 1 I 11 Y Mod Terrace vacant
21 12272012 0.18 Medium Density
Residential
RM 15 0.7 1 J 10 Y Mod Terrace vacant
22 12272028 0.09 Medium Density
Residential
RM 15 0.7 1 J 10 Y Mod Terrace vacant
23 12371003 1.19 Community Commercial CC 25 0.7 20 K 27 Y lower Rousch SFH with unimproved lot 24 11095001 0.22 Community Commercial CC 25 0.7 3 L 1 Y Mod Ord Grove vacant 25 11095002 0.18 Community Commercial CC 25 0.7 3 L 1 Y Mod Ord Grove vacant 26 11091006 0.19 High Density Residential RH 25 0.7 3 M 9 Y Mod Ord Grove vacant 27 11091017 0.53 High Density Residential RH 25 0.7 8 N 28 Y Lower Ord Grove vacant 283 12631003 N/A High Density Residential RH 25 0.7 9 O 29 Y Lower Highland Victory Temple Church/Campus town off-site
29 12381001 0.93 Low Density Res RS-8 8 0.7 5 P 30 Y Mod Rousch Lighthouse Church- parking Packet Page 327
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-117
Table App-55: Parcel-by-Parcel Site Characteristics- Existing General Plan Site APN Acres Existing GLPU Zoning
Existing
Den Adj.
Pot.
Cap Lot ID
Own.
ID
Infra/
Dry
Utilities Income
Neighborhood Comments
30 12392031 1.53 Low Density Res RS-8 8 0.7 8 Q 31 Y Mod Kimball Hilltop Church-vacant with some improvements (basketball court)
31 11081020 0.18 Low Density Res RS-8 8 0.7 1 R 32 Y Mod Ord Grove Grace Church- vacant 32 11081003 0.39 Low Density Res RS-8 8 0.7 1 R 32 Y Mod Ord Grove Grace Church- parking 33 11081023 0.11 Low Density Res RS-8 8 0.7 1 R 32 Y Mod Ord Grove Grace Church- vacant land only (but has SFH in front)
34 31150011 4.98 High Density Res R-H 25 0.7 87 P 33 Y Lower Fort Ord Former nurses’ barracks (two buildings) with paved parking
surrounded by vacant land
Notes:
1. In estimating potential, fractional unit is rounded down to the nearest whole number, except that a legally created parcel is assumed to allow at least one unit.
2. All Sites except 27 and 28 were included in the 5th Cycle sites inventory. All Sites except 3,4, 23, 27, and 28 were also included in the 4th Cycle sites inventory.
3. Parcel has been rezoned to High Density Residential and has plans to provide up to 36 units in its property. Since 27 units are already committed to Campus Town, a remaining nine units are possible in this site.
Table App-56: Parcel-by-Parcel Site Characteristics- Proposed General Plan Site APN Acres Prop GPLU Zoning
Prop
Den Adj.
Pot.
Cap
Lot
ID
Own.
ID
Infra/ Dry
Utilities Income
Neighborhood Comments
1 11301006 0.09 WBSP WBSP 60 0.7 3 A 24 Y Mod N/A beauty salon 2 11301007 0.09 WBSP WBSP 60 0.7 3 A 18 Y Mod N/A Identified in the LRPMP to be sold and appropriate as transit-oriented
development; vacant and unpaved
3 11301018 0.17 WBSP WBSP 60 0.7 7 B 22 Y Mod N/A Vacant and unpaved ; next to body shop parking
4 11301020 0.17 WBSP WBSP 60 0.7 7 B 23 Y Mod N/A body shop Parking Lot; lot not paved 5 11303004 0.09 WBSP WBSP 60 0.7 3 C 17 Y Mod Cabrillo vacant unimproved lot- next to SFH 6 11303005 0.09 WBSP WBSP 60 0.7 3 C 16 Y Mod Cabrillo vacant unimproved lot- next to SFH 7 11303006 0.08 WBSP WBSP 60 0.7 3 C 16 Y Mod Cabrillo vacant unimproved lot- next to SFH 12 12182006 0.15 Mixed Use Low T4 45 0.7 4 F 5 Y Mod Terrace parking lot- paved 13 12182007 0.08 Mixed Use Low T4 45 0.7 2 F 6 Y Mod Terrace restaurant 14 12182017 0.15 Mixed Use Low T4 45 0.7 4 G 7 Y Mod Terrace vacant 15 12182018 0.15 Mixed Use Low T4 45 0.7 4 G 7 Y Mod Terrace vacant 16 12195004 0.06 Mixed Use Low T4 45 0.7 1 H 4 Y Lower Terrace vacant 17 12195005 0.11 Mixed Use Low T4 45 0.7 3 H 4 Y Lower Terrace vacant 18 12195059 0.51 Mixed Use Low T4 45 0.7 16 H 3 Y Lower Terrace vacant 19 12272003 0.13 Neighborhood General T4 30 0.7 2 I 11 Y Mod Terrace vacant Packet Page 328
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-118
Table App-56: Parcel-by-Parcel Site Characteristics- Proposed General Plan Site APN Acres Prop GPLU Zoning
Prop
Den Adj.
Pot.
Cap
Lot
ID
Own.
ID
Infra/ Dry
Utilities Income
Neighborhood Comments
20 12272004 0.13 Neighborhood General T4 30 0.7 2 I 11 Y Mod Terrace vacant 21 12272012 0.18 Neighborhood General T4 30 0.7 3 J 10 Y Mod Terrace vacant 22 12272028 0.09 Neighborhood General T4 30 0.7 1 J 10 Y Mod Terrace vacant 23 12371003 1.19 Mixed Use High T5 60 0.7 49 K 27 Y lower Rousch SFH with unimproved lot 24 11095001 0.22 Mixed Use Low T4 45 0.7 6 L 1 Y Mod Ord Grove vacant 25 11095002 0.18 Mixed Use Low T4 45 0.7 5 L 1 Y Mod Ord Grove vacant 26 11091006 0.19 Neighborhood General T4 30 0.7 3 M 9 Y Mod Ord Grove vacant 27 11091017 0.50 Neighborhood General T4 30 0.7 10 N 28 Y Lower Ord Grove vacant 28 12631003 N/A Neighborhood High N/A 45 N/A 93 O 29 Y Lower Highland Victory Temple Church/Campus town offsite 29 12381001 0.93 Neighborhood General N/A 8 0.7 5 P 30 Y Mod Rousch Lighthouse Church- parking 30 12392031 1.53 Neigh Medium N/A 8 0.7 8 Q 31 Y Mod Kimball Hilltop Church-vacant with some improvements (basketball court)
31 11081020 0.18 Neigh Low N/A 8 0.7 1 R 32 Y Mod Ord Grove Grace Church- vacant 32 11081003 0.39 Neigh Low N/A 8 0.7 1 R 32 Y Mod Ord Grove Grace Church- parking 33 11081023 0.11 Neigh Low N/A 8 0.7 1 R 32 Y Mod Ord Grove Grace- Church vacant land only (but has SFH in front)
34 31150011 4.98 High Density Res R-H 45 0.7 156 P 33 Y Lower Fort Ord Former nurses’ barracks (two buildings) with paved parking surrounded by vacant
land
Notes:
1. In estimating potential, fractional unit is rounded down to the nearest whole number, except that a legally created parcel is assumed to allow at least one unit.
2. All Sites except 27 and 28 were included in the 5th Cycle sites inventory. All Sites except 3,4, 23, 27, and 28 were also included in the 4th Cycle sites inventory.
3. The number of potential units does not change since the Church plans to provide up to 36 units in its property. Since 27 units are already committed to Campus Town, a remaining nine units are possible in this site.
Table App-57: Parcel-by-Parcel Site Characteristics- Site Selection Site APN Acres Lot ID Own. ID Income
Site
Type FAR ILR Age
Existing
Use
Criteria for sel
Met Comments
1 11301006 0.09 A 24 Mod UT 0.23 0.11 1962 Comm. 1,2,3,4 beauty salon 2 11301007 0.09 A 18 Mod
V
Vacant Identified in the LRPMP to be sold and
appropriate as transit-oriented
development; vacant and unpaved
3 11301018 0.17 B 22 Mod V Vacant Vacant and unpaved; next to body shop parking
4 11301020 0.17 B 23 Mod UT N/A N/A N/A Parking Parking body shop Parking Lot Packet Page 329
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-119
Table App-57: Parcel-by-Parcel Site Characteristics- Site Selection Site APN Acres Lot ID Own. ID Income
Site
Type FAR ILR Age
Existing
Use
Criteria for sel
Met Comments
5 11303004 0.09 C 17 Mod V Vacant vacant unimproved lot- next to SFH 6 11303005 0.09 C 16 Mod V Vacant vacant unimproved lot- next to SFH 7 11303006 0.08 C 16 Mod V Vacant vacant unimproved lot- next to SFH 12 12182006 0.15 F 5 Mod UT N/A N/A N/A ParkingParking parking lot- paved; parking adjacent to restaurant (Site 13).
13 12182007 0.08 F 6 Mod UT 0.27 0.00 N/A Comm.1,2,4 Restaurant, structure at least 25 years old based on google earth imaging.
14 12182017 0.15 G 7 Mod V Vacant vacant
15 12182018 0.15 G 7 Mod V Vacant vacant
16 12195004 0.06 H 4 Lower V Vacant vacant
17 12195005 0.11 H 4 Lower V Vacant vacant
18 12195059 0.51 H 3 Lower V Vacant vacant
19 12272003 0.13 I 11 Mod V Vacant vacant
20 12272004 0.13 I 11 Mod V Vacant vacant
21 12272012 0.18 J 10 Mod V Vacant vacant
22 12272028 0.09 J 10 Mod V Vacant vacant
23 12371003 1.19 K 27 lower UT 0.06 0.42 N/A SFH 1,2,5 SFH with unimproved lot (potential for at least 20 units)
24 11095001 0.22 L 1 Mod V Vacant vacant
25 11095002 0.18 L 1 Mod V Vacant vacant
26 11091006 0.19 M 9 Mod V Vacant vacant
27 11091017 0.53 N 28 Lower V Vacant vacant
28 12631003 N/A O 29 Lower UT 0.28 9.14 1980 Church 7 Victory Temple Church/Campus town off-site
29 12381001 0.93 P 30 Mod UT 0.10 9.59 1959 Church Parking,1,3,6 Lighthouse Church- parking 30 12392031 1.53 Q 31 Mod UT0.08 2.94 1960 Church 1,3,6 Hilltop Church-vacant with some improvements (basketball court)
31 11081020 0.18 R 32 Mod V Church 1,3,6 Grace Church- vacant 32 11081003 0.39 R 32 Mod UT 0.04 4.40 1958 Church Parking, 1,3,6 Grace Church- parking 33 11081023 0.11 R 32 Mod UT0.04 4.40 1958 Church 1,3,6 Grace- vacant land only (but has SFH in front)
34 31150011 4.98 P 33 Lower UT 0.07 N/A N/A Vacant
building
1,3,7 Former nurses’ barracks (two buildings) with
paved parking surrounded by vacant land,
Fort Ord constructed in 1940s
Packet Page 330
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-120
Table App-57: Parcel-by-Parcel Site Characteristics- Site Selection Site APN Acres Lot ID Own. ID Income
Site
Type FAR ILR Age
Existing
Use
Criteria for sel
Met Comments
Packet Page 331
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-121
C. Financial Resources
As a small community, and especially since the loss of Redevelopment Agencies statewide, the City has limited availability of funds for affordable housing activities. Key funding sources now include limited Community Development Block Grant funds and the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program. Through these funding sources, the City has achieved affordable housing for lower and moderate income households.
1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
Through the CDBG program, HUD provides funds to local governments for a range of community development activities. The eligible activities include, but are not limited to, acquisition and/or disposition of real estate property, public facilities and improvements, relocation, rehabilitation and construction (under certain limitations) of housing, home ownership assistance, and also clearance activities. In addition, these funds can be used to acquire or subsidize at-risk units.
The City of Seaside typically receives approximately $350,000 annually from the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
2. Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fund
Seaside’s Inclusionary Housing Program (IHP) provides alternative means of compliance for the inclusionary housing requirements as provided in Section 17.32.060 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The IHP requires developers of any residential development, to provide at least 20% of the total units as inclusionary units made available as affordable rental housing on-site, offsite, through land dedication, or through the payment of an in-lieu fee (or any combination of the above listed, that at least equal the cost of providing inclusionary units on-site).
The City collects an in-lieu fee for projects unable to provide on-site affordable units. In the past, the City has used in-lieu funds to assist non-profit developers by providing grants to purchase existing housing or to finance the construction of new affordable housing. As of 2023, approximately $2.6 million was available in the in-lieu fund.
3. Permanent Local Housing Allocation
In 2017, Governor Brown signed a 15-bill housing package aimed at addressing the State’s housing shortage and high housing costs. Specifically, it included the Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2, 2017), which establishes a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable homes in California. Because the number of real estate transactions recorded in each county will vary from year to year, the revenues collected will fluctuate.
The first year of SB 2 funds are available as planning grants to local jurisdictions. For the second year and onward, 70% of the funding will be allocated to local governments for affordable housing purposes and will be distributed using the same formula used to allocate Federal CDBG.
This funding is known as the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) and can be used to:
• Increase the supply of housing for households at or below 60% of AMI • Increase assistance to affordable owner-occupied workforce housing • Assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness • Facilitate housing affordability, particularly for lower and moderate income households • Promote projects and programs to meet the local government’s unmet share of regional housing needs allocation
A Housing Element certified by the State HCD is a prerequisite for receiving PLHA funds.
4. Public Financing
The State Housing and Community Development Agency, and HUD, offer construction, rehabilitation, and permanent financing as low as 3% to qualified applicants such as housing Packet Page 332
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-122
authorities or private not-for-profit developers. These funds are competed for based on participation of other funding sources and local need.
D. Partnership Resources
Described below are public and non-profit agencies that can serve as resources in the implementation of housing activities in Seaside. These agencies play an important role in meeting the housing needs of the City. In particular, they are critical in the production of affordable housing and the preservation of at-risk housing units in Seaside. There are additional nonprofit agencies that are developing a local track record; these agencies may also assist in this area during the life of this Housing Element.
Housing Authority of the County of Monterey (HACM)
HACM administers the Housing Choice Voucher program that covers also the City of Seaside. In addition, HACM actively pursues affordable housing development, especially farm labor housing, through its developer arm – Monterey County Housing Authority Development Corporation (MCHADC).
Community Housing Improvement Systems and Planning Association (CHISPA) CHISPA is a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) operating in the Central Coast area. As the largest private, nonprofit developer in Monterey County, CHISPA has completed more than 2,200 affordable single-family, multi-family, and senior housing units since its incorporation in 1980.
Mid-Peninsula Housing
Mid-Pen is also an active nonprofit affordable housing developers in the Silicon Valley and Monterey Bay area. Currently Mid-Pen is working a 90-unit affordable permanent supportive housing project in Salinas’ Chinatown area. Through a groundbreaking collaboration between MidPen Housing and the Central California Alliance for Health, Moon Gate Plaza connects housing and health services for the highest utilizers of the healthcare system, with 20 supportive apartments set aside for that population. Another 20 apartments accepts referrals from Interim, Inc., a leading provider of mental health services and support. The other 50 apartments provide homes for the area’s other low-income residents.
Interim, Inc.
This nonprofit organization provides supportive services and affordable housing for persons with mental disabilities. It provides a range of housing options throughout the County.
Habitat for Humanity
Habitat for Humanity is a community service organization that renovates and builds homes with the goal of eliminating poverty and providing decent shelter for all. Through volunteer labor and tax deductible donations of money and materials, Habitat for Humanity constructs or rehabilitates homes in partnership with the families that will become the owners of the properties. Rehabilitated or newly constructed homes are sold to the families for the cost of materials through a mortgage that does not include interest or profit. Habitat for Humanity, Monterey County is located in Monterey and actively works with jurisdictions to find and acquire appropriate properties for residential development and redevelopment.
Packet Page 333
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-123
Alliance on Aging of Monterey County
The Alliance on Aging offers a homeshare program that pairs senior home owners with a companion who is willing to assist with household chores such as cooking or driving in exchange for a place to live at a reduced rate. The stated mission of the program is to help seniors stay in their homes as long as possible, to prevent early institutionalization. At the same time, the program makes available affordable housing opportunities for companion seniors.
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) is a regional nonprofit, membership organization consisting of public, private and civic entities located throughout the counties of Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz. Founded in 2015, its mission is to improve the economic health and quality of life in the region.
In 2016, MBEP launched its housing initiative to support an increase in the supply of all housing at all income levels in the Monterey Bay region. The initiative starts with a broad, regional coalition of individuals and organizations to advocate for the construction of all types of housing through our MBEP Action Center. To encourage development, MBEP joined forces with Housing Trust Silicon Valley to create the Monterey Bay Housing Trust: a local housing trust fund that provides a new loan pool to bring affordable housing projects throughout the region. In the Trust Fund’s first year, MBEP raised $12 million and funded three projects.
TerraCorp and Terrex Companies
TerraCorp Financial Inc. is a real estate services company located in Lafayette, California. In concert with its sister company Terrex Development Corporation, TerraCorp Financial provides full-service real estate development and management of multi-family and commercial properties in Northern California including affordable housing. In August 2019, the Seaside City Council provided an $800,000 bridge loan for TerraCorp/Terrex with an understanding that they are pursuing LIHTC and providing $20 million in improvements to Del Monte Manor, the City’s largest affordable housing project. Improvements began in January 2020.
Packet Page 334
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-124
Section 5: Evaluation of Adopted Housing
Element
To draft an effective housing plan for the 2023-2029 Housing Element, the City must evaluate the effectiveness and continued appropriateness of its existing housing programs and actions.
This evaluation includes the following as required by Government Code (GC) §65588:
• The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal;
• The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's housing goals and objectives;
• The progress of the City in implementation of the housing element ; and • The effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s special housing needs.
A. Accomplishments of Adopted Housing Element
This section presents a comparison of the objectives established for each housing program adopted under the 2019 Midterm Update Table App-58 summarizes the City’s accomplishments in the areas of:
• Providing Adequate Site;
• Housing Rehabilitation and Improvement;
• Housing Affordability;
• Preservation of Affordable Housing;
• Removing Constraints; and
• Fair Housing
The 5th Cycle Housing Element for the City of Seaside covers the planning period of December 15, 2015 through December 15, 2023. The City of Seaside originally prepared the 2015-2023 Housing Element as part of the comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan. However, due to delays in the adoption of the new General Plan, the 5th Cycle Housing Element was revised to maintain consistency with both the existing and proposed General Plans and adopted December 2019. The City’s 5th Cycle Element reviewed the accomplishments of the 4th Cycle Element from 2009 through to 2017, instead of through 2015. As such, even though the 5th Cycle covers 2015-2023, Fifth Cycle Element Programs have a 2019-2023 Implementation Timeline.
Due to the delayed adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, the City of Seaside was subject to the requirement of preparing a midterm review of the adopted Element. The City’s 2019 Midterm Review was adopted in April 2020 and reviewed the City’s accomplishments up to March 2020. This section reviews and evaluates the City’s progress in implementing the 2019- 2023 Housing Element from 2019 to the end of FY 2022 (as of the writing of this housing element).
Effectiveness in Addressing Special Needs
With limited funding, the City addresses the housing needs of special needs populations by establishing incentives to build affordable housing as well as removing constraints to the development of lower income units. During the planning period, two projects, the Ascent and Campus Town, have taken advantage of the incentives from the lot consolidation program (Program 7), the affordable housing development program (Program 12), and inclusionary housing program (Program 14) concessions that will add 166 lower income units to the City’s housing stock (14 low in Ascent, 74 very low and 78 low in Campus Town). The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update in the General Plan is also expected to create more incentives and remove Packet Page 335
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-125
current barriers to housing for special needs, including Housing for Extremely Low Income and Special Needs Households (Program 18).
The City has emerged as a leader in ADU policy and promotion, holding monthly meetings to discuss best practices and financing. As of the end of 2021, the City issued more than 42 ADU permits and 50 units were pending approval. An additional 52 housing permits were issued in 2022.
The City also aims to preserve existing affordable housing stock and provide assistance to lower income households through the Acquisition/Rehabilitation Program, Homebuyer Assistance Program, and Housing Choice Voucher Program. In 2021, the City created an affordable housing development non-profit called Seaside Housing Collaborative whose mission is to conceptualize, plan, entitle, construct, acquire, sell or lease affordable housing up to and including workforce housing within the City of Seaside. The City also has also partnered with AmeriNat, a professional loan servicing company, to support the City’s First-Time Homebuyer Down payment Assistance and Home rehabilitation loan programs. This partnership increases the City’s capacity to approve and service more loans to increase the stock of long-term affordable units and to conserve and maintain existing homes. On April 2023, HCD notified Seaside that their PLHA application was approved in the amount of $823,633.
Much as is the case with affordable housing, the City of Seaside’s limited resources prevent it from engaging in significant efforts to assist the homeless and chronically homeless, and to prevent homelessness, other than through its partnership with the Coalition and other agencies and organizations. However, the services the City selected to fund with its annual CDBG funds do address poverty and substance abuse, which are key issues for the homeless, chronically homeless, and prevention of homelessness. In particular, Legal Services for Seniors provides services to prevent the displacement of seniors from their homes by means of eviction and foreclosure.
Packet Page 336
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-126
Table App-58: Summary of Program Accomplishments
Program Housing Element Goals and Objectives Accomplishments/Continued Appropriateness Goal: Maintenance and Preservation of Housing and Neighborhoods
1. Code Enforcement/Neighborhood
Improvement Commission (NIC): The City
has developed a comprehensive code
enforcement team of representatives from
Planning, Public Works, Building, Police, Fire,
and the County Health Departments to ensure
safe and decent living environments for all
Seaside residents.
• Continue to implement the Neighborhood Improvement
Commission and focus code enforcement efforts in the
target areas with concentrated issues of code violations. • Conduct periodic housing conditions surveys in targeted neighborhoods.
• Promote the app, SeeClickFix that allows anyone to report problems to the City for resolution via their smartphone. • Pursue funding available at the state and federal levels to assist in code corrections and residential rehabilitation (see also Program 3). Ensure Code Enforcement Officers
provide information on resources available for making
code corrections.
Accomplishments: The City conducts general code compliance citywide through the Building and Code Enforcement Division of the Building Department. Code compliance in Seaside is complaintbased and City staff works with individuals to correct violations, which can include improvement of substandard housing conditions and blight, as well as neighborhood safety. Council approved a budget increase for 2019-2020 to allow additional code enforcement time on nights and weekends.
The City uses the SeeClickFix platform, a public application that allows residents to report code compliance issues, safety issues, homeless concerns, etc., and track progress of their requests. The City distributes business cards with links to the app. Residents and businesses appreciate the SeeClickFix app. Between 2019 to 2022, 274 complaints were registered using the see click fix app.
Neighborhood Improvement Commission continues to convene regularly, producing recommendations to City Council on ways to improve the appearance of the City and elicit voluntary cooperation to minimize vandalism. The Neighborhood Improvement
Commission participates in public nuisance hearings as outlined in Section 17.36.110 of the Seaside Municipal Code. Over the past 24 months, the Commission has declared a total of (5) properties as public nuisances following a process with public administrative hearings. All properties were deemed to warrant abatement actions by the City due to their excessive accumulations of junk and debris.
Continued Appropriateness: Code enforcement remains an
important component of the City’s housing strategy.
2. Abandoned Residential Property
Registration: In 2011, the City adopted
Ordinance No. 996 to establish an abandoned
residential property registration program as a
mechanism to protect residential
neighborhoods from becoming blighted
through the lack of adequate maintenance,
• Continue to implement program and utilize the Code
Enforcement team to ensure compliance with the
ordinance.
Accomplishments: Ordinance No. 996 established an abandoned residential property registration program as a mechanism to protect residential neighborhoods from becoming blighted through the lack of adequate maintenance, voided building permits, and security of abandoned properties. Through the use of the SeeClickFix app, residents and businesses can report abandoned properties.
Packet Page 337
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-127
Table App-58: Summary of Program Accomplishments
Program Housing Element Goals and Objectives Accomplishments/Continued Appropriateness voided building permits, and security of
abandoned properties.
Continued Appropriateness: Foreclosures appear to be on a rise due to delayed COVID-19 impacts on the economy. This program is included in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
Acquisition/Rehabilitation: Approximately 77%
of the City’s housing stock was built prior to 1980,
making the majority of the housing units older than
35 years. Many require some major upgrades or
rehabilitation. While there is a significant need for
housing rehabilitation assistance, both in the rental
and ownership housing inventories, the City
currently lacks sufficient financial and
administrative resources to provide assistance to
households in need.
• Partner with nonprofits to acquire and rehabilitate
deteriorating multifamily housing units with the goal of rehabilitating five units between 2019 and 2023. Also,
deed-restrict affordable housing for lower income
households and persons with special needs.
• Annually explore and if appropriate, pursue funding
resources available at the State and federal levels to
assist in rehabilitation of rental and ownership housing.
Accomplishments: In 2021, the City received a $1,000,000 CalHome ADU Loan Program for the construction or rehabilitation of ten ADUs via ten no-interest, deferred loans to low-income homeowners in the City. The ADUs will be rented to tenants at or below 80% AMI. Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, program
implementation was delayed; however, implementation resumed in 2023. City Staff has identified several interested applicants and will begin outreach and accepting applications in Summer 2023 Also in 2021, the City created an affordable housing development non-profit called Seaside Housing Collaborative whose mission is to conceptualize, plan, entitle, construct, acquire, sell or lease affordable housing up to and including workforce housing within the City of Seaside.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
3. Resource Conservation: The City will
promote resource conservation in residential
construction and rehabilitation.
• Review proposed developments for solar access, site
design techniques, and use of landscaping that can
increase energy efficiency and reduce lifetime energy
costs without significantly increasing housing production costs.
• Provide information on energy conservation and financial incentives (e.g., tax credit, utility rebates, etc.) on the City’s web site.
Accomplishments: The City continues to promote resource conservation by implementing State Title 24 energy performance requirements through building codes. In addition, in July 2015, the City adopted an ordinance (No. 1024) to expedite the permitting procedures for small residential rooftop solar systems. The purpose of the ordinance is to promote and encourage the installation and use of solar energy systems by limiting obstacles to their use and by minimizing the permitting costs of such systems.
The City of Seaside also joined the Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP), another energy provider. MBCP promotes electrification, incentives for Building Reach Codes, and low interest loans for generators.
The City will continue to work with energy suppliers and distributors to institute energy conservation programs, and inform the public of these programs. The City provides information on energy conservation for residents and businesses on the City’s website(https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/257/Renewable-EnergyPrograms).
Packet Page 338
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-128
Table App-58: Summary of Program Accomplishments
Program Housing Element Goals and Objectives Accomplishments/Continued Appropriateness Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
Goal: Housing Production, Diversity, and Opportunities.
4. Adequate Sites for RHNA: The existing and
proposed Land Use Elements provide for a
variety of residential types and densities,
ranging from lower intensity single family
homes, to moderate density condominiums
and townhomes, to higher density apartments
and mixed-use developments. Under both
existing and proposed Land Use policies
adequate sites are available to meet the City’s
share of regional housing needs of 393 units
for the 2015-2023 planning period.
• Monitor and update the City’s residential sites inventory annually to ensure that adequate capacity is available to accommodate the City’s remaining RHNA of 143 units for
this planning period (95 very low income, 46 low income, and 2 moderate income units).
• Provide the residential sites inventory to interested developers.
• Pursue adoption of the 2040 General Plan by 2020.
• Pursuant to AB 1397, amend the Zoning Code by the end of 2020 to establish an overlay on non-vacant parcels
(Sites C, P, U, and W, and Library Site as identified in Tables App-44 and APP-45 of the Housing Element
Appendix) to permit residential use by right for housing development in which at least 20% of the units are
affordable to lower income households.
• Pursue development of future growth areas and future
specific plan areas through specific or master planning techniques. Ensure that residential development is
considered in these areas to accommodate the
appropriate mix of future housing needs in the community. • Develop guidelines for working with FORA and post-FORA agencies in the planning of former Fort Ord areas.
• In 2021, conduct an analysis of development applications to assess average density by zone proposed by
developers compared to the density assumptions used in
the Housing Element.
Accomplishments: In 2020, the City approved the 105-unit Ascent project and Campus Town, which includes 225 affordable housing units. These project and other citywide and city-owned sites available offer adequate sites to meet the City’s remaining RHNA. As of the end of 2022, the City has added 74 very low, 78 low, 76 moderate, and 155 above moderate income units for a total of 383 units. The City did not meet its very low income RHNA of 95.
As part of the City’s efforts to consider the appropriate mix of housing needs in the community, the City contracted with DPZ design firm to conduct a charrette to establish a community vision for Seaside East, a 625 acres future housing growth area.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update. This program will be updated to reflect the new RHNA for the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
5. Replacement Housing: Seaside will require
replacement housing units subject to the
requirements of Government Code, section
65915, subdivision (c)(3) on sites identified in
the sites inventory of this Housing Element
when any new development (residential,
mixed-use or non-residential) occurs on a site
that has been occupied by or restricted for the
• To mitigate the loss of affordable housing units, require new housing developments to replace all affordable
housing units lost due to new development, the
replacement requirement will be implemented immediately and applied as applications on identified sites are received and processed.
Accomplishments: There were no developments that required replacement housing. The Development of The Ascent and Campus Town would not result in the loss of affordable units for lower income households.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
Packet Page 339
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-129
Table App-58: Summary of Program Accomplishments
Program Housing Element Goals and Objectives Accomplishments/Continued Appropriateness use of lower income households at any time
during the previous five years.
6. Monitoring of Residential Capacity (No Net
Loss): Future residential development in
Seaside will occur primarily along mixed-use
corridors, with the redevelopment of existing
multifamily buildings, and in new growth areas.
The City will monitor the development of
residential and mixed use sites included in the
inventory to ensure an adequate inventory
continues to be available to meet the City’s
RHNA obligations by income level, consistent
with the No Net Loss requirements in
Government Code §65863.
• Beginning in 2018, comply with new State law
requirements (AB 35 and AB 879) on annual reporting to
the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) for housing units constructed and
housing applications/approvals by income level.
• If additional sites (such as through master planning in the future growth areas or future specific plan areas) are
required to replenish the sites inventory for meeting the RHNA shortfall, the sites shall be rezoned within 180 days.
Accomplishments: The City monitored the No Net Loss
requirements of development on the City’s residential sites inventory in the Housing Element The most recent projects – The Ascent and Campus Town – would not result in a loss of existing housing units.
In addition, the City has adhered to Assembly Bill 35 and Assembly Bill 879, submitting Housing Element Annual Progress Reports tracking progress by income level and development progression.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
7. Lot Consolidation: Most of the City’s vacant
and underutilized sites available for residential
or mixed development in the near term are
smaller and require lot consolidation/merger to
facilitate developments with quality design and
on-site amenities.
Currently, the City has provisions in the Zoning
Ordinance to facilitate improvement on health
and safety conditions and future development
potential - two or more contiguous parcels may
be merged by the City Council when the
parcels are held by the same owner if:
• One of the parcels is undeveloped with
structures, and
• At least one of the parcels is considered
substandard due to size (less than 5,000
square feet), inconsistency with General Plan
or applicable specific plan, or contains health
and safety hazards.
To facilitate future development, the City will
modify the lot consolidation program to remove
the requirements for undeveloped parcel(s)
and substandard lot size, and to develop
• Encourage lot consolidation by assisting interested
developers in identifying sites with consolidation potential. • By the end of 2020, as part of the comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the General Plan,
modify the lot consolidation requirements and establish incentives for consolidation.
• Promote lot consolidation incentives to property owners and developers with the goal of achieving three
developments involving lot consolidation over five years. • Require the merger of contiguous substandard lots of
record when a property is developed or redeveloped.
• In 2021, assess the effectiveness of incentives and actions in promoting the consolidation and development of small parcels, and make appropriate adjustments to facilitate lot consolidation.
Accomplishments: The Ascent Project involves the consolidation of 14 parcels to a site of 2.68 acres
As part of the City’s comprehensive General Plan update program, the City is proposing modifications to its standards and incentives to encourage residential and mixed use development. The
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update is underway is expected to be completed in 2024.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
Packet Page 340
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-130
Table App-58: Summary of Program Accomplishments
Program Housing Element Goals and Objectives Accomplishments/Continued Appropriateness mechanisms and incentives to encourage lot
consolidation.
8. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs):
Recognizing the potential of accessory
dwelling units as an affordable housing option,
the State has recently passed several changes
to the Second Unit law (now renamed to
Accessory Dwelling Unit law) to ease
restrictions on these units. The City currently
adheres to the State laws concerning ADUs.
• Conduct ADU study sessions with the Planning
Commission in 2020.
• Periodically update the City website to provide ADU
information for the public.
• By the end of 2020 and as part of the comprehensive
update to the Zoning Ordinance, address the provision of ADUs consistent with State law. The City anticipates
development ten accessory units during this planning
period.
Accomplishments: Seaside is recognized among peers as a leader in ADU policy and promotion. On the March 11, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the topic of ADUs was discussed. Additional study sessions were conducted in 2020 as the City worked on updating the ADU Ordinance to comply with new State law. City will had a first reading of the ADU code on March 17, 2022 and second reading on March 2, 2023. The new ordinance became effective April 2, 2023.
Staff coordinated with United Way to host a virtual Seaside ADU Workshop and meet monthly with peers to discuss ADU best practices and financing.
As of the end of FY 2021, the City had:
• Waived permit inspection fees for 2 years
• Hired Workbench architects to prep ADU Pre-Approved Plans • Waived plan check fees for projects using Pre-Approved ADU plans
• Allocated 5 AF of water for owners to purchase to construct ADUs
• Issued more than 42 ADU permits
• About 50 ADU applications still in plan check.
In FY 2022, the City updated the City website with ADU development information including pre-approved ADU plans. The City also began the process of implementing its $1,000,000 CalHome ADU Loan Program grant.
The City provides ADU Guide on its website at:
https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/740/ADU-Guide
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update and has been updated to reflect changes in state law.
Goal: Housing Affordability and Protections.
9. Homebuyer Assistance: With the dissolution
of the redevelopment agency, the City has
• Periodically update the City website to promoting
resources available to first-time homebuyers.
Accomplishments: The 5th Cycle’s Homebuyer Assistance Program focused on connecting households with available State and federal Packet Page 341
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-131
Table App-58: Summary of Program Accomplishments
Program Housing Element Goals and Objectives Accomplishments/Continued Appropriateness suspended its First-Time Homebuyer Program.
However, the City recognizes the value its
residents place on homeownership
opportunities. Seaside residents can apply for
CalHFA programs through local loan officers
who have completed training for these
programs. CalHFA maintains a hotline and
website to help residents identify local loan
officers. First-time homebuyers must attend a
homebuyer education course either online or
in-person through NeighborWorks America or
any HUD-approved housing counseling
agencies.
resources. In March 2020, the City created a dedicated Housing page on its website to provide links to various housing resources:
http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/705/Housing
The City will continue to explore avenues for reinstating a Homebuyer Assistance Program, such as grants.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update and is updated in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
10. Housing Choice Voucher Program: The Housing
Choice Voucher (HCV) program provides rental
subsidies to extremely low and very low income
families and elderly households who spend more
than 30% of their gross income on housing. The
Housing Authority of Monterey County (HAMC)
administers the Housing Choice Voucher Program
for Seaside. As of May 2017, 124 very low income
households in Seaside are receiving HCVs and 666
households are on the waiting list.
• Support HAMC’s efforts to pursue additional funds and petition for higher payment standards.
• Work with ECHO Housing, the City’s Fair Housing service provider to educate tenants and landlords regarding the State’s new source of income protection, which covers the use of HCVs and other public assistance for rent
payments.
Accomplishments: The Housing Choice Voucher program
represents an important resource for the City’s extremely low and very low income households. In March 2020, the City created a dedicated Housing page on its website to provide links to various housing resources, including the HCV Program:
http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/705/Housing
In 2021, the City partnered with Monterey County and United Way to implement the Emergency Rent and Utility Assistance Relief Program and provided $1.5M in assistance to maintain housing for Seaside residents impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
11. Preservation of Publicly Assisted Low
Income Housing: One affordable housing
project in Seaside – Hannon Sea View
Apartments – is considered at potential risk of
converting to market-rate housing. This 133-
unit project was funded with LIHTC and
maintains a project-based Section 8 contract
for 85 of the units. The LIHTC requires the
project to be deed restricted as low income
housing for a minimum of 15 years until 2019,
with the Section 8 contract due to expire in
2022. Hannon Sea View Apartments has not
• Monitor Units at Risk: The City will keep in regular contact with the owner of Hannon Seaview Apartments to
determine the status of that building. The City will also ensure that no affordable rental unit is allowed to convert to a condominium without meeting the requirements of the City’s adopted condominium conversion ordinance in
Chapter 17.42 of the Zoning Ordinance.
• Provide Tenant Education: If the owner of Hannon
Seaview Apartments files a Notice of Intent to opt out of affordability covenants, the City will work with tenants to inform them of their rights under federal and State
regulations, including receiving proper noticing.
Accomplishments: At-Risk units at Hannon Sea View Apartments did not convert to non-low income during the past Housing Element planning period. . The units continue to be affordable, using projectbased Section 8 vouchers and Tax Credit subsidy. The project has a long-term project-based Section 8 contract through 2039.
In 2021, the City created an affordable housing development nonprofit called Seaside Housing Collaborative whose mission is to conceptualize, plan, entitle, construct, acquire, sell or lease affordable housing up to and including workforce housing within the City of Seaside.
Packet Page 342
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-132
Table App-58: Summary of Program Accomplishments
Program Housing Element Goals and Objectives Accomplishments/Continued Appropriateness expressed intent to convert to market-rate
housing.
• Work with Potential Priority Purchasers: Maintain regular contact with the Housing Authority of Monterey County
and other non-profit agencies with the capacity to
purchase and maintain at-risk units.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
12. Affordable Housing Development: The new
General Plan introduces higher density mixed
use development opportunities in the
community. To implement the City’s new
General Plan and West Broadway Urban
Village Specific Plan, and to promote a jobshousing balance in the community, the City will pursue mixed use and residential
developments in strategic areas.
• By the end of 2020 and as part of the comprehensive
update to the Zoning Ordinance, establish appropriate
development standards and incentives to facilitate mixed use developments and residential development in mixed
use neighborhoods.
• By the end of 2020 and as part of the comprehensive
update to the Zoning Ordinance, establish objective
standards to accommodate SB 35 streamlining of
affordable housing projects.
• Annually contact affordable housing developers to
promote new opportunities and incentives for affordable housing development in the City.
• Facilitate the development of 50 affordable housing units for lower income households, including extremely low
income and those with special housing needs.
Accomplishments: The City contracted with AmeriNat professional loan servicing company to support the City’s First-Time Homebuyer Downpayment Assistance and Home rehabilitation loan programs.
This partnership increases the City’s capacity to approve and service more loans to increase the stock of long-term affordable units and to conserve and maintain existing homes.
The City added a total of 74 very low and 78 low income units to its housing stock - meeting its goal of facilitating the development of 50 affordable housing units for lower income households.
A Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update is underway in the General Plan and is expected to be adopted by 2024.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
13. Density Bonus Ordinance: The City’s
Density Bonus Ordinance works with the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Program to facilitate
affordable housing development. However, the
Density Bonus Ordinance has not yet been
updated to reflect recent changes in state law.
• By the end of 2020 and as part of the comprehensive
update to the Zoning Ordinance, the City will update its density bonus provisions to be consistent with State law.
Accomplishments: The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update is underway to be included in the General Plan. The General Plan is expected to be adopted by 2024.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
14. Inclusionary Housing Program: Inclusionary
housing is an important tool in the City to
facilitate the development of affordable
housing for very low, low, and moderate
income households. To ensure that the City
flexibly responds to the market conditions, the
City reviews development applications on a
case-by-case basis to assess the obligations
under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program
and determines the necessary incentives
and/or concessions required to enhance
project feasibility and design. If appropriate,
• Continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing program. • Review the Inclusionary Housing Program with the Density Bonus Ordinance (Program 13) to ensure consistency with State law. If inconsistencies are identified, initiate Zoning Ordinance revisions within six months.
• Annually monitor development trends and market
conditions to assess the effectiveness of the Inclusionary Housing program.
Accomplishments: The City continues to implement its Inclusionary Housing Program and reviews development applications on a caseby-case basis to determine incentives and/or concessions needed to enhance project feasibility. Both The Ascent and Campus Town include affordable housing, adding lower income units to the City’s housing stock.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
Packet Page 343
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-133
Table App-58: Summary of Program Accomplishments
Program Housing Element Goals and Objectives Accomplishments/Continued Appropriateness payment of an in-lieu fee is offered as an
option of fulfilling the inclusionary housing
requirement.
Goal: Remove Potential Constraints
15. Multi-family and Mixed Use Design
Guidelines: Multifamily and mixed use
construction in the City is required to undergo
architectural review. However, the City has no
established design guidelines to provide
guidance to developers and to ensure
consistency of review.
• By the end of 2020, establish design guidelines on site planning, massing and scale, and architecture features for multi-family and mixed use development.
Accomplishments: The City is adopting a form-based code as part of its General Plan. The General Plan is expected to be adopted by 2024.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
16. Affordable Attached Single-Family Unit:
Currently the City permits attached single
family homes in all residential zones, but
affordable single family homes are only
permitted in the RS and RM zones. Given the
typically small lots in the City, attached units
on small lots offer additional opportunities for
affordable housing.
• By the end of 2020 and as part of the comprehensive
update to the Zoning Ordinance, provide consistent
treatment for market-rate and affordable attached single family homes.
Accomplishments: The City has not amended the ordinance to address this discrepancy in its Zoning Ordinance. The
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update is underway in the General Plan. The General Plan is expected to be adopted in 2024.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
17. Adequate Water Supply for the
Development of New Housing: There is
currently an inadequate supply of water on the
Monterey Peninsula for new development to
occur. While the City has rights to a certain
amount of water in the next 5 years, it does not
currently have access to that water due to the
cease and desist order. To facilitate
development of the remaining RHNA of 145
units, the City is working with other
jurisdictions and agencies to maintain and
augment the existing water supply.
• Support efforts by the MPWMD to expand the water
supply with new water sources being earmarked for
development.
• Continue to work to have the MPWMD and MCWD
reverse its policy decision of prohibiting the transfer of water credits from one property to another.
• Continue to work with MPWMP and MCWD to develop
water conservation methods (e.g., low flow fixtures, instant hot water heaters, cisterns/rain gardens) to augment water for new development projects.
• Pursuant to AB 1087, work with MPWMD to establish a
procedure to prioritize water allocation for developments that include units set aside as affordable housing for lower income households, including affordable housing within
larger, mixed use developments and larger residential
subdivisions.
• Upon adoption of the Housing Element, provide a copy of the Element to MPWMD and MCWD for greater
Accomplishments: Stormwater reclamation and other methods are being pursued to increase the availability of water for housing in Seaside. The City has contracted with the Wallace Group to conduct a feasibility study of groundwater recharge to potentially increase water supply. In 2021, the City also approved water storage project to bring recycled water into Seaside Basin.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
Packet Page 344
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-134
Table App-58: Summary of Program Accomplishments
Program Housing Element Goals and Objectives Accomplishments/Continued Appropriateness awareness of affordable housing priorities and
collaboration, in compliance with AB 1087.
• Pursue various strategies to secure water for Seaside’s future development.
Goal: Housing Opportunities for Special Needs Residents
18. Housing for Extremely Low Income and
Special Needs Households: The Zoning
Ordinance is the primary implementation tool
for the Land Use Element and can be used to
encourage the development of housing for
extremely low income and special needs
households (including persons with
developmental disabilities).
By the end of 2020 and as part of the comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance, housing-related code amendments related to:
• Transitional and Supportive Housing
• Reasonable Accommodations
• Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)
• Employee Housing
• Low Barrier Navigation Center (LBNC)
Accomplishments: The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update is underway in the General Plan. The General Plan is expected to be adopted on 2024.
Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update.
19. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: The
City will continue to disseminate information to
the public in English and Spanish regarding
fair housing services, rights, illegal practices,
and agencies that are available to assist in
resolving housing discrimination issues. The
City collaborated with other CDBG entitlement
jurisdictions in the County to conduct a
regional Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair
Housing Choice. The Regional AI was
completed in June 2019.
• Amend the Zoning Ordinance to address the housing
options for persons with special needs (see Program 18
above).
• Coordinate with the HAMC to provide brochures and other pertinent fair housing materials in English and Spanish at City Hall, the library, the Post Office, Oldemeyer Center, and at the public counter.
• By 2021, convene a regional planning group to implement the plans of actions outlined in various regional planning efforts, to identify emergency trends, and to explore
potential solutions/actions.
Accomplishments: Coordination continues with HAMC.
The City has provided CDBG public service funding to Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) since 2018 and to Legal Services for Seniors (LSS) since 2016. ECHO provides fair housing information and education to renters and housing providers, investigate suspected cases of housing discrimination, conduct systemic audits to uncover housing discrimination, and provides counseling and conciliation to renters and housing providers regarding their rights and responsibilities in rental housing.
Additionally, ECHO also conducts presentations and conduct mass media advertising (social media ads, TV/radio interviews, electronic flyers) throughout the City of Seaside.
LSS provides no-cost legal representation to senior (aged 62+) Seaside residents. LSS services include direct representation in court and legal support to resolve bureaucratic processes such as Medicare and Medi-Cal issues and landlord-tenant disputes. LSS also provides educational workshops to help Seaside residents, caregivers, family members and elder care professionals recognize and prevent mortgage fraud, consumer fraud, landlord abuses and elder abuse. The City continues to offer CDBG public service funding to both agencies for their continued services
The comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update is underway.
Packet Page 345
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-135
Table App-58: Summary of Program Accomplishments
Program Housing Element Goals and Objectives Accomplishments/Continued Appropriateness Continued Appropriateness: Program implementation remains appropriate for the Housing Element update but has been updated to reflect new requirements for affirmatively furthering fair housing.
20. Childcare Costs. Following housing costs,
single female-headed families must allocate a
portion of their incomes towards childcare
costs as reliable child care is often necessary
to retain stable employment.
Accomplishments: Amended Municipal Code to reduce discretion for both Small and Large Family Daycare Homes allowing them byright in all residential and commercial zones.
Continued Appropriateness: This is not a direct housing program/action. It is not included in the 2023-2021 Housing Element.
Packet Page 346
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-136
B. Quantified Objectives
The following table summarizes the City’s progress in meeting the quantified housing objectives for the 2015-2023 planning period.
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Units to be Constructed 95 62 72 164 393
Units Constructed 74 78 76 155 383
Units to be Rehabilitated 1 2 2 0 0 5
Units Rehabilitated 0 0 0 0 0 0
Units to be Conserved 66 67 -- -- -- 133
Units Conserved 66 67 -- -- -- 133
Packet Page 347
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-137
Section 6: Community Engagement
This 2023-2031 Housing Element Update was prepared in coordination with Seaside 2040, the comprehensive update to the General Plan Both the 2015-2023 Housing Element (adopted December 2019) and the Midterm Update (April 2020) were also prepared alongside the General Plan Update so much of the feedback has carried over into the Sixth Cycle Housing Element. A draft General Plan was released in 2017 but efforts to complete the update were delayed and exacerbated due to coronavirus disease concerns. A second round of outreach was kicked off in 2022 and continues through the review and adoption of both the General Plan and Housing Element. The engagement activities provided different opportunities for participation and were offered in both English and Spanish, in-person and virtually. The specific activities that pertain to the Housing Element Update are described below.
A. Draft Housing Element Engagement
The City held additional in person and virtual engagement sessions for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element during the Public Review period in Spring/Summer 2023:
• May 19, 2023: Housing Element available for public review • June 15, 2023: Farmer’s Market Informational Booth
• June 20, 2023: Virtual community workshop on General Plan Update and Housing Element (Spanish interpretation services available)
• June 21, 2023: Planning Commission presentation on Housing Element • June 22, 2023: In person community workshop on General Plan Update and Housing Element (Spanish interpretation services available)
• October 5, 2023: Revised Draft Housing Element available for mandatory seven-day public review period
• The City also maintains a dedicated website for the General Plan and Housing Element Updates (www.Seaside2040.com).
1. Farmer’s Market Informational Booth
On Thursday, June 15th, the City's first-ever Farmers Market outreach event was held at Laguna Grande Park, running from 3 pm to 7 pm. The event featured an informative table displaying flyers for each General Plan Element. The City’s informational booth was staffed with bilingual personnel to accommodate diverse visitors. The distribution of information at the market was announced through Council Meetings, press releases, and the city website to ensure maximum participation and engagement.
The City collected comment cards at the event which covered a variety of topics. Many commenters asked for public services and infrastructure such as business assistance, support for local farmers, crosswalks, and bicycle lanes and racks. Other comments focused on environmental policies to reduce noise pollution and banning gas-powered leaf blowers as well as increasing tree canopy cover. Comments specifically related to housing asked for more affordable housing and resources for the homeless.
During the event, the City gathered feedback from attendees through comment cards, encompassing a diverse range of topics. Numerous individuals expressed their desire for improved public services and infrastructure, including requests for business assistance, support for local farmers, installation of crosswalks, and the addition of bicycle lanes and racks.
Environmental concerns were also a focus of the comments received. Attendees advocated for policies to reduce noise pollution and the banning of gas-powered leaf blowers, while also emphasizing the importance of increasing tree canopy cover for a greener environment.
Housing-related comments highlighted the pressing need for more affordable housing options and additional resources to address homelessness within the community.
Packet Page 348
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-138
2. Community Workshops
A virtual community workshop was held Tuesday, June 20, 2023, 6-8 PM, and an in-person community Workshop was held Thursday, June 22, 2023, 6-8 PM at the Oldemeyer Center 986 Hilby Ave, Seaside, CA 93955. During the workshops, the staff delivered a presentation on the General Plan, providing an overview of each element/chapter. At the in-person workshop, informative boards were displayed. Following the presentations, a discussion forum allowed attendees to provide feedback and ask questions.
The community workshop participants primarily had clarifying inquiries and showed support for the housing element. One participant sought clarification on the City’s strategy to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), specifically how credit units were considered and inquired about the reliance on inclusionary units. Another participant asked about the City's plan for distributing water permits for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), mentioning that she had wanted to build an ADU but could not get a water permit. The discussion touched upon the need for water credits and the water sources for current housing development projects. The City responded by providing an explanation of ongoing projects aimed at increasing water availability.
They shared details about their efforts to generate additional water credits, such as the allocation of recycled water to the golf course and the Pure Water Monterey project, which supplies recycled water to the greater peninsula. These initiatives are expected to address the water limitations faced by the City and contribute to the availability of water credits in the future.
A participant also expressed appreciation for the incentives in the Housing Element (HE) but emphasized the importance of stronger commitments and redevelopment incentives. In response, the City acknowledged that they have made efforts to strike a balance between making commitments in the housing element and providing the City Council with the ability to make decisions based on specific circumstances or considerations. Another comment raised during the discussion was about incentivizing redevelopment in corridors that are ideal for transit-oriented development. The City responded by stating that they have included certain incentives for redevelopment in the housing element. They also mentioned a specific project involving a city-owned parking area that is anticipated to be transformed into a mixed-use development. As an intermediate step, the City is planning to conduct a parking study. By acquiring parking lots in locations designated as future transit hubs, the City aims to have the flexibility to convert these areas into multi-use spaces. However, it was noted that water availability remains a constraint in these redevelopment efforts.
During the in-person workshops, most comments focused on the General Plan, with a common thread highlighting the importance of incorporating environmental elements. Participants expressed the need for features like bike lanes, bike parks, and the inclusion of rooftop parks in buildings. A participant emphasized the necessity of a comprehensive climate action plan and recommended that environmental performance evaluations be incorporated into building codes for new construction. These comments reflected a desire to enhance environmental sustainability and promote recreational opportunities within the city.
Additionally, a participant expressed support for increasing density within the city while another shared desire for more education to dispel concerns that multifamily (MF) housing in existing neighborhoods, would compromise the city's character. One specific suggestion was to consider the DMV area as a potential location for lower-income housing. Another important point raised was the need for single adult housing options to alleviate the housing shortage for families.
Finally, there was a strong call for seeking input and engagement from the Seaside East community in the decision-making process.
Packet Page 349
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-139
3. Response to Outreach Comments
The City adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element in 2019 and completed a Housing Element Midterm Update in April 2020, incorporating feedback from outreach events and activities dating from 2016. Due to the recency of the Mid-Term Update, substantial comments that warranted changes in policies and programs have been addressed in the previous two versions of the Housing Element. The participants in the engagement activities starting after 2020 had clarifying inquiries and showed support for the housing element. A detailed description of the inquiries and City’s response is shown in the previous section.
4. Response to Written Comments
The City of Seaside made a Draft Housing Element available for public review on May 19, 2023 and received comment letters as outlined below. Commenters showed their endorsement for the Housing element and praised the City's initiatives. Nonetheless, they also offered comments and recommendations for revisions. City staff reviewed these comment letters and have provided response to those comments in the matrix below. Comments have been summarized in the table. The matrix excludes the comments that commended the City and did not require any revisions or response. Where revisions to the draft Housing Element were made in response to public comment, that modification is noted in the response to the comment.
A. Louise Berry, Resident, June 8, 2023
B. Michael DeLapa, Executive Director, LandWatch, June 23, 2023 C. Michelle Muller Overmeyer, Director of Planning and Innovation, Monterey-Salinas Transit, June 26, 2023
D. Tahra Goraya, MA, MPA, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership, June 26, 2023 E. PK Diffenbaugh, Superintendent, Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, June 27, 2023 F. D. Kellogg et al., resident, Greenbelt Alliance, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, and 350 Contra Costa, November 18, 2022.
The Draft Housing Element with responses to public comments was submitted to HCD for review on July 7, 2023. The City met with HCD staff for an Initial Draft Preliminary Review on September 12, 2023. The City published a revised Draft Housing Element in response to HCD’s preliminary review comments. The Revised Draft Housing Element was available for a mandatory public review period from October 5, 2023 but will continue to receive comments through the adoption process. During the review period, the City only received comments from Monterey-Salinas Transit, comments and response to comments are shown in the table below.
G. Emma Patel, Planning Manager, Monterey-Salinas Transit, October 13, 2023.
Packet Page 350
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-140
ID Topic/Program Comment Response
A AFFH If a renter is undocumented or is a legal resident but is not yet a US citizen, are there protections from landlords
who do not fix broken things but continue to raise the rent at least once a year? I would like renters to be able to report recalcitrant property owners.
Since we have a large number of undocumented residents
in Seaside, are there new ways we can make them feel
safer? To report abuse, etc. I would like some words in the new development plan that would state what those
persons have rights to.
Renters are protected under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) regardless of their immigration status. FEHA is a comprehensive anti-discrimination law that covers housing, employment, and public accommodations. It prohibits discrimination based on various protected characteristics, such as race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and immigration status.
Actions have been added to the AFFH Meaningful Action Matrix to ensure that the protected characteristics under FEHA are included in the City’s website to ensure residents know they are protected as well as in ECHO’s outreach and education plan.
A City Projects I did not see any mention of moving the library up Broadway to make access from all schools possible. I
remember that was a plan many years ago as was the illconceived idea to incorporate it into the lower Broadway project, even farther from schools. I would like to see the library moved more centrally.
The library site is not included in this sites inventory for RHNA. Overall location of the library is a discussion in other elements of the General Plan, not as part of the Housing Element.
B Program 5: Shortfall in
affordable housing sites.
The Housing Element takes a substantial RHNA credit
against the Campus Town project, which includes a credit for attainment of 45 offsite inclusionary units consisting of 21 very-low income and 24 low-income units. (Table App.
44.) The Housing Element does not indicate where those
offsite units would be constructed, but they would have to be in the City of Seaside if the RHNA credit for the City is justified. However, the Housing Element demonstrates
that there would be at most sites for 27 of these offsite units, i.e., the “surplus” shown in Table App-53.
Accordingly, the Housing Element fails to identify sufficient sites for very-low-income units and low-income
units. Additional sites must be identified.
The City has reviewed is Strategy to meet RHNA and found additional sites such that there is no shortfall.
The City cannot anticipate where the off-site units will be built and is not obligated to find sites suitable for offsite units in addition to sites to meet its RHNA. In addition, though rezoning is no longer necessary to meet a shortfall, the potential capacity of the sites inventory of under the proposed General Plan Update is 106 lower income units, which is sufficient to meet both the remaining need of 60 lower income units as well as the 45 offsite units, should off-site units be built in the sites selected. The Housing Plan includes a no-net loss program to identify additional sites to ensure adequate capacity is provided.
B Program 5: Inadequate
analysis to support
blanket assumption of
70% of maximum density
as realistic capacity.
Vacant sites: HCD requires that the analysis of the
realistic capacity of vacant land also consider other factor and when using typical densities attained in other
developments, the analysis must separately estimate
densities achieved for each affordability class.
Nonvacant sites: the Housing Element fails to provide any of the analyses required to justify the assumption that 70% of the maximum density of all non-vacant sites is a realistic development capacity. Where a Housing element As stated in pg. App-85, most of the City’s recent projects have been within former Fort Ord or Campus Town Specific Plan areas, such that trends and conditions from these projects are not applicable to the sites considered in the Sites Inventory. The City did provide details of the only infill development project (the Ascent). The City assumes that the 70% max potential capacity covers other factors.
The Housing Plan includes programs to assist in yielding the estimated potential (Program 13- Affordable Housing Development, Program 14- Density Bonus, Program 15- Inclusionary Housing Program, Program 16: Multi-Family and Mixed Use Development Standards and Design Guidelines). Specifically, program 16 includes an objective to Packet Page 351
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-141
relies on expected redevelopment of non-vacant sites,
HCD requires site-specific analysis
Establish appropriate development standards (parking, height, setbacks, etc.) to ensure maximum density can be achieved in each zone. In addition, Program 7 (Monitoring of Residential Capacity) commits the City to monitor the development of residential and mixed use sites included in the inventory to ensure an adequate inventory continues to be available to meet the City’s RHNA obligations by income level.
B Program 5: Adequate
Sites for RHNA and Byright Approval – future
growth areas.
In support of the program to identify adequate sites, the Housing Element includes the proposal to “pursue
development of future growth areas and future specific
plan areas.” (HE, p. 11.) These future
growth and future specific plan areas should be identified in the Housing Element as infill redevelop areas along
existing transit corridors, zoned to accommodate 3 or
more story residential projects and where development
similar to that envisioned in the West Broadway Urban
Village Specific Plan could be replicated. Future growth areas relied on for this 6th Cycle Housing Element should not include residential development of the City’s parcels on the former Fort Ord.
The General Plan Update includes the development of Seaside East with sustainable neighborhoods and the preservation of natural areas as a major strategy in the next 20 years. The General Plan outlines the vision of development in Seaside East “…in a way that balances new diverse neighborhoods and mixed-use retail areas with the preservation of significant natural resources. New development will be clustered into traditional, walkable neighborhoods with a diversity of low and moderate density housing types, including “neighborhood centers” that provide retail, services, and amenities for residents. Significant natural areas, habitat corridors and buffers to the National Monument will be developed to enhance the city’s open spaces. Significant new recreational facilities will be developed to provide much-needed sports and athletic fields.
Finally, new office and R&D uses will be included to diversify the city’s economic base.” (Seaside Revised Draft General Plan, p. 32)
However, the Housing Plan has also identified other areas of future growth such as parcels in the West Broadway Urban Village Specific Plan, East Broadway Boulevard Corridor and Freemont Boulevard Corridor, properties in the Long Range Property Management Plan as areas with residential development potential (Housing Element, p. 3).
B Program 11, Housing
Choice Voucher
Program – mandates
and incentives
Program’s language – to “support,’ “promote,” or “work
with” – may not have any real effect on landlord refusal to accept vouchers. The program should instead contain
mandates or substantial incentives to accept vouchers.
Creating incentive or penalty programs requires additional resources not only for program management and monitoring but also for the initial development of the program. This includes conducting investigations into legal and economic considerations necessary for its establishment. For example, there could be concerns that imposing penalties might inadvertently lead to discrimination against voucher holders, and incentives might favor certain groups over others, potentially violating fair housing principles.
The City relies on Fair Housing Agencies for enforcement and education of fair housing laws and has included actions in Table 1: Summary of AFFH Actions in the Housing Plan to increase the use of HCV:
• Ensure outreach and education includes advertising the protected characteristics under FEHA as well as the State’s new Source of Income Protection (SB 329 and SB 222), defining public assistance including HCVs as legitimate source of income for housing.
• Inform ADU applicants that ADU units are subject to SB 329 and SB 222- rental unit cannot be denied based on source of income- by posting information on the City website and the ADU application.
Packet Page 352
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-142
B Program 13, Affordable
Housing Development –
less restrictive
development standards
This program would merely require the City to “consider” less restrictive development standards as part of its
General Plan update. The program should be modified to
provide that the City shall adopt less restrictive standards that would attain a measurable objective.
During the comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance, there will be additional opportunities for the City to make decisions regarding the incentives and concessions that go beyond the State Law. This process allows for careful consideration of various factors and community needs before finalizing the updated ordinance.
B Program 13, Affordable
Housing Development –
objective development
standards:
The program calls for developing objective development
standards “to accommodate SB 35 streamlining of
affordable housing projects.” The City should develop
objective development standards and objective design
review standards. “Objective zoning standards” and
“objective design review standards” could be defined in an implementing ordinance using the language from
Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(5) [SB 35] or
Government Code Section 65914.7(a)(8)(B) [AB 2295]
And application of these objective standards should not be limited to SB 35 projects. All residential projects in the City should be subject only to objective development and
design review standards in order to expedite permitting and to provide the certainty that is required to make
development investments.
During the comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance, there will be additional opportunities for the City to make decisions regarding the incentives and concessions that go beyond the State Law. This process allows for careful consideration of various factors and community needs before finalizing the updated ordinance.
B Program 13, Affordable
Housing Development
and Program 16, MultiFamily and Mixed Use
Development Standards
and Design Guidelines -
by-right ministerial
permitting:
The Housing Element should require provision of by-right, ministerial permitting for infill multi-family residential projects. The adoption of objective development and
design review standards can eliminate the need for
discretionary review and obviate the redundant projectlevel CEQA review for urban infill projects in areas already subjected to program level CEQA review.
The City has not considered making housing ministerial permitting of multi-family developments because current development patterns do not suggest the need. The majority of the City’s RHNA was met by Campus Town, whose units are already entitled.
In addition, all but two sites in the sites inventory will allow by-right approval as they were used in the previous two planning cycles. Based on the City's ADU trends, it appears that a significant number of the newly added housing units are and will be ADUs, and these ADUs are already allowed by-right in most zones.
B Program 14, Density
Bonus Ordinance – local
increase in density
bonuses
Program 14 should include a requirement that the City’s implementing ordinance for the state Density Bonus Law
include an additional density bonus that goes beyond the state requirements in order to more effectively promote affordable housing development.
During the update of the Density Bonus ordinance, there will be additional opportunities for the City to make decisions regarding the requirements that go beyond the State Law.
This process allows for careful consideration of various factors and community needs before finalizing the updated ordinance.
B AB 2011 and SB6 In preparation to accommodate proposals under AB-2011 and SB-6, we also recommend extending the density
bonus program to CA=Automotive Commercial,
CC=Community Commercial, CMX=Commercial MixedUse, and CRG=Regional Commercial zoning districts.
C Access to Transportation
And Services
MST is in support of the policy titled Access to
Transportation and Services, under Goal H-8,
and recommends that this policy not be limited
This is being considered in the Circulation/Mobility Element of the General Plan.
Packet Page 353
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-143
to special needs housing. MST recommends
creating a policy under Goal H-1 that
encourages the development of high density
and mixed-use housing in areas served by
public transit and have safe pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure.
Suggested language for a policy under Goal H-1:
Access to transportation and services. Integrate
pedestrian and bicycle amenities and improved pathways
to housing to improve travel choices and enhanced quality of life.
C Fee Reduction for
Pedestrian Infrastructure
MST recommends adding a policy under Goal H-4 that
reduces (waives or defers) fees for developments that
incorporate pedestrian infrastructure improvements and
bus stop facilities into site plans.
This is being considered in the Circulation/Mobility Element of the General Plan.
C AFFH Table 1: Summary of AFFH Actions references outreach to specific census tracts. The Housing Element is missing a map identifying those housing tract geographic
boundaries.
The City has included a map with the Census Tracts in the Housing Plan (Figure 1).
D Program 5: Adequate
Sites for RHNA and ByRight Approval
MBEP supports expanding by-right approval beyond just
the sites in the 5th and 6th Cycle Sites Inventories for projects including affordable housing – whether 20% or
another proportion – to sites around the city that prioritize Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing guidelines,
prioritizing transit and mixed use corridors such as North Fremont, Del Monte, and Broadway.
The City is committed to facilitating housing production (Program 13). Sites in the inventory considered housing conditions as well as location near corridors during the selection process. The Sites Inventory is part of the City’s efforts to affirmatively furthering fair housing.
D Program 13: Affordable
Housing Development
Program 13: Affordable Housing Development, states that the City will establish development standards and
incentives to facilitate mixed-use and residential
development. These incentives – or concessions, on the
part of the City – are policies that MBEP strongly supports and we urge stronger language such as “the City shall
determine
how to implement [the policies]” rather than “the City may consider.”
This is being considered in the Circulation/Mobility Element of the General Plan.
D Program 16: Multi-Family
and Mixed Use
Development Standards
and Design Guidelines:
MBEP strongly supports this approach and recommends
defining target densities for each “zone,” and by defining “zone” further so that both residents and developers may better understand and determine appropriate development types that could be proposed uses obligatory language
The specifics of the language to be incorporated into the objective design standards will be determined during that process by 2024.
Packet Page 354
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-144
and states that the City is adopting a form-based code
approach with objective design guidelines. This approach complements efforts toward by-right approval of housing development inclusive of affordable housing, especially with the commitment that “the City will establish”
appropriate development standards to ensure maximum
density can be achieved in each zone. A useful reference is the “Place Type Map” created by the City of Salinas for its 2040 General Plan update
E Streamlined ministerial
permitting of employersponsored housing
District proposes the adoption of a policy and a program for streamlined ministerial permitting of employersponsored housing. Modeled after existing law AB 2295 (which was enacted in 2022 and becomes fully effective
on January 1, 2024) and SB 35, the program would be
implemented by an ordinance providing ministerial
approval of multi-family infill housing that meets objective development and design review standards. This housing
would be offered first to our employees, then to public agency employees, and then to members of the public in
accordance with existing law.
New state law is also being proposed the development of housing on religious institution land. The City will await the outcome of the proposed legislation.
F
Permit Streamlining Act
and intersections with
CEQA and timing
requirements,
The Housing Element from SEASIDE should include an
analysis of compliance in its approval process with PRC 21080.1 & 21080.2.
The Housing Element from SEASIDE should add a
program to specify (i) who is responsible for making the CEQA determination of PRC 21080.1, specify (ii) that their decision will be made within the timeframe permitted by PRC 21080.2, and specify that (iii), when they determine a project is exempt from CEQA, their
determination triggers the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) 60-day deadline (Gov. Code 65950(a)(5)). If existing local practices or regulations are incompatible with these state laws, the program should commit to enacting reforms
necessary to achieve compliance within a reasonable and definite timeline.
The comment letter was received in November 2022, prior to the release of the Draft Housing Element on May 19, 2023.
As stated in Program 16 (Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Development Standards and Design Guidelines), the City is adopting a form-based code approach with objective design standards, to guide multi-family and mixed use development in the City. As part of the update, the City will review permit processing procedure particularly in infill and multifamily projects to move projects to a ministerial process depending on the size of the project.
Additionally, the City complies with the Streamlining Act. Added clarification in text.
G
Transit Times Page APP-225 - Figure App-50 shows the routes for bus route 17 and 18. Service for these two lines is available every 30 to 60 minutes starting after 7:00 a.m. and ending before 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and every 60 minutes starting after 7:00 a.m. and ending before 7:00 p.m. on weekends.
Changes incorporated.
Packet Page 355
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-145
APP-270 - Freemont Boulevard is currently already wellconnected with transit as there are two three Monterey-Salinas Transit lines that travel through Fremont.
TOD Policy MST strongly recommends creating a policy under Goal H-1 that encourages the development of high density and mixed-use housing in areas served by public transit and have safe pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Suggested language for a policy under Goal H-1: Access to transportation and services.
Integrate pedestrian and bicycle amenities and improved pathways to housing to improve travel choices and enhanced quality of life.
Added policy pg. HE-5.
Packet Page 356
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-146
5. Supplementary Records
a. Comment Cards- Farmers Market
Packet Page 357
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-147
Packet Page 358
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-148
Packet Page 359
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-149
Packet Page 360
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-150
Packet Page 361
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-151
Packet Page 362
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-152
Packet Page 363
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-153
Packet Page 364
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-154
Packet Page 365
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-155
b. Comment Cards- Community Workshop
Packet Page 366
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-156
Packet Page 367
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-157
Packet Page 368
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-158
Packet Page 369
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-159
Packet Page 370
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-160
Packet Page 371
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-161
Packet Page 372
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-162
B. Stakeholder Interviews
In March 2020, Seaside staff conducted six email and phone stakeholder interviews with Seaside residential leaders about their views of housing characteristics, key issues and opportunities, vision for the future and community engagement opportunities. The responses are summarized below:
• Housing affordability and housing age. While homes are perceived to be more affordable in Seaside than the rest of the peninsula, homeownership remains out of reach for many residents. The age of housing presents a cost-burden to people, especially those on fixed-income, when maintaining the home.
• Housing and neighborhood conditions. Code enforcement is viewed as having limited staff and funding to properly maintain the quality of all neighborhoods. • Overcrowding. Homes often have multiple families living together in one home. • Water availability. Water availability and the ability to set a meter often limits the development of vacant parcels.
• Housing for all. Seaside is viewed as having housing opportunities at various price points for all income levels; there just is not sufficient quantity of housing. • Workforce housing. Housing for people of modest incomes, like teachers, are often unable to secure housing, without spending a high percentage of their income. There is growing awareness of this problem, and institutions like the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District [MPUSD] are looking at providing teacher housing to address this issue. • Momentum. Seaside residents, especially the long-term ones, view Seaside as finally on the verge of opportunity with Campus Town and Ascent having been recently approved.
There is a local advocacy movement to put Seaside first, with housing a priority, and this community advocacy has already proven effective.
The City conducted a series of stakeholder interviews to kick off this process again in the Summer of 2022 to ensure that the updates to the General Plan and Housing Element are informed by and reflective of its community’s diverse views and priorities. Stakeholders included representatives from advocacy groups for youth and family, arts, education, environment, housing, and the Hispanic/Latinx population. A key purpose of these interviews was to reach and elevate the voices of those who have not been historically represented in planning processes.
The interview questionnaire consisted of general questions to identify strengths and issues and several questions specific to housing (see Section 4 of this report for the list of questions.) The interviews were conducted from June 2022 to July 2022. A total of 10 representatives participated in this stakeholder interview process. The list of participating organizations and interview questions are included at the end of the report, in Section 5.
These interviews reiterated some of the findings from the 2020 interviews such as housing affordability and overcrowding but also identified the connection between other issues (jobs, education) and provided a holistic look at the issues facing the community such as:
• Childcare: Lack and price of childcare makes it difficult for families (and especially single mothers) to find work. Without work, they have limited housing choices and families may be doubling up to afford housing costs.
• Youth housing opportunities and engagement: Despite the presence of higher education and technical institutions in Seaside, youth need more opportunities and stuff to do in the city. 18-to-24 years also get “lost in the weeds” post-high school. Youth are also struggling with housing when they cannot get it through their social support system (e.g., family).
• Transit/Walkability: Making existing neighborhoods more walkable and accessible for pedestrians. Safety and maintenance need to be prioritized. Streets feel especially unsafe Packet Page 373
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-163
because of several factors: width, traffic speed, and lack of sidewalk maintenance. The City also needs more safe routes and dedicated bike lanes. • Engagement: The City can do a better job at community engagement, and through that, learn what are the real community priorities rather than only listen to the same group of voices. The City should engage with:
• Business owners, especially Latinx and Black and young people interested in opening a business but being priced out.
• Parents to understand rent struggles.
• Youth: both high school and college
• Spanish-speaking community
• Generacion: based out of Watsonville and working on climate justice and are inclusive/accessible to Spanish speakers
• Black churches
• The elderly community
• Chamber of commerce
Packet Page 374
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-164
1. Strengths, Issues and Challenges, and Opportunities
Overall, the following strengths, opportunities, issues, and challenges were shared by stakeholders.
Strengths Issues and Challenges Opportunities
• Diversity of housing types
• Close-knit community
• Educational institutions
• Geographic location
• Broadway Plan
• Diversity
• City services
• City leadership
• Partnerships across agencies and with
nonprofits
• Park beautification and rehabilitation
(e.g., wetlands)
• Small and big/franchise business
balance
• Lack of sufficient and affordable childcare
• Lack of youth opportunities
• Lack of housing affordability
• Overcrowding
• Climate
• Climate Action Plan’s role in the General Plan Update • Water use and open space
• Parking
• Role of overcrowding
• Role of short-term rentals and push for infill development • Safety
• Need for safer roads (from pedestrians in sidewalks, to cyclists in bike lanes)
• Insufficient dedicated bike lanes
• Housing
• No more room for housing development within city limits • Unaffordable housing leading to seeking multiple jobs, doubling up in single-family housing, and forcing out residents
• Growing Airbnb units as an obstacle to housing quantity and affordability • Coastal Commission leading to hard approval process for large housing development
• Work
• Low wage hospitality or service jobs most common among immigrant population
• Health
• Lack of proper healthcare
• Limited number of clinics providing preventive care and mental health services
• Walkability
• Few walkable places
• Factors determining street safety: width, traffic speed, and lack of sidewalk maintenance
• Open Spaces
• Park distribution inequity/high concentration in few areas • Childcare
• Role of city services to support working parents
• Parent engagement on identifying childcare
solutions
• Housing
• Locations:
- Broadway Gate area
- Hamilton and Sonoma
intersection
- Fort Ord
- General Gillmore
Boulevard
• Types:
- ADUs
- Multifamily
- Mixed use integration
• Climate
• Alternative transportation and connectivity
• Walkability (15-minute city)
• Lens for development approval
• Electrification
• Regional response requiring cross-jurisdictional
partnerships
• Education
• Partnership with local schools and nearby higher
education institutions
Packet Page 375
2. Summary by Stakeholder Group
a. Arts, Education and Youth
Strengths
Housing
• Compared to other cities in the region, Seaside has a diversity of housing.
City and Community
• Seaside has a tight knit community that is more like a family. • City staff are doing a great job to face new and ongoing challenges.
Education
• Education is a big strength of the City given the presence of higher education and technical institutions, including California State University Monterey Bay.
Issues
Childcare
• There is not sufficient and affordable childcare in Seaside, and it is much needed especially for children under five years old.
• There are not sufficient people working in childcare, and that has many repercussions, including fewer staff available to take care of children of working families or families that do want to work but cannot because of lack of childcare options. The hospitality field, one of Seaside’s strongest industries, is suffering as a result.
Work and Other Opportunities
• Related to childcare, people remain in a lower income bracket when they cannot take on work because of childcare unavailability and costs.
• This is particularly true for single mothers.
• Youth need more opportunities and stuff to do in the city. 18-to-24 years also get “lost in the weeds” post-high school.
Housing
• Rents are increasing too rapidly.
• People are moving out of Seaside such as to Pacific Grove where rents are cheaper. • Families are living together to reduce housing costs, leading to overcrowding. • Older generations feel like the newer generations will not be able to buy a house in Seaside and stay here.
• Lack of housing affordability is particularly affecting the Black community of Seaside. • It takes a long time to get Section 8 Housing.
• When housing is proposed, the approval and construction periods take too long. • Golf course area got housing but it is not affordable for people in this community.
Cost of Living
Packet Page 376
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-166
• In addition to housing, other aspects of living in Seaside are becoming more expensive.
This impacts families and their quality of life.
• Create family programs to support working families and for people to meet and learn from each other.
Opportunities
City Services
• The City should consider providing services to those who do want to work but currently cannot because of they need to take care of their children. • Single purpose soccer fields could me made multi-use to include football.
Childcare
• Parents are very active in this space. Involve them in identifying opportunities to make childcare more accessible and affordable.
Housing
• There is an opportunity to bring housing to the Broadway Gate area. • ADU is a good opportunity and conversation around it should be strengthened.
Land Use Diversity
• Seaside has become more of a bedroom community, and could benefit from different uses that reactivate the community.
Community Engagement
• The City can do a better job at community engagement, and through that, learn what are the real community priorities rather than only listen to the same group of voices. • As part of the General Plan Update process, engage with:
• Business owners, especially Latinx and Black and young people interested in opening a business but being priced out.
• Parents to understand rent struggles.
• Youth, especially those graduating high school and entering college, who are struggling with housing when they cannot get it through their social support system (e.g., family).
COVID-19 Pandemic
• The following were identified as the biggest impacts:
• Stipends for covering basic needs, especially food
• Rental assistance
• Vaccination and medical assistance
• Piloted Vida project to bring community health workers to help educate people on COVID safety and vaccination.
• Food banks (including going door-to-door)
• Internet access
b. Environmental
Strengths
Seaside’s Special Features
Packet Page 377
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-167
• Location: Proximity to Highway 1 and so many recreational spots make Seaside uniquely situated.
• Education: The City has many public education schools, including for special education, international education, and arts education, that need to be included as special features in the General Plan.
Housing
• Seaside has some diversity of housing type relative to other Peninsula municipalities. • Seaside has balanced neighborhoods, instead of enclaves such as gated communities, which create a friendly, neighborly, and close-knit community.
Broadway Plan
• The multi-level parking structure in the Broadway Plan may offer some relief to make West Broadway area more commercial and walkable.
• Easy rapid transit would mean not having to rely on a car.
Issues
Climate
• Climate Action Plan was adopted but it was not clear if and how it would guide the General Plan Update.
• Water use and open space will continue to be pressing issues for the City.
Housing
• Overcrowding is a major issue that has gotten. It is basically turning single family housing into multifamily housing out of necessity.
• Avoid another Seaside Highland.
• It is very difficult for people to qualify for a loan and buy a house in Seaside. • The unhoused population is undercounted.
Parking
• Overcrowding is also resulting in lack of sufficient parking. • Both increase in short-term rentals and push for infill development will exacerbate parking issue.
Safety
• More safe routes are needed.
• Dedicated bike lanes are only in Broadway and one other street. This is not sufficient.
Opportunities
Climate
• Create a plan that supports alternative transportation and connectivity to reduce carbon emissions.
• Together, these can mitigate parking development.
• All developments should be though a climate change lens to ensure that they do not exacerbate the problem.
• Electrification will be an important aspect to responding to climate and meeting future codes.
• Addressing climate change requires a regional response that does not adhere to city boundaries. It will require cross-jurisdictional partnerships. • Looking elsewhere:
• Santa Cruz County and San Luis Obispo provide good models for climate planning. • Watsonville is a good example of how to apply a climate justice lens.
Packet Page 378
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-168
• Other jurisdictions are farther ahead when it comes to climate action and environmental justice.
Partner and learn from them.
Walkability
• Make 15-minute city a priority especially for Seaside East. This includes making existing neighborhoods more walkable and accessible for pedestrians.
Housing
• Hamilton and Sonoma intersection is densely populated and has lots that could support multifamily housing.
• Some buildings are rundown and need better maintenance. • Emphasize multifamily housing and equitable location that leads to more socioeconomic integration.
Community Engagement
• As part of the General Plan Update process, engage with:
• Spanish-speaking community
• Generacion: based out of Watsonville and working on climate justice and are inclusive/accessible to Spanish speakers
• Black churches
COVID-19 Pandemic
• The following were identified as the biggest impacts:
• Open spaces: more people were trying to get outdoors. There is a stronger need to make amenities and services more accessible within walking distance.
• Restricted commerce and business closures
c. Latinx
Strengths
Seaside’s Special Features
• Location: Seaside is close to other cities that create opportunities for jobs, recreation, and other.
• City leadership: The current mayor has been doing a great job. • Diversity: Seaside’s population is diverse and is increasingly so. • City services: It has fire and police departments and the DMV. • Partnerships: More nonprofits are establishing here and partnering with City Council to bring services to residents (e.g., Palenque Arts)
Environment
• The City and nonprofits have done good efforts in park beautification and rehabilitation, especially some of the wetlands closer to the beach.
Economic Development
• The City has done a good job of balancing the need and presence of small and big/franchise businesses.
• The Auto Mall is an asset, as it might be the only one in the Peninsula.
Issues
Housing
Packet Page 379
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-169
• There is no more room for housing development.
• Because housing is so expensive, people are either finding multiple jobs are living together in single-family housing.
• Seaside will continue to lose residents if it does not address the housing problem, as they will be forced to look to other places to live.
• The growing number of Airbnb’s is another obstacle for housing quantity and affordability.
• Any large housing development has to go through a hard approval process when the project is within the Coastal Commission’s boundaries.
Work
• Among the immigrant community, hospitality or service jobs tend to be the most common. But these do not pay much. Many have to live with multiple families or work a second job.
Health
• The City is missing proper healthcare.
• There are a limited number of clinics providing preventive care and mental health services.
• During the pandemic, it was hard to find healthcare locations. Many people had to travel out of the city to receive the services they were looking for.
Walkability
• The City has few walking spaces.
• Streets feel especially unsafe because of several factors: width, traffic speed, and lack of sidewalk maintenance.
• People did not know where it was safe to walk and bike and so did not get that many opportunities to be outside during the pandemic.
Open Spaces
• Many parks are located near General Gillmore Boulevard, whereas Fremont and surrounding areas do not have many open spaces.
• Parks are highly concentrated when looking at the land use map.
Opportunities
Housing
• Location:
• Use some of the Fort Ord land and areas around General Gillmore Boulevard for accommodating new housing.
• There is a small vacant plot on Broadway next to the post office that could become housing. • Support economic development through housing opportunities. • The City should find more opportunities to partner with private housing developers. • Create a first-time homebuyer’s program.
• Looking elsewhere:
• The City of Marina started the development Sea Haven, where the developer established a fund wherein part of the sale of a house would go to a fund that awards money back to nonprofits based in Marina.
• This could be a model for Seaside to follow and establish a community benefits plan or agreement.
Education
Packet Page 380
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-170
• The City should partner with local schools to create programs to increase education partnership with nearby universities.
• The City of Gonzales offers a good example of how to collaborate between the city and schools.
Community Engagement
• As part of the General Plan Update process, engage with:
• The elderly community
• Myer Center
• Student clubs
• High school and college students
• Chamber of Commerce
COVID-19 Pandemic
• The following were identified as the biggest impacts:
• Service industry: many had to seek government relief. • Sense of community
3. Participating Stakeholders
A total of 10 organizations participated in the stakeholder interview process, representing five diverse groups: environmental, arts, education, youth and Latinx. • Building Healthy Community
• Community Partnerships for Youth
• LandWatch
• League of United Latin American Citizens
• Seaside High School
• Seaside Peninsula
• Siembra Latinos Fund
• Sustainable California State Monterey Bay
• Sustainable Monterey County
• Sustainable Seaside
Packet Page 381
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-171
4. Interview Questionnaire
Packet Page 382
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-172
C. Seaside Chats…
The City of Seaside hosts a recurring community conversation event called Seaside Chats… which covers a variety of topics. In advance of the Housing Element Update, staff conducted two Seaside Chats: Electrification and Housing. The format of a Chat is to begin with a brief introduction and offer the latest information about the topic, followed by a free-form discussion.
Even the seating arrangements are carefully considered, to emphasize the equality of participants.
Seaside Chats… Electrification was held on February 25, 2020. This conversation featured three speakers: Dan Bertoldi with Monterey Bay Community Power, Rob Nicely with Carmel Building and Design, and Matt Hough with Sierra Club. Electrification was a topic per the request of a council member. Introduction of the topic took longer, as many were less familiar with electrification. Community questions included:
• What happens when PG&E does a shutdown? [Monterey Bay Community Power has a generator program they are announcing, and passive energy may reduce the need for some power.]
• What about people who like to cook using gas? [Gas, when used with improper exhaust, increases indoor air pollution to dangerous levels, also induction burners can be used.] • Are there incentives to do this? [There are various incentives for homeowners and businesses, as well as incentives for cities to adopt reach codes.] • If Seaside considered reach codes, what might help that happen? [Partnerships and outreach in advance are essential, with Sierra Club offering to assist.] Seaside Chats… Housing was held on March 12, 2020. This conversation covered water availability, code enforcement, increasing density in existing neighborhoods, affordable housing, and ADUs. The discussion included State efforts, like SB-330 and SB-902, among others.
Community questions included:
• What is being done about Veteran housing? [An allocation of CDBG funds are directed to VTC which supports veteran housing.]
• Does Seaside have its own ADU code? [No, the City follows State regulations, and is considering adopting its own ADU code.]
• How big can an ADU be? [ADU and JADU sizes were discussed.] • What about parking for the ADU? [State regulations do not allow consideration of parking.]
• Where will jobs be located? [The new zoning code will define employment zones and Seaside East is anticipated to create a new, small employment area.] • How can we find out what the City is doing about development? [A development dashboard will inform people of both commercial and residential development status in the city.]
D. Planning Commission
The City of Seaside Planning Commission met on March 11, 2020 to discuss topics included in the Housing Element Update. The Planning Commission discussion included:
• Affordable housing
• Procuring water for housing development
• Parking concerns
• Jobs / housing balance
• Seaside East development
• MPUSD and workforce housing
The Planning Commission is aware of recently approved affordable housing that will be part of Campus Town and Ascent. The Planning Commission had more sophisticated questions related Packet Page 383
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-173
to housing at a variety of price points, the housing/jobs balance, water concerns, and several questions about the potential of Seaside East.
The Planning Commission is invited to a special design charrette for Seaside East taking place late in April 2020. Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) is a consulting firm, well known for their work on Seaside, Florida and DPZ is scheduled to come to Seaside to conduct a week-long design charrette that will include a wide variety of stakeholders crafting a plan for the use of 600 acres of land that abuts the Fort Ord National Monument and overlooks the beauty of Monterey Bay.
The former Army base land will be used for parks, open space, residential, a civic campus and employment.
The Planning Commission will review the Draft Housing Element on June 14, 2023 or June 21, 2023.
E. Internet Survey
An internet survey was created in both English and Spanish for the 2020 Housing Element Update. The City of Seaside continued to solicit survey responses until March 25, 2020 to allow the maximum opportunity for participation. The City mass emailed the survey links to over 800 people to encourage participation. The survey links were available on the City’s website and via social media. There is awareness, however, of subordinating the survey message to all of the City’s coronavirus messaging.
A fun marketing campaign to generate participation was conducted via Facebook and Twitter, with the intent of reaching people who are self-isolating and may be more likely to participate in a short survey.
The survey was designed as a coordinated effort between the City of Seaside and Rincon Consultants and covers topics such as: affordable housing, water availability, ADUs, increasing density in existing neighborhoods, workforce housing, and the use of technology to speed up the development process.
The survey results indicate: affordable housing remains a concern, code enforcement could be improved, and identifying additional water acquisition to support housing development is popular.
F. Community Engagement during Coronavirus
While the outreach for the 2023 Housing Element Update is different from the usual methods, a good faith effort has been made to reach as many facets of the community as possible. The City of Seaside prioritizes public health and safety, so alternatives had to be found. While the number of people engaged may have been less than prior efforts, the feedback has been outstanding: the proposed budget for code enforcement should be considered for an increase to respond to concerns; a development dashboard, which can both inform the community and be part of economic development marketing, will be considered for the city website; reach codes for electrification may be discussed by Council; people are excited about the ADU technology and plan submittal software to be funded via SB-2. These items improve the quality of neighborhoods, the speed of development, and also the marketing of the City.
City staff took extra precautions when conducting community engagement for the 2020 Housing Element Update. Health and safety were emphasized during events due to COVID-19.
Packet Page 384
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-174
Amount of workforce housing Current level of code enforcement Technology to speed up development process Increase sources of water Packet Page 385
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-175
Packet Page 386
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-176
Section 7: AFFH
A. Introduction and Overview of AB 686
Assembly Bill 686 passed in 2017 requires the inclusion in the Housing Element an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity29 and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing.30 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.31 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 HUD’s 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 which includes the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement 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.
B. 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.32 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 Governments, where appropriate, for the purposes of promoting more inclusive communities.
29 While California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) does not provide a definition of opportunity, opportunity usually relates to access to resources and ability to 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. 30 “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.
31. 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.
32 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).
Packet Page 387
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-177
For the purposes of this AFFH, “Regional Trends” describe trends in Monterey County and the Bay Area, depending on the availability of data from the U.S. Census and other data sources. “Local Trends” describe trends specific to Seaside and communities within the City.
1. Sources of Information
The City used a variety of data sources for the assessment of fair housing at the regional and local level. These include:
• U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”) and American Community Survey (ACS)
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) reports (based on the 2014-2018 ACS) • Monterey County’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2019 (2019 AI), a joint effort by the County Collaborating Entities33
• Local Knowledge
Some of these sources provide data on the same topic, but because of different methodologies, the resulting data differ. For example, the decennial census and ACS report slightly different estimates for the total population, number of households, number of housing units, and household size. This is in part because ACS provides estimates based on a small survey of the population taken over the course of the whole year.34 Because of the survey size and seasonal population shifts, some information provided by the ACS is less reliable. For this reason, the readers should keep in mind the potential for data errors when drawing conclusions based on the ACS data used in this chapter. The information is included because it provides an indication of possible trends. The analysis makes comparisons between data from the same source during the same time periods, using U.S. Census data as a first source.
The City also used findings and data from the 2019 Monterey County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2019 AI) for its local knowledge as it includes a variety of locally gathered and available information on issues affecting fair housing choice. The City also used HCD’s 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for its regional findings and data.
In addition, HCD has developed a statewide AFFH Data Viewer. The AFFH Data Viewer consists of map data layers from various data sources and provides options for addressing each of the components within the full scope of the assessment of fair housing. The data source and time frame used in the AFFH mapping tools may differ from the most current available Census and ACS data. The City tried to the best of its ability to ensure comparisons between the same time frames but in some instances, comparisons may have been made for different time frames (often different by 1 year). As explained earlier, the assessment is most useful in providing an indication of possible trends.
2. Fair Housing Defined
Fair housing throughout this report is defined as follows:
A condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have a like range of choice available to them regardless of their characteristics as protected under State and Federal laws.
The housing markets across the Monterey region are very different. Therefore, in most cases, discussions and assessments on housing options and choices are made in the context of the 33 2019 Monterey County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice covers the entitlement jurisdictions of Monterey, Salinas, and Seaside, as well as the Monterey Urban County Entitlement Area, which is comprised of the cities of Gonzales, Greenfield, Sand City (participating cities), and the unincorporated areas of Monterey County 34 The American Community Survey is sent to approximately 250,000 addresses in the United States monthly (or 3 million per year). It regularly gathers information previously contained only in the long form of the decennial census. This information is then averaged to create an estimate reflecting a 1- or 5-year reporting period (referred to as a “5-year estimate”). 5-year estimates have a smaller margin of error due to the longer reporting period and are used throughout the AFFH.
Packet Page 388
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-178
local communities, particularly relating to local policies that would impact the range of housing choices available.
3. Housing Issues, Affordability, and Fair Housing
HUD’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Division draws a distinction between housing affordability and fair housing. Economic factors that affect a household’s housing choices are not fair housing issues per se. Only when the relationship between household income, household type, race/ethnicity, and other factors create misconceptions, biases, and differential treatments would fair housing concerns arise.
Tenant/landlord disputes are also typically not related to fair housing. Most disputes between tenants and landlords result from a lack of understanding by either or both parties on their rights and responsibilities. Tenant/landlord disputes and housing discrimination cross paths when the disputes are based on factors protected by fair housing laws and result in differential treatment.
C. Geography
1. Monterey County
Monterey County is predominantly rural, with urban development clustered along the Monterey Bay coastline and in agricultural inland valleys along U.S. 101. Major urban development in the Monterey Bay Area primarily occurs along the Monterey Peninsula from Marina to the north and Carmel-by-the-Sea to the south. The Seaside-Monterey, and Salinas urbanized areas are the most densely developed in the region. The cities in Monterey County are generally broken up into two areas – the Peninsula cities (Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific Grove, Monterey, Sand City, Seaside and Marina) and the Valley cities which are located along SR-101 in the inland areas (Salinas, Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield and King City). For this analysis, the regional context will be the Monterey County Area. Where more detail or data is needed, the City compared Seaside to its neighboring Peninsula Cities of Monterey and Marina and to the Valley Cities of Salinas and Gonzales.
2. Seaside
Seaside is one of seven cities on the Monterey Peninsula. Nearby cities include Marina, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, and Carmel-by-the-Sea. The City was developed as a primarily single-family community in the 1950s and 1960s. The Fort Ord military base was expanded between 1968 and 1978 during the height of the Vietnam War, and, subsequently, the mobilization of the Seventh Infantry Division. This expansion created a great demand for housing, particularly for the noncommissioned officers and enlisted personnel who were unable to secure housing on base.
Seaside and Marina, as the adjoining cities, faced an increased rate of development during that time to meet this housing demand of an expanding military base. As a result, Seaside produced a significant amount of low-cost housing for the military personnel. This housing demand was eased somewhat when the Army built more housing on base in the late 1980s. However, workers in the hospitality and other service industries have replaced military personnel in Seaside, where the majority of the affordable housing on the Monterey Peninsula could be found. Even with the base closure at Fort Ord, Seaside continues to provide the bulk of the most affordable housing on the Monterey Peninsula. The closure of Fort Ord and the continuing growth of California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB), as well as the decrease in available land, have brought new opportunities and challenges for Seaside.
As shown in Figure App-22, the southern portions of Seaside contain the residential housing while northern Seaside (north of Military Avenue) contains mostly non-residential districts such as Public/Institutional (PI), Military (M), Visitor-Serving Commercial (V-FO), Open Space with scattered housing and mixed-use commercial.
Packet Page 389
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-179
Figure App-22: 2007 Zoning Map
Packet Page 390
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-180
Seaside’s residential neighborhoods are shown in Figure App-23. Most neighborhoods are single family housing districts, with multi-family residential housing (medium and high) allowed mostly along Fremont Boulevard in the Old Grove, Olympia, Terrace, Rousch, and Kimball neighborhoods.
The Highland Neighborhood has the highest concentration of High Density Residential acreage.
Figure App-23: Seaside Neighborhoods
The City’s renter population is concentrated west of Noche Buena Boulevard in the Olympia, Terrace, Rousch, Cabrillo, and Laguna Grande neighborhoods. Between 60% and 80% of households in these neighborhoods are renter households (Figure App-24).
Packet Page 391
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-181
Figure App-24: Renter Household Concentration
D. Assessment of Fair Housing
1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Fair housing is a right protected by both federal and state of California laws and virtually every housing unit in California is subject to fair housing practices. Enforcement includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing. Fair housing outreach capacity also relates to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are well aware of fair housing laws and rights.
a. Fair Housing Service Providers
This section identifies local and regional agencies and organizations that provide fair housing information, outreach, and enforcement in the jurisdiction and region; including discussions of their capacity and the resources available.
In general, fair housing services include the investigation and resolution of housing discrimination complaints, discrimination auditing and testing, and education and outreach, including the dissemination of fair housing information such as written material, workshops, and seminars.
Landlord/tenant counseling is another fair housing service that involves informing landlords and tenants of their rights and responsibilities under fair housing law and other consumer protection legislations as well as mediating disputes between tenants and landlords.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
The mission of HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is to eliminate housing discrimination, promote economic opportunity, and achieve diverse, inclusive Packet Page 392
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-182
communities by leading the nation in the enforcement, administration, development, and public understanding of federal fair housing policies and laws. FHEO offers the following programs:
HUD investigates complaints of housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status. At no cost to the complainants, HUD will investigate the complaint and try to conciliate the matter with both parties. HUD maintains a record of all housing discrimination complaints for jurisdictions, including the County of Monterey. According to the HUD website, any person who feels their housing rights have been violated may submit a complaint to HUD via phone, mail, or the Internet. These grievances can be filed on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, familial status and retaliation. HUD refers complaints to the California DEFH, which has 30 days to address the complaint. As a substantially equivalent agency, DFEH's findings are usually accepted by HUD. Thereafter, HUD tracks the complaint and its issues and outcomes as a “dually filed” complaint.
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) The mission of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) is to protect Californians from employment, housing and public accommodation discrimination, and hate violence. To achieve this mission, DFEH tracks and investigates complaints of housing discrimination as well as complaints in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations and hate violence.
California Rural Legal Assistance
California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) is a nonprofit legal service program created to help California’s low income individuals and communities. CRLA provides low income rural Californians with free legal assistance and a variety of community education and outreach programs. Half of its resources are committed to multi-client cases that grapple with the root causes of poverty, with the goal of improving conditions for farmworkers, single parents, school children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and entire communities. Specifically, CRLA provides a wide range housing protection including: foreclosure and eviction defense, housing discrimination, substandard housing, farmworker housing, lockout and utility shut-offs by landlords, and rent deposit refunds.
CRLA has a HUD-funded fair housing program providing a range of services to support fair housing and civil rights for rural populations facing housing discrimination. CRLA's work includes investigating violations of state and federal fair housing laws, filing administrative complaints and engaging in affirmative litigation, land use and housing element advocacy, and conducting education, outreach, workshops, and training. CRLA also works with state and local fair housing agencies, local governments, and other non-profits and community based organizations to remedy discrimination in public and private housing markets and to reduce the incidence of practices that perpetuate segregation.
ECHO Housing
The Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO Housing) was founded in 1964 and incorporated in 1965 by community volunteers dedicated to equal housing opportunities and the prevention and elimination of homelessness. Established as a fair housing agency, ECHO has expanded to a full service housing counseling organization providing services to very low and moderate income clients. 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, Packet Page 393
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-183
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.
Local Trends
According to the City’s 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan, the City has allocated $300,000 in CDBG funds during the five-year consolidated plan period to public services, which include ECHO fair housing services. ECHO provided the following fair housing services for Seaside:
• Fair Housing Inquiries: When a client calls ECHO with a question pertaining to a fair housing issue and does not wish any investigation, this is called an inquiry. An example of an inquiry is: “Do I have to pay a pet deposit for my therapy animal?” The client wants an answer to his/her inquiry and does not necessarily have a desire to have ECHO act further. The Counselor then provides or researches an answer for the client. • Fair Housing Investigations: A complaint involves intensive case management. A client lodges a complaint with ECHO regarding illegal housing discrimination and wants ECHO to investigate the complaint. An investigation might take any or all of the following forms:
conducting tenant or landlord interviews, conducting interviews of all parties to the discriminatory act, conducting tenant surveys, conducting a test of the property using trained testers. A test generally uses at least two testers, one minority tester and one majority tester. The data from both testers is gathered, compared and contrasted to determine if discrimination has occurred. Fair housing complaints may be conciliated, or resolved by ECHO by providing education to tenants and landlords, or may be referred to attorneys, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• Tenant-Landlord Inquiries: Counseling provides clients with information and education on rental housing rights and responsibilities, such as evictions, repairs, habitability, deposits, or rent increases. The Counselor may provide counseling in the form of education and options which may help the client to assert and protect his/her rights. • Tenant-Landlord Conciliation/Mediation: Conciliation and mediation are dispute resolution processes where renters and landlords attempt to resolve their differences.
The Counselor facilitates this by improving communication, reinterpreting issues, exploring solutions, and bringing about a negotiated settlement.
Between 2019 and 2021, ECHO assisted 113 persons in Seaside. The largest share of fair housing services provided by ECHO was offering tenant-landlord inquiries (58%). The second largest share of services provided was conducting fair housing investigations (28%). Most tenantlandlord inquiries (35%) were related to rights and responsibilities (Table App-60). Eviction inquiries made up about a third of the tenant-landlord inquiries. Of these inquiries, eight were followed by tenant-landlord mediations. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, housing issues were heightened as a result of several factors including: loss of income leading to inability to pay rent, and a higher occurrence of Fair Housing complaints. 2020 also saw a skyrocketing in frequency of inquirers related to rights and responsibilities.
Table App-59: ECHO Services Provided (2019-2022)
2019 2020 2021 Total %
Clients Served* 29 38 46 113 100.00%
Tenant-Landlord Inquiries 12 23 30 65 57.5%
Packet Page 394
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-184
Tenant-Landlord Conciliations/Mediations 5 2 1 8 7.1%
FH Investigations 12 10 9 31 27.4%
Audits 5 4 5 14 12.4%
FH Inquiries 4 4 3 11 9.7%
Note: Clients served represents the unduplicated number of households assisted. The types of services may not add up due to possible multiple actions taken by the same household.
Source: ECHO Year-End Accomplishment Reports, FY 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2020 Table App-60: Tenant/Landlord Inquiries
2019 2020 2021 Total %
Rights and
Responsibilities
-- 13 14 27 35.1%
Eviction 3 8 9 20 26.0%
Deposits 1 2 3 6 7.8%
Repairs 3 1 2 6 7.8%
Rent Increases 1 2 2 5 6.5%
Entry -- -- 2 2 2.6%
Harassment -- -- 1 1 1.3%
Other 4 3 3 10 13.0%
The types of services may not add up due to possible multiple actions taken by the same household.
Source: ECHO Year-End Accomplishment Reports, FY 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2020 As shown in Table App-61 the most common basis for discrimination for the cases opened by ECHO was disability (38% of cases). Race was the second highest basis of discrimination (31%) followed by gender (19%). Most fair housing investigations resulted in tenant education (33%, Table App-62). However, about one third of the cases were followed up by testing. The majority of these tests showed no evidence of discrimination. Table App-63 shows a summary of ECHO’s fair housing service accomplishments.
Table App-61: Basis for Discrimination Cases (2019-2021) Protected Class 2019 2020 2021 Total %
Disability 5 3 8 16 38.1%
Race 4 7 2 13 31.0%
Gender 5 3 8 19.0%
Familial Status 1 1 2.4%
Source of Income 0 1 1 2.4%
Other 1 1 1 3 7.1%
Note: Totals may not add up to the unduplicated number of client households because a client may file a complaint/case based on multiple protected classes.
Source: ECHO Year-End Accomplishment Reports, FY 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2020.
Table App-62: Outcome of Discrimination Cases
Outcome 2019 2020 2021 Total %
Tenant Education 5 5 4 14 33.3%
Tested -- 4 8 12 28.6%
No Evidence -- 3 8 11 --
Landlord Education -- 1 -- 1 --
No Evidence 5 5 -- 10 23.8%
Counseled 3 -- -- 3 7.1%
Insufficient Evidence 2 -- -- 2 4.8%
Landlord Education 1 -- -- 1 2.4%
Source: ECHO Year-End Accomplishment Reports, FY 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2020.
Packet Page 395
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-185
Table App-63: Summary of Accomplishments
2019 2020 2021
Tenant/Landlord Mediation
Evictions - 3 cases:
• 1 case successfully mediated,
• 2 cases counseled.
Deposits - 1 case:
• 1 case counseled.
Repairs/Habitability - 3 cases:
• 2 cases successfully mediated;
• 1 case counseled.
Rent Increase - 1 case:
• 1 case successfully mediated.
Other - 4 cases:
• 1 case successfully mediated,
• 3 cases counseled
Eviction: Counseling provided to 8
households; 4 cases referred to
attorney.
Deposits: Counseling provided to 2
households; 1 case successfully
mediated.
Repairs: Counseling provided to 1
household.
Rent Increase: Counseling provided to 2
households.
Rights and Responsibilities: Counseling
provided to 13 households; 1 case
successfully mediated.
Eviction: Counseling provided to 9
households; 4 cases referred to
attorney.
Entry: Counseling provided to 2
households.
Deposits: Counseling provided to 3
households; 1 case referred to small
claims.
Harassment: Counseling provided to 1
household.
Repairs: Counseling provided to 2
households.
Rent Increase: Counseling provided to 2
households.
Rights and Responsibilities: Counseling
provided to 14 households; 1 case
successfully mediated.
Other: Counseling provided to 3
household
Fair Housing Investigations
Disability - 5 cases:
• one case investigated and
provided education to landlord;
• 2 cases counseled;
• 2 case no evidence.
Race - 4 cases:
• 2 cases counseling provided to
tenant,
• 2 cases insufficient evidence.
Gender - 5 cases:
• 2 cases counseling provided to
tenant,
• 3 cases no evidence.
Familial Status - 1 cases:
• 1 case counseling provided to
tenant.
Other - One case:
• one case counseled
Disability - 3 cases opened:
• 2 cases counseling to tenant;
• 1 case tested;
• 1 case provided educ.to landlord.
Race - 7 cases opened:
• 1 case counseling provided to tenant:
• 6 cases tested;
• 1 case education provided to
landlord;
• 5 cases no evidence of discrim.
Gender: - 3 cases opened:
• 3 cases tested;
• 3 cases no evidence of discrim.
Other - 1 case opened:
• 1 case counseling to tenant.
Disability - 8 cases opened:
• 3 cases counseling to tenant;
• 5 case tested;
• 5 case no evidence of discrim.
Race - 2 cases opened:
• 2 cases tested;
• 2 cases no evidence of discrim.
Source of Income:
• 1 case opened:
• 1 case tested;
• 1 case no evidence of discrim.
National Origin - 1 case opened:
• case counseling to tenant
b. Outreach Capacity
Fair housing outreach capacity relates to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are well aware of fair housing laws and rights.
For the preparation of the County 2019 AI, extensive community outreach program consisting of an online fair housing survey, partner forums, and community workshops, was conducted throughout the County. The survey was conducted online to collect information from community members and stakeholders on fair housing and discrimination throughout Monterey County. The survey was available starting from November 2017 and remained open for approximately seven months until June 2018. During this time, 464 responses were gathered.
The survey was available in English and Spanish and was prompted by:
Packet Page 396
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-186
• Posting to City and County websites (County of Monterey, County of Monterey Housing Authority, City of Salinas, City of Seaside, City of Monterey, City of Gonzales, and City of Greenfield)
• Posting to social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, NextDoor) • Phone calls to 142 organizations in the stakeholder database • Personal emails sent to 181 email addresses from the 142 organizations in the stakeholder database
• Article in the Gonzales Tribune
• City of Salinas City Manager Newsletter
There were two partner forums held in order to collect input on fair housing needs and disparities of access. The audience targeted for these forums included housing providers, advocacy organizations and public agencies. Digital flyers in English and Spanish were emailed to 142 organizations and agencies in a stakeholder database and e-blast reminders were sent to all of them two to three times before each forum. Eighteen individuals attended the partner forums.
Partner forums were hosted by the City of Seaside and the City of Salinas.
Four community workshops were conducted in May and June of 2018 throughout the County. All workshops were held in ADA accessible venues that were located close to public transit. The workshops were scheduled at varying times and days of the week to accommodate the needs of residents and the employees who were to facilitate each workshop. The workshops were as follows:
Thursday May 24, 2018 6:30 – 8:30 PM
Maria J. Torres-Gil Community Center,
Salinas
Tuesday June 19, 2018 6:30 – 8:30 PM
Monterey Public Library, Monterey
Wednesday June 20, 2018 6:00 – 8:00 PM
Castroville Branch Library, Castroville
Saturday June 23, 2018 12:00 – 2:00 PM
Gonzales Branch Library, Gonzales
CRLA, ECHO and Legal Services for Seniors (LSS) are the main regional organizations that provide ongoing outreach and educational services in the County. However, according to the 2019 AI, the Collaborating Entities have struggled for many years to retain the services of a professional fair housing service provider due to its geographic location and limited resources. The Collaborating Entities have not been able to offer consistent services due to need to constantly replace service providers.
According to the 2019 AI, the greatest challenges that organizations face when assisting with fair housing needs of residents are the lack of funding and resources that they can provide. Agencies made it clear that the lack of awareness of potential fair housing impediments and ways to address those impediments with the resources they have available is challenging. Forum participants encouraged that collaboration between housing services, public agencies and the like, could better assist the County as a whole when it comes to addressing fair housing Local Trends
In addition to working with the County and other jurisdictions for a joint Analysis of Impediments, the City of Seaside coordinates with the Housing Authority of Monterey County (HAMC) to provide brochures and other pertinent fair housing materials in English and Spanish at City Hall, the library, the Post Office, Oldemeyer Center, and at the public counter.
The City also contracts with ECHO Fair Housing and LSS to provide outreach and educational services. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, ECHO staff had strategized ways to increase visibility within the City by identifying areas of low-income neighborhoods and provide direct outreach services. These direct outreach services included face-to-face outreach to apartment complexes and presentations. Due to the pandemic, this strategy was halted and education was delivered via Zoom. Outreach in FY 2019-2020 included bilingual flyers, billboards, public service announcements, radio interviews and presentations, especially during the state of the emergency relating to COVID-19. Given the success of web-based services in FY 2019-2020 and FY 2020- Packet Page 397
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-187
2021, ECHO will continue to incorporate web-based services to the residents of the Seaside including presentations and counseling sessions during FY 2022-2023. In addition, in-person events and activities will resume during FY 2022-2023 to increase visibility among the City's residents.
Public participation in City items is requested through public notices. Meeting locations occur throughout all City-owned buildings and times depend on the body that is meeting. Translation services in Spanish are offered for City Council Regular Meetings. Staff has reported that improved marketing to target audiences may result in more effective outreach efforts. c. Fair Housing Enforcement
Enforcement includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing.
Discrimination Complaints
HUD
From 2012 to 2017, 78 fair housing cases in Monterey County were recorded by HUD. Cases involving discrimination based on disability, national origin, and familial/marital status were the most common (Table App-64). Cases concerning race, sex, and religion were also reported.
Understandably, as the largest jurisdiction in the County and high concentrations of minority populations, Salinas had 46% of the reported cases. All 78 fair housing cases between 2012 and 2017 have been closed. Many of these cases (41 cases) were found to have no probable cause and subsequently closed. An additional 25 cases were closed after successful conciliation or resolution (Table App-64).
Table App-64: Basis for Discrimination of Cases filed with HUD – Monterey County (2012-2017)
Jurisdiction Race
National
Origin Sex Disability Religion
Familial/
Marital Status Total
Bradley 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Carmel 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Carmel Village 0 1 0 1 0 0 2
Gonzales 0 1 0 1 1 0 3
Greenfield 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
King City 0 0 1 3 0 0 4
Marina 1 1 0 6 0 1 9
Monterey 2 0 0 5 0 4 11
Moss Landing 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Pacific Grove 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Pebble Beach 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Salinas 3 7 4 11 1 10 36
Seaside 0 1 1 3 0 0 5
Soledad 0 0 1 0 0 1 2
Total 6 12 8 31 2 19 78
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2018.
Table App-65: Disposition of Fair Housing Cases Filed with HUD - Monterey County (2012-2017)
Jurisdiction
Conciliated/
Settled No Cause
Withdraw After
Resolution
Complainant Failed
to Cooperate Total
Bradley 0 1 0 0 1
Carmel 1 0 0 0 1
Packet Page 398
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-188
Table App-65: Disposition of Fair Housing Cases Filed with HUD - Monterey County (2012-2017)
Jurisdiction
Conciliated/
Settled No Cause
Withdraw After
Resolution
Complainant Failed
to Cooperate Total
Carmel Valley 0 2 0 0 2
Gonzales 1 2 0 0 3
Greenfield 0 1 0 0 1
King City 0 3 1 0 4
Marina 2 6 0 1 9
Monterey 2 7 2 0 11
Moss Landing 0 1 0 0 1
Pacific Grove 0 1 0 0 1
Pebble Beach 0 1 0 0 1
Salinas 17 13 5 1 36
Seaside 2 1 1 1 5
Soledad 0 2 0 0 2
Total 25 41 9 3 78
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2018.
Local Trends
Cases from Seaside residents accounted about 6% of the County’s fair housing cases from 2012 to 2018. Like the County trends, the most common basis for discrimination reported was disability (three of the five cases). As shown in Table App-65, of the five cases in Seaside, two were conciliated/settled, one was found to have no cause, one was withdrawn after resolution, and in one the complaint failed to cooperate.
DFEH
Between 2012 and 2017, 53 fair housing complaints in Monterey County were filed with DFEH (Table App-66). Among the complaints countywide, most were related to physical disabilities (23 instances) and familial/marital status (ten instances). Discrimination based on race was also common (seven instances). A single complaint may involve one or multiple acts of discrimination.
A total of 57 acts of discrimination were recorded in Monterey County. Refusal to rent (17 instances), discriminatory statements (12 instances), and denial of reasonable accommodation/modifications (12 instances) were the most common discriminatory acts in the County (Table App-67).
Table App-66: Basis for Discrimination of Complaints filed with DFEH - Monterey County (2012-2017)
Basis of Complaints Number of Complaints
Physical Disability 23
Familial/Marital Status 10
Sex - (harassment, pregnancy, other allegations) 3
Race 7
National origin/ancestry 6
Religion 1
Age 1
No specific data 2
Total 53
Source: California Department of Fair Employment & Housing, 2018.
Packet Page 399
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-189
Table App-67: Acts of Discrimination for Complaints Filed with DFEH – Monterey County (2012-2017)
Act of Discrimination Number of Acts
Eviction 5
Harassment 7
Refusal to Rent 17
Denied Reasonable Accommodation/ Modification 12
Unequal Terms 2
Discriminatory Statements 12
No Specific Data 2
Total 57
Source: California Department of Fair Employment & Housing, 2018.
Note: Each complaint can involve multiple acts of discrimination.
Approximately half of total fair housing cases (26 cases) in the County were found to have insufficient evidence and subsequently closed. An additional 14 cases were closed after successful mediation, while two cases were successfully conciliated between the two parties involved (Table App-68).
Table App-68: Disposition of Fair Housing Complaints Filed with DFEH – Monterey County (2012-2017)
Closing Category Number of Cases
Successful Conciliation 2
Insufficient Evidence 26
Settled by Enforcement 5
Successful Mediation 14
Administrative Dismissal 1
No Basis to Proceed 5
Total 53
Source: California Department of Fair Employment & Housing, 2018.
Local Trends
Of the 53 fair housing complaints filed with DFEH, three were filed In Seaside (Table App-69).
Two of the three cases cited disability as the basis for discrimination, specifically denial of reasonable accommodation. All three cases were eventually dismissed.
Table App-69: Complaints filed with DFEH – Seaside (2012-2017) Year Basis Harm Close Reason
2013 Color; Disability; Race Denied reasonable
accommodation; other; harassed
Administrative dismissal
2014 Disability Denied reasonable
accommodation
Investigated and Dismissed - Insufficient
Evidence and NJI - CP Failed to Cooperate
2015 Sex-gender Evicted Investigated and Dismissed - Insufficient Evidence and NJI - CP Failed to Respond to
30 Day Letter
Source: California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, 2022-2017.
ECHO Housing
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 for a total of 15 complaints. The majority were White. Mental disabilities, followed by physical disabilities, were the most frequent alleged bases for discrimination. Among the 15 cases, Packet Page 400
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-190
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.
Table App-70: Clients Served by Race – ECHO Housing (2017) Race Monterey Salinas
Monterey Urban
County Total
Asian 0 0 0 0
Asian/White 0 0 0 0
White 5 3 4 12
Black 0 2 0 2
Black/White 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 1 1
Total 5 5 5 15
Source: ECHO Housing, 2019.
Table App-71: Complaints by Protected Classification – ECHO Housing (2017) Race Monterey Salinas
Monterey Urban
County Total
Age 0 0 0 0
Familial Status 0 0 0 0
Gender 0 0 0 0
Mental Disability 3 1 2 6
National Origin 0 0 0 0
Physical Disability 1 1 1 3
Race 1 1 0 2
Religion 0 0 0 0
Sexual Orientation 0 0 0 0
Source of Income 0 0 1 1
Arbitrary 0 1 0 1
General Information 0 1 1 2
Total 5 5 5 15
Source: ECHO Housing, 2019.
Table App-72: Findings and Disposition – ECHO Housing (2017) Race Monterey Salinas
Monterey Urban
County Total
Allegations 3 2 4 9
Cases 2 3 1 6
Findings
Allegations Sustained 0 4 1 5
Inclusive Evidence 5 0 4 9
No Evidence 0 1 0 1
Pending 0 0 0 0
Disposition
Successful Conciliation 2 1 0 3
No Enforcement Possible 3 2 4 9
Client Withdrew 0 0 1 1
Pending 0 0 0 0
Referred to Other Agencies 0 2 0 2
Source: ECHO Housing, 2019.
Respondents to the 2019 AI Fair Housing Survey were asked about their experience with housing discrimination. Of the 402 respondents that answered the question about discrimination in housing, 146 of the respondents (26%) indicated that they had personally experienced discrimination when trying to find housing. A majority of the respondents believe they were Packet Page 401
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-191
discriminated against based on their family status and or their race. Respondents were allowed to choose more than one category when stating what they believed to be the basis of the discrimination against them. These results contrast with the formal discrimination complaints filed to HUD, DFEH, and ECHO and 2020 State AI trends where discrimination on the basis of disability is more common. According to the 2020 State AI, 51% of housing-related complaints filed with DFEH between 2015 and 2019 were filed under disability claims.
Local Trends
While the 2019 AI does not provide data on fair housing discrimination by City, it does provide services to the City of Seaside. Seaside contracts with ECHO Housing to provide fair housing services, including fair housing inquiries and fair housing investigations, tenant-landlord inquiries, and tenant-landlord mediation/conciliation. Between 2019 and 2021, 42 fair housing discrimination cases were opened by ECHO. Most of these cases were in the basis of disability (38%) and race (31%). Cases were resolved most commonly with tenant education (33%) and testing (29%).35 Of these 42 cases, 12 resulted in testing. Of the 12 test cases, 11 did not have evidence of discrimination.
Fair Housing Audits
Despite the presence of strong, enforceable laws, discrimination continues to be a problem in the Bay Area. The Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO Housing) is committed to ending illegal discrimination in housing. As part of the ongoing effort to document the occurrence of housing discrimination in Bay Area communities, ECHO Housing conducts an annual audit of rental properties in local communities to see how well they are conforming to fair housing laws.
A different protected class is selected each year as the focus of the audit. Auditing is a tool used to measure compliance with federal and state fair housing laws, and to determine if illegal patterns and practices are employed by the rental housing industry. Although most audits are educational in nature, the audit findings can be referred for litigation when patterns and practices of discrimination have become entrenched and the property owner is uncooperative or resistant to the educational process. ECHO’s annual testing usually includes the cities of Alameda, Antioch, Concord, Cupertino, Hayward, Livermore, Monterey, Oakland, San Leandro, Salinas, Union City, and Walnut Creek, and the urban areas of Alameda, Contra Costa and Monterey Counties. Since ECHO works to reduce discrimination in housing through education and enforcement. The owners and managers of the properties where evidence of discrimination was found were invited and encouraged to participate in fair housing training seminars and workshops offered by ECHO.
In FY 2017, ECHO also conducted a Fair Housing Audit in which a total of 134 properties were tested, including five in Monterey, ten in Salinas, and five in Monterey County. Properties were chosen from advertisements for available rental units found in www.forrent.com, www.craigslist.org, www.rent.com, www.apartmentguide.com, as well as some property management websites. Findings of the audit pertaining to Monterey County jurisdictions are summarized in this section.
Among the 20 tests conducted in Monterey County communities, 10% received differential treatment based on the name used in the emails (a minority name – Laquesha Jackson vs. a majority name – Megan O’Reilly). After the tests, ECHO followed up with an educational campaign directed at the owners and managers involved. Each property was emailed a report on their performance and encouraged to meet with ECHO’s Fair Housing Counselors to discuss findings at their properties, and in cases where differential treatment was found, ECHO suggested possible changes that could be made to bring their rental policies and practices in compliance with federal and state fair housing laws.
35 The third most common outcome was “no evidence” (24 percent).
Packet Page 402
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-192
Table App-73: Fair Housing Audits – Minority Names (FY 2017) Jurisdiction
Differential Treatment No Differential Treatment
Number Percent Number Percent Total
Monterey 0 0% 5 100% 5
Monterey County 1 20% 4 80% 5
Salinas 1 10% 9 90% 10
Total Study 21 16% 113 84% 134
Source: ECHO Housing, 2018
In FY 2019, ECHO conducted an audit on voice identification based on national origin to learn if an agent would treat home seekers differently based on their accent, also known as linguistic profiling. For this audit, a White female tester and a Hispanic female tester with a discernable Spanish accent called available rental units. Each tester was instructed to call and leave a voicemail message. Testers reported on whether, or not, they received a return call. If the testers spoke to a “live person”, ECHO analyzed if the agent gave the same information to both testers.
ECHO tested 183 properties in 17 jurisdictions throughout the Alameda County, Contra Costa County, and Monterey County and found that in 10% of the tests, the Hispanic tester did not receive a return phone call or was given less favorable information about the unit. Differential treatment rates were higher in Monterey County sites. Of the 26 sites tested in Monterey County, 15% found differential treatment.
Table App-74: Fair Housing Audits – Linguistic Profiling (FY 2019) Jurisdiction
Differential Treatment No differential Treatment
Number Percent Number Percent Total
Monterey 2 33.3% 4 66.7% 6
Monterey County* 1 20.0% 4 80.0% 5
Salinas 1 10.0% 9 90.0% 10
Seaside 0 0.0% 5 100.0% 5
Total Monterey County 4 15.4% 22 84.6% 26
Total Study 18 9.8% 165 90.2% 183
*Urban Areas
Source: ECHO Housing, 2023.
In FY 2020, the audit focused on discrimination against home seekers who have a Housing Choice Voucher, commonly known as Section 8. The Section 8 program is funded by the federal government and administered through local Housing Authorities. Low-income individuals and families who possess a Section 8 voucher pay about 30% of their income on rent and the federal government pays the balance of rent directly to the property owner. In January 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB329 into law. This law prohibits landlords from discriminating against applicants who have a Section 8 voucher. In the past, managers and landlords could legally deny housing to Section 8 voucher holders, and many did.
The audit asked testers to call local housing providers and reveal that they had a Section 8 voucher. ECHO wanted to determine if the testers were turned away and denied housing or discouraged from renting housing. ECHO tested 207 properties in 17 jurisdictions and found that in 8% of the tests, testers were informed that the property would not accept their Section 8 voucher. The same share of testers were discriminated based on Section 8 within Monterey County.
Table App-75: Fair Housing Audits – Source of Income Protection (FY 2020) Jurisdiction
Differential Treatment No differential Treatment
Number Percent Number Percent Total
Monterey 1 20.0% 4 80.0% 5
Monterey County* 3 30.0% 7 70.0% 10
Salinas 0 0.0% 30 100.0% 30
Packet Page 403
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-193
Seaside 0 0.0% 4 100.0% 4
Total Monterey County 4 8.2% 45 91.8% 49
Total Study 17 8.2% 190 91.8% 207
*Urban Areas
Source: ECHO Housing, 2023.
In FY 2021, ECHO looked at same-sex discrimination. 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 and found that in 11% of the cases, the same-sex male couple experienced less favorable treatment. Differential treatment based on sexual orientation was lower in Monterey County – the same-sex male couple experienced less favorable treatment in 4% of the cases.
Table App-76: Fair Housing Audits – Sexual Orientation (FY 2021) Jurisdiction
Differential Treatment No differential Treatment
Number Percent Number Percent Total
Monterey 1 20.0% 4 80.0% 5
Monterey County* 0 0.0% 10 100.0% 10
Salinas 0 0.0% 30 100.0% 30
Seaside 1 20.0% 4 80.0% 5
Total Monterey County 2 4.0% 48 96.0% 50
Total Study 24 10.9% 197 89.1% 221
*Urban Areas
Source: ECHO Housing, 2023.
ECHO will also continue its general education campaign within the communities it serves, informing home seekers that they are legally protected from housing discrimination, and working with housing providers to make sure that acts of illegal discrimination against persons in all the protected classes can be prevented. ECHO is committed to assuring everyone a fair opportunity to meet his or her housing needs.
Local Trends
ECHO conducted 14 audits in the City of Seaside between 2019 and 2021. ECHO only found differential treatment in two cases, both testing for discrimination based on sexual orientation.
There was no differential treatment in the cases for discrimination based on national origin (linguistic profiling) or based on source of income (Section 8).
Fair Housing Law Compliance
The County and its Collaborating Entities36 have established a commitment towards providing equal housing opportunities for their residents. Through the federally funded programs such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership, and Emergency Solutions Grant programs, and other state and local programs, the County and its Collaborating Entities work to provide a decent living environment for all. Pursuant to CDBG regulations [24 CFR Subtitle A §91.225(a)(1)], to receive CDBG funds, a jurisdiction must certify that it “actively furthers fair housing choice” through the following:
• Completion of an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI); • Actions to eliminate identified impediments; and
• Maintenance of fair housing records.
A joint Analysis of Impediments document was approved by the five participating agencies in May of 2019.
36 See Footnote 33.
Packet Page 404
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-194
Local Trends
As stated earlier, the City of Seaside coordinated planning efforts with the Housing Authority of the County of Monterey (HACM) and the Cities of Salinas and Monterey in preparation of the joint Analysis of Impediments (approved by all five agencies in 2019). The agencies share information in completing their Housing Elements, Consolidated Plans and other related documents.
Through the preparation of the County AI and the allocation of CDBG funds to fair housing service providers like ECHO and LSS, the City of Seaside meets HUD’s mandate that all recipients of federal housing and community development assistance such as CDBG take actions to affirmatively further fair housing choice within their communities. According to the City’s 2020- 2025 Consolidated Plan, the City has allocated $300,000 in CDBG funds during the five-year consolidated plan period to public services, which include ECHO Fair Housing and LSS. The organizations submit fair housing records for activities and services in the City as part of CDBG’s reporting requirements. ECHO helps combat illegal housing and discrimination through auditing. Audit results are used to provide fair housing education to owners and managers, with the goal of obtaining compliance with fair housing laws, thus ensuring that equal housing opportunities are available to all people.
According to the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan (CP), the City provided Public Services funding to Legal Services for Seniors to provide legal services for seniors over 62 years of age during the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan period. LSS has been included in the 2020-2025 CP as recipient of Public Service CDBG funds and collaborator in addressing Senior Needs. During the April 5, 2018 City Council meeting for the 2020-2025 CP, LSS indicated that they currently provide tenantlandlord assistance in Seaside. In particular, Legal Services for Seniors provides services to prevent the displacement of seniors from their homes by means of eviction and foreclosure.
The City of Seaside also contracted with ECHO during the previous Consolidated Plan period (2015-2020). Between FY 2019 and FY 2021, ECHO provided fair housing services to approximately 113 Seaside residents. The vast majority of ECHO’s clients (85%) were lower income. Consistent with the demographic makeup of the region, Hispanic residents represented a substantial proportion of clients served (48%). However, there is some indication that fair housing issues disproportionately affect lower income residents. About 85% of ECHO’s clients were lower income.
Table App-77: ECHO Seaside Client Households (2019-2021) 2019 2020 2021 Total % Clients
% City
Demographic
Race/Ethnicity
White* 21 35 36 92 81.4% 55.4%
Black/African Amer 1 1 6 8 7.1% 7.2%
Asian 1 1 3 5 4.4% 9.7%
Am. Indian/Alaska Native 0 0.0% N/A
Other 6 1 1 8 7.1% 3.1%
Hispanic 16 19 19 54 47.8% 44.8%
Income Level
Extremely Low 10 11 10 31 27.4% 13.4%
Very Low 11 16 23 50 44.2% 16.4%
Low 1 2 12 15 13.3% 20.2%
Non-Low/Moderate (80%+) 7 9 1 17 15.0% 50.0%
*Includes non-Hispanic and Hispanic Whites
Source: ECHO Year End Accomplishment Reports FY 2019-2021; HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data (2015-2019), ACS 2016-2020.
In addition, the City of Seaside complies with Government Code §11135 et seq. which requires full and equal access to all programs and activities operated, administered, or funded with financial assistance from the state, regardless of one’s membership or perceived membership in a Packet Page 405
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-195
protected class. For example, the City certifies its compliance with HUD’s requirement to affirmatively further fair housing choice in each Annual Action requesting an annual allocation of CDBG funds.
The City of Seaside’s strives to offer equal access for all to the housing opportunities. The City’s Housing Element includes the following policies:
• Work to ensure equal housing opportunities for all, including those special groups protected by State and federal fair housing laws.
• Periodically conduct assessment of fair housing conditions in the City and identify actions to remove impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2019 AI)
• Continue to provide fair housing outreach and education to residents, housing providers, and housing professionals.
The City of Seaside is also taking meaningful actions to ensure compliance with SB 329 and SB 222, expanding the source of income protection to include “federal, state, or local public assistance and federal, state, or local housing subsidies.” Prior to these bills, source of income protection excluded public housing subsidies, such as the Housing Choice Vouchers, in the definition of income. Both bills went into effect on January 1, 2020. As stated in the Program 21, the City will work with ECHO to develop informational materials to expand outreach and education on SB 329 and SB 229 to promote the use and expand the locational choices for Housing Choice Vouchers.
The City of Seaside also reviewed its compliance with recent changes to Sections 65580-65589.8 that require local jurisdictions to address the provision of housing options for special needs groups, including transitional and supportive housing for persons, residential care facilities, and employee housing, among others. Table App-78 shows the review of the development regulations for special needs housing for the Collaborating Entities from the 2019 AI.
Table App-78: Zoning Provisions for Special Needs Housing Monterey Salinas Seaside Del Rey Oaks Greenfield
Gonzales
Sand City
County
Accessory Dwelling Unit ü ü ü
Definition of Family ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
Emergency Shelters ü ü ü ü ü ü
Transitional Housing ü ü ü
Supportive Housing ü ü ü
Residential Care Facilities ü ü ü ü ü
Single Room Occupancy ü ü ü ü
Farmworker Housing ü ü ü ü
Employee Housing ü ü ü
Reasonable Accommodation ü ü ü ü ü
ü = Compliant with laws = Potential issues or not addressed in Zoning The City has included a program (Program 19) to amend zoning regulations in conformance with state law.
The City does not have any pending lawsuits, enforcement actions, judgments, settlements, or findings related to fair housing and civil rights. As described earlier, ECHO provides fair housing services to residents, including fair housing inquiries, fair housing investigations, tenantlandlord inquiries, and tenant-landlord conciliation/mediation (see pg. App-177) for details.
The City complies with State and federal housing laws as follows:
Packet Page 406
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-196
• Fair Housing Act; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – the City complies by ensuring its actions related to housing are not discriminatory through City protocols, decisionmaking procedures, and adhering to non-discrimination requirements of federal funding programs.
• Rehabilitation Act of 1973 – see Fair Housing Act; also, the City complies through its accessibility protocols, administered and enforced by the City’s ADA Coordinator. https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/631/ADA-Notice.
• American Disabilities Act – the City complies with the ADA through building permit review and issuance and as described in Section 3- Housing for Persons with Disabilities. • California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and FEHA Regulations – the City complies with FEHA and its regulations through established City protocols decision making, legal counsel and advisement.
• Government Code Section 65008 – the City Zoning Code is written to ensure that the City’s actions regarding the development of housing for persons and families of very low, low, moderate, and middle incomes, or emergency shelters for the homeless, are not discriminatory. Programs have been included in this Housing Element to remove constraints and facilitate housing for all households, including protected classes (e.g., programs regarding residential care facilities, emergency shelters, etc.) • Government Code Section 8899.50 – Section 7 of this Housing Element documents compliance with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements. • Government Code Section 11135 et. seq. – the City complies with anti-discrimination requirements through the City’s Human Resources programs and the City’s procurement protocols.
• Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) – The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance was last updated in 2013. The City of Seaside will update its density bonus ordinance to comply with these new provisions as part of the comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the new General Plan (Program 14). • Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) – the City has documented compliance with the HAA as described in Section 3, Governmental Constraints.
• No-Net-Loss Law (Government Code Section 65863) – the City has documented compliance with sufficient capacity for RHNA and will ensure compliance with no-netloss via required annual reporting to HCD. • Least Cost Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65913.1) – the City includes programs in this Housing Element to ensure that sufficient land is zoned with appropriate standards to accommodate its RHNA.
• Excessive subdivision standards (Government Code Section 65913.2) – the City’s subdivision standards are typical or not excessive in compliance with the Government Code.
• Limits on growth control (Government Code Section 65302.8) – the City complies as it has no growth control measures
• Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583) – this Housing Element documents compliance with Housing Element Law.
2. Segregation and Integration
a. Race and Ethnicity
The 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. 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 how evenly two groups are Packet Page 407
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-197
distributed throughout a jurisdiction. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
Regional Trends
Regionally, non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanic/Latinos make up the majority (89%) of Monterey County’s population (30% Whites and 59% Hispanics, Table App-79). The Valley cities of Gonzales, and Salinas have the highest concentration of Hispanic population with Hispanic residents making up over 79% of their population. By contrast, Peninsula cities have higher concentrations of White residents, ranging from 30% to 68%. The City of Monterey has a concentration of White residents (68%), compared to Gonzales and Salinas where White residents make up less than 12% of the population.
Table App-79: Race/Ethnicity- Monterey County
Monterey
County Gonzales Marina Monterey Salinas Seaside
Not Hispanic or Latino
White 29.5% 5.0% 39.7% 67.7% 12.1% 30.4%
Black or African American 2.4% 0.5% 6.7% 3.6% 1.1% 7.2% American Indian/Alaska Native 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% Asian 5.6% 1.6% 14.1% 6.0% 6.0% 9.7%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.4% 0.4% 1.6% 0.4% 0.1% 2.5% Other races or 2+ races 2.9% 0.2% 9.7% 5.1% 1.4% 5.2%
Hispanic or Latino (any race) 59.0% 92.2% 28.2% 17.0% 79.2% 44.8% Total persons 438,953 8,628 18,833 30,014 163,004 32,631 Source: American Community Survey, 2020 5-Year Estimates As explained above, dissimilarity indices are measures of segregation, with higher indices meaning a higher degree of segregation. The dissimilarity index at the County level can be interpreted as the share of one group that would have to move to a different tract to create perfect integration for these two groups. In Monterey County, all minority (non-white) residents combined are considered highly segregated from White residents (index is 59.27 in 2020, Table App-80). Since 1990, segregation between non-White (all non-white residents combined) and White residents has increased.
Dissimilarity indices between Hispanic and White residents have also increased since 1990, indicating that Monterey County has become increasingly racially segregated for Hispanic residents. Based on HUD’s definition of the index, Hispanic and White residents are highly segregated. In the same time frame, dissimilarity indices for Black and Asian/Pacific Islander residents and Whites have decreased. Black and White residents are moderately segregated, while segregation between Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents is considered low.
Table App-80: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Indices for Monterey County Monterey County 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current (2020) Non-White/White 55.12 60.05 56.45 59.27
Black/White 46.73 49.49 39.24 44.06
Hispanic/White 60.27 65.65 61.94 63.38
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 32.83 25.78 24.82 29.85 Source: HUD Dissimilarity Index, 2020.
Figure App-25 below shows the minority populations are concentrated along Highway 101 in the Valley Cities and less so at the Monterey Peninsula cities of Monterey and Pacific Grove. Red Packet Page 408
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-198
block groups indicate that over 81% of the population in the tract is non-white. Figure App-26 shows census tracts in Monterey County by the concentration of Hispanic residents. The categories show the percentage population gap between the Hispanic population and the next largest racial/ethnic group. The more intense the color, the higher the percentage gap between Hispanic population and the next largest racial/ethnic group. As expected, based on the high percentage of Hispanic population, the Valley Cities have the highest concentration of Hispanic majority census tracts, while Peninsula cities have low concentration of Hispanic residents, except for some tracts in Seaside and Marina.
Packet Page 409
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-199
Figure App-25: Minority Population - Region
Packet Page 410
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-200
Figure App-26: Predominant Population - Region
Packet Page 411
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-201
Local Trends
As shown in Table App-81, the racial and ethnic composition of the City is the more similar to the County as a whole than other selected jurisdictions. Whites make up about a third of the population in the County and Seaside. However, Seaside has a lower concentration of Hispanic residents than the County but a higher percentage of Asian and Black residents.
From 1990 to 2020, racial/ethnic groups in Seaside have become increasingly segregated. While the dissimilarity index between White and non-White residents is categorized as “low segregation” (with a 37.39 index), the index is near the moderate segregation threshold. In addition, White and Hispanic and White and Black residents have the highest degree of segregation compared to other groups, both considered moderately segregated. Like in the County, Asian and White residents are considered to have “low” segregation.
Seaside showed a lower extent of segregation in comparison to Monterey County as a whole for White/non-White, Hispanic/White, and Asian/White groups. However, dissimilarity indices have increased by a greater magnitude between 2010 and 2020 in Seaside.
Table App-81: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Indices for Seaside Seaside 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current
Non-White/White 19.9 30.67 30.22 37.39
Black/White 16.9 39.09 36.16 45.85
Hispanic/White 24.75 37.64 38.42 43.06
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 31.57 32.44 20.3 26.1
Source: HUD Dissimilarity Index, 2020.
HCD’s AFFH maps on Figure App-27 and Figure App-28 show minority concentrations and predominant populations by race by block group. As explained in the Geography section above, residential uses under the City’s jurisdiction are concentrated in the southwestern parts of Seaside. Areas east of General Moore Boulevard have Institutional (military) or Recreational land uses so analysis focuses on Seaside’s residential neighborhoods. Figure App-27 shows the highest concentration of minorities are located in the Olympia, Hamon, Terrance, and Highland neighborhoods of the City. For the race gap analysis, Hispanic populations were predominant in certain tracts of the City (Figure App-28). Hispanic population had the highest concentration in Olympia, with a Hispanic population of 74%. The ethnic/race group with the second highest share of residents in Olympia are White residents (11%).37
37 Thus the gap analysis shows it as greater than 50 percent. The difference between the largest group and second largest group is greater than 50 percent.
Packet Page 412
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-202
Figure App-27: Minority Population – Seaside
Figure App-28: Predominant Hispanic Population- Seaside Packet Page 413
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-203
b. Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of their fixed income, the lack of accessible and affordable housing, the higher health costs associated with their disability, and discrimination in housing access.
Regional Trends
According to the 2020 Regional AI, housing choices for special needs groups, especially persons with disabilities, are limited in the region. In Monterey County, about 8.9% of the population has a disability. Seaside’s share of population with disabilities is slightly higher than the County (11%) and the City of Monterey (9%) but is lower than Marina (12%).
Packet Page 414
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-204
Figure App-29 shows that areas in the Peninsula and Monterey Bay have the highest concentration of persons with disabilities, with the population with a disability ranging between 10% and 20% per tract. The majority of census tracts in the Salinas Valley have lower concentrations of persons with disabilities (less than 10%).
Table App-82: Population with a Disability
Monterey County Gonzales Marina Monterey Salinas Seaside Total Pop 417,425 8,348 21,857 25,183 155,281 33,360
Pop with a disability 37,082 328 2,703 2,315 12,315 3,646 % with a disability 8.9% 3.9% 12.4% 9.2% 7.9% 10.9%
Source: American Community Survey, 2020 5-Year Estimates c. Family Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and the martial status of the head of households.
Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Some landlords may have cultural biases against children of the opposite sex sharing a bedroom. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in a complex or confining children to a specific location are also fair housing concerns.
Regional Trends
According to the 2016-2020 ACS, 38% of households in Monterey County have children under the age of 18. The cities in the Valley region of the County have higher proportions of households with children than Peninsula cities. Gonzales and Salinas have the highest percentage of households with children (58% and 49%, respectively). Female-headed households need special consideration since they may lack the resources needed for adequate childcare or job training services, often making the search for affordable, decent, and safe housing more difficult because they may have lower incomes and higher living expenses. In Monterey County, about 62% of female-headed households have children under the age of 18.
The Valley Cities of Gonzales and Salinas have higher proportions of female-headed households with children (75% and 69%, respectively) than in the County overall (62%).
Packet Page 415
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-205
Figure App-29: Population with a Disability- Region
Packet Page 416
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-206
Local Trends
Within Seaside, most census tracts have a population with a disability of 10% to 20%. Only the tracts in the Olympia, Terrace, and Rousch neighborhoods have a population with a disability of less than 10%. The Needs Assessment (Section 2) also reported that ambulatory and cognitive disabilities were the most common among all age groups, though the City’s elderly population was the most affected by disabilities.
Figure App-30: Population with Disability- Seaside
Figure App-31 shows the concentration of children in female-headed households by tract.
Census tracts with a high concentration of children in single female-headed households are concentrated in the San Ardo and Soledad areas of the County as well as tracts scattered throughout Seaside, Marina, Castroville, and Salinas. Between 20% and 40% of children in these tracts live in single female-headed households.
Table App-83: Households with Children under the Age of 18 Monterey
County Gonzales Marina Monterey Salinas Seaside
All HH 38.3% 57.8% 29.8% 17.7% 48.9% 33.5%
Married Couple HH 49.0% 58.4% 43.8% 38.2% 58.7% 45.5%
Single Male HH 60.4% 76.2% 34.4% 49.0% 60.2% 62.1%
Single Female HH 62.2% 74.8% 62.5% 27.3% 69.2% 53.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 2020 5-Year Estimates Packet Page 417
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-207
Figure App-31: Percent of Children in Single Female-Headed Households- Region Packet Page 418
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-208
Local Trends
According to 2020 ACS 5-year estimates, about 34% of households in Seaside have children under the age of 18. The City’s share of households with children is higher than the neighboring Peninsula cities of Monterey (18%) and Marina (30%) but lower than the County overall (38%).
While HUD received 19 discrimination complaints based on familial status in the County from 2012-2017, none of the cases occurred in Seaside.
Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. About 4% of households are single-parent households with children and 3% (341 households) are headed by single females.
Figure App-32 shows that the population of children is concentrated in the southeastern census tracts of the City, particularly in Noche Buena, Highland, and Kimball, as well as southwestern tracts in Cabrillo and Laguna Grande. Between 20% and 40% of children in these tracts live in single-female headed households.
Packet Page 419
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-209
Figure App-32: Percent Children in Single Female-Headed Households – Seaside Packet Page 420
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-210
d. Income Level
Household income is the most important factor determining a household’s ability to balance housing costs with other basic life necessities. A stable income is the means by which most individuals and families finance current consumption and make provision for the future through saving and investment. The level of cash income can be used as an indicator of the standard of living for most of the population.
Households with lower incomes are limited in their ability to balance housing costs with other needs and often the ability to find housing of adequate size. While economic factors that affect a household’s housing choice are not a fair housing issue per se, the relationships among household income, household type, race/ethnicity, and other factors often create misconceptions and biases that raise fair housing concerns.
For purposes of most housing and community development activities, HUD has established the four income categories based on the Area Median Income (AMI) for the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). HUD income definitions differ from the State of California income definitions. Table App-84 compares the HUD and State income categories. HUD defines a Low and Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51% of the households earn extremely-low, very low, low, or moderate incomes (<80% AMI). This means LMI areas as defined by HUD, are lower income areas (extremely low, very low, and low), as defined by HCD. These terms may be used interchangeably.
Table App-84: Income Category Definitions
HCD Definition HUD Definition
Extremely Low 0%-30% of AMI Extremely Low 0%-30% of AMI Very Low 31%-50% of AMI Low 31%-50% of AMI
Low Income 51%-80% of AMI Moderate 51%-80% of AMI
Moderate income 81-120% of AMI Middle/Upper > 81% of AMI Above Moderate Income >120% of AMI -- --
Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas and uses Salinas MSA, which is made up of Monterey County.
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 AMI).
Regional Trends
About 46% of the County’s households are considered lower income. Peninsula Cities have a lower concentration of lower income households compared to the County overall and the Valley Cities.
Table App-85: Income Distribution – Regional
Monterey County Gonzales Marina Monterey Salinas Seaside < 80% AMI 45.6% 52.8% 45.3% 35.0% 55.2% 50.0%
> 80% AMI 54.4% 47.2% 54.6% 65.0% 44.8% 50.0%
Total HH 13,044,265 127,155 2,075 7,770 11,870 10,600
Note: Data presented in this table is based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100% count due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of this data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers. Furthermore, because HUD programs do not cover households with incomes above 80% of the County Area Median Income (AMI), CHAS data does not provide any breakdown of income groups above 80% AMI.
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, based on 2015-2019 ACS Packet Page 421
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-211
Geographically, low- and moderate-income (LMI) areas (tracts where over 50% of the population earn less than 80% AMI) are concentrated in the Valley cities along Highway 101, specifically in tracts in the Salinas, Gonzales, Soledad, and King City areas. Among the Peninsula cities, there is a concentration of LMI tracts at the junction of Monterey, Sand City, Seaside, and Del Rey Oaks.
Figure App-33: Low and Moderate Income Population – Region Local Trends
Half of Seaside’s households are lower income (<80% AMI). As seen in Figure App-34, Seaside has a concentration of tracts with a high percentage of LMI population (50% to 75%) in its neighborhoods west of Noche Buena Street (Olympia, Terrace, Rousch, Cabrillo, and Laguna Grande). These neighborhoods are also neighborhoods with higher acreage of multifamily, medium density neighborhoods. Of these neighborhoods west of Noche Buena Street, Olympia, and the northern portions of Terrace (Tract 137) have the highest concentration of poverty (Figure App-35). About 24% of the population in this tract earn incomes below the federal poverty level.
Packet Page 422
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-212
Figure App-34: Low and Moderate Income Population- Seaside Figure App-35: Poverty Status by Tract- Seaside
Packet Page 423
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-213
e. Housing Choice Voucher
The Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) provides rental assistance to very low-income households who obtain housing in the private rental market. The HCV program’s success depends upon the ability of participants to search for and find suitable housing in the private rental market. The program encourages participants to avoid high-poverty neighborhoods and encourages the recruitment of landlords with rental properties in lower-poverty neighborhoods.
An analysis of the trends in HCV concentration can be useful in examining the success of the program in improving the living conditions and quality of life of its holders.
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. 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.
Regional Trends
The HACM administers the Housing Choice Voucher program on behalf of jurisdictions within Monterey County. According to the Housing Authority data provided in the Picture of Subsidized Households dataset developed by HUD, as of 2021, 3,394 households in Monterey County were receiving Housing Choice Vouchers. The racial/ethnic composition of the voucher recipients was 28% White; 1% Black; 4% Asian; and 59% Hispanic.
Figure App-36 shows that Housing Choice Voucher use is concentrated in the Salinas Valley areas. In these tracts, between 5% and 15% of renter-occupied households were HCV participants.
Packet Page 424
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-214
Figure App-36: Housing Choice Voucher Concentration – Regional Packet Page 425
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-215
Local Trends
Within Seaside, there are about 121 HCVs distributed across the City.38 Census tracts with the highest concentration of HCV renter households is concentrated in Census Tract 135 which covers the southeastern neighborhoods of Noche Buena, Highland, and Kimball. About 5.3% of renter households (41 households) in this census tract are HCV holders. Census Tract 135 also has one of the lowest median gross rents in the City ($1,180).39 This means HCV participants are finding housing in the most affordable areas of the City. As shown in Figure App-38, HCV use is not directly correlated with areas with a concentration of poverty since most tracts have similar percentages of households living below the federal poverty line. Only the neighborhood of Olympia and north Terrace neighborhoods have higher poverty rates than surrounding tracts.
Figure App-37: Housing Choice Voucher Concentration – Seaside 38 Based on HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer portal that provided data by census tract. 39 In the AFFH Data Viewer Tool, the value shown under the Housing Affordability Index is the median gross rent per census tract.
The map showing the Housing Affordability Index (LAI) provides standardized household housing and transportation cost estimates for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Packet Page 426
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-216
Figure App-38: Median Gross Rent and Poverty Status – Seaside Packet Page 427
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-217
f. Public Housing Buildings
Regional Trends
Figure App-39 shows existing federal- and state-subsidized affordable housing. This includes affordable developments assisted and or/subsidized by HUD, USDA, CalHFA, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and only a portion of HCD developments. In Monterey County subsidized housing is located primarily in Valley Cities, with most located in Salinas. Public housing buildings are also scatted in the Seaside-Monterey areas in the Peninsula.
Figure App-39: Public Housing Buildings – Monterey County Local Trends
HCD’s AFFH Data tool shows two Public Housing buildings within Seaside, Seaview Village Apartments and Del Monte Manor. Seaview Village contains 132 affordable housing units and Del Monte Manor has 190 affordable units. These buildings are located in the Hannon and Highland neighborhoods. The location of these units is correlated with areas with a concentration of minorities and persons with disabilities but not with a concentration of lower income households (<80% AMI).
Packet Page 428
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-218
Figure App-40: Public Housing Buildings – Seaside
3. Racially Concentrated Areas
a. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) In an effort to identify racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non-White population (greater than 50 %) and has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower.
Regional Trends
There are large R/ECAP areas located east of Monterey County in Fresno County. Within Monterey County, R/ECAPs are only found in Salinas (Figure App-41).
Local Trends
There are no R/ECAPs in Seaside.
Packet Page 429
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-219
Figure App-41: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) – Region 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, a RCAA is defined as affluent, White communities. According to HUD’s policy paper, “Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States and 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.”
Regional Trends
RCAAs in the County are located in the Toro-Park and Seaside-Monterey regions of the County.
Local Trends
There are no RCAAs located in Seaside. However, there is a correlation between areas with a low concentration of minorities and higher median incomes. Census Tract 135 has the highest median income in the City and lowest concentration of non-white minorities (between 20% and 41%, Figure App-43 and Figure App-27).
Packet Page 430
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-220
Figure App-42: RCAAs- Regional
Figure App-43: Median Household Income by Tract (ACS 2017-2021) Packet Page 431
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-221
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.” a. TCAC/HCD
To assist in the assessment of fair housing, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) convened in 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 9 % 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 App86 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% of population under federal poverty line. • 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 App-86: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 4.0 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 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2021.
Regional Trends
The 2022 TCAC/HCD opportunity map for Monterey County identified higher resource areas in the western portion of the County and lower resource areas in the east and south, Figure App-44). The Peninsula cities range from highest resource areas for Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific Grove and Monterey to moderate resource areas for Sand City, Seaside and Marina. The Valley cities (along Highway 101) are all low resource areas. Two tracts in the County are areas with high segregation and poverty. These are both located in the City of Salinas.
Packet Page 432
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-222
Figure App-44: TCAC Composite Score- Region
Local Trends
Opportunity map categorization and domain scores for Seaside census tracts are shown in Table App-87 and Figure App-45). All of the city’s tracts have a moderate resource designation.
This is a similar designation to the City of Marina, but lower than the other Peninsula cities. As mentioned above, no areas of high poverty are located in Seaside.
Table App-87: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Census Tract
Economic
Score
Environmental
Score
Education
Score
Composite
Score Final Category
06053014107 0.657 0.321 0.529 0.029 Moderate Resource
06053014000 0.179 0.100 0.571 -0.313 Moderate Resource
06053013900 0.521 0.614 0.471 -0.043 Moderate Resource
06053013800 0.279 0.871 0.471 -0.123 Moderate Resource
06053013700 0.264 0.807 0.457 -0.161 Moderate Resource
06053013600 0.271 0.771 0.321 -0.221 Moderate Resource
06053013500 0.379 0.893 0.321 -0.112 Moderate Resource
Source: California Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer, 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps Packet Page 433
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-223
Figure App-45: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas in the- City of Seaside b. Opportunity Indices
HUD developed an index for assessing fair housing by informing communities about disparities in access to opportunities based on race ethnicity and poverty status. This section presents the HUD-developed index scores to assess Seaside residents’ access to key opportunity assets in comparison to the County. Table App-88 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures poverty in a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is determined at the census tract level. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
• 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 score, 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 score, 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% 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.
• 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 Packet Page 434
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-224
income at 50 % of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, 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 value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census blockgroup.
Regional Trends
In Monterey County, Hispanic and Native American residents were more likely (compared to other racial/ethnic groups) to be impacted by poverty, limited access to proficient schools, have a lower labor participation rate and reside in areas with the lowest environmental quality levels. Black residents scored highest as most likely to utilize public transportation and had the lowest cost of transportation. White and Asian residents had the closest proximity to jobs. For the population living below the poverty line in the county, residents had lower transportation costs, regardless of race or ethnicity. Asian residents living below poverty had better index scores for all categories compared to Asian residents above the poverty line. Black, Hispanic and Native American residents below the poverty line face a severe lack of access to proficient schools in the county.
Local Trends
In Seaside, while index scores for transit access, low transportation costs and environmental health are favorable, less opportunities are seen for access to jobs, proficient schools and labor market participation. The likelihood of poverty is higher for all racial and ethnic groups compared to the County overall. Hispanic residents in Seaside are more likely to face poverty while all minority populations have less access to proficient schools compared to White residents. Black residents in Seaside have the highest score for labor participation and, along with Hispanic residents, utilize public transit the most. Hispanic residents have the lowest transportation costs and also are most likely to live close to jobs. All residents of the city, regardless of race or ethnicity, have similar environmental health scores. For Seaside’s population living below the poverty line, some access to opportunities decline while others increase. For instance, Black, Hispanic and Asian residents living below the poverty line have a higher labor market score compared to these racial groups living above the poverty line while White and Native American residents have lower labor market scores. Labor market participation scores are higher for Black, Hispanic and Asian residents below the poverty line compared to the residents of these racial and ethnic groups not living in poverty.
Packet Page 435
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-225
Table App-88: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity Index
Environmental
Health Index
Monterey County
Total Population
White 65.84 50.07 60.65 59.73 42.66 59.62 66.45
Black 55.53 25.21 51.70 66.97 48.52 44.82 55.47
Hispanic 35.58 12.52 29.63 61.05 46.63 45.15 42.65
Asian or Pacific Islander 61.51 40.33 55.75 62.03 44.21 57.54 57.60 Native American 49.86 26.46 41.98 61.72 45.27 50.42 55.03 Population below federal poverty line
White 55.97 43.61 54.23 58.48 45.39 56.19 67.88
Black 49.21 5.32 49.59 69.03 56.54 42.40 44.63
Hispanic 32.15 9.37 26.92 60.83 47.72 44.97 41.51
Asian or Pacific Islander 76.33 59.58 73.37 66.77 45.93 67.42 63.74 Native American 23.49 7.85 18.71 57.39 50.76 38.11 41.45 City of Seaside
Total Population
White 42.19 36.09 40.30 68.46 59.81 45.81 66.18
Black 37.53 24.33 41.44 73.23 61.81 41.51 65.47
Hispanic 31.57 24.9 39.22 73.26 66.00 46.57 65.94
Asian or Pacific Islander 38.24 27.67 38.64 71.13 61.97 44.05 66.81 Native American 36.18 29.74 40.77 70.64 63.12 44.70 66.52 Population below federal poverty line
White 43.80 31.33 38.78 64.03 59.16 46.25 65.32
Black 33.57 24.37 46.25 74.63 64.43 42.93 65.05
Hispanic 28.17 24.69 41.43 74.63 67.87 45.51 65.67
Asian or Pacific Islander 34.16 23.92 44.66 73.44 65.44 42.28 65.31 Native American 36.37 29.88 28.56 75.21 60.75 46.20 65.95 Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. See text for index score meanings. Table is comparing the total Seaside and County population, by race/ethnicity, to the Seaside and County population living below the federal poverty line, also by race/ethnicity.
Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data and Mapping Tool (AFFH-T), 2017 Packet Page 436
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-226
c. Education
Regional Trends
School proficiency scores are indicators of school system quality. The higher the score, the higher the quality of schools. In Monterey County, Whites and Asian residents higher school proficiency indices (50 and 40, respectively) compared to Black, Hispanic, and Native American residents. For residents living below the federal poverty line, scores were lower for all races except for Asian residents where the score increased from 40 to 60. For Black, Hispanic and Asian students below the poverty line, school proficiency scores were exceedingly low (all below 10).
The HCD/TCAC education scores for the region show the distribution of education quality based on education outcomes (Figure App-46). Higher education scores are concentrated along the Peninsula, the southern portion of the County. Lower education scores are found in northern and central inland tracts, including many of the Valley cities.
Figure App-46: TCAC Education Score- Region
Source: California Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer, 2022 Packet Page 437
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-227
Local Trends
In Seaside, school proficiency scores for all races range from 24 to 36 across all races and from 24 to 31 across all races living below the federal poverty line. White and Native American population indices are higher than the other race groups, indicating access to better quality schools, while Black and Hispanic population indices are the lowest. Populations living below the poverty line tended to score either lower or the same than the population at-large.
Seaside is part of the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (School District). This School District has 17 schools, eight of which are located in Seaside. This includes the Dual Language Academy of the Monterey Peninsula, which is a K-8 school that has a Two-Way Bilingual Immersion (TWBI) program.
The California Department of Education has an online tool called the California School Dashboard (Dashboard).40 This Dashboard displays the performance of local education agencies, schools and student groups on a set of state and local measures to identify strengths, challenges and areas in need of improvement. According to the Dashboard website, the School District’s information for the 2021/22 school year included the following: Enrollment was 9,349 students, 65.4% of students were considered socioeconomically disadvantaged, 28.3% of students were English language learners, English Language Arts scores were 34.4 points below the State standard and Math scores were 83.3 points below the State standard.
Greatschools.org is a non-profit organization that rates schools across the States. The GreatSchools Summary Rating calculation is based on four ratings: 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.”41 Figure App-47 shows that Seaside elementary, middle, and high schools rate from below average to average, with the lowest average schools in the southern half of the City (including the Rousch and Del Monte Heights neighborhoods). The TCAC’s Education Score42 map (Figure App-48) shows that these census tracts in the middle of the City that do not have schools also have lower Education scores (0.25-0.5).
Regionally, Seaside’s School Proficiency Index scores are lower compared to Monterey County for some racial and ethnic groups, including White, Black and Asian residents. However, Hispanic and Native American groups in Seaside have higher index scores than the County overall. The TCAC education map (Figure App-46) also shows that, while Seaside has lower education scores than the southern Peninsula cities, the scores are higher than or similar to cities and unincorporated areas to the north and east (including Marina and the Valley cities of Salinas, King City, Greenfield, Soledad and Gonzales).
40 California Department of Education www.cde.ca.gov 41 For more information of GreatSchools ratings, visit: https://www.greatschools.org/gk/ratings/ 42 Education scores are a composite of different indicators including math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, student poverty rates
Packet Page 438
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-228
Figure App-47: GreatSchools Summary Ratings
Source: www.greatschools.org
Figure App-48: TCAC Education Scores- Seaside
Packet Page 439
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-229
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 transportation, housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where lower percentiles indicate lower conditions. One of the indicators reviewed by HPI Indicators is bachelor’s degree attainment. A college education is essential for many higher-paying careers, and it also helps people develop the cognitive skills and knowledge necessary to make healthy choices. As seen in Figure App-49, census tract 137 (the neighborhoods of Olympia and northern Terrace) have the lowest bachelor’s degree attainment in the City. In this tract, only 11% of persons over the age of 25 have a bachelor’s degree or higher.
College graduation rates vary across California, and the nation, reflecting historic and often persistent funding inequities in places with fewer resources and social power, such as African American/Black, Latino, working class communities, and those with low-English proficiency. In this case, lower educational attainment is seen in a community identified to have a concentration of minorities, particularly Hispanic population, as well as poverty. Improving the rate of people attending and graduating college requires policies that encourage student success during college, as well as in the years leading up to college.
Figure App-49: HPI- Bachelor’s Education or Higher
Packet Page 440
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-230
d. Transportation
Regional Trends
HUD’s opportunity indicators have two categories to describe transportation-transit index43 and low transportation cost index.44 In the County, transit index scores are in the 60s for all races/ethnicities except for White residents, which has the lowest transit index of 60. Black residents have the highest index score of 67. For residents living below the poverty line, the transit indices have a slightly larger range from 57 for Native American residents to 70 for Black residents. Regardless of income, Black residents have the highest transit index.
In the County, low transportation cost indices have a small range from 43 to 49 across all races and are slightly higher for residents living below the poverty line. Like transit indices, Black residents have the highest low transportation cost indices, while White residents have the lowest. Considering that a higher transit index score indicates a higher likelihood to use public transit and a higher “low transportation cost” indicates a lower cost of transportation, Monterey County’s Black residents had higher access and likelihood of using public transit while White residents had lower access and were least likely to use transit.
Local Trends
Transit index scores are approximately five to ten points higher in Seaside compared to the County and range from 69 to 73. For those residents living below the poverty line, use of transit increases slightly regardless of race or ethnicity, with the exception of White residents where usage decreased. In Seaside, Black and Hispanic residents are most likely to use public transit while White residents are the least likely. Low transportation cost indices in the City are in the mid-60s for White residents and the mid 70s for all other residents. Similar to the County, transit usage was slightly higher for residents of all races and ethnicities living below the poverty line except for White residents. Considering that a higher transit index score indicates a higher likelihood to use public transit and a higher “low transportation cost” indicates a lower cost of transportation, Seaside has better access to transit compared to the County.
Monterey-Salinas Transit provides bus service throughout Monterey County. Several lines traverse across the Monterey Peninsula, including two that provide service to Marina, Seaside and Sand City. Figure App-50 shows the routes for bus route 17 and 18. Service for these two lines is available every 30 minutes starting after 7:00 a.m. and ending before 10:00 p.m on weekdays and every 60 minutes starting after 7:00 a.m. and ending before 7:00 p.m. on weekends. AllTransit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the most recent data posted (2019), Seaside has an AllTransit Performance Score of 6.2. This is a moderate score but the map in Figure App-51 shows transit scores are lower in the Ord Grove and Ord Terrace areas along with the eastern portions of the City along General Jim Moore Boulevard. According to the AllTransit Equity metric, 98.6% of Seaside households are within ½ mile of a transit route, but no households have access to full day, 24-hour service, or high frequency rush hour transit. This is consistent with the route information available from Monterey-Salinas Transit.
43 The transit index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person singleparent family with income at 50 % 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. 44 The low transportation cost 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% of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
Packet Page 441
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-231
Figure App-50: Transit Service in Seaside
Source: Monterey-Salinas Transit, mst.org/routes
Figure App-51: AllTransit Performance Score- Seaside
Source: AllTransit, atlltransit.cnt.org
Packet Page 442
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-232
The Healthy Place Index mapping tool also includes access to automobiles (based on the percentage of households with access to a car) as a measure of transportation access and opportunities. As seen in Figure App-52 , access to automobiles is lowest in neighborhoods along Noche Buena Street, in the neighborhoods of Olympia, Terrace, and Rousch to the west, and Noche Buena, Highland, and Kimball to the east. According to the HPI, “places with a high percentage of people without cars tend to have a higher number of people walking, bicycling and taking public transportation to get around, even if the existing infrastructure (i.e., sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stops) and service (i.e. bus routes, rail lines) is inadequate.”45 Tracts 135 and 137 are consistent with these trends. In both of these tracts, about 11% of workers over the age of 16 commute to work (transit, walking, or cycling), compared to 7% in the city and 5% in the County.
However, access to public transit is lowest east of Yosemite Street (Figure App-51), the neighborhoods of Highland and east Kimball have the highest need for public transit given their limited automobile access and higher tendencies to use it. Alternatively, providing housing opportunities for lower income residents, like those in Census tract 135 and 137, near existing transit can also improve their access to transportation.
Figure App-52: HPI – Automobile Access
45 map.healthyplacesindex.org; Automobile access: What is the connection to health? Packet Page 443
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-233
Figure App-53: HPI – Active Commuting
e. Economic
Regional Trends
HUD’s opportunity indicators provide indices for labor market and jobs proximity. The labor market index is based the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. Monterey County’s labor market indices ranged from 30 to 61, with Hispanic residents having the lowest index and White residents having the highest. Indices for Monterey County residents living below the poverty line dropped for all races except for Asian residents, whose labor market index increased to 73. The most significant drop occurred for Native American residents living below the poverty line, where the labor market index decreased from 42 to 19. HUD’s jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region. County jobs proximity indices range from 45 for Black and Hispanic residents to 60 for White residents. The jobs proximity map in Figure App-54 shows the distribution of scores in Monterey County. The highest scores are tracts along the Peninsula, the southern coast line and areas west of Soledad and east of Gonzales in the central portion of the county.
The TCAC Economic Scores are a composite of jobs proximity as well as poverty, adult education, employment, and median home value characteristics. The map in Figure App-55 shows that the lowest economic scores are located in the southern portion of the county as well as along the Valley cities along Highway 101. The highest economic scores are concentrated in the Peninsula and the Carmel Valley. A few higher resource tracts are also located in the city of Salinas and the northeast edge of the county.
Packet Page 444
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-234
Figure App-54: HUD Jobs Proximity Index- Region Figure App-55: TCAC Economic Score- Region Packet Page 445
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-235
Local Trends
As described earlier, HUD’s opportunity indicators provide indices for labor market and jobs proximity. The labor market index is based on level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. Seaside’s labor market indices range from 39 to 41, with Asians having the lowest index and Blacks having the highest. Seaside’s Black, Hispanic and Asian populations living below the poverty line have higher labor market indices than the population overall, while White and Native American residents have lower indices. Seaside’s job proximity indices are in the 40s for all race and ethnicities regardless of income level. For the population overall, Hispanic residents have the closest job proximity (47) while Black residents have the farthest (42). For the population below the poverty line, White and Native American residents have closer access to jobs (46) while Asian residents have the furthest access (42).
Overall, Seaside’s indices are lower than Monterey County for both the labor market and jobs proximity, except for Hispanic residents where the indices are higher. Within Seaside, jobs proximity scores are lower in the neighborhood north of the Bayonet Black Horse Golf Course, the Highland neighborhood and portions of the Ord Grove, Ord Terrace and Del Monte Heights neighborhoods (Figure App-56). This is likely to the distance between these neighborhoods and the city’s commercial areas.
The TCAC’s Economic Score is based on a composite of the following area characteristics:
poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, median home value. Within the City, the lowest economic indices are found in Census Tract 140, which covers Laguna Grande and Cabrillo (Figure App-57). Most neighborhoods east of Freemont Boulevard have similar Economic composite scores, except for Ord Grove and Ord Terrace, where scores are more positive than the rest of the City. Considering that these neighborhoods are further from jobs, their higher economic scores are not due to jobs proximity but rather the socioeconomic composition of the residents (See Figure App-43 [higher incomes] and Figure App-49 [higher education]) and home values.
Figure App-56: Jobs Proximity Index- Seaside
Packet Page 446
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-236
Figure App-57: TCAC Economic Score- Seaside
f. Environment
The TCAC Environmental Score is based on CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) utilizes these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment.
Regional Trends
TCAC’s environmental scores are lowest in the southern part of the county, and in and around the cities of Greenfield, Gonzales, Seaside, Marina and Salinas (Figure App-58), indicating low environmental outcomes.
Packet Page 447
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-237
Figure App-58: TCAC Environmental Score- Region
Local Trends
As mentioned earlier, TCAC’s environmental score is based on the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores, which measures for environmental factors/exposure to pollutants, sensitive populations (e.g., seniors, children), and socioeconomic factors. As shown in Figure App-59, most census tracts in the north and western portions of the City of Seaside (outside of the neighborhoods) have low TCAC environmental scores (less than 0.5). Most neighborhoods east of Freemont Boulevard and west of General Jim Moore Boulevard have environmental scores above 0.5 (more positive outcomes).
Packet Page 448
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-238
Figure App-59: TCAC Environmental Score- Seaside
Access to parks, recreation and open space is also crucial to healthy communities. To affirmatively further fair housing, all residents, regardless of demographics, should have access to recreational areas and open space. The City of Seaside has 86 acres of open space, including 22 neighborhood parks and the Laguna Grande Regional Park, which is located in the cities of Seaside and Monterey. The Seaside portion of the Laguna Grande Regional Park includes Roberts Lake as well as vegetation and natural habitat areas, walking trails, barbecue areas, picnic tables and a playground.46 Figure App-60 shows protected open space in Seaside. In addition, Monterey State Beach is located in the southwest corner of the city. As shown in Figure App-60, there is a lack of parks in the Olympia, Terrace, and Rousch neighborhoods.
HPI’s mapping tool also shows a disproportionate access to parks throughout the City, based on the percent of people living within walkable distance (half-mile) of a park, beach, or open space (Figure App-61). In Olympia and north Terrace (census tract 137), 77% have park access, compared to 94% of the total City population.
46 City of Seaside website; ci.seaside.ca.us
Packet Page 449
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-239
Figure App-60: Parks in Seaside
Source: City of Seaside
Figure App-61: HPI – Park Access
Packet Page 450
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-240
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, severe 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 Seaside. 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 (the most recent dataset available), Monterey County households experience housing problems at lower rates (49%) than Seaside households (57%). In both the County and City, renters are more likely to be affected by housing problems than owners.
a. Cost Burden
Regional Trends
In Monterey County, approximately 40% of households experienced cost burdens in 2019 (Table App-89). Renters experience cost burdens at higher rates than owners (51% compared to 30%), regardless of race. Among renters, American Indian, Black and Hispanic households experience the highest rates of cost burden (59%, 56% and 55%). A large percentage of Monterey County’s homeowners have monthly housing costs that are 30% or more of their monthly income (Figure App-62). Tracts with the highest percentage of cost burdened homeowners are concentrated in Carmel, Marina and Salinas. There are more census tracts with a high concentration of cost burdened renter households than cost burdened owner households, and these areas of concentration are located throughout cities and unincorporated areas in the Peninsula as well as Salinas and Greenfield (Figure App-63).
Table App-89: Housing Problems by Race, Monterey County White Black Asian Am. Ind. Pac Isl. Hispanic All
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 30% 35% 33% 34% 61% 44% 37%
Renter-Occupied 51% 59% 47% 58% 73% 71% 62%
All Households 39% 51% 39% 45% 66% 60% 49%
With Cost Burden >30%
Owner-Occupied 29% 35% 30% 15% 49% 33% 30%
Renter-Occupied 47% 56% 35% 59% 42% 55% 51%
All Households 36% 50% 32% 35% 46% 46% 40%
Note: Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100% total due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers. In the 2015-2019 CHAS data, the “other” race category (such as multiple races) is not included.
Source: HUD CHAS, (2015-2019).
Packet Page 451
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-241
Figure App-62: Cost Burdened Owners (2019) – Region Figure App-63: Cost Burdened Renters (2019) – Region Packet Page 452
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-242
Housing problems and cost burdens can also affect special needs populations disproportionately. Table App-90 shows that renter elderly and large households experience housing problems and cost burdens at higher rates than all renter households, all households, and their owner counterparts.
Table App-90: Housing Problems, Elderly and Large Households, Monterey County Renter-Occupied Owner-Occupied
Elderly Large HH All Renter Elderly Large HH All Owners All HHs Any Housing Problem 69% 85% 62% 32% 59% 37% 49%
Cost Burden > 30% 66% 52% 51% 32% 29% 30% 40%
Note: Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100% total due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers.
Source: HUD CHAS, (2015-2019).
Local Trends
As shown in Table App-91, Hispanic and Pacific Islander households experience a disproportionate level of housing problems (74% and 79%) compared to White, Black and Asian households and all households in the City (57%). Independent of Pacific Islander households, renter-households, experience housing problems at much higher rates than owner-occupied households. Renters are also cost burdened at higher rates than owners, independent of race, except for Pacific Islander households.
Seaside households experience housing problems (57%) and cost burdens (49%) at higher rates than the County overall (49% and 40%, respectively). All races, with the exception of Black households, are more likely to experience housing problems or cost burdens in Seaside than households across the entire county. Black residents are likely to experience housing problems (51%) and cost burdens (50%) at the same rate in Seaside and Countywide.
Table App-91: Housing Problems by Race, Seaside
White Black Asian Am. Ind. Pac Isl. Hispanic All
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 27% 33% 26% -- 78% 48% 32%
Renter-Occupied 65% 60% 73% -- 79% 82% 73%
All Households 46% 51% 45% -- 79% 74% 57%
With Cost Burden >30%
Owner-Occupied 25% 32% 22% -- 52% 39% 28%
Renter-Occupied 63% 59% 65% -- 45% 64% 63%
All Households 44% 50% 39% -- 48% 58% 49%
Note: Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100% total due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers. In the 2015-2019 CHAS data, the “other” race category (such as multiple races) is not included.
Source: HUD CHAS, (2015-2019).
Figure App-64 and Figure App-65 show the concentration of cost burdened owners in 2014 and 2019 in the City of Seaside. Geographically, cost burdened owner households have decreased between 2014 and 2019 in the northern portion of the city as well as the Ord Grove, Ord Terrace, Olympia and north Terrace neighborhood. By 2019, there were less tracts with more than 40% of owners experiencing cost burdens.
Packet Page 453
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-243
Figure App-64: Cost Burdened Owners (2014)- Seaside
Figure App-65: Cost Burdened Owners (2019)- Seaside
The distribution of cost burdened renter households has increased between 2014 and 2019 (Figure App-66: and Figure App-67: ). Since 2014, tracts in the Ord Grove, Ord Terrace, Noche Buena, Highland, Kimball, and Rousch neighborhoods have increased from 40% to 60% cost burdened households to 60% to 80% cost burdened households.
Packet Page 454
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-244
Figure App-66: Cost Burdened Renters (2014) – Seaside
Figure App-67: Cost Burdened Renters (2019) – Seaside
Elderly and large households may also be subject to disproportionate housing problems, whether it is affordability or adequate physical needs (i.e., number of rooms, complete facilities).Table App-92 shows that renter-elderly households experience housing problems and cost burden at greater rates than owner-households and all households in the City. About 80% of elderly renter-households experience any housing problem and cost burdens. The similar rates of elderly renter-households experiencing cost burden and housing problems suggest cost is an issue for all households with any problem.
Packet Page 455
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-245
Larger renter households in Seaside experience less housing problems and cost burden than renter households overall. Housing problems and cost burden for large owner households is similar to the rates experienced by all owner households in the city. An important note is that while 58% of renter large households experience at least one housing problem, only 38% are experiencing cost burden. This means that 20% of households are not experiencing cost burden but instead are experiencing one of the other housing problems (i.e., overcrowding, unit with defects). This suggests a need for large renter-housing or rehabilitation of units.
Table App-92: Housing Problems, Elderly and Large Households, Seaside Renter-Occupied Owner-Occupied
Elderly Large HH All Renter Elderly Large HH All HHs
All
Owners
Any Housing Problem 82% 58% 73% 27% 31% 32% 57%
Cost Burden > 30% 80% 38% 63% 27% 26% 28% 49%
Note: Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100% total due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers.
Source: HUD CHAS, (2015-2019).
b. Overcrowding
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 2020 five-year ACS estimates, about 14% of households in the County are living in overcrowded conditions (Table App-93). This is higher than the statewide average of 8.2% overcrowded households. About 21% of renter households are living in overcrowded conditions, compared to 7% of owner households. Proportionally, renter households make up 73% of all overcrowded households in the County. Overcrowded households in the County are found throughout the inland region along the Valley cities, as well as the tracts north of Castroville and in Salinas and Seaside (Figure App-68).
Table App-93: Overcrowded Households-Monterey County
Overcrowded
(>1.0 persons per room) % of All Overcrowded Households Owner-Occupied 7% 27%
Renter Occupied 21% 73%
All Households 14% --
Source: American Community Survey, 2016-2020.
Packet Page 456
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-246
Figure App-68: Overcrowded Households- Region
Local Trends
According to the 2020 five-year ACS estimates, a slightly lower percentage of households in Seaside (12%) are living in overcrowded conditions than the County (14%). However, the overall percentage is still higher than the statewide average of 8.2%. Approximately 17% of Seaside renter households are overcrowded (Table App-94). Figure App-69 shows that overcrowded households are located in the southwestern tracts of the city, with the highest concentrations in the Olympia, Terrace, Rousch, Cabrillo and Laguna Grande neighborhoods (20% or more of households are overcrowded).
Packet Page 457
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-247
Table App-94: Overcrowded Households – Seaside
Overcrowded
(>1.0 persons per room) % of All Overcrowded Households Owner-Occupied 5% 17%
Renter Occupied 17% 83%
All Households 12% --
Source: American Community Survey, 2016-2020.
Figure App-69: Overcrowded Housing – Seaside
c. Substandard Conditions
Regional Trends
Housing that is 30 years or older is assumed to require some rehabilitation. Such features as electrical capacity, kitchen features, and roofs, usually need updating if no prior replacement work has occurred. According to the 2020 ACS, about 76% of Monterey County’s housing stock is over or close to 30 years old (built before 1989).
Local Trends
Seaside’s housing stock is slightly older than the County’s; 80% of Seaside’s housing stock is more than 30 years old, compared to 76% Countywide (Table App-11 in Needs Assessment).
Based on the observations of City staff, a substantial percentage of the City’s housing stock is in need of substantial rehabilitation or replacement, including approximately half of the properties in the Terrace neighborhood and a quarter (25%) of the properties in the Carbrillo and Noche Buena neighborhoods needing some type of property maintenance. This estimate is Packet Page 458
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-248
based Code Enforcement observations of typical enforcement activities and age of the City’s housing stock.
Approximately 88% of the City’s existing housing stock will exceed 30 years of age by the end of this Housing Element planning period (built before 2000). As shown in Figure App-70 , the median year built for housing by census tract is between 1957 and 1992. Most newer housing is found in census tracts 141.08 and 137. The oldest housing is located in tract 139, which encompasses the Ord Grove and Ord Terrace neighborhoods.
Figure App-70: Median Year Units Built
Source: American Community Survey, 2016-2020.
d. Displacement Risk
UCLA’s 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 UCLA team 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.
Packet Page 459
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-249
Regional Trends
Using the methodology described above, sensitive communities were identified in the census tracts that encompass the Valley cities (Salinas, Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield and King City) (Figure App-71: ). In the Peninsula, sensitive communities were identified in Marina, Seaside, Monterey and Pacific Grove. The community of Castroville was also identified as a sensitive community.
Figure App-71: Sensitive Communities - Region
Local Trends
Within Seaside, sensitive communities were identified in the census tracts located south of Military Avenue with the exception of the Hannon and Del Monte Heights neighborhoods (Figure App-72). As explained earlier, sensitive communities are populations vulnerable to displacement (named “sensitive communities” in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost). Given that sites are mostly concentrated in Cabrillo, Terrace, Rousch, and Kimball neighborhoods, these areas are at higher risk due to the expected development activity. In addition, the West Broadway Urban Village Specific Plan was adopted in 2010 to revitalize the City of Seaside’s West Broadway Avenue within the Cabrillo neighborhood. The development standards for the West Broadway Urban Village Specific Plan are established to encourage redevelopment of existing properties into more urbanized, highintensity uses. Again, this places residents in Cabrillo at higher risk of displacement.
Packet Page 460
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-250
Figure App-72: Sensitive Communities - Seaside
Figure App-73 shows the level of displacement risk for extremely low and very low households per census tract. Displacement risk for these income categories is low in northern Seaside in Ord Grove and Ord Terrace. Similar to the sensitive communities map, low income households were identified as at-risk of displacement in the southern neighborhoods of Cabrillo, Terrace, Noche Buena, Laguna Grande, Rousch, Kimball, and Olympia. However, Olympia stands out having Elevated Risks of displacement. Given that Olympia (Census Tract 137) has been identified as having disproportionate needs- it has a concentration of cost-burdened renter households (70% of renter households are cost burdened), overcrowded households (28% of households are overcrowded), poverty (23% of residents are below the federal poverty level) and it has a concentration of minority population, primarily Hispanic, displacement risk is disproportionately affecting lower income and minority populations. Olympia is located along Fremont Boulevard, the City’s commercial strip which has experienced a lack of private investment as its primarily auto-oriented uses are in decline. The City’s proposed General Plan Update includes a strategy to transform Fremont Boulevard from an auto- oriented corridor characterized by low density uses into a beautiful mixed-use corridor with higher-intensity mixed-use centers at Broadway Avenue, and Echo Avenue (within the Olympia neighborhood).
Active ground-floor retail will be focused in these centers, supported by improvements to streetscapes and sidewalks. A lower-intensity mix of uses will be encouraged between the centers. On key stretches, Fremont Boulevard will be narrowed to create a more walkable, pedestrian-oriented street. The City’s Housing Plan includes anti-displacement actions for residents (See AFFH Matrix). In addition, the City’s housing plan includes activities to improve housing mobility and encourage development of new affordable housing in high-resource areas to lower income residents.
.
Figure App-73: Estimated Displacement Risk (2015-2019)
Packet Page 461
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-251
e. Homelessness
Regional Trends
The member agencies of the Monterey County Coalition of Homeless Service Providers (CHSP) have worked together to conduct the 2022 Monterey County Point-in-Time Homeless Census and Survey. The 2022 Monterey County Point-in-Time Homeless Census represents a complete enumeration of all sheltered and unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness at a specified date and time. It consisted of two primary components:
• General Street Count: An early morning count of unsheltered homeless individuals and families on January 27th and 28th, 2022. Two days were needed due to the utilization of program-based outreach staff who were the primary enumerators used in lieu of lived experience guides who served as outreach experts in previous efforts. These outreach teams focused on those sleeping outdoors on the street; at bus and train stations; in parks, tents, and makeshift shelters; and in vehicles and abandoned properties. • General Shelter Count: A nighttime count of homeless individuals and families staying at publicly and privately-operated shelters on January 27, 2022. This included those who occupied emergency shelters, transitional housing, and safe havens.
The 2022 Monterey County Homeless Census and Survey resulted in a total count of 2,047 persons: 1,357 unsheltered homeless people on streets countywide (66%) and 690 sheltered homeless people in emergency shelters, transitional housing and domestic violence shelters (34%).
The data results also included a demographic survey of 287 individuals:
Packet Page 462
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-252
• Age: Three percent of survey respondents were under the age of 25 at the time of the 2022 survey, 36% were between the ages of 25 and 40, and 61% were 41 years or older.
This data indicates an aging trend since 2015.
• Race/Ethnicity: In 2022, 50% of homeless survey respondents indicated they identified as Hispanic or Latinx, a smaller percentage compared to the general population of Monterey County (59%) but an increase from 39% of 2019 survey respondents.
In regard to race, 59% identified as White, 13% Black or African-American, 7% American Indian or Alaska Native, 4% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 3% Asian. • Gender: The majority of survey respondents (55%) identified as male, 43% female, and 2% as gender non-conforming, questioning, or a gender not singularly female or male.
Of those surveyed in 2022, over one-third (38%) reported that the current episode of homelessness was their first-time experiencing homelessness, representing a decrease from 2019 but similar to 2015 and 2017. When asked about the duration of their current episode of homelessness, the vast majority (85%) of survey respondents reported they had been homeless for a year or longer, representing a substantial increase from 63% in 2019.
Table App-95: Homeless Population, Monterey County
Jurisdiction
Unsheltered* Sheltered Total % of Total % Change
2019 2022 2019 2022 2019 2022 2019 2022 2019-2020
Carmel 6 1 0 0 6 1 0.2% 0.0% -83.3%
Del Rey Oaks 0 2 0 0 - 2 0.0% 0.1% --
Greenfield 14 2 0 0 14 2 0.6% 0.1% -85.7%
King City 27 18 0 0 27 18 1.1% 0.9% -33.3%
Marina 98 81 261 275 359 356 14.8% 17.4% -0.8%
Monterey 167 74 37 27 204 101 8.4% 4.9% -50.5%
Pacific Grove 14 29 0 0 14 29 0.6% 1.4% 107.1%
Salinas 876 777 206 288 1,082 1,065 44.7% 52.0% -1.6%
Sand City 8 3 0 0 8 3 0.3% 0.1% -62.5%
Seaside 126 90 56 62 182 152 7.5% 7.4% -16.5%
Soledad 35 12 0 0 35 12 1.4% 0.6% -65.7%
Unincorporated 338 268 32 38 370 306 15.3% 14.9% -17.3% Monterey County 1,830 1,357 592 690 2,422 2,047 100.0% 100.0% -15.5% Source: 2022 Monterey County Point-In-Time Homeless Census and Survey. *The unsheltered population includes homeless people counted on the streets, in vehicles, in makeshift shelters (such as tents) and encampments.
Local Trends
About 7% (or 152 persons) of the homeless persons in the County’s Homeless Census and Survey were found in the City of Seaside — a 16% decrease from the survey conducted in 2019.
Approximately 41% of Seaside’s homeless population (62 persons) was unsheltered.
The City has identified the following areas of concentration of homeless persons within the City (blue pins and blue hashed line in Figure App-74) :
- Along Fremont Ave, near strip malls and road medians
- Minor/fluid encampments at the end of Fremont Avenue where the street becomes Highway 101
- Roberts Lake
- City Hall Parking Lot/Public Library
- Entrance to parking lot on Canyon Del Rey near McDonalds, Home Depot - Alley behind Ord Terrace Liquors off Playa Ave.
- People living in vehicles parked for periods of time in Laguna Granda Park lot & lot adjacent near Chili’s Restaurant
Packet Page 463
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-253
Figure App-74: Areas of Homeless Concentration and Services These locations are mostly along Freemont Boulevard and Del Monte Boulevard. Both of these Boulevards are serviced by transit lines. In addition, many of these sites are located within a 10 minute walk from a grocery store. Within the City, persons experiencing homelessness can access resources at various locations throughout the City (orange circles in map) such as:
- Coalition of Homeless Services Providers (Fremont Blvd & La Playa Ave), - Salvation Army (Contra Costa St & Elm Ave),
- Casa De Noche Women’s Shelter (Buena Noche St & Broadway Ave) - County Social Services offices (Buena Noche St & Broadway Ave) - St. Vincent de Paul Society (Fremont Blvd & Harcourt Ave) - Bethel Church (Imperial St & Elm Ave)
- Community Partnership for Youth (Fremont Blvd & Kimball Ave - The Village Project Inc. (Fremont Blvd & Broadway Ave) The Women’s Shelter is located next to the County Social Services offices and offers services such as meals, laundry, mail service, computer access, housing navigation, employment assistance, and referral to ancillary services. County-wide outreach teams like Community Health Engagement (CHE) also reach Seaside and provide linkages to other resources.
Other available resources for the homeless population not physically located in seaside include:
Community Human Services, Community Homeless Solutions, Catholic Charities, MPUSD, Housing Authority of Monterey County, Housing Resource Center of Monterey County, and Monterey County Department of Social Services.
The City, County, and local and non-profit organizations are working to address the needs of the homeless population. During the Sixth Cycle planning Cycle, the City will continue to work collaboratively with these organizations to provide lasting solutions and opportunities for those experiencing homelessness.
Packet Page 464
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-254
E. Local Knowledge
1. History of Seaside Development
The City of Seaside was developed as an unincorporated community between the years of 1920 and 1954. The connection between Seaside and Monterey was initially Del Monte Boulevard, followed by Highway 1 in the late 1960s. A historical fact that is overlooked in terms of land use development is that Fremont Boulevard served as part of Highway 1 until a bypass for Highway 1 was established around the community from the Fremont Boulevard exit to the north and Highway 218 exit to the south. Having Highway 1 cut through the City established an automotive dominant strip commercial environment with four lanes.
Figure App-75 shows 13 areas of the City on a base map that have some specific building characteristics and time line perspectives in the City’s buildout:
1. Lower Harcourt Avenue: This area is one of the older areas and is developed with mostly single family dwellings with medium to lower density multi-family housing interspersed throughout. The City Hall complex and Police department are located in this area.
2. Lower Sonoma Avenue: Similar to the Lower Harcourt, it is also an older area that is developed with mostly single family dwellings with medium to lower density multifamily housing interspersed throughout.
3. Lower Broadway Avenue: This area has been developed with a downtown character.
Initially it had four lanes of traffic, probably to facilitate access to the Fort Ord gate that was at the top of the City. Lots are small and shallow. Its development was one-story without any higher density multi-family residential.
4. Area #4: This area was developed between the 1930s and 1940s with single family and some multi-family residential. Some areas still remain without any curb, gutter and sidewalk.
5. Fremont Boulevard: This area consists mostly of strip commercial centers along a wide four lane roadway which was once a part of Highway 1. The wide roadway has served to bisect the city and inhibited a pedestrian environment.
6. Ord Grove/Military Avenue: This area of the City developed between the 1950s and 1960s as the Fort Ord Military base grew. This area of the City has benefitted from larger sizes and grid roadway. Primarily single family with some multi-family spread in different blocks.
7. Kimball Avenue: This is also an older area of the community that was subdivided into larger lots sizes. This area of the City has mixture of modern single family homes with cul-de sac street patterns.
8. Noche Buena Redevelopment Area: This area is comprised mostly of single family dwellings. It was assigned a redevelopment area primarily for urban renewal financing as most dwellings existed when the redevelopment area was established.
There are some multi-family residential structures spread throughout.
9. Hannon Redevelopment: This area was formed and developed by the City’s Redevelopment Agency in the 1960s. There are groupings of five multi-family apartments (20+ units) which were called the Hannon Assembled Apartments. With the expiration of the redevelopment area, the apartments have been acquired and maintained as affordable housing with HUD financing.
10. Del Monte Heights Redevelopment: This area consists of larger, modern single family homes developed in partnership with the Redevelopment Agency in the 1960s-1970s.
11. Baker/Laguna/Olympia: This area has a mix of older single family and multi-family structures built from the 1950s to 1970s. Many of the multi-family structures are dated, poor quality.
12. Auto Center: The Auto Center was built as a redevelopment project. The area was developed previously with older, single-family dwellings which were moved or demolished for the development.
13. Del Monte Boulevard: This area contains heavy commercial and auto repair facilities.
Packet Page 465
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-255
The previous General Plans and Zoning Codes did not provide for a specific direction. The way the City parcels and street patterns were established created a lower density housing stock with a commercial strip on Fremont Boulevard. The Auto Center served to strengthen the vehicle dominance streetscape on Fremont Boulevard and Del Monte Boulevard. A Safeway Grocery store served the community in the 1960s and 1970s but was closed. The local grocery stores have consisted of ethnic independent grocers.
In 1980, five areas of the community which had a mix of residential housing types and commercial uses were identified as Special Treatment Areas (STAs). The Zoning Code included a combination of allowed residential and commercial uses for each STA and required a PUD for new construction to ensure compatibility with the existing uses. In 2004, a new General Plan was adopted which removed the STA Zones and established a single zone for each area. In 2010, a Specific Plan was adopted for West Broadway Avenue to establish an urban core and provide broader standards to allow for a mix of residential and commercial uses. The City is currently working with a developer to construct a 30-unit mixed project in lower Broadway and a 105-unit multi-family residential structure on upper Broadway near Baker/Laguna/Olympia area.
Packet Page 466
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-256
Figure App-75: Seaside Historical Build-Out Areas
2. Broadway Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Project
The Broadway Ave Complete Streets Corridor project will create the only continuous citywide east-west bicycle facility in Seaside which will serve as a strong backbone for future safe bicycling and walking infrastructure projects throughout the city. Broadway Ave connects low income neighborhoods and senior living facilities to schools, jobs, shopping, churches, health services, and high quality transit. The project includes the design and construction of a 1.3-mile road diet on Broadway Avenue from Fremont Boulevard to General Jim Moore Boulevard to a 2- lane roadway with curb extensions, buffered and protected bike facilities, roundabouts, and Safe Routes to School improvements including offset crosswalk, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, and accessible design. Improvements on Yosemite Ave will include bicycle pavement markings, signage, curb extensions, and high visibility crosswalks. The redesign of Broadway Avenue will address the serious safety concerns of speeding, sideswipes and broadside collisions that plague the corridor frequently used by children and seniors. The project will include non-infrastructure programming designed to increase the shift to active transportation modes and long-term behavior change through a suite of programming for elementary school children, low-income families, seniors, and businesses along the corridor. Programming will include community engagement, civic education with an active transportation focus, and encouragement programming, and an open street event geared toward youth, low-income families and seniors to increase safe bicycling and walking for people of all ages and abilities in the city.
3. 2019 Monterey County’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2019
The City of Seaside participated in the preparation of the 2019 Monterey County Analysis of Impediments to Fai Housing Choice (2019 AI). The 2019 AI concluded that the following were impediments to Fair Housing Choice in Seaside:
Packet Page 467
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-257
• Seaside residents have limited access to opportunities compared to those residents in Monterey and the County as a whole.
• Countywide, Hispanic households were significantly underrepresented in the homeownership market, and the use of subprime lending among Hispanic households doubled between 2011 and 2017.
• Zoning amendments are needed to facilitate special needs housing in Seaside. • Regional collaboration is needed to address issues such as homelessness, affordable housing, jobs-housing balance, and access to frequent transit services.
In addition, the City of Seaside also reviewed its compliance with recent changes to Sections 65580-65589.8 that require local jurisdictions to address the provision of housing options for special needs groups, including transitional and supportive housing, residential care facilities, and employee housing, among others as part of the 2019 AI. According the 2019 AI, there are potential zoning issues in Seaside related to (Table App-78):
• Accessory Dwelling Units: The existing second unit ordinances became null and void in 2017. Seaside needs to either adopt their own ordinance in compliance with new State law, or State law preempts local ordinances.
• Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing: Pursuant to SB 2, transitional and supportive housing constitutes a residential use and therefore local governments cannot treat it differently from other types of residential uses (e.g., requiring a use permit when other residential uses of similar function do not require a use permit). As of 2019, Seaside was yet to amend the Zoning Codes to address the provision of transitional and supportive housing.
• Residential Care Facilities: No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these Residential Care Facilities (commonly referred to as “group” homes) of six or fewer persons with disabilities than are required of the other permitted residential uses in the zone. Seaside’s Fifth Cycle housing element indicated that zoning amendments would be required to make provisions for residential care facilities. • Single-Room Occupancy: SRO units are one of the most traditional forms of affordable private housing for lower income individuals, including seniors and persons with disabilities. These protected classes are required to have suitable housing options and SROs provide these options. Seaside was yet to amend the Zoning Codes to address the provision of SRO housing. The General Plan Update and Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update including the SRO provision is underway. The General Plan is expected to be adopted on July 2023.
• Employee housing: The California Employee Housing Act requires that housing for six or fewer employees be treated as a regular residential use. The City of Seaside Zoning Ordinance does not include any provisions for employee housing. • Reasonable Accommodation: Although most local governments are aware of State and Federal requirements to allow reasonable accommodations, if specific policies or procedures are not adopted by a jurisdiction or a jurisdiction requires a public hearing or discretionary decision, residents with disabilities may be unintentionally displaced or discriminated against. Seaside was yet to establish specific policies for reasonable accommodation.
The City has included a program (Program 19) to amend zoning regulations in conformance with state law.
F. Summary of Fair Housing Issues
1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
The 2019 County AI noted that many housing professionals, housing providers, and home seekers alike, are unaware of their rights and responsibilities, and the resources available.
ECHO has provided fair housing services and tenant-landlord mediation for Seaside residents since 2017. ECHO found success in reaching the community by offering webinars through the Packet Page 468
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-258
COVID-19 pandemic. They will continue these efforts in addition to resuming in-person events and activities in FY 2022 to increase visibility among the City's residents. Prior to the pandemic, staff had strategized ways to increase visibility within the City by identifying low-income neighborhoods and providing direct in-person outreach services to impacted apartment complexes.
ECHO also provides fair housing law enforcement services by investigating fair housing complaints and through annual fair housing audits. Between 2019 and 2021, 42 fair housing discrimination cases were opened by ECHO. Most of these cases were in the basis of disability (38%) and race (31%). Cases were resolved most commonly with tenant education (33%) and testing (29%). ECHO performed 14 audits in the City of Seaside between 2019 and 2021. ECHO only found differential treatment in two cases, both testing for discrimination based on sexual orientation. There was no differential treatment in the cases for discrimination based on national origin (linguistic profiling) or based on source of income (Section 8).
Seaside is lacking compliance with fair housing laws to provide housing opportunities for special needs populations. The City has included a Program to address these discrepancies and will review them periodically to ensure compliance with state law.
2. Segregation and Integration
From 1990 to 2020, racial/ethnic groups in Seaside have become increasingly segregated. White and Hispanic and White and Black residents have the highest degree of segregation compared to other groups, both considered moderately segregated. Olympia and the northern parts of the Terrace neighborhood (Census Tract 137) have the highest concentrations of minority population, with Census Tract 137 a having the highest concentration of Hispanic population in the City (74%). Further analysis also found that Olympia has the highest concentration of poverty. Overall, Olympia and Terrace have a concentration of minority population and lower income population. Housing in both of these neighborhoods is over 50 years old. Olympia’s mix of older single family and multi-family structures were built from the 1950s to 1970s and many of the multi-family structures are dated and in poor condition. In addition, most of west Olympia along Freemont is strip commercial centers along a wide four lane roadway which was once a part of Highway 1. The highway has bisected the city and inhibited a pedestrian environment. The Terrace neighborhood was built around the 1930s and 1940s with single family and some multi-family residential. Some areas still remain without any curb, gutter and sidewalk. These neighborhoods could benefit from place-based improvements.
The tract that encompasses Noche Buena, Highland, and Kimball neighborhoods (Tract 135) has the highest concentration of HCV use, about 5% of renters in this tract are HCV users. This may be due to the high concentration of multi-family housing in the area. HCV use should be integrated throughout the City, especially nearer areas with better access to transportation given the limited transit access and low percentage of automobile access in Census Tract 135.
3. Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence There are no concentrated areas of poverty or affluence in the City. While no tract in the City meets the definition of RECAPs or RCAAs, there is an evident concentration of poverty and minority population in Olympia/northern Terrace and Highland. By contrast, higher income and white population are concentrated in Kimball.
4. Access to Opportunities
Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, transportation, and other opportunities, including a healthy environment and recreation. TCAC opportunity maps identify resource levels across the state to inform policies which aim to increase access to opportunity-rich areas for low-income families with children, as well as provide a more balanced set of locational choices for all. In Seaside, TCAC composite scores Packet Page 469
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-259
rated all tracts in the City as Moderate Resources. However, analysis by TCAC indicator showed different access to education, economic development, transportation, and environmental conditions. Specifically, Census Tract 137 (which covers Olympia and northern Terrace) and Census Tract 140 (which covers Cabrillo and Laguna Grande) and Census Tract 135 (Kimball, Noche Buena, Highland) appear to have disproportionate access to opportunities. • Education: Despite similar TCAC education scores throughout the City, Census Tract 135/ Olympia had the lowest bachelor’s education attainment, with only 11% of persons over 25 having a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 23% throughout the City. • Transportation: Olympia and Highland/Noche Buena/and Kimball (Census Tract 137) had the highest rates of active commuting, while also having the lowest automobile access rates. Census Tract 137 is unique in that it has the highest concentration of HCV users but it also has the highest median incomes and White population. While improving transit options in this area is necessary, there is a higher need to improve the mobility of HCV users closer to transit. The City will have to balance improving mobility closer to transit with improvements in areas near transit since these areas have a concentration of minorities, LMI population, and persons living in poverty. • Economic: Jobs proximity scores were low throughout the City and higher to the south of the City in Del Rey Oaks and Monterey, indicating job centers outside of the City.
TCAC economic scores were particularly low in Laguna Grande and Cabrillo (Census Tract 140), despite being closest to jobs. This indicates a need for a range of policies designed to build the economy and ensure that workers can get to jobs. • Environment: While TCAC environmental scores were similar throughout central neighborhoods they were the lowest in Laguna Grande and Cabrillo, possibly due to their proximity to Highway 1. In addition, Olympia (CT 137) has a disproportionately lower access to parks than all other communities in the City.
5. Disproportionate Housing Needs
About 57% of the City’s households experience housing problems. Renter cost burden rates are double those of owners (63% and 28%, respectively). Elderly renter households are disproportionately affected by cost burdens. Cost burdened households are not concentrated in any particular area of the City. By contrast, overcrowded households are concentrated in tracts west of Noche Buena Boulevard (Census Tract 137 and 140), where there is also a concentration of lower income households and minorities. These areas also have the highest concentration of renter households. This implies that renter households may be doubling up or be living in units that do not meet their family size needs. These areas with overcrowding also have older housing. Olympia (Census Tract 137) has a mix of single-family and multifamily housing built around the 1950s to 1970s and some of its multi-family is considered dated. Terrace was built around the 1930s and 1940s and some areas have no gutter, sidewalk, or curbs. Cabrillo and Laguna Grande are some of the oldest areas of the City though close to the downtown and close to community centers and City Hall. Most of the City’s neighborhoods, except Hannon and Del Monte Heights are considered to be vulnerable to displacement.
Packet Page 470
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-260
G. Summary of Fair housing Issues and Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors AB 686 requires an identification and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues based on all the previously required analysis (outreach, fair housing assessment, site inventory). Fair housing contributing factor (or contributing factor) means a factor that creates, contributes to, perpetuates, or increases the severity of one or more fair housing issues. Contributing factors must also be prioritized in terms of needed impact on fair housing choice and strongly connect to City’s meaningful actions. A comprehensive list of meaningful actions is found in the City’s Housing Element. Table App-96 below highlights three key issues identified as well as the contributing factors for each issue. The table also provides a rationale for the prioritization of the contributing factors.
Table App-96: Summary of Issues and Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors Finding Contributing Factors Priority/Rationale
Limited fair housing outreach activities due to COVID and lack of fair housing law compliance ECHO assisted residents primarily in resolving
tenant/landlord disputes and to investigate fair housing complaints. ECHO also provided tenant and landlord
education services, de-escalating potential fair housing disputes. Echo also conducted audits whenever organization staff receive a fair housing complaint.
ECHO has conducted most outreach online due to COVID in the past three years. Persons without internet access or limited computer skills (lower income, elderly, persons with disabilities) may be unaware of the available resources and fair housing rights.
Lack of tenant/landlord education
Lack of accessible forums due to COVID 19
Prohibitive cost of legal fees.
Language barriers for non-English speaking community
members
High
Resources to educate, investigate, and enforce fair housing complaints are key to ensuring fair housing protections are accessible and effective for protected classes. In addition, proactive interventions to fair housing issues prevent
displacement.
Seaside is lacking compliance with fair housing laws to provide housing opportunities for special needs populations.
Lack of compliance with state housing element law High
Compliance is necessary to ensure the City can provide
housing opportunities for special needs residents. The City will eliminate constraints to housing as its responsibility to affirmatively further fair housing
Concentration of lower income residents, HCV use, and minorities in areas with limited access to opportunities and displacement risk.
Seaside’s white and non/white populations have become
increasingly segregated. Census Tract 137
(Olympia/Terrace) have the highest concentration of
minorities (especially Hispanic residents) and the highest concentration of poverty in the City. Census Tract 137 is also identified to be vulnerable to displacement and has the most limited access to parks.
Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods
Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods
High
Reinvestment in communities helps spark recovery and
provide opportunities for existing residents.
Packet Page 471
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-261
Table App-96: Summary of Issues and Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors Finding Contributing Factors Priority/Rationale
HCV use is concentrated in Census Tract 135 (Noche
Buena/Kimball/Highland neighborhoods). Residents in this tract also have the lowest rates of automobile access and highest rates of active commuting- while having the lowest access to transit.
Lack of landlord education
Location and type of affordable housing
Land use and zoning laws
High
HCV use should be integrated throughout the City, especially nearer areas with better access to transportation and /or access needs to be expanded into Census Tract 135 and/or the City needs to support walking and biking or other modes or active transportation.
Census Tract 137 has the lowest rates of bachelor’s degree attainment. This tract also has the highest concentration of poverty and minority in the City and is predominantly
Hispanic.
Lack of school retainment
Lack of afterschool activities
Lack of resources
Moderate
A college education is essential for many higher-paying careers, improving quality of life and housing choices. The City will engage in activities that that encourage student success during college, as well as in the years leading up to college.
TCAC economic scores were particularly low in Laguna
Grande and Cabrillo (CT 140), despite being closest to jobs to the south.
Lack of jobs
Lack of private and public investment
Lack of for-rent and for-sale affordable housing
High
Improving economic opportunities requires a range of
policies designed to create jobs, develop the workforce, create housing closer to jobs and ensure that workers can get to jobs. More jobs and more affordable housing gives residents more housing choices (type of housing and
mobility).
Substandard conditions and housing problems concentrated in tracts with a concentration of lower income and minority populations About 63% of renter households are cost-burdened.
Overcrowded households are concentrated in tracts west of Noche Buena Boulevard (Census Tract 137 and 140), where there is also a concentration of lower income households and minorities. These areas also have the highest
concentration of renter households. This implies that renter households may be doubling up or be living in units that do not meet their family size needs. Existing structures in these neighborhoods are also over 50 years old and may need
rehabilitation.
Lack of affordable housing
The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes Age of housing stock
Lack of public investment (sidewalks, curbs)
Barriers to new development (water credits, high interest rates, cost of materials).
High
Overcrowding and poor housing quality has been linked
physical, emotional, and behavioral problems and
educational delays. Residents may lack the funds to
rehabilitate or improve their own housing or do not have enough housing choices.
Packet Page 472
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-262
H. Sites Inventory Strategy
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. In finding the sites suitable for the inventory, the City the findings of its assessment of fair housing (patterns of segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, access to opportunity (access to transit and services) as well as the major strategies for growth and investment envisioned in the 2040 General Plan.
As explained in the Summary of Fair Housing Issues section, fair housing issues are concentrated in communities west of N Noche Buena Street and south of La Salle Avenue, encompassing the neighborhoods of Laguna Grande and Cabrillo (Census Tract 140) and Olympia and northern Terrace (Census Tract 137). These areas have a concentration of minorities, low and moderate income households, and overcrowding and have seen an increase in the concentration of costburdened renters. These areas also have the highest concentration of renters in the City.
However, despite this concentration of persons with socio-economic conditions that make them vulnerable to fair housing issues, these tracts also have the best access to transit and services in the City. By contrast, areas east of N Noche Buena Street, especially the neighborhoods of Noche Buena, Kimball, and Highland have a higher concentration of White residents and higher incomes but have limited transit access and tend to rely on automobile to reach services in the City’s Downtown and commercial areas in the western parts of the City. These low-density neighborhoods contain the majority of Seaside’s families and long-term residents. However, HCV use is concentrated in Census Tract 135 in this area, suggesting a need for transit and other services nearby, increased mobility, and/or increase transit access.
Figure 76: Seaside Neighborhood Census Tract Map
Figure App-77 shows that the areas identified with major strategies for growth and investment in the General Plan overlap with those where a concentration of issues were found in the fair Packet Page 473
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-263
housing assessment (Census Tracts 140 and 137, in red outline). The major strategies within Census Tract 140 and 137 include: 47
1. Create a vibrant Downtown Seaside (West Broadway Specific Plan Area) - General Plan and West Broadway Urban Village Specific Plan envision a walkable, pedestrianoriented streetscape with buildings placed close to the sidewalk, ground floor retail, and new residential units along West Broadway Avenue. Active ground-floor retail will be focused in the centers to create a lively shopping experience. Similarly, East Broadway Avenue will be transformed into a mixed-use corridor with higher-intensity mixed-use centers at Fremont Boulevard and San Lucas Street. Residential uses will provide for an appropriate transition between East Broadway and the neighborhood to the north.
2. Transform Fremont Boulevard into a mixed-use corridor - Fremont Boulevard will be transformed from an auto- oriented corridor characterized by low density uses into a beautiful mixed-use corridor with higher-intensity mixed-use centers at Hilby Avenue, Broadway Avenue, and Echo Avenue. Active ground-floor retail will be focused in these centers, supported by improvements to streetscapes and sidewalks. A lowerintensity mix of uses will be encouraged between the centers. On key stretches, Fremont Boulevard will be narrowed to create a more walkable, pedestrian-oriented street.
3. Enhance the Auto Center for diverse employment - The Seaside Auto Center and auto-related businesses will continue to be a major contributor to Seaside’s fiscal health. However, emerging trends in the transportation sector, such as autonomous vehicles, electrification, and shared mobility, may disrupt the automotive industry and affect how auto-related businesses use land in Seaside. If these transformations occur, the City will maintain this area as a vibrant center for employment, supporting a diverse mix of companies, jobs, and makerspaces, while creating more walkable blocks.
4. Renovate multifamily areas with a greater diversity of housing - While Seaside has more affordable housing inventory compared to other communities in the Monterey Peninsula, rising costs have compelled many, especially those with lower incomes, to live in inadequate and overcrowded housing. The city’s mixed density neighborhoods adjacent to Fremont Boulevard present an ideal opportunity to expand affordable housing choices, which will benefit many, including young professionals looking to remain or relocate to Seaside, first-time buyers, or seniors looking to downsize, among others. The General Plan promotes a diverse mix of building types and unit sizes, encourages new deed-restricted affordable housing, and incentivizes the renovation or redevelopment of older multifamily buildings With this vision in mind, the City selected the majority of sites (18 of 30, accounting for 22% of RHNA units) in Census Tracts 140 and 137. The City expects these areas will have the most improvements in terms of access to services, transit/walkability, and jobs as well as infrastructure improvements and parks/open space (see Figure App-77 legend and map). Sites were also distributed in the “residential area” (Ord Grove, Kimball, and Highland, labeled 4 in Figure App-77) where the General Plan’s major strategy for this area is to “maintain the overall scale and character, while improving current issues, such as lack of parking access to recreational parks and open spaces and improving the bicycle network.” In addition to the nine sites in these neighborhoods (15% of the total RHNA), the City expects that housing opportunities will increase in these the residential areas east of N Noche Buena Street primarily through ADUs.
The City’s Housing Plan includes strategies to incentivize ADU construction and increase access to these ADUs to lower income residents.
47 Numbered items below match the numbers of labels in map.
Packet Page 474
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-264
In addition, the City has allocated lower income units on a site in the former Fort Ord area, near Campus Town. This site is located near Campus Town and California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB). This area is identified as area “6” in the Major Strategies map in Figure App-77.
According to the General Plan, “[the] area is approximately 120 acres and is intended to be developed with up to 1,485 housing units, 250 hotel rooms, 150 square feet of retail, dining and entertainment, and 50,000 square feet of office, flex and makerspace with some light industrial, including opportunities to house start-up ventures that typically spin off from research at the University. These different uses will be connected and surrounded by new parks and recreational areas, and by supporting infrastructure.”
While placing low and moderate income units the Terrace, Laguna Grande, and Cabrillo areas (Census Tracts 137 and 140) appear to exacerbate current fair housing conditions, the City’s General Plan vision and implementation strategies and Housing Element’s Housing Plan commit to actions to improve the conditions in these areas. The City has aligned its RHNA strategy and AFFH actions with the visioning of the General Plan to increase access to opportunities to lower income households as well as improving current conditions. The City also has a comprehensive AFFH Action Plan that includes mobility strategies, increased housing opportunities, place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, protecting existing residents and businesses from displacement, and increased proactive outreach efforts to address disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, transform concentrated areas of minorities and low and moderate income and ultimately affirmatively further fair housing.
The sections below show the distribution of low and moderate income sites needed to meet the City’s remaining RHNA in relation to selected fair housing characteristics.
Packet Page 475
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-265
Figure App-77: Major Strategies in General Plan 2040
Packet Page 476
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-266
Figure App-78: Seaside Site Inventory
Packet Page 477
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-267
Packet Page 478
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-268
1. Distribution of RHNA Units
Distribution of RHNA units is based on the proposed General Plan capacity estimates given that the City’s strategies for growth and investment in the proposed General Plan were used in consideration of the selection of sites.
a. Distribution by Neighborhoods
As explained earlier, a significant portion (18 of 30) of the City’s sites are located in the Terrace and Cabrillo neighborhoods accounting for 22% of all RHNA units (Census Tracts 137 and 140, respectively, Table App-97). Terrace contains about 8% of the City’s lower income units and 27% of the City’s moderate income units. Cabrillo/East Cabrillo has only has moderate income units (29 units) which make up about 36 percent of all RHNA moderate income. As described earlier, although Terrance and Cabrillo/East Cabrillo are areas with a concentration of minorities and lower income households, these areas provide the most suitable housing opportunities as they are the areas being targeted for public investments and redevelopment.
About 17% of the City’s RHNA is located in Census Tract 136 in the Rousch neighborhood. Of the 54 units in Rousch, the majority (49) are lower income units and make up 20% of the City’s lower income RHNA. The City specifically identified the sites in Rousch as suitable for lower income units as they do not have the concentration of minorities, persons with disabilities, and LMI population that the adjacent Terrace and Cabrillo neighborhoods have while still being close to the “major strategy” areas identified in the General Plan Update. Units in Terrace, Cabrillo and Rousch are located within areas that have been identified by the City for improvements such as open space/parks, downtown improvements, bicycle connections as well as redevelopment with mixed-use centers and new employment districts (Figure App-77).
The City also identified seven sites in Old Grove (Census Tract 139) with a capacity for 10 lower income units and 17 moderate income units (8% of all RHNA). Old Grove is located north of Census Tracts 137 and 140 and does not have the concentration of minorities, low and moderate income population, and overcrowding that is present in Census Tract 137 and 140.
While parts of Old Grove are part of the mixed-use corridor envisioned by the General Plan Update and are close to transit and new expected amenities, three of the seven sites in Ord Grove were only deemed adequate for moderate income units due to size constraints (smaller than 0.5 acres). Still, these sites provide moderate income housing opportunities in areas without a concentration of issues but close to planned areas of development.
The City also identified one site in former Fort Ord area (Census Tract 141.09) with 156 lower income units, accounting for 63% of the City’s lower income RHNA. This site is located near Campus Town and California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB). Key elements of development in the Campus Town area will be focused on providing arts and entertainment, retail, housing, visitor lodging, and employment space for the University student and faculty population and the broader Seaside community to increase the overall economic opportunity available in the region. As such, situating lower income units in an area of expected redevelopment increases the housing opportunities for lower income households in areas with new opportunities.
Packet Page 479
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-269
Lastly, about 15% of the City’s RHNA are located in Kimball/Highland (Census Tract 135). All 30 units are lower income units, making up about 22% of the City’s lower income share. All of these units are located in two Church Sites- Victory Temple, which already has an agreement to have Campus Town’s offsite units and has an additional capacity for nine units and Hilltop United Methodist Church property with a FAR of 0.08 as most of the area is parking.
Kimball/Highland neighborhood (CT 135) has the lowest concentration of poverty and minorities.
By locating affordable housing here, lower income households have access to improved conditions.
Packet Page 480
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-270
Table App-97: RHNA Distribution by Tract Characteristics Nbrhood Tract
Tract
Total HH
Total
RHNA Lower Mod
%
Change1
% of
RHNA
% of
Lower
RHNA
% of
Mod
RHNA TCAC Score
% NonWhite
% Pop
with a
Disab.
% LMI
Pop
% Ovcrd
HH
% CB
Renter
% CB
Owner
Highland/
Kimball 135 1,787 17 9 8 1.0 5.2 3.7 9.9 Moderate 81.7 16.1 75.0 6.8 60.7 28.9 Rousch 136 1,448 54 49 5 3.7 16.6 20.1 6.2 Moderate 63.7 8.5 64.0 22.7 72.0 42.5 Terrace 137 1,400 42 20 22 3.0 12.9 8.2 27.2 Moderate 91.3 7.9 68.0 28.5 70.4 39.8 Ord Grove 139 930 27 10 17 2.9 8.3 4.1 21.0 Moderate 76.2 16.7 73.0 13.3 73.6 44.8 Cabrillo/
East of
Cabrillo2
140 833
29 29 3.5 8.9 0.0 35.8
Moderate 72.9 12.5 50.0 24.0 62.0 43.7
Former Fort
Ord 141.09 1011 156 156 0 15.4 48.0% 63.9 0.0 Moderate 45.5 6.0 49.8 2.8 65.1 27.6 Total Units 325 244 81
1. Represents the % increase in total households in the tract should the RHNA units anticipated be built.
2. 20 moderate income units are located in Census Tract 140 but outside the designated boundary of Cabrillo. These units are located west of Del Monte Boulevard. The area east of Del Monte Boulevard is within the Cabrillo neighborhood boundary.
Packet Page 481
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-271
b. Distribution by AFFH Characteristic
Segregation and Integration
Minority Population
The majority (82%) of the City’s RHNA units are located in areas with lower concentrations of minorities (non-White minority population is less than 60 percent). About 65% of lower income units are located in census tracts where only between 41 and 60 percent of the population are non-White minorities and 60 percent of moderate RHNA units are located in tracts where minority population ranges from 61 to 80%.
As shown in Figure App-79, minority populations are concentrated in census block groups within Olympia and Terrace as well as some block groups on Hannon and Highland. Over 81% of residents in these neighborhoods identify as minorities. About 18%of all RHNA units are located in block groups with the highest concentration of minority population.These neighborhoods with a high concentration of minorities are along Fremont Boulevard, which the City expects will be transformed from an auto- oriented corridor characterized by low density uses into a beautiful mixed-use corridor with higher-intensity mixed-use centers at Hilby Avenue, Broadway Avenue, and Echo Avenue. This provides the opportunity to create mixed-income communities near areas targeted for investment and improvements. For example, key stretches of Fremont Boulevard will be narrowed to create a more walkable, pedestrian-oriented street.
Table App-98: RHNA Unit Distribution by % Minority Concentration Lower Income RHNA Moderate Income RHNA Total RHNA Units ≤ 20% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
21 - 40% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
41 - 60% 65.0% 0.0% 48.0%
61 - 80% 24.6% 60.0% 33.8%
> 81% 10.4% 40.0% 18.2%
Total 240 85 325
Packet Page 482
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-272
Figure App-79: RHNA Distribution by Minority Concentration Packet Page 483
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-273
Persons with Disabilities
The lowest concentration of persons with disabilities is located in the Olympia, Terrace, and Rousch, and former Fort Ord neighborhoods. Less than 10% of the population in these neighborhoods has a disability. Since the City identified sites with a capacity for 252 units in these neighborhoods, about 76% of all RHNA units are located in tracts with the lowest concentration of persons with disabilities. RHNA units in these tracts are both lower income and moderate income, providing these special needs population housing opportunities near areas of expected development and investment.
Table App-99: RHNA Distribution by Percent Population with Disabilities Lower Income RHNA Moderate Total RHNA Units
< 10% 92.1% 36.5% 77.5%
10% - 20% 7.9% 63.5% 22.5%
20% - 30% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total 240 85 325
Figure App-80: RHNA Distribution by Percent Population with a Disability Packet Page 484
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-274
Packet Page 485
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-275
Children in Female-Headed Households
Most tracts in the City have less than 20% of children living in single female-headed households (Figure App-81). Only Tracts 140 (Cabrillo and Laguna Grande) and 135 (Noche Buena, Kimball, and Highland) have a concentration of children in single female-headed households between 20% and 30%. About 86% of the City’s RHNA units are located in tracts with a low concentration of children in female-headed households. Most lower income RHNA units (96%) are also located within these tracts with a low concentration of children in female-headed households.
Table App-100: RHNA Unit Distribution by % of Children in Single Female-Headed Households
Lower Income RHNA Moderate Total RHNA Units
< 20 % 96.3% 56.5% 85.8%
20% - 40% 3.8% 43.5% 14.2%
40% - 60% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
60% - 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
> 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 240 85 325
Figure App-81: RHNA Distribution by Percent Children in Single Female-Headed Households Packet Page 486
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-276
Packet Page 487
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-277
Low and Moderate Income Population
Tracts west of N Noche Buena Street and south of La Salle Avenue have the highest concentration of low and moderate income populations. Between 50% and 75% of persons in Olympia, Terrace, Rousch, Laguna Grande and Cabrillo neighborhood tracts earn low and moderate income. Since many of the major strategies for growth are located within these neighborhoods and the City identified sites within or near these areas of growth, about 43% of RHNA units are located in tracts with the highest concentration of LMI persons. The City also identified the sites for 10 lower income units and 17 moderate income units in Ord Grove Census Tract 139, where 42% of the population earns LMI incomes. The sites in Ord Grove are within the expected mixed-use corridor that extends from Plumas Avenue in the south to Military Avenue in the north along Freemont Boulevard. Freemont Boulevard is currently already well-connected with transit as there are three Monterey-Salinas Transit lines that travel through Freemont. The Çity also identified two sites in the Highland and Kimball neighborhood (Greater Victory Temple Church of God in Christ site and Hilltop church site), where only 32 percent of the population is lower income as sites for nine lower and eight moderate income units The Parker Flats site, which has a capacity for 156 lower income units is located in a site with a relatively low concentration of LMI population (49.8%) compared to the rest of the City. This contriniuted tp 65% of the City’s RHNA being located in tracts with the lowest concentration of lower income households (between 25 and 50 percent).
Table App-101: RHNA Unit Distribution by LMI Population Lower Income RHNA Moderate Income RHNA Total RHNA Units < 25% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
25% - 50% 65.0% 34.1% 56.9%
50% - 75% 35.0% 65.9% 43.1%
75% - 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 240 85 325
Figure App-82: RHNA Distribution by Percent Low and Moderate Income Population Packet Page 488
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-278
Packet Page 489
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-279
Access to Opportunities
TCAC Opportunity Resources
Figure App-83 shows that all census tracts in Seaside are considered moderate income. Even areas to the north outside of Seaside neighborhoods in the Former Fort Ord Area and Campus Town are moderate income. As a result, all RHNA units are located in tracts with Moderate resource. One of the strategies to affirmatively further fair housing is to create new housing opportunities in high resource areas. Since the City does not currently have any high resource tracts (and no tract has relatively higher resources than others) the City’s strategy in identifying RHNA sites relied on focusing sites in Tracts where improvements and investments are expected so that these new housing opportunities would be located in areas where resource levels are expected to increase.
Table App-102: RHNA Unit Distribution by TCAC Opportunity Resource Area Lower Income RHNA Moderate Income RHNA Total RHNA Units Moderate Resource 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total Units 240 85 325
Figure App-83: RHNA Distribution by TCAC Opportunity Resource Level Packet Page 490
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-280
Packet Page 491
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-281
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost-Burdened Households
Cost-burned renter households are found throughout the City but have the lowest concentrations in Hannon and Monte Heights. In all other neighborhoods, between 60% and 80% of renter households experienced housing cost burdens. Since the City considered proximity to and access to infrastructure, transit, job centers, and public or community services as well as future investment opportunities, for evaluating the appropriateness of sites, 95% of RHNA units are located in these tracts with the highest concentrations of cost-burdened renters. By increasing the availability of housing in these areas, residents may find affordable options near transit and services.
Cost-burdened owner households are dispersed throughout the City. Olympia, North Terrace, Noche Buena, Highland, Kimball, and Former Fort Ord neighborhoods had the lowest concentrations of cost-burdened owners while in the rest of the neighborhoods between 40% and 60% of owner households experienced cost-burdens. bout 66% of the City’s RHNA units are in tracts where the concentration of cost-burdened owners is lower- mainly located in northern Terrace at the intersection of Broadway Ave and Freemont Boulevard, Freemont Boulevard and Amador Avenue, and former Fort Ord. These sites in Terrace and Olympia provide low and moderate income opportunities for households near services and transit, promoting mobility to areas with better conditions. The Parker Flats site though not located within a High Quality Transit Area, (HQTA) is about ¼ mile away from the Campus Town development area which is expected to have retail, entertainment, park access, and other amenities available to the surrounding areas.
Table App-103: RHNA Unit Distribution by Cost-Burdened Renter Households Lower Income RHNA Moderate Income RHNA Total RHNA Units < 20 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
20% - 40% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
40% - 60% 3.8% 9.4% 5.2%
60% - 80% 96.3% 90.6% 94.8%
> 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 240 85 325
Table App-104: RHNA Unit Distribution by Cost-Burdened Owner Households Lower Income RHNA Moderate Income RHNA Total RHNA Units < 20 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
20% - 40% 75.4% 40.0% 66.2%
40% - 60% 24.6% 60.0% 33.8%
60% - 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
> 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 240 85 325
Figure App-84: RHNA Distribution by Percent Cost-Burdened Renter Households Packet Page 492
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-282
Figure App-85: RHNA Distribution by Percent Cost-Burdened Owner Households Packet Page 493
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-283
Packet Page 494
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-284
Overcrowded Households
Like LMI population, the concentration of overcrowded households is highest in Olympia/Terrace (Census Tract 137), Rousch (Census Tract 136), and Laguna Grande and Cabrillo (Census Tract 140). In these tracts, between 20% and 30% of households live in overcrowded conditions. The correlation between LMI population and overcrowding is not surprising given that high housing costs may be forcing households to double-up or live in housing that is not the correct size for the households.
These overcrowded households areas cover the expected mixed-use corridors and areas of development laid out in the General Plan. About 39% of all RHNA units and 27% of lower income RHNA are located in tracts with the highest concentrations of overcrowding in the City. These sites are expected to improve overcrowding conditions by providing new affordable new housing opportunities in areas of need. In addition, as explained earlier, housing opportunities for moderate income households outside of these areas of overcrowded households are also provided through ADUs. While the lower density residential neighborhoods are not as close to transit and services, moderate income households are more likely to have access to cars to reach these services and mixed-use centers.
Table App-105: RHNA Unit Distribution by % Overcrowded Households Lower Income RHNA Moderate Income RHNA Total RHNA Units ≤ 8.2 (Statewide Average) 68.8% 9.4% 53.2%
8.2- 12% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
12.01-15% 4.2% 20.0% 8.3%
15.01- 20% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
20.01- 30% 27.1% 70.6% 38.5%
Total Units 240 85 325
Figure App-86: RHNA Distribution by Percent Overcrowded Households Packet Page 495
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-285
Packet Page 496
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-286
Packet Page 497
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-287
Displacement Risk
UC Berkley’s 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 UCB’s team 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 were identified throughout the City in all neighborhoods except Hannon,Del Monte Heights, and former Fort Ord. Because Hannon and Del Monte Heights are far from “major strategy” areas in the General Plan or current transit and services, they were not considered suitable for sites. The Former Ford Ord area is not considered at risk of displacement and is close to the Campus Town Specific Plan area, so it was deemed suitable for lower income units. As a result, 48% of RHNA units are located in neighborhoods not sensitive to displacement.
The other 52 percent of RHNA units are located in areas vulnerable to displacement. The majority of these units are located in Terrace and Cabrillo. While these residents in these areas are sensitive to displacement, the sites selected are mostly vacant or sites with underutilized commercial uses and their development is not expected to displace any residents. The City currently employs a full-time staff member to conduct proactive multi-lingual outreach to educate small business owners regarding potential financing and access to low-cost capital. This could be a resource to assist businesses at risk of displacement. At this time, the City has determined that anti-displacement policies focused on this area could have the effect of hindering the redevelopment of those sites. However, in 2026, the City will evaluate development and displacement conditions and explore actions like right of first refusal and relocation assistance for displaced residents and businesses.
Table App-106: RHNA Distribution by Vulnerable Communities Lower Income RHNA Moderate Income RHNA Total RHNA Units Not Vulnerable 65.0% 0.0% 48.0%
Vulnerable 35.0% 100.0% 52.0%
Total Units 240 85 325
Packet Page 498
City of Seaside Technical Appendix
2023-2031 Housing Element APP-288
Figure App-87: RHNA Distribution by Vulnerable Communities Packet Page 499
DRAFT RESOLUTION
Before the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission, State of California
Resolution No. 23- 009
Finding the proposed amendment to the City
of Seaside’s Housing Element (General Plan)
consistent with the 2019 Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Monterey
Regional Airport.
REF230032, City of Seaside (multiple
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers)
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2023, the City of Seaside (City) submitted an ALUC application for a proposed amendment (update) to the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan (ALUC File No. REF230032) to ALUC staff; and WHEREAS, the ALUC is responsible for review of projects within the Airport Influence Area for Monterey Regional Airport, as identified in the 2019 ALUCP; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Housing Element amendment would evaluate the City’s existing and projected housing needs, review previous goals and programs, inventory sites within the City, identify housing constraints, discuss development of housing programs to address needs, and list quantifiable objectives; and WHEREAS, as proposed, the amendment would demonstrate that the City has adequate sites available to accommodate its 6th cycle Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA), based on statewide and regional estimates determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); and WHEREAS, HCD does not mandate that these units be constructed; yet, requires that the City demonstrate available vacant lands to meet the projected housing need (RHNA). No specific housing or development projects within the City’s current jurisdiction are proposed as part of the Housing Element update. Future Zoning Ordinance amendments will be required to help accommodate the encouraged and foreseeable development projects and shall be subject to separate ALUC review; and WHEREAS, the City has identified numerous infill properties and pipeline projects within the City boundaries that would meet the City’s RHNA requirements.
These lands are located entirely within Safety Zone 7 (Airport Influence Area), as shown in ALUCP Exhibit 4C (Monterey Regional Airport Safety Zones); and WHEREAS, the proposed Housing Element amendment was reviewed for consistency with the Long Range Noise Contour Exposure Maps for Monterey Regional Airport. The lands proposed for potential future residential uses are located outside of the 65 (or greater) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour. In accordance with the ALUCP Table 4A (Noise Compatibility Criteria Matrix), all of the proposed residential sites are located outside of the 65 CNEL and are a compatible use with no Packet Page 500
AYES: Commissioners Carbone, Cleveland, Cohan, McGregor, Stewart
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Williamson and Scherer
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST
Craig Spencer, Secretary to the ALUC
By: ___________________________________________
Fionna Jensen, Designee of Secretary to the ALUC
October 23, 2023
restrictions. Therefore, the proposed amendment and foreseeable development is consistent with the ALUCP with regard to noise compatibility criteria, and no further conditions regarding noise are recommended; and
WHEREAS, all proposed housing inventory sites are located within Safety Zone 7, which does not establish residential density restrictions, and therefore the development encouraged by the Housing Element amendment will be a compatible use; and WHEREAS, no development is proposed with implementation of the Housing Element amendment and therefore no hazards to flight will directly occur with adoption of the amendment. Future development of the identified sites may be subject to ALUC review and approval to determine ALUCP compatibility and potential hazards to flight; WHEREAS, the ALUC has reviewed the proposed amendment for noise compatibility, airspace protection, safety compatibility and other flight hazards and determined that no additional recommended conditions are necessary; and WHEREAS, potential application of ALUC conditions would be better suited during ALUC consistency determination of any future General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Map amendments for a specific development proposal; and WHEREAS, a complete copy of the proposed amendment is on file with the ALUC staff, and a link to the full Draft Housing Element is included in the ALUC October 23, 2023 staff report; and
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2023, the ALUC conducted a duly noticed public meeting to consider the proposed amendments to the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission does hereby find the City of Seaside’s draft Housing Element consistent with the 2019 ALUCP for Monterey Regional Airport, incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 23rd day of October 2023, upon motion of Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner McGregor, by the following vote, to-wit:
Packet Page 501
Packet Page 502
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
October 19, 2023
Andrew Myrick, Manager
Department of Economic Development and Community Planning City of Seaside
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
Dear Andrew Myrick:
RE: City of Seaside 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Seaside’s (City) draft housing element received for review on July 21, 2023, along with revisions received on October 12, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on September 12, 2023, with you, Alexia Rapoport, Housing Program Manager, and Consultants Alexis Bueno and Veronica Tam. In addition, HCD considered comments from David Kellogg, LandWatch, and Michael DeLapa pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).
The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.
Public participation in the development, adoption, and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, that any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (December 15, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) shall be Packet Page 503
Andrew Myrick, Manager