Monterey City Council
September 19, 2023

_________________________________________________
Petrovich Development Company, LLC 825 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 every letter of my commitments to the City under the ENA. This now brought my total risk capital without a purchase agreement to over $1.5 million!
In September of 2018, I resubmitted the plan with the lower water allocation. MCWD officially approved this allocation (See Exhibit B). I was told by City Staff the matter was settled and no one could take this water allocation away from the Main Gate project.

The entire plan with all its tax generating uses and jobs is dependent on all 212-acre feet of potable water due to many reasons including the enormous amount of infrastructure to develop all 56 acres. After three years of studying the development and hiring the best civil engineers to work through all its challenges, the cost to develop Main Gate exceeds $28 million for the offsite improvements and backbone infrastructure and another $20 million for on site improvements before buildings can be constructed. Most of this cost is required to develop a single acre of Main Gate. The project is barely feasible with 212-acre feet of potable water. The cost to use recycled water and plumb all the fixtures with two systems as identified in the DEIR for Campus Town makes Main Gate financially infeasible and the City will lose the muchanticipated tax revenue, jobs and much needed physical services for the City and CSUMB. With less than 212-acre feet of water and the enormous amount of money needed to develop even the first acre of Main Gate, it no longer works economically to develop the project whether it be my company or anybody else’s.

Please understand this letter is not intended to throw every possible roadblock it could at the Campus Town project like others do as a matter of course. I am in favor of the Campus Town project becoming a reality in the fullness of time to help support Main Gate and vice versa.

However, it should not be processed in manner that does not destroy the financial feasibility of Main Gate whether I am the ultimate developer of the Main Gate project or not.

I am speaking to you as your chosen developer to bring Main Gate to fruition, not as an environmental group trying to snuff out all projects. I also hope you appreciate that I am not hiding behind some fictious “community group” with this comment letter and am putting my single objection upfront under my name. The focus of this comment letter is on the single issue that directly effects the Main Gate project, the City, CSUMB and PDC. I am also a resident of the region. The goal is to make all projects become reality. Through this letter, it is my hope that the City corrects the defects of the DEIR for the Project relative to the approach taken on water. The proposed reallocation of existing water supplies alone renders the DEIR fatally defective through the flawed treatment of the Project’s inadequate water supply.

Taking water allocated by the City that supports the approval of three projects in order to support approval of a fourth project not only reeks of unfair business dealing, it is a blatant example of the “paper water” argument that LandWatch and others accuse every governmental agency of doing in the region which they claim violates CEQA law. It has been argued that California law does not authorize cities to issue WSAs verifying adequacy of water supplies. The 3-469 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1155, Packet Page 1278 Mr. Overmeyer
Re: Campus Town Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH#2018021079
August 22, 2019

_________________________________________________
Petrovich Development Company, LLC 825 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 “updated” WSA prepared by the City and used in this DEIR according to many has no legal validity and cannot stand as a legally adequate basis for this EIR. Again, I want Campus Town to become reality and to do so as soon as possible because it helps the region, CSUMB and Main Gate, but this is the wrong path to follow. In fact, this approach will delay Campus Town from becoming a reality in the short term because the updated WSA won’t stand up if challenged by the usual environmental groups that make a living doing so.

The DEIR discloses there is a 301+ acre feet shortfall of water for Campus Town. The developer of Campus Town should be required to do what I did as the developer of Main Gate:
reduce the size of the project to meet available water supply. Over time, with all of us working together, more water can be made available through the longer-term solutions that have been describe to me by City Staff and all sites can reach their potential as opposed to killing Main Gate now when Campus Town is requesting approval for a 30+ year supply of residential units based on the pace residential development over the past two decades of residential development.

In summary, the DEIR for Campus Town is fatally flawed and should be redrafted to solve its water issues without impacting not one but three projects that are critically important to the City, CSUMB and the region. Campus Town should be required to stand on its own two feet relative to water and not devastate other developments to the detriment of the City and other interested parties. The city should avoid stepping into the very arguments being used as a weapon against all projects in the region and not attempt to create a never before imagined Water Offset Program without any analysis as to the environmental and economic impacts.

Yours truly,
Paul Petrovich
Petrovich Development Company, LLC
Attachment – MCDW’s Denial Letter
MCDW’s Approval Letter
3-470 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1156, Packet Page 1279 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 14
COMMENTER: Paul Petrovich, Petrovich Development Company, LLC DATE: August 22, 2019
Response 14.1 through 14.3
The comment provides an overview of their potential modifications to Main Gate Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment (WSA). The comment references Main Gate water consumption of up to 350 AFY, and asserts that the Main Gate project “lost 138-acre feet of potable water.” However, this is not accurate. The Main Gate Specific Plan was approved in August 2010, with an estimated EIR water demand ranging from 207.9 AFY to 213.1 AFY (with only 149 AFY allocated), not 350 AFY (City of Seaside 2008: page 4.13-9). The EIR for that project analyzed gross square footage ranging from approximately 775,000 square feet to 843,500 square feet, however the City issued an RFP for less than maximum buildout (i.e., only 650,000 square feet)32 The commenter also suggests that the Main Gate project should not be required to utilize recycled water and “is barely feasible with 212-acre feet of potable water.” The comment also suggests that the Campus Town EIR has proposed “[a] reallocation of existing water supplies.” However, use of recycled water at the Main Gate project has been expressly contemplated since its original approval.

The Main Gate Specific Plan, which was approved in August 2010, expressly states “When recycled water becomes available in the region, landscape uses within the [Main Gate] plan area and other areas would convert to recycled water, allowing the City to reallocate potable groundwater to other uses…The project’s irrigation system is planned [to] be designed to connect to that recycled water system once completed, reducing potable water demand by nearly 22 AFY” (City of Seaside 2010:
page 6-2 and 6-3). Similarly, the updated WSA referenced in the comment also includes substantial discussion of recycled water use on the Main Gate site, including up to 52.99 AFY of recycled water (2018 Main Gate WSA, Table 2-2).33 While the Main Gate Specific Plan was approved in 2010, no specific development permits have been issued for that project. As such, the City of Seaside may still further condition Main Gate project to be consistent with the existing Specific Plan directive to utilize recycled water.

As stated in the Draft EIR, there is a discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 180.6 AFY of available potable water supply (Draft EIR page ES-33).

However, water supply impacts on the Proposed Project will be less than significant with the adoption of mitigation measures, which include water offset programs. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, this includes potable water offset programs and in-lieu storage programs, which replace existing potable water uses within the Seaside sub-basin with recycled water uses. This approach is consistent with CEQA (Watsonville Pilots Association v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1091 [upholding analysis where the urban project relied upon water which was offset from prior agricultural uses]). Please refer to pages ES-33 and 4.9-25 of the Draft EIR for more information on the water offset programs.
32 As explained in the 2016 Main Gate request for proposal “[t]he City has also committed sufficient potable water for development of approximately 650,000 square feet of commercial building space on the site.” 33 The Main Gate WSA was approved by MCWD during their board meeting on November 19, 2018. The agenda packet and meeting video are available at the following links, respectively:
https://mcwd.org/docs/agenda_minutes/2018-11-19_board/2018-11-19.pdf https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/m_3HX6961GRMsvkqSCdwmGeJ8rwpRZrR/media/395494?fullscreen=false&showtabssearch=true &autostart=false
3-471 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1157, Packet Page 1280 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
In addition, California policy encourages the use of recycled water because it maximizes the beneficial use of the state’s water resources. (See California Constitution Article X, Section 2; Water Code Section 100; see also Water Code Section 275.) Indeed, the California Legislature has declared that, when recycled water is available, using potable water for non-potable uses “is a waste and unreasonable use of water within the meaning of Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution.” (See Water Code Section 13550.)
The commenter also asserts that the EIR should “be required to…reduce the size of the project…” The Draft EIR already analyzed a reduced density alternative. (See Draft EIR Section 6.) An EIR is not required to analyze multiple variations of project alternatives. 3-472 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1158, Packet Page 1281 >>> David Lesikar <[email protected]> 8/22/2019 4:50 PM >>> To:

Kurt Overmeyer
Economic Development Department
City of Seaside
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside California 93955
Re: The Campus Town DEIR
Dear Mr Overmeyer,
I’ve happily resided in Seaside as a homeowner since 2013, and — since my birth in Santa Maria in 1949 — I have resided only near the California coast, in every county touched by US 101 from San Diego to San Francisco.

Regarding the Campus Town Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2019 (DEIR), I describe below some changes and additions to the DEIR that I believe would have a relatively high benefit-to-cost ratio for the value and/or attractiveness of Campus Town.

Climate Change
I want to address the DEIR’s sobering summary of the very large economic losses forecast to result from climate change (page 4.7-1). These potential losses compel me to suggest — in the bullet points below — what I believe are relatively cost-effective anti-climate change features that could be built into Campus Town, but aren’t called for by its DEIR.

As much as is feasible, Campus Town should take full advantage of the fact that our Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) is supplying us with carbon-free electricity (hydroelectric, solar, and wind) as the default to all customers in its area, and its MBprime option is 100%-renewable carbon-free electricity (solar, wind, and storage only) — for only $0.01 extra per kilowatt hour.(1) Because of this, MBCP’s main goal has become to encourage and induce customers to make the switch — step by step — from fossil fuels to carbon-free electricity.(2) MBCP plans to do this by promoting charging stations; by providing rebates for buying electric vehicles and rebates for replacing natural gas appliances with electric appliances; and by continuing to push their electricity-generation rates farther below PG&E’s: MBCP’s electricity-generation rates are already 5% below PG&E’s, and are extremely likely to go lower as MBCP finishes building up cash reserves and as they continue to take advantage of the falling costs of renewable electricity and electricity storage.(1)(2)(3) For ground-transportation vehicles, the switch to electricity should be relatively easy because of electric vehicle’s lower fuel costs — and much lower maintenance costs: For example, the 5-year cost of ownership of the 240-mile-range version of the Tesla Model 3 has been estimated to be

4.5% lower than that of the Toyota Camry LE.(4)
In light of MBCP’s carbon-free energy at lower and lowering rates (as detailed in the preceding paragraph), Seaside’s Campus Town project should:
• Require the developer to sign up for MBprime 100%-renewable carbon-free electricity for all of Campus Town’s electric meters.
• Support the switch from fossil fuel to carbon-free-electric vehicles and appliances:
• Require electric-heat-pump building heating and cooling: I spoke extensively about this with a junior partner and family member of Carswell Heating and Sheet Metal, which is the local contractor for Costco’s heating & air conditioning offer. (He stated that the Campus Town project would be far too large for Carswell to bid on its HVAC work.) He also stated that — taking into account both Campus Town’s microclimate and that Campus Town would be of passive-solar design with the code-required good insulation — he would recommend air-source heat pumps without any supplemental electrical-resistance space heating (except — perhaps — in bathrooms). He estimated that — compared with moderately-highefficiency natural-gas heating and electric air conditioning — moderately-high-efficiency air-source heat pumps would cost about 40% more to provide and install, and about 25% more to operate and maintain. But if, as expected, the price of our electricity decreases over the years, then the cost to operate heat-pumps will decrease.
3-473 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1159, Packet Page 1282 • Require hybrid electric-heat-pump water heaters: Consumer Reports has published “If your electric water heater is near the end of its life—13 years is average—switching to a hybrid heater could lower your waterheating bills by $350 a year. They meld a standard electric water heater with a heat pump that captures warmth from the air. Those we’ve tested could lower bills by about 60 percent compared with an electric heater.”(5)
• Because electrically heated clothes dryers, ovens and stove tops are already commonly used in our area (according to the Carswell Heating junior partner cited two rectangular bullet-points above), let’s prohibit natural-gas versions of these appliances in Campus Town. • To provide for a future (probably within 2 to 4 decades) when the majority of ground transportation will be running on electricity instead of fossil fuel, it would be wise to stub out, to all of Campus Town’s unenclosed parking areas, enough electrical transmission capacity to cover the gap between (a) the the amount of electric vehicle charging required by current code, and (b) at least Level-2 charging for about half of all parking spaces not only for living units that lack garage parking, but also for employee parking at places of work. In addition, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measure GHG-1(b) should — in addition to requiring one installed single-port Level-2 charging station per single-family residence — require wiring that is stubbed to a convenient location for one additional Level-2 charging station for each additional residential-garage parking space, as well as sufficient and proper electrical-panel breaker capacity to support all installed and stubbed out Level-2 charging stations in the garage. • To the extent that the above suggestions for electrification of Campus Town are incorporated into its final construction plans, it needs to be ensured that this project provides sufficient electricity-distribution capacity and wiring to Campus Town as a whole — and to each building and parking lot.

Affordable Housing
For cost-effective low-income-workforce housing for our area, it would be good to provide multi-story mediumquality apartments that have, for example, vinyl flooring and countertops instead of hardwood/stone/tile flooring and stone/tile countertops — and moderately priced fixtures. In addition to locating this kind of apartments in the Commercial Center Sub-Area and the University Village Sub-Area (page 4.10-510), I believe that it would be very advantageous to locate more such multi-story medium-quality apartments across Street A from the hotel, to accommodate hotel workers and others.

Existing large Monterey Cypress trees
To further enhance the attractiveness of ready-for-occupancy Campus Town to homeowners, tenants, and visitors: The large, healthy (and beautiful) Monterey Cypress trees (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) that exist here and there in the project area should be built around — not built or paved over — to the extent that is feasible, by adjusting the location and design of structures and paved surfaces.

Sincerely,
David Lesikar
Seaside homeowner since 2013
References
(1) https://www.mbcommunitypower.org
(2) Statements made by boardmembers and staff at MBCP meetings that I’ve attended as a member of the public. (3) https://www.tesla.com/blog/introducing-megapack-utility-scale-energy-storage - July 29, 2019 (4) https://loupventures.com/tesla-model-3-cost-of-ownership-slightly-cheaper-than-a-camry/ - July 26, 2019 (5) https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/10/bright-ideas-that-save-energy-and-money/index.htm - August 2013
3-474 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1160, Packet Page 1283 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 15
COMMENTER: David Lessikar
DATE: August 22, 2019
Response 15.1
The commenter states that the Project should require the developer to implement the following measures which the commenter incorrectly asserts “aren’t called for by the DEIR” for Monterey Bay Community Power’s (“MBCP”) carbon-free electricity option, support electric vehicles and appliances, require electric heating and cooling, require hybrid electric heat-pump water heaters, prohibit natural gas large appliances, include electric vehicle charging spaces, and provide sufficient electricity-distribution capacity and wiring to each building and parking lot.

Contrary to the assertion in the comment, many of these provisions are already incorporated into the Project, and additional measures are not needed to reduce the Project’s GHG impacts to less than significant. As discussed in Impact GHG-1, while the Project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, these impacts would be rendered less than significant by incorporated mitigation measures, which reduce the Project’s operational GHG emissions to net zero. Because there are no post-mitigation GHG emissions impacts, the Draft EIR need not include any additional mitigation measures.

Regarding the suggestion to use MBCP carbon-free electricity, as stated in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, MBCP is the default energy provider in the Plan Area; therefore, future residents would already take advantage of this program. The Draft EIR notes that although future residents and tenants would have the option to opt out of MBCP’s services and connect to Pacific Gas and Electric (“PG&E”) service, approximately 97 percent of accounts maintain enrollment with MBCP (Draft EIR page 4.7-10). MBCP’s emits only 2 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of power produced; in comparison, PG&E emits 641.35 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of power produced. The Project would also comply with the new California Building Code requirements, which require installation of solar (see Draft EIR page 4.7-7 and 4.7-10). Under Title 24, all low-rise residential units are required to have rooftop solar panels; the Project would comply with Title 24. In addition, for high-rise residential and commercial units, the GGRP requires rooftop solar that is designed to net out the energy use of those buildings. As required by Mitigation Measures GHG-1(a) and GHG-1(d), the Project applicant would be required to mitigate all of the Project’s GHG emissions to achieve a net zero increase in GHG emissions above baseline conditions.

Regarding electric vehicles, the commenter proposes that the developer “stub out” enough electrical transmission capacity to unenclosed parking areas such that there could be Level-2 charging stations at half of all spots, including spots to be used by employees. The commenter also proposes that, in addition to the EV charging station requirements found in GHG-1(b), the developer “stub out” sufficient wiring and infrastructure to allow an additional Level-2 charging station for “each additional residential-garage parking space.” The Specific Plan Building Type Standards in Section 4.6.2 already require “An electrical conduit shall be installed at the time of construction to facilitate the future installation of EV charging stations to at least 10 percent of parking spaces.” Additionally, the Green House Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) already includes “Equip each single-family residence within the Plan Area with one single-port EV charging station. The EV charging stations shall achieve a similar or better functionality as a Level 2 charging station.” The GGRP also requires charging stations for commercial facilities, more specifically “Provide charging opportunities to at 3-475 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1161, Packet Page 1284 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
least the number of parking spaces required by the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Tier 1 requirements. Commercial buildings include retail, light industrial, office, hotel, and mixed-use buildings. The EV charging stations shall achieve a similar or better functionality as a Level 2 charging station.”
The commenter also suggests installing more than one electric vehicle charging station in individual homes. This suggestion is not anticipated to reduce GHG emissions further; most electric vehicle owners do not have a commute which would necessitate the need for daily electric vehicle charging,34 consequently homes with more than one electric vehicle are unlikely to need two electric vehicle chargers. Additionally, homes with more than one electric vehicle would be able to use the Level 2 charging station for the first vehicle and would be able to use standard wall outlets for Level 1 charging of subsequent vehicles as needed. Furthermore, homeowners which desire such an option would not be precluded from installed a second charger.

The commenter also recommends that the EIR encourage the switch from natural-gas-powered appliances, including stoves and water heaters, to electric appliances. Specifically, the commenter recommends requiring electric-heat-pump building heating and cooling, and hybrid electric-heat pump water heaters. The Project is already required to comply with newly implemented, and stringent standards for such fixtures under the updated California Building Code. The California Building Code (Title 24, Cal. Code Regs.) is an area of law heavily regulated by the California Building Standards Commission who reviews and updates the Code every three years for feasibility (Health and Safety Code § 18949.6). The California Building Code standards which go into effect in 2020 already contain highly stringent energy efficiency standards, and from a policy perspective the City is not currently proposing to second guess the decisions of the agency tasked with making such feasibility decisions, which are continuously being updated (see Draft EIR page 4.7-6).

Since publication of the Draft EIR, the Project applicant has prepared the GGRP, which identifies a suite of actions that would achieve compliance with Mitigation Measures GHG-1(a) and GHG-1(d) as required by the Draft EIR. Please see Appendix P.

Response 15.2
The commenter recommends providing vinyl flooring and countertops and moderately priced fixtures for low-income housing, and locating more multi-story medium-quality apartments across Street A from the hotel for hotel workers and others.

As noted in Draft EIR Section 2.4.1 “the Proposed Project would provide affordable housing consistent with the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance (Seaside Municipal Code Sections 17.32 and 17.33). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, “[a]n EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project” such as the use of less expensive building materials or the location of multistory apartments near the proposed hotel, which does not substantially change the design of the Project to reduce environmental effects. The comment pertains to building material preferences and a suggested reorganization of proposed land uses, and does not address the adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, further response is not warranted.
34 The average miles driven per day of a plug-in electric vehicle in California is between 15 and 30 miles, with few users driving more than 45 miles (California Center for Sustainable Energy 2013). Typical electric vehicles can travel between 150 and 310 miles on one charge (Coren 2019).
3-476 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1162, Packet Page 1285 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 15.3
The commenter recommends preserving Monterey Cypress trees within the Plan Area, and designing around these trees.

The commenter does not suggest tree removal would cause a significant environmental impact, but rather proposes preserving existing trees to “further enhance the attractiveness” of the Project to homeowners, tenants, and visitors. The Specific Plan provides detailed standards and guidelines regarding the use of landscaping, including trees, for aesthetic purposes (Specific Plan Section 3.5).

Please refer to Response 9.27 regarding tree replacement plantings. Tree replacement requirements include replacing Monterey Cypress trees as on-site street trees or off-site trees at a ratio of 1:1.2. 3-477 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1163, Packet Page 1286 From: "David Lesikar <[email protected]>" <[email protected]> Date: August 22, 2019 at 9:14:07 PM PDT
To: "Kurt Overmeyer" <[email protected]>
Subject: Here’s my summary comment regarding my comments on Campus Town’s DEIR! Campus Town could be the world’s first town designed for a mostly electric-vehicle future! 3-478 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1164, Packet Page 1287 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 16
COMMENTER: David Lessikar
DATE: August 22, 2019
Response 16.1
The commenter states the Project could be designed for an electric future. Please refer to Response

15.1 regarding the commenter’s suggestions. The comment pertains to a preference for electric vehicles and does not address the adequacy of the EIR or CEQA process. The comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body.
3-479 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1165, Packet Page 1288 >>> Fred Watson <[email protected]> 8/22/2019 2:05 PM >>> Dear Kurt,
Please extend the deadline for Campus Town DEIR comments by one week.

Only learned today of the existence of the DEIR, and I believe the comments are due today.

I may be wrong, but I don't *think* I received the Notice of Availability, which would be surprising given that - as a community leader of the FORTAG project - I attended multiple events during the charrette for Campus Town and have maintained a fairly regular communication with City Staff about Campus Town and related projects.

Many thanks,
Fred Watson
3-480 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1166, Packet Page 1289 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 17
COMMENTER: Fred Watson
DATE: August 22, 2019
Response 17.1
The commenter requests a deadline extension for comments on the Draft EIR. The commenter states they may not have received a copy of the NOA.

The Notice of Availability was available on the City of Seaside’s Campus Town Project website and was published on July 8, 2019. The comment period for the Draft EIR started on July 8, 2019 and ended on August 22, 2019 for a total of 45 days, which satisfies the 45-day public review period set forth in Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. August 22, 2019 was the end date for receiving comments on the Proposed Project. However, please also see Response 18.1 through Response

18.6. 3-481 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1167, Packet Page 1290 Comments on the Campus Town Specific Plan
23 Aug 2019
Fred Watson, community co-leader of the FORTAG project
It is appreciated that the Specific Plan acknowledges FORTAG and includes a Class IV bikeway along Malmedy. Some important associated details are as follows:

1. Figure 1.7. The caption is ambiguous about what is included in the “previously proposed bicycle network”. The preceding text mentions FORTAG, but the proposed FORTAG spurs to and through Campus Town are not shown on the map.

2. Page 37 – Fig 2.9. This conceptual bike network diagram should be clearer about the class of bicycle connections between the three “T” symbols. The connections between the three “T”s should all be physically separate from vehicles (i.e. Class I or IV) except at intersections. For example:
a. A safe Class IV connection along Malmedy is clear, but the map also indicates that this transitions to a less-safe Class II connection on Lightfighter before reaching the FORTAG “T” that heads northwest to the CSUMB campus.
b. It is unclear how a safe (i.e. physically separate from vehicles) bike connection is made between the north end of Malmedy and the FORTAG “T” to the east, on the north side of the “Campus Adjacent” section of the project (where an historic road bed exists crossing the CSUMB Southern Oak Woodlands).
c. It is unclear what class of bike facility is proposed along Gigling. From other parts of the Specific Plan, we can infer that this will be Class I under the transmission lines along the northern side of Gigling. But it is unclear how the connection is made along and across Gigling, from Malmedy to the southern FORTAG “T”. The map seems to suggest a midblock crossing, which doesn’t seem optimal.

3. Page 43 – lower left.
a. Please also state here that these connections to the FORTAG spurs will occur at accessible gradients. This is a crucial conceptual design element at this stage; and it needs to clearly inform subsequent engineering & grading design. b. Please also state the rationale for the location of these connections, which includes:
i. That there is a desired regional flow of bike and pedestrian traffic to and through Campus Town extending from CSUMB Main Campus Library/Quad area to existing bike facilities in Seaside that extend as far north as the intersection of Normandy Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard
ii. That bikeways should generally follow terrain contours, which in this area generally run in a south-west to north-east direction (See Fig. 1.4) iii. Bikeways should reach CSUMB at key focal points i.e. the Tanimura & Antle Library (east end of Divarty) and planned Recreation Center (further west along Divarty)
iv. That the eastern of the two northern connections should follow the historic road bed that runs through the CSUMB Southern Oak Woodlands v. That the southern connection should follow the wide north-south high-voltage transmission line easement parallel to and east of General Jim Moore Boulevard (GJMB) as far as Normandy, substantially reducing the risk of vehicles striking 3-482 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1168, Packet Page 1291 cyclists on the section of GJMB north of Normandy (the section that does not have a Class I bike facility).

4. Page 49 - Sec 3.2.2; Page 56 – Fig. 3.4; Page 64 – Fig. 3.8; Page 65 – lower-right photograph.

We appreciate the 10-ft Class IV bikeway on Malmedy.

5. The specific plan should more specifically indicate how bike and pedestrian traffic would be able to move through Campus Town safely and accessibly from the southern FORTAG-spur connection point to either of the two northern FORTAG-spur connection points in a manner that is physically separate from vehicles. For example:
a. Page 56 – Fig. 3.4. A FORTAG spur is proposed to connect north and northeast from this Malemedy/Lightfighter intersection toward the CSUMB Main Campus near the planned CSUMB recreation center. There is substantial terrain in this area. The specific plan should indicate how the connection occur at accessible gradients. b. Page 93. We appreciate this pedestrian-oriented interface between Campus Town and the CSUMB Southern Oak Woodlands. It should be made clear how cyclists will be able to traverse this area from the historic road bed north of Col Durham (near where the Army Gymnasium used to be) to the north end of Malmedy. Are cyclists intended to use what is drawn as more of a pedestrian (i.e. non-bike) boulevard, in order to avoid sharing the roadway with vehicles on Col Durham?

6. Page 198. The plan is unclear about whether reconstruction of Malmedy road is in Phase 1 or Phase 2. It should be in the first phase, including the Class IV bikeway. 3-483 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1169, Packet Page 1292 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 18
COMMENTER: Fred Watson
DATE: August 23, 2019
Response 18.1
The commenter states appreciation for provision of a Class 4 bikeway along Malmedy. The commenter states the caption on Figure 1.7 is ambiguous regarding the “previously proposed bicycle network.”
The “previously proposed bicycle network” referenced by the title of Figure 1.7 refers to the “future bicycle network” dashed lines shown in the figure. This includes bicycle network improvements that have been proposed previously and are anticipated to be constructed in the future.

Section 1.9.5 of the Specific Plan explains that Figure 1.7 shows the existing and previously planned bicycle facilities within and surrounding the Plan Area. That section also states that FORTAG plans for connections to and through the Plan Area. The FORTAG bicycle network has only been proposed and is not currently existing in the Plan Area.

Response 18.2
The commenter states Figure 2.9 is unclear regarding the class of bicycle connections between the three “T” symbols. The commenter recommends the “T” symbols be physically separate from vehicles (Class 1 or Class 4) except at intersections.

Figure 2.9 of the Specific Plan has been updated to indicate a Class I bikeway along the linear park under the power lines; this revised figure can be viewed in Section 4, Amendments to the Draft EIR.

Bikeways on CSUMB campus are not within the Plan Area, which includes the Class II connection on Lightfighter Drive heading north and FORTAG connection along this route. The primary connection to the FORTAG trail, indicated by the “T” symbol, is at the Malmedy Road/Lightfighter Drive transition, with the connection along Colonel Durham Street a neighborhood connection serving the Monterey School of Law. There is not adequate space to create a separated bike facility on Colonel Durham Street, as described in Response 18.5.

The FORTAG connection along Gigling Road is shown for informational purposes; the classification and exact connection orientation is at the discretion of the Transportation Agency of Monterey County, which is the lead agency for the FORTAG project. Gigling Road is outside the Plan Area and beyond the scope of the Project.

Response 18.3
The commenter requests revisions on page 43, including that connections to FORTAG spurs will be at accessible gradients, and requests rationale for the location of certain bikeway connections.

The following statement has been added to page 43 of the Specific Plan (Appendix B to the Draft EIR):

Connection to the FORTAG spurs will occur at accessible gradients where feasible and to the extent that those connections fall within the boundary of this Specific Plan. 3-484 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1170, Packet Page 1293 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
The following statement has been added to the Specific Plan (Appendix B to the Draft EIR):

There is a desired regional flow of bike and pedestrian traffic to and through Campus Town extending from CSUMB Main Campus Library/Quad area to existing bike facilities in Seaside that extend as far north as the intersection of Normandy Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard.

Bikeways are part of the mobility network, which includes streets, sidewalks, and pathways; and terrain contours were considered during route selection for bikeway improvements. The commenter’s suggestion regarding bikeways on the CSUMB campus are not applicable to the Project, as this is outside the Plan Area. The commenter’s proposed route along the high-voltage transmission line easement parallel to General Jim Moore Boulevard is also outside the Plan Area and not applicable to the Project. Please see Response to Comment 1.19, for discussion of bicycle improvements and access.

Response 18.4
The commenter states appreciation for the 10-foot Class 4 bikeway on Malmedy. The comment is acknowledged and will be presented for review and consideration by the City’s decision-making body.

Response 18.5
The commenter requests specific indications of how bicycle and pedestrian traffic would be able to move through the Plan Area and access the southern and northern FORTAG spur connection point.

As described in Response 18.1, bike routes along Lightfighter Drive north of Malmedy Road are not within the Planning Area. Engineered grades along this route are not within the jurisdiction of the Specific Plan.

The historic roadbed north of Colonel Durham Street is not within the Plan Area and is not part of the Project. Colonel Durham Street is a narrow, calmed street, designed for vehicles traveling at less than 25 miles per hour (mph), making it safe for as a shared street or Class III bike facility. Because most of the land on the north side and some portions of the south side of Colonel Durham Street are not under the control of the City of Seaside, there is no room to add a Class II or Class I bike facility. Please also see Response to Comment 1.19, for discussion of bicycle improvements and access.

Response 18.6
The commenter requests clarification of when the Malmedy Road reconstruction would occur (Phase 1 or Phase 2), and requests it is completed in Phase 1, including the Class 4 bikeway.

The Malmedy Road construction would occur during Phase 2. It is not included during Phase 1 because it is located east of the Phase 1 boundaries (refer to Figure 2-4 of the Draft EIR), and use of the roadway for cyclists would not increase substantially until Phase 2 buildout. 3-485 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1171, Packet Page 1294 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
3-486 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1172, Packet Page 1295 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-1
4 Amendments to the Draft EIR
The following pages provide a summary record of all proposed text amendments to the Draft EIR.

Most amendments are the result of comments received during the public review period, and directly respond to those comments, or correction of typographical errors within the Draft EIR.

These amendments serve as clarifications and amplifications on the content of the Draft EIR. None of the changes would warrant recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

The amendments serve to clarify and strengthen the content of the EIR, but do not introduce significant new information.

Changes in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeouts) where text is removed and by underlined font (underline font) where text is added. Other minor clarifications and corrections to typographical errors are also shown as corrected in this format, including corrections not based on responses to comments.

4.1 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Executive Summary
Page ES-2:
…Department of Defense-Defense Manpower Data Center Monterey Bay, and former Fort Ord land; and is bounded to the south by Gigling Road, and Ord Military Community housing and the United States Department of Defense Army Hospital.

Page ES-3:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 explains that where the lead agency could describe the Proposed Project as either the adoption of a particular regulation or as a development proposal, the lead agency shall describe the Proposed Project as the development proposal for the purpose of the environmental analysis. To ensure a conservative approach in analyzing environmental effects under CEQA, the Proposed Project assumes maximum buildout projections of new housing units, new commercial development, and related uses. See Table ES1. The actual rate and amount of development (up to the maximums) could differ; buildout is dependent on market conditions, birth rates, death rates, immigration rates, availability of resources, and regulatory processes from Federal, State and local regulations.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1173, Packet Page 1296 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-2
Page ES-27 (revised row only):

Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1. Implementation of the
Proposed Project would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor
through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment.

This impact would be less than significant.

None required
COA HAZ-1: If non-building related ACMs,
baseball field light towers, abandoned
boiler saddles, and subsurface utility lines,
proposed for removal are encountered
during demolition or grading, the applicant
shall survey the materials for ACMs, and
contaminants of concern prior to disturbing
and removing the materials. If discovered
onsite, ACMs will be handled in compliance
with applicable regulations.

Less than significant
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1174, Packet Page 1297 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-3
Page ES-33 (revised row only):

Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-1. Impacts related to regional
wastewater, stormwater drainage, electric
power, natural gas, and telecommunication
infrastructure would be less than significant.

However, water supply impacts would be
significant without mitigation. With
mitigation, impacts related to water supply
would be less than significant.

UTIL-1 Water Offset Programs. To address
the discrepancy between the Proposed
Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water
demand and the 181.3 180.6 AFY of
available potable water supply, the City
shall secure the additional water supplies
needed for the Proposed Project. To do so,
the City shall implement programs to
supply a minimum of 260.3 261 AFY.

Programs to achieve this include, but
would not be limited to:
 Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Courses
in-lieu storage and recovery program,
which would replace a minimum of
311.08 AFY of existing potable water
use with recycled water (up to 450, as
outlined in Court’s October 25, 2019
Order and Motion for Approval of In
Lieu Groundwater Storage Program.

AFY as recycled water supplies
increase). If implemented, this program
alone could address the remaining
potable water supply needed for the
Proposed Project.
 Seaside Highlands and Soper Field
recycled water substitution program to
offset 53.1 AFY of potable water use.

The Seaside Highlands development
was constructed with recycled water
mains to supply the landscape irrigation
systems. This system is currently fed
with potable water, but recycled water
will be available within the next few
years. Providing recycled water for
irrigation of that project would make up
to 43.1 AFY of potable supply available
for reallocation from Seaside Highlands.

An additional 10 AFY may be made
available by converting the City’s Soper
Field sports complex (adjacent to
Seaside Highlands) to recycled water.
 Main-Gate offset program, which would
require the previously approved MainGate project to utilize 42.99 AFY of recycled water in-lieu of previously
allocated potable water supply.
 The City may also require dualplumbing of buildings to use recycled water for sanitary fixtures (flushing
toilets and urinals), which will offset
potable water demand with recycled
water.

Prior to issuance of a final map, the City
Less than significant with
mitigation
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1175, Packet Page 1298 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-4
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
shall demonstrate the offset of 260.3 261
AFY of potable water based upon available
programs, and the applicant shall obtain
written verification from MCWD that
sufficient water supplies have been
secured.

Section 2 Project Description

…Department of Defense-Defense Manpower Data Center Monterey Bay, and former Fort Ord land; and is bounded to the south by Gigling Road, and Ord Military Community housing and the United States Department of Defense Army Hospital….

The former U.S. Army buildings are currently the property of the City of Seaside, with the exception of those within Surplus II, which are the property of the Successor Agency to the Seaside Redevelopment Agency.

In December 2018 the Army FORA began demolition of these buildings…

During preparation of this EIR, FORA has removed most buildings in the Plan Area that had been identified for demolition (including Surplus II buildings: ten rolling-pin buildings between Malmedy Road and 6th Avenue, two mess halls one cafeteria, five administrative buildings, one gymnasium, and four two armory buildings); the eight hammerhead buildings have not been demolished (FORA 2019b).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 explains that where the lead agency could describe the Proposed Project as either the adoption of a particular regulation or as a development proposal, the lead agency shall describe the Proposed Project as the development proposal for the purpose of the environmental analysis. To ensure a conservative approach in analyzing environmental effects under CEQA, the Proposed Project assumes maximum buildout projections of new housing units, new commercial development, and related uses. See Table 2-

2. The actual rate and amount of development (up to the maximums) could differ; buildout is dependent on market conditions, birth rates, death rates, immigration rates, availability of resources, and regulatory processes from Federal, State and local regulations. Nevertheless, a conceptual layout for buildout of the Specific Plan is shown by conceptual horizontal construction3 phase in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 (see Specific Plan Section 4.5, Land Use Standards and Guidelines, for detailed discussion of uses). New development will be required to conform to the Private Realm Standards and Guidelines, Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1176, Packet Page 1299 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-5

There are two proposed basins at the General Jim Moore Boulevard and Lightfighter Drive intersection; one is within the Plan Area at the southeast corner of this intersection and one is outside the Plan Area and within the CSUMB campus boundaries at the northeast corner of this intersection.

Bicycle lanes would be provided on key streets including Lightfighter Drive, Malmedy Road, 6th Avenue, Gigling Road (under the Pacific Gas and Electric easement on the north side of the roadway), and General Jim Moore Boulevard, to connect existing and planned bicycle routes in the surrounding area.

Other approvals from other agencies may include:
 Disposition and Development Agreement
 FORA Consistency Determination
 Infrastructure Agreement with MCWD
 MCWD Water Supply Verification Report
 MCWD Annexation
 Approvals from California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) for any off-site improvements on CSUMB property
 Approvals from the United States Department of the Army for any off-site improvements on Army property and applicable NEPA review
Section 3 Environmental Setting

The Plan Area is mostly developed with former U.S. Army buildings that are mostly vacant and severely dilapidated and currently the property of the City of Seaside, with the exception of those within Surplus II, which are the property of the Successor Agency to the Seaside Redevelopment Agency.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1177, Packet Page 1300 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-6
Section 4 Environmental Impact Analysis
Pages 4-3 through 4-5, Table 4-1 (revised rows only):

Cumulative Project Description Project Status
Cypress Knolls Senior
Residential1
Senior residential community with active-adult housing, care services, senior community center, and supportive amenities and services on 188 acres.

Approved, not
built
East Garrison Construction of 40,000 sf of retail and 1,470 total residential units, including single-family homes, apartments, and
townhomes, as well as recreational and community areas, an artist live-and-work “downtown” residential and visitor-serving area. Approximately 2.7 miles east of the Plan Area.

Approved,
partially
constructed
(869 units)
Sea Haven (formerly
Marina Heights)
Removes 828 Fort Ord housing units and constructs 1,050 residential units, including single-family homes and townhomes.

Approximately 1 mile north of the Plan Area. Cypress Marina Heights, LLC., the developer of the project made an application for the “Marina Heights Specific Plan” in October of 2002 and the Marina City Council approved the project in 2003.

Approved,
partially
constructed
(201 units)
The Dunes at Monterey
Bay (formerly University
Villages)
Retail, commercial, and residential project, including 1,237 residential units, 500 hotel rooms, 760,000 sf office, and 570,000 sf retail. Located approximately 0.5 miles north of the Plan Area.

Approved,
partially
constructed
Seaside Resort Development of 125 residential units, 330 hotel units, and 170 timeshare units on two former Army golf courses. Located approximately 1 mile south within the Black Horse Golf Course.

Approved,
partially
constructed (3
units)
Seaside Senior Living
Project
This project would construct an assisted living facility, memory care facility, and co-housing assisted living facility, with a total of 144 multi-family units (70 studio units and 74 total onebedroom, two-bedroom, and co-housing units). Located approximately 1.8 miles southwest of the Plan Area.

Proposed
sf = square feet

The infill site has been was previously developedment with structures and uses associated with Fort Ord, which included 18 barracks buildings (totaling approximately 702,200 sf), five administration buildings (totaling approximately 33,300 sf), two armories (approximately 12,200 sf each), one cafeteria (approximately 11,400 sf), and one gymnasium (approximately 21,000 sf) with an adjacent small metal structure. Of these, only eight barracks buildings remain.

Section 4.1 Aesthetics

The Plan Area is mostly developed with former two- to three-story U.S. Army buildings, which are now City property.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1178, Packet Page 1301 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-7
Section 4.2 Air Quality
Global Changes to the Draft EIR and Appendix E: The air quality modeling was revised as follows, which resulted in a decrease in air pollutant emissions generated by the Proposed Project during construction and an incremental increase (between 0.1 to 3.5 pounds per day, depending on the pollutant, which did not result in an exceedance of any Monterey Bay Air Resources District [MBARD] thresholds) in air pollutant emissions generated by the Proposed Project during operation:
▪ At the time of the Draft EIR, it was assumed that the Proposed Project would utilize a construction equipment mix consistent with the statewide average. Based on information provided later by the project applicant, the modeling was revised to assume use of Tier 4 Final certified engines for all large construction equipment, which decreased construction-related air pollutant emissions.
▪ At the time of the Draft EIR, it was assumed that the Proposed Project would not include woodburning or natural gas fireplaces. Based on information provided later by the project applicant, the modeling was revised to assume that 10 percent of single-family residences would include natural gas fireplaces, which resulted in increased air pollutant emissions associated with area sources.
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR incorrectly included a 75 percent reduction in the lighting energy intensity factor for the residential land uses of the Proposed Project. The modeling was revised to remove this reduction, which had no impact on air pollutant emissions associated with electricity usage.1
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR incorrectly included a 70 percent reduction, rather than a 30 percent reduction, in the Title 24 natural gas energy intensity factor for the Proposed Project to account for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The modeling was revised to include a 30 percent reduction, which resulted in increased air pollutant emissions related to natural gas consumption.
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR did not include the City’s average solid waste diversion rate of 35 percent. The modeling was revised to include this reduction, which had no impact on air pollutant emissions associated with solid waste.2 ▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR did not account for the use of reclaimed water in the Proposed Project. The modeling was revised to account for this project feature, which had no impact on air pollutant emissions associated with water usage.3

Clean Water Act Section 402
In California, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCBs) and requires municipalities to obtain permits that outline programs and activities to control wastewater and stormwater pollution. The federal 1 CalEEMod does not calculate or attribute emissions of criteria pollutants from electricity generation to individual projects because fossil fuel power plants are existing stationary sources permitted by air districts and/or the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and they are subject to local, state and federal control measures. Criteria pollutant emissions from power plants are associated with the power plants themselves, and not individual projects or electricity users. 2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1179, Packet Page 1302 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-8
Clean Water Act prohibits discharges of stormwater from construction projects unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. The SWRCB is the permitting authority in California and adopted an As part of compliance with the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (Order 2009-0009, as amended by Orders 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ; SWRCB 2009, 2010, 2012). The Order applies to construction sites that include one or more acre of soil disturbance. Construction activities include clearing, grading, grubbing, excavation, stockpiling, and reconstruction of existing facilities involving removal or replacement. The Construction General Permit requires that the landowner and/or contractor of construction sites that include one or more acre of soil disturbance must prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). file permit registration documents prior to commencing construction, then pay an annual fee through the duration of construction. These documents include a notice of intent, risk assessment, site map, stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), and signed certification statement.

The SWPPP must include site Best Management Practices (BMPs) measures to ensure that all pollutants and their sources are controlled.; non-stormwater discharges are identified and eliminated, controlled, or treated; site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges; and BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed and maintained. The Construction General Permit specifies minimum BMP requirements for stormwater control based on the risk level of the site. The Permit also specifies minimum qualifications for a qualified SWPPP developer and qualified SWPPP practitioner. The Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program is an entity that has developed BMPs for Construction Site Best Management Practices within the City of Seaside (MRSWMP 2014). Construction BMPs include material storage including covering of stockpiles during the day, and particularly during rain and wind events, silt fencing, straw wattles, stabilized construction entrances, routine cleaning, equipment lubricant drip pans, dust control measures including watering trucks to stabilize soil. Although intended to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff, these Construction BMPs also serve to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction activities.4

Construction equipment that would generate criteria pollutants includes excavators, graders, haul trucks, and loaders. Some of this equipment would be used during both grading and construction. It is assumed that all construction equipment used would be diesel-powered.

Construction equipment for each phase was based on CalEEMod defaults, which are shown in Section 3, Construction Detail, of the modeling outputs in Appendix E. The project applicant would require its construction contractor(s) to utilize large construction equipment (i.e., cranes, dozers, excavators, graders, pavers, rollers, scrapers, tractors, loaders, and backhoes) equipped with Tier 4 Final certified engines; therefore, modeling assumes use of Tier 4 Final certified 4 More details on SWRCB Order 2009-0009 are available online at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/constpermits/wqo_2009_0009_complete.pdf More details on SWRCB Order 2010-0014-DWQ are available online at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2010/wqo2010_0014dwq.pdf More details on SWRCB Order 2012-006-DWQ are available online at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2012/wqo2012_0006_dwq.pdf Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1180, Packet Page 1303 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-9
engines for all large construction equipment. This requirement will be included in the Development Agreement.

Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating. The Proposed Project would not include wood-burning fireplaces; therefore, this analysis assumes that only natural gas fireplaces would be utilized.

Based on similar projects constructed by the project applicant, it was assumed that approximately 10 percent of single-family residences would have gas fireplaces. Emissions attributed to energy use include electricity and natural gas consumption for space and water heating. The lighting energy intensity factor for the residential uses was reduced by 75 percent to account for the lighting requirements of the latest iterations of Title 24, which are not included in CalEEMod. Furthermore, energy usage from single-family residential usage was reduced by 7 percent and non-residential energy usage was reduced by 30 percent to account for the requirements of 2019 Title 24 standards (California Energy Commission 2019). Indoor and outdoor water use rates were based on the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Proposed Project, which is discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, and is included as Appendix M. The Water Supply Assessment also indicates that all outdoor water use (approximately 9.4 percent of total water use) would be supplied by reclaimed water; therefore, the Reclaimed Water input in CalEEMod was adjusted to reflect this design feature. Solid waste generation rates were based on CalRecycle rates, consistent with those used in the solid waste impact analysis in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems (CalRecycle 2018). Based on the City’s solid waste collection data from 2018 to 2019, the City has an average diversion rate of 35 percent, which was included in CalEEMod (Overmeyer 2020).

Table 4.2-5 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Emissions (pounds per day)
Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2021 7.8

2.0 88.6

18.9 55.7

59.3 0.1 10.3

8.3 6.4

4.6 2022 31.1

25.8 160.2

96.1 154.3
161.7

0.5 31.7

28.8 11.8

9.1 2023 29.1

24.5 136.4

81.4 143.4
152.8

0.5 32.7

31.2 12.6

11.2 2024 25.2

22.5 98.9

67.6 106.0
109.5

0.4 32.6

31.1 12.4

11.1 2025 24.4

21.9 94.3

65.5 100.1
104.1

0.4 32.3

31.1 12.2

11.1 2026 13.9

13.4 74.3

63.4 82.2

84.8 0.3 22.9

22.7 6.7

6.5 2027 13.4

13.0 66.4

60.8 73.0

74.0 0.3 22.9

22.7 6.7

6.5 2028 13.0

12.5 65.3

59.7 69.4

70.5 0.3 22.9

22.7 6.7

6.5 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1181, Packet Page 1304 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-10
Emissions (pounds per day)
Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2029 12.5

12.1 64.3

58.8 66.0

67.1 0.3 22.9

22.7 6.7

6.5 2030 12.0

11.4 58.7

55.9 63.1

64.2 0.3 22.5

22.4 6.3

6.2 2031 11.5

10.9 57.9

55.1 60.3

61.3 0.3 22.5

22.4 6.3

6.2 2032 11.0

10.5 57.2

54.4 57.8

58.9 0.3 22.5

22.4 6.3

6.2 2033 10.7

10.2 56.6

53.9 55.7

56.8 0.3 22.5

22.4 6.3

6.2 2034 10.4

9.9 56.1

53.4 53.8

54.9 0.3 22.5

22.4 6.3

6.2 Maximum Daily Emissions for Off-Site
Improvements (year unknown)

7.0 24.8 19.2 < 0.1 4.2 2.6
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds per day)1 38.1

32.8 185.0
120.9
173.5
180.9

0.5 36.9

35.4 15.2

13.8 MBARD Thresholds n/a n/a n/a n/a 822 n/a
Threshold Exceeded? n/a n/a n/a n/a No n/a
N/A = not applicable
Notes: All numbers have been rounded to the nearest tenth. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.
1 Because it is unknown at this time when off-site improvements would be constructed, maximum daily construction emissions were calculated by adding the highest modeled daily construction emissions from off-site improvements to the highest modeled daily construction emissions from construction of the Proposed Project. 2 This threshold only applies if construction is located nearby or upwind of sensitive receptors. In addition, a significant air quality impact related to PM10 emissions may occur if a project uses equipment that is not “typical construction equipment” as specified in Section 5.3 of the MBARD CEQA Guidelines.

Source: See Appendix E for CalEEMod calculations and assumptions Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1182, Packet Page 1305 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-11

Table 4.2-1 Estimated Maximum Operational Emissions
Emissions (pounds per day)
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Emissions 75.7

75.9 1.4

2.9 122.1
122.8
< 0.1

0.1 0.7

0.8 0.7

0.8 Energy Emissions 1.4

1.6 12.5

14.5 7.4

9.1 0.1 1.01.1

1.0 1.1
Mobile Emissions1 11.0 68.9 111.7 0.5 51.5 14.0
Project Emissions

88.1 88.5

82.8 86.3
241.3
243.6

0.6 0.7

53.2 53.4

15.6 15.9
MBARD Threshold 137 137 550 150 82 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No N/A1
N/A = not applicable
Notes: All numbers have been rounded to the nearest tenth. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
1 Default trip generation rates for each land use in CalEEMod were adjusted to reflect the forecast VMT of approximately 22,738,405 net new annual VMT, as closely as possible (Burgett 2019). However, this analysis is conservative because the CalEEMod model assumes 23,739,210 net new annual VMT, which is slightly greater than the annual net new VMT forecasted by TJKM.2 The MBARD does not have a significance threshold for operational PM2.5 emissions.

Source: See Appendix E for CalEEMod calculations and assumptions.

Therefore, the Proposed Project’s construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs. This conclusion is confirmed by the Construction Health Risk Assessment (Appendix Q of the Final EIR).

Section 4.3 Biological Resources
Section 4.3.1(a), page 4.3-3:

In total, approximately 14.14 acres of coast live oak woodland occur within the Plan Area.

Tree Survey
An Arborist Report was prepared by HMH, dated October 4, 2019; which included an inventory of 891 trees within the Plan Area. The following trees were observed: Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia, 619 total trees), Monterey Cypress (Cupressus marcocarpa, 86 total trees), Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus, 62 total trees), Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata, 61 total trees), Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyana, 35 total trees), Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon, 9 total trees), Red Gum (Eucalyptus ficifolia, 9 total trees), Fan Palm (Washingtonia filifera, 7 total trees), Myoporum (Myoporum laetum, 2 total trees), and Indian Laurel Fig (Ficus microcarpa, 1 total tree).

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1183, Packet Page 1306 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-12

Given that the HCP has not yet been finalized, USFWS has generally accepted adherence to the HMP conditions as sufficient to avoid and mitigate impacts to Federally listed species within previously developed footprint within designated development areas of the former Fort Ord.

CDFW has generally accepted adherence to the HMP conditions as sufficient to avoid and mitigate impacts to non-listed sensitive species within previously developed footprint within designated development areas.

The Proposed Project retains a portion of one of the areas with coast live oak trees within the Plan Area (approximately 1.5 acres), located directly west of General Jim Moore Boulevard, and designates this location as a “tree save” park. However, the Proposed Project includes the removal of approximately 12.64 acres of oak trees, which as noted above under the environmental setting are degraded and fragmented. While the Proposed Project includes the removal of existing trees in the Plan Area, the Proposed Project also provides for the incorporation of new trees in its thoroughfare regulations (Specific Plan Section 3.3), its parking standards (Specific Plan Section 4.7.14), and its landscape regulations, which include coast live oak, and requires replacement of coast live oak and Monterey Cypress trees, and requires replacement of coast live oak trees and Monterey Cypress trees at a ratios described below of 1:1.5 (Specific Plan Section 3.5). Specific Plan Figures 2.2, 2.10, and 3.25 provide plans for new trees within the Plan Area as well as Arborist Report, Exhibit B.

Existing Coast Live Oak trees recommended for preservation (as identified by the criteria in the Arborist Report) that have a height of 10 feet or more, or a circumference of 20 inches or more measured 24 inches above the ground that are removed as part of construction shall be replaced (i) at a ratio of 1:1 within the Plan Area or (ii) at a ratio of 1:5.0 at an off-site location approved as part of a Conformance Determination for any Development Application, in either case unless a finding is made pursuant to Section 6.3.1A of this Specific Plan that preservation is not feasible due to the health of the tree (including disease or pests). The size of each replacement tree shall be a 15-gallon or larger Coast Live Oak tree meeting American Standards for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1) having 1” – 1 1/4” minimum caliper and average height of six to eight feet measured from the base. Trees replaced off-site shall be planted in open space areas for oak forest naturalization from tree pots that have been propagated from the Fort Ord / Marina area.

Existing Monterey Cypress trees recommended for preservation that have a circumference of 20 inches or more measured 24 inches above the ground that are removed as part of construction shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1.2 within the Specific Plan Area or at an off-site location approved as part of a Conformance Determination for any Development Application, in either case unless a finding is made pursuant to Section 6.3.1A of this Specific Plan that preservation is not feasible due to the health of the tree (including disease or pests). The size of each replacement tree shall be a 15-gallon or larger Monterey Cypress tree, meeting American Standards for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1) having 1” – 1 1/2” minimum caliper and average height of six to eight feet measured from the base.

Up to 619 Coast Live Oak trees recommended for preservation would be removed.

Approximately 335 replacement Coast Live Oak Trees could be planted on site, on locations Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1184, Packet Page 1307 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-13
within the Plan Area designated as public open space. Assuming that none of the trees to be removed are found infeasible to preserve due to health,5the remaining 284 Coast Live Oak trees to be removed which cannot be replaced on-site would be replaced off site at the 1:5 replacement ratio, for a total of 1,420 off-site replacement Coast Live Oak trees. It is anticipated that off-site tree replacement would occur on the 72-acre City-owned property located south of the Plan Area (bounded by Parker Flats Cut Off Road to the south and west, existing development to the northwest and north, and Gigling Road to the north) or another location approved by the City that can accommodate the required number of trees to be planted, has soil characteristics conducive to tree growth, and does not contain excessive amounts of utility lines that would interfere with root development, in order to ensure the replanted trees have a high success rate. Up to 86 Monterey Cypress trees recommended for preservation would be removed, and all replacement Monterey Cypress trees could be planted on site as street trees or at an off-site location at a ratio of 1:1.2. The actual number of Coast Live Oak and Monterey Cypress trees recommended for preservation that need to be removed and replaced, the actual number that can be replaced on-site, and the location of off-site replacement, will be determined at the time of each Development Application.

While the Proposed Project includes replacement trees…
Section 4.4 Cultural Resources

No resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks list, or the California Points of Historical Interest list are located within the Plan Area (OHP 2018). The FORA EIR determined the 1991 baseline contained a limited number of historic resources in Fort Ord as a whole, including “Stilwell Hall and 35 structures in the East Garrison area” (FORA 1997b, p. 4-194.). All of these buildings are located outside of the Plan Area. The East Garrison area is located approximately three miles northeast of the Plan Area. Stilwell Hall was located west of the Plan Area and was torn down in 2003. An additional study was conducted on November 4, 2019 of the Hammerhead Barracks at the project site. The subject Hammerhead-style barracks at Fort Ord were constructed circa 1955, during the Cold War period of growth. This study concluded that the barracks are ineligible for federal, state, or local designation under any applicable designation criteria and is therefore not considered a historical resource under CEQA. The entire study, including its methodology and photographs of the buildings at issue, are attached to the Final EIR as Appendix N.

Section 4.5 Energy
Global Changes to the Draft EIR and Appendix E: The energy modeling was revised as follows, which resulted in an overall increase in electricity and natural gas consumption associated with the Proposed Project but did not change the significance of the impact determinations related to energy:
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR incorrectly included a 75 percent reduction in the lighting energy intensity factor for the residential land uses of the Proposed Project. The 5 Preservation of trees in poor health is not required; therefore, the removal of any trees in poor health do not require replacement trees be planted elsewhere.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1185, Packet Page 1308 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-14
modeling was revised to remove this reduction, which had increased energy consumption related to electricity usage, although all energy consumed by residential land uses would continue to be supplied by renewable energy.
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR incorrectly included a 70 percent reduction, rather than a 30 percent reduction, in the Title 24 natural gas energy intensity factor for the Proposed Project to account for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The modeling was revised to include a 30 percent reduction, which resulted in increased natural gas consumption. ▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR did not account for the use of reclaimed water in the Proposed Project. The modeling was revised to account for this project feature, which reduced electricity consumption associated with water usage.

As shown in Table 4.5-2, in addition to transportation energy use, the Proposed Project would require permanent grid connections for electricity and natural gas. The Proposed Project would consume approximately 14,559,605 15,953,375 kWh, or 49,677 54,433 MMBtu per year of electricity for lighting and large appliances, and approximately 48,217,178 55,682,598 kBtu, or 48,217 55,683 MMBtu per year of natural gas for heating and cooking (see Appendix E for CalEEMod results). Electricity would be supplied by on-site solar generation, MBCP (the default electricity provider in the Plan Area), or PG&E. Natural gas would be supplied by PG&E. As discussed in detail in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multifamily buildings of three stories and less, which would supply much of the on-site electricity demand. Furthermore, on-site electricity demand would be substantially less than historic usage within the former Fort Ord, as described in detail in Section 3, Environmental Setting. Given historic electricity usage, CEC’s and CPUC’s long range planning efforts, and on-site solar generation, there would be adequate capacity to meet demand for electricity. Furthermore, California natural gas demand, including volumes not served by utility systems, is expected to decrease at a rate of 0.5 percent per year from 2018 to 2035; therefore, the incremental increase in natural gas consumption from the Proposed Project would not indirectly result in the need to secure additional natural gas supplies or construct new or expanded natural gas processing plants (CGEU 2018).

Table 4.5-2 Proposed Project Operational Energy Usage
Source Energy Consumption
Vehicle Trips
Gasoline 982,978 gallons 107,917 MMBtu
Diesel 264,866 gallons 33,760 MMBtu
Built Environment
Electricity 14,559,605
15,953,375 kWh
49,677
54,433 MMBtu
Natural Gas Usage 48,217,178
55,682,598 kBtu
48,217
55,683 MMBtu
See Appendix E for CalEEMod default values for fleet mix and average distance of travel and energy calculation sheets.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1186, Packet Page 1309 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-15
Section 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Global Changes to the Draft EIR and Appendix E: The greenhouse gas (GHG) modeling was revised as follows, which resulted in an overall decrease in GHG emissions generated by the Proposed Project:
▪ At the time of the Draft EIR, it was assumed that the Proposed Project would utilize a construction equipment mix consistent with the statewide average. Based on information provided later by the project applicant, the modeling was revised to assume use of Tier 4 Final certified engines for all large construction equipment, which had no impact on constructionrelated GHG emissions because Tier 4 certification is primarily intended to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. ▪ At the time of the Draft EIR, it was assumed that the Proposed Project would not include woodburning or natural gas fireplaces. Based on information provided later by the project applicant, the modeling was revised to assume that 10 percent of single-family residences would include natural gas fireplaces, which resulted in increased GHG emissions associated with area sources. ▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR incorrectly included a 75 percent reduction in the lighting energy intensity factor for the residential land uses of the Proposed Project. The modeling was revised to remove this reduction, which had no impact on GHG emissions related to electricity usage because modeling assumed that all energy consumed by residential land uses would be supplied by renewable energy.
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR incorrectly included a 70 percent reduction, rather than a 30 percent reduction, in the Title 24 natural gas energy intensity factor for the Proposed Project to account for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The modeling was revised to include a 30 percent reduction, which resulted in increased GHG emissions related to natural gas consumption.
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR did not include the City’s average solid waste diversion rate of 35 percent. The modeling was revised to include this reduction, which reduced GHG emissions associated with solid waste.
▪ The modeling completed for the Draft EIR did not account for the use of reclaimed water in the Proposed Project. The modeling was revised to account for this project feature, which reduced GHG emissions associated with water usage.

Area Source Emissions
Emissions associated with area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating were calculated in CalEEMod and utilize standard emission rates from the CARB, USEPA, and emission factor values provided by the local air district (CAPCOA 2017).

Based on similar projects constructed by the project applicant, it was assumed that approximately 10 percent of single-family residences would have gas fireplaces.

In California, Title 24 governs energy consumed by the built environment, mechanical systems, and some types of fixed lighting. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and shown in Appendix E the lighting energy intensity factor for Proposed Project residential uses was reduced by 75 percent to account for the lighting requirements of the latest iterations of Title 24, which are not included in CalEEMod. Furthermore, e Energy usage from single-family residential usage was Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1187, Packet Page 1310 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-16
reduced by 7 percent and non-residential energy usage was reduced by 30 percent to account for the requirements of 2019 Title 24 standards (California Energy Commission 2019).

Emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste (CAPCOA 2017). Based on the City’s solid waste collection data from 2018 to 2019, the City has an average diversion rate of 35 percent, which was included in CalEEMod (Overmeyer 2020).

Pages 4.7-11 to 4.7-12:

Emissions from water usage and wastewater generation calculated in CalEEMod were based on indoor and outdoor water use rates from the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Proposed Project, which is discussed in detail in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, and is included as Appendix M. The Water Supply Assessment also indicates that all outdoor water use (approximately 9.4 percent of total water use) would be supplied by reclaimed water; therefore, the Reclaimed Water input in CalEEMod was adjusted to reflect this design feature.

For mobile sources, CO2 and CH4 emissions were quantified in CalEEMod based on forecast VMT provided by TJKM, which was calculated based upon AMBAG 2018 Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM).
6 As discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, T the Proposed Project would result in approximately 62,297 net new daily VMT, or 22,738,405 net new annual VMT; however, this number is conservative because it does not fully account for displaced growth/redistributed population (Burgett 2019). The default trip generation rates for each land use in CalEEMod were adjusted to reflect the forecast annual VMT. The GHG analysis uses the inputs from Section 4.14, Transportation, under the Plan’s effect on VMT estimation method (Fehr & Peers 2019, Appendix K).

Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions from the Proposed Project would include consumer product use and landscape maintenance equipment. As shown in Table 4.7-5 Table 4.7-3, area source emissions would be approximately 26 96 MT of CO2e.

Energy Use Emissions
Operation of the Proposed Project would consume both electricity and natural gas. The generation of electricity through combustion of fossil fuels typically yields CO2, and to a smaller extent, N2O and CH4. As discussed above, annual electricity and natural gas emissions can be calculated using default values from the CEC-sponsored CEUS and RASS studies, which are built into CalEEMod, as well as adjustments for the most recent iterations of Title 24 standards. As shown in Table 4.7-5 Table 4.7-3, electricity and natural gas consumption associated with the Proposed Project would generate an estimated 2,615 3,016 MT of CO2e per year with 6 Detailed information in the 2018 AMBAG Travel Demand Model is available online: https://ambag.org/programs-services/modeling.

Including the AMBAG 2018 RTDM technical documentation:
http://ambag.org/programs/Modeling/AMBAG_2018RTDM_TechnicalReport.pdf Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1188, Packet Page 1311 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-17
approximately 2,588 2,989 MT of CO2e generated by natural gas usage and approximately 27 MT of CO2e generated by electricity usage.

Solid Waste Emissions
As shown in Table 4.7-5 Table 4.7-3, solid waste associated with the Proposed Project would generate approximately 1,814 1,179 MT of CO2e per year.

Water Use Emissions
Based on the amount of electricity used to supply and convey water, operation of the Proposed Project would generate approximately 293 277 MT of CO2e per year (Table 4.7-5 Table 4.7-3).

Pages 4.7-15 through 4.7-16:

Table 4.7-5 Table 4.7-3 combines the construction, operational, and mobile GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project. Construction emissions associated with construction activities (approximately 1,999 MT of CO2e) are amortized over 25 years (the anticipated life of the Proposed Project). Combined annual emissions generated by the Proposed Project would total approximately 15,054 14,873 MT of CO2e per year.

Table 4.7-3 Combined Annual GHG Emissions
Emission Source
Project Emissions
(MT of CO2e per year)
Construction 1,999.0
Operational
Area
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Solid Waste
Water

25.6 95.7

26.9 2,588.3
2,989.1
1,814.2
1,179.3
293.5
276.5
Mobile
CO2 and CH4
1 N2O
8,174.6
131.9
Total Emissions 15,054.0
14,873.0
See Appendix E for CalEEMod results and N2O mobile emissions data sheets. 1 Default trip generation rates for each land use in CalEEMod were adjusted to reflect the forecast VMT of approximately 22,738,405 net new annual VMT, as closely as possible (Burgett 2019). However, this analysis is conservative because the CalEEMod model assumes 23,739,210 net new annual VMT, which is slightly greater than the annual net new VMT forecasted by TJKM.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the Plan Area currently contains abandoned U.S.

Army buildings (currently City property), a fire station… Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1189, Packet Page 1312 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-18

Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, baseline GHG emissions from the Plan Area are functionally 0 MT of CO2e per year. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would result in an increase in GHG emissions from the Plan Area of approximately 14,873 15,248 MT of CO2e per year. As discussed in Section 4.7.3(a), Methodology and Significance Thresholds, this analysis considers any increase in GHG emissions above baseline conditions to be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, because the Proposed Project would result in an increase in GHG emissions from the Plan Area of approximately 14,873 15,248 MT of CO2e per year, impacts under this baseline analysis would be cumulatively considerable.

The 1992 Air Quality Baseline Study prepared for the former Fort Ord quantified criteria and toxic air pollutant emissions from base operations but did not quantify GHG emissions (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1992). Therefore, in the absence of quantitative data, this analysis qualitatively discusses the magnitude of the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions in comparison to the magnitude of GHG emissions generated by the former Ford Ord base.

Therefore, operational GHG emissions generated by the former Fort Ord base in 1991 were quantified and compared to those emissions generated by existing, entitled, and planned Fort Ord base reuse development and the Proposed Project. The full supplementary analysis of GHG emissions under the former Fort Ord 1991 baseline, which is incorporated into the following discussion, is provided as Appendix R.

The former Fort Ord accommodated single-family housing, barracks, commercial retail, a hospital, an elementary school, general light industry and stationary combustion sources, a general aviation airport, recreational uses, and a sports/fitness complex (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1992). The former Fort Ord’s resident population was 31,270 persons in 1991, which was accommodated in 23,716 housing units. The former Fort Ord base generated approximately 401,028 MT of CO2e per year (Appendix R).

As discussed in Section 3, Environmental Setting, since 1991, there has been a total of 1,282 dwelling units, 1,766 existing/replacement dwelling units, and 988,200 square feet of nonresidential space built on the former Fort Ord. In addition, CSUMB has removed 274 military buildings from its campus, reused 66 military buildings, constructed 7 new buildings, constructed recreational facilities, and improved the infrastructure on the campus. Additional residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional development is entitled and planned for the former Ford Ord through 2030. New development, including the Proposed Project, is substantially more efficient than prior base development constructed from the 1950s to the 1970s due to increasingly stringent building codes and vehicle efficiency standards that have increased energy, water, and fuel use efficiency since that time, thereby reducing GHG emissions. Existing, entitled, planned, and reasonably foreseeable future base reuse development through 2030 would generate approximately 292,687 MT of CO2e per year.

Therefore, base reuse development plus the Proposed Project would generate approximately 307,560 MT of CO2e per year, which would be approximately 93,468 MT of CO2e per year less than former Fort Ord 1991 baseline conditions (Appendix R). As a result, given that post-1991 development in conjunction with the Proposed Project is less intensive in terms of density and types of uses and more efficient than the former Fort Ord development, it is unlikely that the magnitude of Proposed Project-related GHG emissions combined with GHG emissions generated by all post-1991 development exceeds the magnitude of GHG emissions generated by Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1190, Packet Page 1313 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-19
former Fort Ord operations. As such, it is likely that the Proposed Project in combination with other post-1991 development on the former Fort Ord base generate fewer overall GHG emissions than under the 1991 baseline conditions. Therefore, based upon the 1991 former Fort Ord baseline analysis, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

GHG-1(d) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan for Operational Emissions In addition to Mitigation Measures GHG-1(b) and GHG-1(c), the project applicant shall prepare and implement a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) that reduces GHG emissions to net zero over the operational life of the Proposed Project. To meet the net zero requirement the Proposed Project must reduce its operational GHG emissions by 13,055 12,874 MT of CO2e per year, or otherwise demonstrate that GHG emissions are at or below Plan Area baseline. Table

4.7-4 proposes a menu of measures that either singularly or in combination would accomplish the required numeric reductions.

Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The Plan Area has remnant hazardous materials from historic military uses at the former Fort Ord base. Between 1917 and closure of the Fort Ord base in 1994, various areas of the Plan area was Fort Ord base were operated as infantry, artillery, and cavalry training grounds. The Plan Area was utilized for a fire training center, housing, training, and recreation.

The 1995 Basewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Fort Ord (Harding Law Associates [HLA] 1995) indicates that there is one Hazard Investigation Site/Operable Unit (OU10) present within the Plan Area which includes a Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU14).

In December 2001, the Army published a FOSET (U.S. Army 2001) for four parcels located within the Plan Area which makes these required findings for early property transfer. The four parcels are shown in Figure 4.8-1 and described as follows:
▪ Parcels L2.4.3.1 and L2.4.3.2 include an approximately 1.3-acre site located in the Plan Area, southwest of Colonel Durham Street and 7th Avenue.
▪ Parcel L32.4.1.2 (formerly a portion of L32.4.1) includes an irregularly shaped approximately 16-acre site in the Plan Area, north of Gigling Road, at Malmedy Road. ▪ Parcel L37 includes an approximately 5-acre site in the Plan Area located northwest of Gigling Road and 6th Avenue.

These parcels are shown on Figure 4.8-1. As shown therein, not all portions of the Plan Area have been approved for early transfer. It should be noted that Parcel L2.4.2 was also included for early transfer; however, this parcel is located to the east, outside of the Plan Area.

In May 2003, the Army published FOST Track 0 (U.S. Army 2003) for numerous parcels located within the Plan Area which makes findings for property transfer. Nine of these parcels are present in the Plan Area and are shown in Figure 4.8-1, they include: L19.3, L19.2, L1.1, L23.6, L15.1, L19.4, L32.4.1.1, L7.8, and L7.9 (U.S. Army 2003). It should be noted that Parcels L36, Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1191, Packet Page 1314 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-20
L32.2.2, and L32.3 were also included for transfer with FOST Track 0; however, these parcels are not a part of the Plan Area.

One of these parcels was identified as ECP Category 1, a parcel where no release or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred: L19.3. Eight of these parcels were identified as ECP Category 4, a parcel where a release, migration or disposal of hazardous substances has occurred, and all removal or remedial actions have been taken. ECP Category 4 parcels include: L19.2, L1.1, L23.6, L15.1, L19.4, L32.4.1.1, L7.8, and L7.9.

Plate 12 of FOST Track 0 also indicates that USTs and /or ASTs were formerly present of the following parcels: L32.4.1.1 (2 USTs), L37 (2 ASTs), and IRP 10 (2 ASTs and 2 USTs) as shown in Figure 4.8-1 and described below.
▪ One UST at Parcel L32.4.1.1 is identified as UST 4430 and was utilized to store diesel fuel from 1954-1992. This 3,000-gallon UST was reportedly closed in place in April 1992 and closure was approved by Monterey County Department of Health in January 1994 (U.S.

Army 2003).
▪ The second UST at Parcel L32.4.1.1 is identified as UST 4440 and was utilized to store diesel fuel since 1954. This 3,000-gallon UST was reportedly closed and closure was approved by Monterey County Department of Health April 1994 (MCDH 1994). It is not known if this tank was closed in place or removed.
▪ Two ASTs (4460.1 and 4460.2) at parcel L37 were located near building 4460, and as of 2001 the ASTs were empty and inactive (U.S. Army 2001). No additional information regarding the previous use of these tanks or assessment/remediation action in the area was located in the FOST Track 0 or FOSET 2 documents.
▪ Two ASTs at parcel F2.3.3 (IRP 10) were identified further in a 1990 document discussed later in this report. No additional information regarding the previous use of these tanks or assessment/remediation action in the area was located in the FOST Track 0 or FOSET 2 documents.
▪ Two USTs at parcel F2.3.3 (IRP 10) were identified further in a 1990 document discussed later in this report. The USTs (4400.1 and 4400.2) were closed by Monterey County Department of Health on December 1995 (MCDH 1995). It is not known if these tanks were closed in place or removed.
▪ Parcels F2.3.2, F2.3.3, and F2.3.4 Plan Area parcels, located along General Jim Moore Boulevard could not be located in the baseline, FOST Track 0, or FOSET 2 documents.

However, these parcels were deeded to the City of Seaside as follows: The 2008 quitclaim deed (DACA05-9-07-512) for parcel F2.3.3 (Site 1/burn pit) indicates that the burn pit area was remediated to EPA satisfaction in 1996 (U.S. Army 2012). However, the deed does not indicate if the USTs at this location were removed or if the area in the vicinity of the USTs and ASTS was assessed for potential fuel impacts.
▪ The 2008 quitclaim deed (DACA05-9-08-526) for parcels F2.3.2 and F2.3.4 (east of General Jim Moore Boulevard) indicates that the nearby burn pit area was remediated to EPA satisfaction in 1996 (U.S. Army 2012). However, the deed does not indicate if assessments were ever completed onsite.

In December 2018 the Army FORA began demolition of these buildings and remediation of the Surplus II Area…
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1192, Packet Page 1315 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-21

In the Plan Area, the Army is responsible for the cleanup at the Site 10 hazardous investigation site identified in Figure 4.8-1, to the east of General Jim Moore Boulevard and north of Gigling Road.

In the Plan Area, FORA is also responsible for cleaning up hazardous materials at military buildings on the Surplus II site, as well as at the hazardous investigation site and soil excavation area identified in Figure 4.8-1 to the east of General Jim Moore Boulevard and north of Gigling Road.

Removal and off-site disposal of hazardous wastes by the Army FORA is required prior to demolition of existing contaminated buildings….

Groundwater in and near the Plan Area is tested periodically for contaminants resulting from former military use. One groundwater testing well (MW-10-04-180) is located in the Plan Area, to the north of Gigling Road and west of Malmedy Road. The most recent groundwater testing at this well, on September 14, 2011in 2010 and 2011, identified carbon tetrachloride as the only detectable volatile organic chemical (VOC) contaminant (up to 0.18 0.14 micrograms milligram per liter [µmg/L]) (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 2011 2019). This volatile organic chemical (VOC) was produced “to make refrigerants and propellants for aerosol cans, as a solvent for oils, fats, lacquers, varnishes, rubber waxes, and resins, and as a grain fumigant and a dry cleaning agent” (USEPA 2016). For reference, California’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) for carbon tetrachloride in drinking water is 0.0005 mg/L (or 0.5 µg/L). This groundwater monitoring well, and other wells formerly located at Site 10, have been abandoned (Ahtna Environmental 2019a).

The remaining existing structures in the Plan Area contain hazardous materials such as leadbased paint, ACMs, universal waste, and PCBs. Existing structures include non-building structures, such as baseball field light towers, abandoned boiler saddles, and subsurface utility lines which may contain ACM. Exposure to lead can cause adverse health effects, including disturbance of the gastrointestinal system, anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction (in severe cases)…
Friable ACMs are regulated as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As a worker safety hazard, they are also regulated under the authority of Cal/OSHA and by MBARD. In structures slated for demolition, any ACMs would be abated in accordance with State and Federal regulations prior to the start of demolition or renovation activities and in compliance with all applicable existing rules and regulations, including MBARD. This includes removal of non-building structures and facility components, such as baseball field light towers, abandoned boiler saddles, and subsurface utility lines which may contain ACM. (40 CFR Parts 61.141 and

61.145). The Army is required to remediate and safely dispose of hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead-based paint, universal waste, and PCBs as part of the Superfund cleanup process, even though the land has already been transferred for future Campus Town development (FORA 1997b). As discussed above in the Regulatory Setting, many existing structures in the Plan Area Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1193, Packet Page 1316 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-22
have been safely removed by an industrial hygienist service retained by FORA, which included general assessments to identify toxic and hazardous substances, such as lead-based paint, asbestos, underground storage tank leaks, molds, other hazardous materials, wastes, report preparation, site assessments, preliminary plans, working drawings, remediation, and disposal.

The MBARD Asbestos Program regulates the handling of asbestos and operates as a cradle to grave basis through the regulation of all aspects related to the handling of asbestos materials from discovery through removal, through transportation and disposal. These programs would ensure that asbestos removal would not result in the release of hazardous materials to the environment that could impair human health. Therefore, the impact related to ACMs would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required. However, the following Condition of Approval has been added to ensure implementation of ACM regulations.

COA HAZ-1: If non-building related ACMs, baseball field light towers, abandoned boiler saddles, and subsurface utility lines, proposed for removal are encountered during demolition or grading, the applicant shall survey the materials for ACMs, and contaminants of concern prior to disturbing and removing the materials. If discovered onsite, ACMs will be handled in compliance with applicable regulations.

Although hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead-based paint, universal waste, and PCBs are currently present in the remaining hammerhead buildings in the Plan Area, the Army FORA is required to remediate and safely dispose of them as part of the Superfund cleanup process, even though the land has already been transferred for future Campus Town development (FORA 1997b). This type of demolition and remediation activity in the Surplus II Area has been previously approved pursuant to the FORA Capital Improvements Program.

For soil and groundwater impacts, the USEPA oversees the remediation process, and the Army must also submit findings to the CalEPA. Remediation of hazardous materials will occur in accordance with the RA-ROD. Although the former Fort Ord base is a listed Superfund site, concentrations of contaminants in the Plan Area would not exceed State regulatory limits after this remediation process. Therefore, under implementation of the Proposed Project, residents, employees, visitors, and other people in the Plan Area would not be exposed to hazardous concentrations of remnant materials from the Fort Ord site.

Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

Seawater intrusion is an ongoing problem in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR 2004).

The upper aquifers in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (180-foot aquifer and 400-foot aquifer which is North of the Monterey Subbasin) along the coast are experiencing high salinity due to seawater intrusion.1 The Draft EIR incorporated by reference the UWMP, including UWMP Figure 4.6, which shows the locations of sea-water intrusion in the overall Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin in the 400-foot aquifer. As shown in that figure, seawater intrusion in the Monterey sub-basin 400-foot aquifer (located approximately south of Reservation Road), has Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1194, Packet Page 1317 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-23
not substantially progressed since the 1990s. MCWD’s wells in the 400-foot aquifer (MCWD-29, 30, 31, 34, and 39) are located outside of this area of sea-water intrusion (UWMP, Figure 2.2 and Section 4.2.5). MCWD’s wells in Central Marina, although near the coast, are in the Deep Aquifer within the Monterey Subbasin (DWR, Bulletin 118, Basin No. 3-004.10) of the broader Salinas Groundwater Basin, which has not experienced signs of seawater intrusion and is considered to have reliable quality.

According to the 2019 Salinas River Long-Term Management Plan, current ‘seawater intrusion extends approximately 7 miles inland within the 180-foot aquifer and 4 miles inland in the 400- foot Aquifer. (Salinas River Long-Term Management Plan 3-41, 3-42, available at http://www.salinasrivermanagementprogram.org/ltmp_doc.html.)

Onsite groundwater monitoring wells screened in the upper 180-foot aquifer were tested up until approximately 2011 when the wells were deemed unnecessary and abandoned. It appears that onsite wells were not screened or tested in the A-Aquifer, Lower 180-Foot Aquifer, and 400-Foot Aquifer. The wells were utilized initially to determine if groundwater at Site 10 was impacted from the historic use at the burn pit. The groundwater wells were also utilized for a time as upgradient monitoring wells as part of the OU2 groundwater monitoring.

The remediation system at OU2 has been operating since 1995 to remediate the OU2-Aquifer, the OU2 Upper 180-Foot Aquifer, and the OU Carbon Tetrachloride Plume Upper 180-Foot Foot Aquifer (Ahtna 2019b). Deep aquifer groundwater assessment documents were not readily available at the Fort Ord Cleanup website. Assessments have been completed by the Army at the A-Aquifer, Upper 180-Foot Aquifer, and the Lower 180-Foot Aquifer and are available online at the Fort Ord Cleanup website.

Studies by the United States Geological Survey indicate that Deep Aquifer water in the vicinity of Marina is not of recent origin. Uncorrected Carbon 14 dating of water from a test well in the vicinity of Marina’s Deep Aquifer wells indicates the water is between 22,000 and 31,000 years old. The ancient nature of this water raises the possibility that recharge to this aquifer may be insufficient to sustain current pumping, but monitoring well data at the Marina Airport indicates the aquifer is subject to seasonal variations similar to the upper aquifers. Recent stratigraphic analyses have indicated that these aquifers are connected hydraulically at certain locations with the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers, which may be recharging the Deep Aquifer. (MCWD Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, at p. 37, available at https://www.mcwd.org/docs/agenda_minutes/2016-06-06_board/Item%2011-A%20- %20MCWD%20Draft%202015%20UWMP%20v20160520.pdf.)

The upper aquifers in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (180-foot aquifer and 400-foot aquifer) along the coast are experiencing high salinity due to seawater intrusion (MCWRA 2019).5 The Draft EIR incorporated by reference, the UWMP, including UWMP Figure 4.6, which shows the locations of sea-water intrusion in the overall Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin in the 400-foot aquifer. As shown in that figure, seawater intrusion in the Monterey sub-basin 400- foot aquifer (located approximately south of Reservation Road), has not substantially Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1195, Packet Page 1318 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-24
progressed since the 1990s. MCWD’s wells in the 400-foot aquifer (MCWD-29, 30, 31, 34, and 39) are located outside of this area of sea-water intrusion (UWMP, Figure 2.2 and Section 4.2.5).

MCWD’s wells in Central Marina, although near the coast, are in the Deep Aquifer within the Monterey Subbasin (DWR, Bulletin 118, Basin No. 3-004.10) of the broader Salinas Groundwater Basin, which has not experienced signs of seawater intrusion and is considered to have reliable quality.

If groundwater pumping were to be increased to meet this demand without mitigation, this would potentially result in overdraft and lowered groundwater levels which would lead to seawater intrusion, which would decrease water quality, by increasing salt concentrations (such as chloride, nitrogen, sodium, etc.). To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 180.6 AFY of available potable water supply, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 requires the City to secure water supplies for the Proposed Project by offsetting potable water demands. Because the potable water demands of the Proposed Project would be offset by the City, the Proposed Project would not result in seawater intrusion.

Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.

Consequently, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
As discussed in detail under Impact HWQ-2, mandatory compliance with the Seaside Municipal Code, FORA Stormwater Master Plan, and Central Coast RWQCB post-construction requirements for stormwater management would minimize the Proposed Project’s interference with groundwater recharge of the underlying Monterey Subbasin.

The Proposed Project would increase the demand for water, most of which would derive from groundwater sources. As discussed in detail in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, within the Ord Community, 6,600 AFY of existing Salinas Valley groundwater supply has been allocated among the land use jurisdictions by FORA. The 6,600 acre-feet per year figure is derived from the 1984 peak and the 1988-1992 average amount of potable water Fort Ord withdrew from the Salinas Basin, not including pumping from a non-potable golf course well. The City has an existing potable water allocation of Salinas Valley Groundwater of 1,012.5 AFY (from the 6,600 AFY regional allocation), and has previously sub-allocated 831.2 831.9 AFY to other projects, leaving 181.3 180.6 AFY available. Based on the calculations in the WSA, the available water supply of 181.3 180.6 AFY is not sufficient to meet the Proposed Project’s potable water demand of 441.6 AFY. To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 180.6 AFY of available potable water supply, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 requires the City to secure water supplies for the Proposed Project by offsetting potable water demands with in-lieu storage and offset programs. With implementation of these programs, total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection would meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project, in addition to the MCWD’s existing and planned future uses.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1196, Packet Page 1319 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-25

As discussed under Impacts HWQ-2 and HWQ-5, the Proposed Project would increase the demand for water, most of which would be derived from groundwater sources. Cumulative development would also increase demands for groundwater supplies. Compliance with applicable regulations and the impending development of groundwater sustainability plans for the Monterey Subbasin would ensure the long-term sustainability of groundwater supplies.

Therefore, cumulative development would not result in a significant cumulative impact. To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 180.6 AFY of available potable water supply, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 requires the City to secure water supplies for the Proposed Project by offsetting potable water demands.

Consequently, the Proposed Project’s impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater management efforts would be less than significant and the Proposed Project would not have a cumulative considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to groundwater.

Section 4.10 Land Use Planning
Table 4.10-1, page 4.10-32 and page 4.10-35 (revised rows only):

General Plan Policy Discussion
Land Use Element
Goal LU-5: Collaborate with local and regional water suppliers to continue to provide quality water supply and treatment capacity to meet community needs.

Policy LU-5.4: Promote the use of recycled water
for irrigation of parks, golf courses, and public
landscaped areas in the community.

Consistent. Chapter 5, Infrastructure, of the Specific Plan requires the installation of a recycled water main in
Lightfighter Drive from 1st Avenue to General Jim Moore Boulevard and adjacent to Gigling Road from General Jim Moore Boulevard to 7th Avenue. Following installation of this recycled water main, recycled water could Would be used to irrigate public street landscape medians, public parks, opens space, and landscaping for commercial/flex sites and residential front yards. Recycled water may also be provided for domestic (toilets, floor sinks, and other applicable uses allowed under the California Building
Code) use by multi-family residential units. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with Policy LU-5.4.

Circulation Element
Goal C-3: Promote the increased use of multi-modal transportation.

Policy C-3.4: Support alternative modes of
transportation that encourage physical
activity, such as biking and walking.

Consistent. The Specific Plan includes policies to implement a multi-modal transportation network on-site through the design of complete streets for all forms of mobility and the consideration of safety for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as vehicle occupants. The Specific Plan also includes goals and policies to develop well-designed, pedestrian-oriented streetscapes and create a walkable community by restricting providing motorized intersection density at to a minimum of 235 238 intersections per square mile. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the provisions of Policy C-3.4.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1197, Packet Page 1320 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-26
Table 4.10-2, page 4.10-42, page 4.10-56 (revised rows only):

General Plan Policy Discussion
Land Use and Community Design Element
Goal LUD-9. A safe environment oriented and scaled to pedestrians and bicyclists.

Policy. Streetscape design. Create
pedestrian-oriented streetscapes by
establishing a unified approach to
street tree planting, sidewalk
dimensions and maintenance,
pedestrian amenities, and high-quality
building frontages.

Consistent. The Specific Plan also includes goals and policies to develop well-designed, pedestrian-oriented streetscapes and to create a walkable community by providing motorized
intersection density of 238 intersections per square mile. The Specific Plan includes development standards to encourage a unified approach. Chapter 4, Private Realm Standards and Guidelines, of the Specific Plan would ensure new development in the private realm exhibits to have high standards of urban design, architecture, and landscaping. These private standards are intended to maintain a consistent street frontage
throughout the subareas with uniform building placement and frontage along the street, to create a built environment that emphasizes pedestrian scale and variety by using Ffenestration, awnings, and frequent building entries. In the Specific Plan Section 3.5, Landscape Standards and Guidelines, specific, allowable street trees and landscape planting types would be determined by their location and function. Section 3.6, Streetscape Guidelines, of the Specific Plan would require streetscape design elements, such as specific paving palette, street furniture, street lighting, and public art as a function of street type.

Goal M-1. A citywide network of “complete streets” that meets the needs of all users, including bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, public transportation, and seniors.

Policy: Roundabouts. Consider
installation of roundabouts as shown
on Figure 23, provided the cost of
roundabouts does not result in
overspending on motor vehicle traffic
improvements at the expense of other
modes.

Consistent. Implementation of the Proposed Project would in the installation of two roundabouts along General Jim Moore Boulevard, one at the intersection with Gigling Road and the other at Lightfighter Drive.

Section 4.12 Population and Housing
Pages 4.12-7 and 4.12-11 have been revised:
[T]he City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element Technical Appendix identifies available sites for residential development, which include the Plan Area. (HE-App-11958.) According to the 2009- 2014 Housing Element, “[r]ecent acquisition of land in the former Fort Ord area has given the City new opportunities for residential and nonresidential development.” (HE-4.) Also, the “former Fort Ord site could accommodate a large number of high density residential units and is available for development.” (HE-App-83.)
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1198, Packet Page 1321 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-27
Section 4.14 Transportation

Students, staff, and faculty of CSUMB receive free unlimited access on all MST regular bus routes with their CSUMB Otter ID card. Additionally, all transit users with physical and/or cognitive disabilities may have access to the MST paratransit program service known as (RIDES).

This service operates on a point-to-point basis. Appointments are and eligibility is required to guarantee for service, and service is not available on weekends or holidays.

Table 4.14-3 Existing Transit Route Headways
Route Description (to/from) Hours of Operation Average Weekday Headway 12 The Dunes - NPS 6:45am to 5:38pm Varies between one and four hours
18 Monterey - Marina 6:07am to 10:45pm Every 60 minutes 67 Presidio - Marina Friday from 2:15 pm
to 10:10 pm
Weekends from
10:15am to 10:10 pm
Every 120 minutes on Fridays
Every 60 minutes on weekends
74 Presidio – Toro Park 6:30am to 6:00 pm One route in each direction in the morning and one evening
route towards Toro Park
75 Presidio – Marshall Park
Express
5:55 am to 9:56 pm Varies between 60 to 120
minutes
Source: Fehr & Peers 2019; transit information dated November 2018.

Section 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Global Changes to the Draft EIR and Appendix M: Monterey Peninsula College water allocation is hereby revised from 9.0 to 9.7 AFY. Therefore, all references in the Draft EIR and the WSA to the City of Seaside unallocated amount of water from its FORA allocation should be read as changing from 181.3 to 180.6. The City of Seaside’s existing water sub-allocation is also revised from 831.2 to 831.9 AFY. Relatedly, the Project’s demand for water that cannot be met using the FORA allocation is revised from 260.3 to 261.0 AFY, and Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 is revised to require a water offset of 261.0 AFY.

The 6,600 acre-feet per year amount includes 5,200 acre-feet from the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers, along with 1,400 acre-feet per year from the 900-foot or Deep Aquifer.

The Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin has a large storage volume and is recharged by the Salinas River, which is augmented by upstream reservoirs. Consequently, the aquifer does not Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1199, Packet Page 1322 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-28
experience wide level variations due to climatic conditions. Water levels vary by 20 to 30 feet seasonally, and decline an additional 10 to 20 feet during drought periods. MCWD’s demands accounted for less than one percent of the total groundwater pumped from the Salinas groundwater basin in 2015, the latest year reported. Therefore, the MCWD’s supply is considered reliable on a quantity basis.

The upper aquifers in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (180-foot aquifer and 400-foot aquifer) along the coast are experiencing high salinity due to seawater intrusion (MCWRA 2019).6 The Draft EIR incorporated by reference, the UWMP, including UWMP Figure 4.6, which shows the locations of sea-water intrusion in the overall Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin in the 400-foot aquifer. As shown in that figure, seawater intrusion in the Monterey sub-basin 400- foot aquifer (located approximately south of Reservation Road), has not substantially progressed since the 1990s. MCWD’s wells in the 400-foot aquifer (MCWD-29, 30, 31, 34, and 39) are located outside of this area of sea-water intrusion (UWMP, Figure 2.2 and Section 4.2.5).

MCWD’s wells in Central Marina (MCWD wells 10, 11, and 12), although near the coast, are in the Deep Aquifer within the Monterey Subbasin (DWR, Bulletin 118, Basin No. 3-004.10) of the broader Salinas Groundwater Basin, which has not experienced signs of seawater intrusion and is considered to have reliable quality.

Within the Ord Community, 6,600 AFY of existing Salinas Valley groundwater supply has been allocated among the land use jurisdictions by FORA. The 6,600 acre-feet per year figure is derived from the 1984 peak and the 1988-1992 average amount of potable water Fort Ord withdrew from the Salinas Basin, not including pumping from a non-potable golf course well.

The City has an existing potable water allocation of Salinas Valley Groundwater of 1,012.5 AFY (from the 6,600 AFY regional allocation), and has previously sub-allocated 831.2 831.9 AFY to other projects, leaving 181.3 180.6 AFY available. Based on the calculations in the WSA, the available water supply of 181.3 180.6 AFY is not sufficient to meet the Proposed Project’s potable water demand of 441.6 AFY. If groundwater pumping were to be increased to meet this demand without mitigation, this would potentially result in overdraft and lowered groundwater levels which would lead to seawater intrusion, which would decrease water quality, by increasing salt concentrations (such as chloride, nitrogen, sodium...

The Proposed Project is projected to use up to 45.83 AFY of recycled water. The City of Seaside has an allocation of 453 AFY from the Phase 1 Recycled Water Project, which will be available in 2019. Once the recycled water distribution system is operational, potable water use that is replaced with recycled water may be reallocated to new projects. Therefore, impacts associated with potable water supply, including groundwater are considered significant.

To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 180.6 AFY of available potable water supply, several in-lieu storage and offset programs have been identified. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 has been proposed to address the 260.03 261 AFY potable water supply shortfall which includes:

UTIL-1 Water Offset Programs
To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 AFY of available potable water supply, the City shall secure the additional water Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1200, Packet Page 1323 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-29
supplies needed for the Proposed Project. To do so, the City shall implement programs to supply a minimum of 260.3 261 AFY. Programs to achieve this include, but would not be limited to:
▪ Bayonet and Blackhorse Golf Courses in-lieu storage and recovery program, which would replace a minimum of 311.08 AFY of existing potable water use with recycled water (up to 450 AFY, as outlined in Court’s October 25, 2019 Order and Motion for Approval of In Lieu Groundwater Storage Program. as recycled water supplies increase). If implemented, this program alone could address the remaining potable water supply needed for the Proposed Project.
▪ Seaside Highlands and Soper Field recycled water substitution program to offset 53.1 AFY of potable water use. The Seaside Highlands development was constructed with recycled water mains to supply the landscape irrigation systems. This system is currently fed with potable water, but recycled water will be available within the next few years. Providing recycled water for irrigation of that project would make up to 43.1 AFY of potable supply available for reallocation from Seaside Highlands. An additional 10 AFY may be made available by converting the City’s Soper Field sports complex (adjacent to Seaside Highlands) to recycled water.
▪ Main-Gate offset program, which would require the previously approved Main-Gate project to utilize 42.99 AFY of recycled water in-lieu of previously allocated potable water supply. ▪ The City may also require dual-plumbing of buildings to use recycled water for sanitary fixtures (flushing toilets and urinals), which will offset potable water demand with recycled water.

Prior to issuance of a final map, the City shall demonstrate the offset of 260.3 261 AFY of potable water based upon available programs, and the applicant shall obtain written verification from MCWD that sufficient water supplies have been secured.

Cumulative development in the MCWD service area will continue to increase demands on water supplies. Table 3-3 in the WSA (Appendix M1) shows projected water demands for MCWD through 2035. By 2040, MCWD anticipates a total demand of 10,881 AFY, an increase of 6,677 AFY from the 2015 demands (MCWD 2019). As discussed above under Impact UTIL-1, due to water demands from the project in combination with projected growth, there are insufficient existing water supplies to accommodate cumulative development and achieve full buildout of the Proposed Project, which is projected to demand 441.6 AFY of potable water. This results in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. As discussed under Impact UTIL-1, if groundwater pumping were to be increased to meet this demand without mitigation, this would potentially result in overdraft and lowered groundwater levels which would lead to seawater intrusion, which would decrease water quality, by increasing salt concentrations (such as chloride, nitrogen, sodium). To address the discrepancy between the Proposed Project’s 441.6 AFY of potable water demand and the 181.3 180.6 AFY of available potable water supply, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would require the City to implement programs to offset potable supply, thereby making potable supplies available for the demands of the Proposed Project. The City would be required to demonstrate that sufficient water supplies have been secured prior to issuance of final map. With mitigation, impacts related to water supply sufficiency would be less than significant. Therefore, after mitigation, the Proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact regarding water supply services.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1201, Packet Page 1324 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-30
Section 5.4 Urban Decay

The Proposed Project would therefore house a variety of commercial business types in a variety of sizes, but no individual store would exceed 40,000 square feet.... Additionally, the new residential units incorporated into the Proposed Project would generate on-site demand for retail/commercial uses, and are not expected to take away demand from any centralized location in the AMBAG region such that it would induce urban decay at other locations. An Urban Decay study was conducted by ALH Urban & Regional Economics in November 2019. This study found that “there would... be no Campus Town-induced risk of existing retail business closures,” and concluded that the Project would not result in urban decay (Urban Decay Study page 30). The study found that in the Seaside market area, “the commercial properties... are moderately to well-maintained,” and that the retail vacancy rate as a whole is within typical retail industry standards of 5% to 10%” (Urban Decay Study pages 5–6). The Project will generate a significant portion of the demand of the support for its own commercial spaces, and although some sales within the Plan Area may be diverted from existing market area retailers, there will be new sources of retail demand generated in the market area to offset these potential diverted sales (Urban Decay Study page 6).

Section 7 References

Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program (MRSWMP). 2014. SWPPP construction provisions. May 26, 2014.
http://montereysea.org/docs/brochures/2014%20Construction%20Site%20BMP.pdf (accessed August 2018).

Overmeyer, Kurt. 2020. Economic Development Director, City of Seaside. Personal communication via email regarding City solid waste diversion rates with Megan Jones, Principal, Rincon Consultants, Inc. January 24, 2020.

Overmeyer, Kurt. 2020. Economic Development Director, City of Seaside. Personal communication via email regarding City solid waste diversion rates with Megan Jones, Principal, Rincon Consultants, Inc. January 24, 2020.

Ahtna Environmental. 2019a. Operable Unit 2, Second Quarter 2019 Groundwater Monitoring and Treatment System Report, Former Fort Ord, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. September 23, 2019.
_____. 2019b. Technical Summary Report – Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctanic Sulfonate Basewide Review of Historical Activities and Groundwater Monitoring at Operable Unit 2, Former Fort Ord, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

September 27, 2019.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Western Division. 1990. Final Site Investigation Report, Fort Ord and Fort Hunter Liggett, California, Part 1- Text. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1202, Packet Page 1325 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-31
of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha Nebraska and Directorate of Engineering and Housing Fort Ord, California. February 8, 1990.

Harding Lawson Associates (HLA). 1992. Sampling and Analysis Plan Modification, Site 10 – Burn Pit, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Fort Ord, California. Available at:
http://docs.fortordcleanup.com/ar_pdfs/AR-BW-0241//BW-0241_text.pdf (accessed February 2018)
_____. 1995. Basewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Fort Ord, California, Volume I – Background and Executive Summary. Prepared for Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. October 18, 1995.
_____. 1996. Interim Action Confirmation Report Site 10 - Burn Pit, Fort Ord, California.

Prepared for Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. August 30, 1996.

Monterey County Department of Health (MCDH). 1994. NFA Letter. From Robert J Melton, Director (Monterey County Department of Health) to James Willison, Chief (Environmental and Natural Resources Management Division). April 6, 1994. _____. 1995. Re: Underground Storage Tank Closures. From Robert J Melton, Director (Monterey County Department of Health) to Barbara Schmitt, Commander (Presidio of Monterey). December 13, 1995.
_____Monterey County Health Department. 2018. Hazardous Materials Management Services. http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-a-h/health/environmentalhealth/hazardous-material-management (accessed September 2018).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2011. GeoTracker Database. Fort Ord - * BW (DOD100196700), Analytical Results - MW-10-04-180. 2019. Geotracker Database: Fort Ord – Basinwide Information (DOD100196700). Analytical Results – MW-10-04-180. http://www.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?cmd=MWEDFResults&globa l_id=DOD100196700&assigned_name =MW-10-04-180 (accessed October 2019).

United States Army. 1995. Approval Memorandum, Proposed Interim Action Excavation, IA Area 10A, Site – Burn Pit, Fort Ord, California. April 1995. http://docs.fortordcleanup.com/ar_pdfs/AR-IAFS-146//IAFS-146.pdf (accessed August 2018).
_____. 2001. Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer with a CERCLA 120(h)(3) Covenant Deferral:

Housing Areas and Former Garrison Parcels, Former Fort Ord, California. December 2001. (FOSET), Former Fort Ord, California. December 1, 2001. _____. 2003. Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST), Track 0 Parcels, Former Fort Ord, California. May 27, 2003.
_____. 2012. Final 3rd Five-Year Review Report for Fort Ord Superfund Site, Monterey County, California. September 17, 2012.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1203, Packet Page 1326 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-32
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1204, Packet Page 1327 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-33
Revised Figures
Figure 2-7 Conceptual Recycled Water System Plan:

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1205, Packet Page 1328 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-34
Figure 2-8 Conceptual Stormwater System:

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1206, Packet Page 1329 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-35
Figure 4.8-1 Surplus II Hazardous Sites in Plan Area
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1207, Packet Page 1330 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-36
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1208, Packet Page 1331 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-37
Figure 4.9-2 Groundwater Basin Subareas Near Plan Area
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1209, Packet Page 1332 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-38
Figure 4.14-1 Existing and Planned Transit Network
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1210, Packet Page 1333 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-39
Figure 4.14-2 Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities Network Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1211, Packet Page 1334 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-40
Figure 4.14-3 Existing and Planned Pedestrian Facilities Network:

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1212, Packet Page 1335 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-41
Appendix B – Campus Town Specific Plan

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1213, Packet Page 1336 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-42

There is a desired regional flow of bike and pedestrian traffic to and through Campus Town extending from CSUMB Main Campus Library/Quad area to existing bike facilities in Seaside that extend as far north as the intersection of Normandy Avenue and General Jim Moore Boulevard.

Connection to the FORTAG spurs will occur at accessible gradients where feasible and to the extent that those connections fall within the boundary of this Specific Plan.

Given the unique ecosystem in Monterey Bay, the careful selection of landscaping in the Campus Town Specific Plan Area is linked to the vitality and sustainability of the local natural environment. The appropriate incorporation of street trees and vegetation detailed below will ensure the mutual health of the natural and built environments.

Existing Coast Live Oak trees recommended for preservation [as identified by the criteria in the Arborist Report] that have a height of ten feet or more, or a circumference of twenty inches or Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1214, Packet Page 1337 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-43
more measured twenty-four inches above the ground that are removed as part of construction shall be replaced (i) at a ratio of 1:1 within the Plan Area or (ii) at a ratio of 1:5 an off-site location approved as part of a Conformance Determination for any Development Application, in either case unless a finding is made pursuant to Section 6.3.1A of this Specific Plan that preservation is not feasible due to the health of the tree (including disease or pests). 1:1.5 within the Specific Plan Area. The size of each replacement tree shall be a 15-gallon or larger specimen, measuring one inch or more in diameter at a point of twelve inches above the base, and not less than seven feet in height, Coast Live Oak tree meeting American Standards for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1) having 1” – 1 1/4” minimum caliper and average height of six to eight feet measured from the base. Trees replaced off-site shall be planted in open space areas for oak forest naturalization from tree pots that have been propagated from the Fort Ord / Marina area.

Existing Monterey Cypress trees recommended for preservation that have a circumference of 20 inches or more measured 24 inches above the ground that are removed as part of construction shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1.2 within the Specific Plan Area or at an off-site location approved as part of a Conformance Determination for any Development Application, in either case unless a finding is made pursuant to Section 6.3.1A of this Specific Plan that preservation is not feasible due to the health of the tree (including disease or pests). The size of each replacement tree shall be a 15-gallon or larger Monterey Cypress tree, meeting American Standards for Nursery Stock (ANSI Z60.1) having 1” – 1 1/2” minimum caliper and average height of six to eight feet measured from the base.

Within the CC Sub-area, no building permit for any non-fire station use shall be issued for the land located on the east side General Jim Moore Boulevard between Lightfighter Drive and Gigling Road that currently house the existing fire station, until replacement fire services are operational.

4.5.1.9 Large Format Retail (over 15,000 sf), including but not limited to the following:
supermarkets, furniture stores, department stores, and cinemas. No individual use may exceed 75,000 40,000 sf, although two or more users may occupy a single building so long as no individual use exceeds 40,000 sf. on a single story.

The maximum anchor floor footprint is 60,000 gross square feet. No single use may exceed 40,000 gross square feet, but multiple users may utilize the full 60,000 square feet. The City may grant…

The maximum anchor floor footprint is 60,000 gross square feet. No single use may exceed 40,000 gross square feet, but multiple users may utilize the full 60,000 square feet. The City may grant…
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1215, Packet Page 1338 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-44

1. Tree Removal and Replacement. Each Development Application shall specify any tree to be removed or altered and shall demonstrate compliance with the Coast Live Oak and Monterey Cypress tree replacement policyies in this Specific Plan. Such application shall identify the Lot or off-site location on which the tree is located, or to be planted, provide a perimeter outline of an existing or proposed building on the Lot, specify the location of the tree, and furnish a brief statement of the reason for the request. The following finding must be made if it is determined that any of the trees recommended for preservation should be removed: the preservation of the tree(s) would impair the implementation of the Base Reuse Plan, the General Plan, and/or the Specific Plan on the site in question, and/or the preservation is not feasible due to the health of the tree (including disease or pests). Final approval of a Conformance Determination with respect to any Development Application indicating any trees to be removed shall constitute a permit to remove or alter any trees so designated, subject to tree replacement requirements solely to the extent required by Section 3.5 of this Specific Plan. Appeal of such permit shall be subject to the same provisions as appeal of a Conformance Determination, as provided herein.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1216, Packet Page 1339 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-45
Appendix K – Traffic Impact Study, Fehr & Peers
Other minor revisions not included in this summary include revising table numbers, correcting capitalization, and defining acronyms in text.

Scenario 5: Cumulative (2040) Conditions – Vehicle miles traveled from the future year (2040) travel demand forecasting model from AMBAG. This includes any land use updates as part of the City’s proposed Seaside 2040 General Plan, not including the Campus Town Specific Plan development.

Students, staff, and faculty of CSUMB receive free unlimited access on all MST regular bus routes with their CSUMB Otter ID card. Additionally, all transit users with physical and/or cognitive disabilities may have access to the MST para-transit program (paratransit service known as RIDES). This service operates on a point-to-point basis and eligibility is required for service.

Results from the AMBAG model were provided by TJKM for use in this analysis. Additional information about the model, any changes that were made, and how the data was extracted can be found in the model documentation provided by TJKM as part of the draft Seaside 2040 General Plan. VMT estimates were developed for the Plan area, for the following scenarios:

As discussed in Chapter 1: Vehicle Miles Traveled 3, SB 743…

However, the VMT estimates are primarily affected by the dominate dominant land use in the Plan area…

2018 conditions by interpolating between the 2015 and 2040 conditions”:
10 The AMBAG travel demand forecasting model uses a 2015 base year. The model results from 2015 and 2040 were interpolated to obtain 2018 base year results. Formula: VMT2018 = VMT2015 + (2018 – 2015) * [(VMT2040 – VMT2015) / (2040 - 2015)].

The model contains freeways, arterials, and local streets within the Monterey Bay region. Land uses are summarized in traffic analysis zones. The model includes similar detail in the rest of the AMBAG area of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties. Information regarding VMT, service population and number of trip ends for the Plan traffic analysis zone (TAZ) and the AMBAG region was provided for the base year and 2040 future year by the City of Seaside’s Seaside 2040 General Plan transportation consultant, TJKM, on May 8, 2019. These future year estimates include growth assumed in Seaside as presented in the preliminary Seaside 2040 General Plan.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1217, Packet Page 1340 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-46

Traffic volumes for Existing Conditions are based on turning movement counts as described in Chapter 32

Under Existing Conditions, southbound segments are generally more congested during the morning peak hour. In addition, congestion is experienced along State Route 1 between Del Monte Boulevard and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard in northbound direction during evening peak hour. Existing freeway segments operations are summarized in Table 18 and freeway merge and diverge operations are found in Table 19. Detailed calculation sheets are presented in Appendix H.

Table 18 Existing with Plan Freeway Segment Level of Service Segment Dir.1 Capacity
Peak
Hour2
Existing Conditions Existing with Plan Conditions
Density3 LOS4 Density3
Plan
Trips
Plan
Percent of
Capacity LOS4
1 State Route 1
between
Lightfighter Drive
and Del Monte
Boulevard
NB 7,050 AM
PM

15.2 25.32
B
C

15.54 25.8
39 88

0.5%

1.2%
B
C
SB 7,050 AM
PM

30.45 16.9
D
B

31.1 17.23
70 69

1.0%

1.0%
D
B
2 State Route 1
between Del
Monte Boulevard
and Canyon Del
Rey Boulevard
NB 4,700 AM
PM

20.01 32.1
C
D

20.34 33.3
39 88

0.8%

1.8%
C
D
SB 4,700 AM
PM

34.57 21.2
D
C

35.67 21.7
70 69

1.5%

1.5%
E
C
Notes: Bold text indicates freeway segment operates at unacceptable level of service.

1. NB = northbound; SB = southbound

2. AM = morning peak hour; PM = evening peak hour

3. Density is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane.

4. Level of service based on density.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1218, Packet Page 1341 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-47
Table 19 Existing with Plan Freeway Merge and Diverge Level of Service Segment Type
Number of
Lanes
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing with Plan
Density (vphpl) LOS Density (vphpl) LOS
State Route 1 - Northbound
Canyon Del Rey OnRampMerge 2 AM
PM

21.4 31.7
C
D

21.8 32.4
C
D
Fremont/Del Monte
Off-Ramp
Diverge 2 AM
PM

25.3 36.5
C
E

25.7 37.3
C
E
Fremont/Del Monte
On-Ramp
Merge 2 AM
PM

15.2 25.7
B
C

15.5 26.2
B
D
Lightfighter OffRampDiverge 3 AM
PM

20.4 29.3
C
D

20.7 29.8
C
D
State Route 1 - Southbound
Lightfighter OnRampMerge 3 AM
PM

30.8 19.6
D
B

31.4 20.2
D
C
Fremont/Del Monte
Off-Ramp
Diverge 3 AM
PM

30.4 16.9
D
B

31.1 17.2
D
B
Fremont/Del Monte
On-Ramp
Merge 2 AM
PM

33.4 23.1
D
C

33.9 23.6
D
C
Canyon Del Rey OffRampDiverge 2 AM
PM

37.6 26.1
E
C

38.2 26.7
E
C
Note: Bold font indicates LOS F conditions.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.

Background with Plan Conditions
Freeway volumes for the Background and Background with Plan Conditions were developed as described in Chapter 7. Future operations of freeway mainline segments in Monterey County were evaluated using level of service and percent of Plan traffic added to each roadway segment.

Table 20 and Table 21 presents the summary for the Background and Background with Plan Conditions freeway operations, and freeway merge and diverge operations, respectively. All segments operate below LOS C under without Plan and with Plan Conditions, except northbound State Route 1 between Lightfighter Drive and Del Monte Boulevard during the AM peak hour and southbound State Route 1 between Lightfighter Drive and Del Monte Boulevard during the PM peak hour. Appendix H includes the freeway density calculations and levels of service.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1219, Packet Page 1342 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-48
Table 20 Background with Plan Freeway Level of Service
Segment Dir.1 Capacity
Peak
Hour2
Background
Conditions
Background with Plan
Conditions
Density3 LOS4 Density3
Plan
Trips
Plan
Percent
of
Capacity LOS4
1 State Route 1 between Lightfighter Drive
and Del Monte Boulevard
NB 7,050 AM
PM

21.7 35.0
C
E

21.9 35.9
39 88

0.5%

1.2%
C
E
SB 7,050 AM
PM

39.4 24.8
E
C

40.4 25.2
70 69

1.0%

1.0%
E
C
2 State Route 1 between Del Monte
Boulevard and Canyon Del Rey Boulevard
NB 4,700 AM
PM

32.4 >45.0
D
F

32.9 >45.0
39 87

0.8%

1.8%
D
F
SB 4,700 AM
PM
>45.0

38.7 F
E
>45.0

39.9 70
69 1.5%

1.5%
F
E
Notes: Bold text indicates freeway segment operates at unacceptable level of service.

1. NB = northbound; SB = southbound

2. AM = morning peak hour; PM = evening peak hour

3. Density is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane.

4. Level of service based on density.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1220, Packet Page 1343 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-49
Table 21 Background with Plan Freeway Merge and Diverge Level of Service Segment Type
Number of
Lanes
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing with Plan
Density
(vphpl) LOS
Density
(vphpl) LOS
State Route 1 - Northbound
Canyon Del Rey OnRampMerge 2 AM
PM

31.67 --
D
F

32.0 --
D
F
Fremont/Del Monte OffRampDiverge 2 AM
PM

36.7 --
E
F

37.1 --
E
F
Fremont/Del Monte OnRampMerge 2 AM
PM

21.7 35.9
C
E

21.9 36.8
C
E
Lightfighter Off-Ramp Diverge 3 AM
PM

27.6 35.6
CD
E

27.9 36.1
C
E
State Route 1 - Southbound
Lightfighter On-Ramp Merge 3 AM
PM

36.8 29.1
E
D

37.4 29.7
E
D
Fremont/Del Monte OffRampDiverge 3 AM
PM

39.4 24.8
E
C

40.4 25.2
E
C
Fremont/Del Monte OnRampMerge 2 AM
PM
--

35.5 F
E
--

36.1 F
E
Canyon Del Rey OffRampDiverge 2 AM
PM
--

40.0 F
E
--
--
F
F
Note: Bold font indicates LOS F conditions.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.

Cumulative with Plan Conditions
Freeway volumes for the Cumulative and Cumulative with Plan scenarios were developed as described in Chapter 7. Future operations of freeway mainline segments in Monterey County were evaluated using level of service and percent of Plan traffic added to each roadway segment.

Table 22 and Table 23 presents the summary for the Cumulative and Cumulative with Plan Conditions freeway operations. All segments operate below LOS C under without Plan and with Plan Conditions, except northbound State Route 1 between Lightfighter Drive and Del Monte Boulevard during the AM peak hour. Appendix H includes the freeway density calculations and levels of service.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1221, Packet Page 1344 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-50
Table 1922 Cumulative with Plan Freeway Level of Service Segment Dir.1 Capacity
Peak
Hour2
Cumulative Conditions
Cumulative with Plan
Conditions
Density3 LOS4 Density3
Plan
Trips
Plan
Percent
of
Capacity LOS4
1 State Route 1 between
Lightfighter Drive and Del
Monte Boulevard
NB 7,050 AM
PM

23.20 37.54
C
E

23.43 38.4
39 88

0.5%

1.2%
C
E
SB 7,050 AM
PM

42.67 26.6
E
D

43.78 27.01
70 69

1.0%

1.0%
E
D
2 State Route 1 between Del
Monte Boulevard and Canyon
Del Rey Boulevard
NB 4,700 AM
PM

36.15 >45
E
F

36.77.1 >45
39 87

0.8%

1.8%
E
F
SB 4,700 AM
PM
>45

44.1 F
E
>45
>45
70 69

1.5%

1.5%
F
F
Notes: Bold text indicates freeway segment operates at unacceptable level of service.

1. NB = northbound; SB = southbound

2. AM = morning peak hour; PM = evening peak hour

3. Density is measured in passenger cars per mile per lane.

4. Level of service based on density.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1222, Packet Page 1345 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-51
Table 23 Cumulative with Plan Freeway Merge and Diverge Level of Service Segment Type
Number
of Lanes
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing with Plan
Density
(vphpl) LOS
Density
(vphpl) LOS
State Route 1 - Northbound
Canyon Del Rey On-Ramp Merge 2 AM
PM

33.8 --
D
F

34.1 --
D
F
Fremont/Del Monte Off-Ramp Diverge 2 AM
PM

39.1 --
E
F

39.4 --
E
F
Fremont/Del Monte On-Ramp Merge 2 AM
PM

23.2 38.4
C
E

23.4 39.4
C
E
Lightfighter Off-Ramp Diverge 3 AM
PM

29.0 36.7
D
E

29.3 37.2
D
E
State Route 1 - Southbound
Lightfighter On-Ramp Merge 3 AM
PM
--

30.9 F
D
--

31.5 F
D
Fremont/Del Monte Off-Ramp Diverge 3 AM
PM

42.6 26.6
E
D

43.7 27.0
E
D
Fremont/Del Monte On-Ramp Merge 2 AM
PM
--
--
F
F
--
--
F
F
Canyon Del Rey Off-Ramp Diverge 2 AM
PM
--
--
F
F
--
--
F
F
Note: Bold font indicates LOS F conditions.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.

This section summarizes the queues calculated in Synchro using the Poisson distribution method2010 HCM outputs at the off-ramps with signalized terminal intersections.

This section summarizes the queues calculated in Synchro using the Poisson distribution method2010 HCM outputs at the off-ramps with signalized terminal intersections.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1223, Packet Page 1346 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-52
Figure Revisions
Figure Titles:

Figure 1: Campus Town Specific Plan Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Campus Town Specific Plan Site Plan Area
Figure 3: Campus Town Specific Plan Proposed Roadway Classifications Figure 4: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Figure 5: Existing and Approved Transit Routes Network
Figure 6: Existing and Approved Bicycle Facilities
Figure 7: Existing and Approved Pedestrian Network
Figure 8: Campus Town Specific Plan - Trip Distribution Figure 9: Campus Town Specific Plan - Trip Assignment for Existing and Background Trip Assignment Conditions
Figure 10: Campus Town Specific Plan - Cumulative Trip Assignment for Cumulative Conditions Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1224, Packet Page 1347 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-53
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1225, Packet Page 1348 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-54
Appendix C, MainStreet Summary, has been added to this appendix:

MainStreet
Current accepted trip generation methods, such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation method, are primarily based on data collected at suburban, single-use, freestanding sites. These defining characteristics limit their applicability to mixed-use or multi-use development projects, or where complementary land uses are added (such as adding residential units to an office rich area). The land use mix, design features, and setting of the proposed Campus Town Specific Plan land use alternatives would include characteristics that influence travel behavior differently from typical single-use suburban developments. Thus, traditional data and methods, like ITE, would not accurately estimate the project vehicle trip generation. In response to the limitations in the ITE method, and to provide a straightforward and empiricallyvalidated method of estimating vehicle trip generation at mixed-use developments, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored a national study of the trip generation characteristics of multi-use sites. Travel survey data was gathered from 239 mixed-use developments (MXDs) in six major metropolitan regions, and correlated with the characteristics of the sites and their surroundings. The findings indicate that the amount of external traffic generated is affected by a wide variety of factors, each pertaining to one or more of the following characteristics:
• The relative numbers of residents and jobs on the site – the better the site jobs/ housing balance, the greater the proportion of commute trips that remain internal. • The amount of retail and service use on the site relative to the number of residences – the greater the degree to which retail and service opportunities match the needs generated by site residents, the greater the internalization of household-generated shopping, personal services and entertainment travel.
• The amount of retail and service use relative to the number of employees – the better the balance of employee-oriented retail and service opportunities, the greater the internal capture of lunchtime and after-work dining, shopping and errands by site employees.
• The overall size of the development – the larger the scale of the development in terms of acreage and total amounts of residential and commercial use, the greater the likelihood that travel destinations can be satisfied within the site as a whole. • The density of development – the greater the concentration of dwellings and commercial space per acre, the greater the likelihood that the interacting land uses will be near enough together to encourage walking or short-distance internal driving.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1226, Packet Page 1349 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-55
• The internal connectivity for walking or driving among different activities – measured in terms of the ratio of intersections to total land area within the site directly influences trip internalization and the number of trips made by walking instead of driving. • The availability of transit – the greater the number of jobs within a reasonable travel time via transit, the greater the share of travel likely to occur by transit, and the lower the traffic generation.
• The number of convenient trip destinations within the immediate area – the number of retail and other jobs in neighborhoods immediately surrounding the multi-use site reduces the amount of walking to/from the site and reduce traffic generation.

These characteristics were related statistically to the trip behavior observed at the study development sites using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) techniques. This quantified relationships between characteristics of the MXDs and the likelihood that trips generated by those MXDs will stay internal and/or use modes of transportation other than the private vehicle.

These statistical relationships produced equations, known as the EPA MXD model, that allows predicting external vehicle trip reduction as a function of the MXD characteristics. Applying the external vehicle trip reduction percentage to “raw trips”, as predicted by ITE, produces an estimate for the number of vehicle trips traveling in or out of the site.

Fehr & Peers developed a web application called MainStreet to apply the MXD+ model for any location in the United States. MainStreet was utilized for the Campus Town Specific Plan.

Validation of MainStreet/MXD+ model
Since the conclusion of the EPA sponsored study, Fehr & Peers has been actively enhancing the MXD model to improve sensitivity to various site characteristics, improve peak hour performance, and continue to validate the model against MXDs where data is available.

A set of 27 independent MXD sites across the country that were not included in the initial model development have been tested to validate the model. These sites represent locations where it is expected that traditional data and methods, such as ITE, would not accurately estimate the Project vehicle trip generation. Table A1 presents the performance of the MXD model against ITE and ITE internalization procedures. Based on all statistical measurements, the MXD model performs better than the ITE recommended procedures for these types of sites.

The MXD model has been approved for use by the EPA7. It has also been peer-reviewed in the ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development8, peer-reviewed in a 2012 TRB paper 7 Trip Generation Tool for Mixed-Use Developments (2012). www.epa.gov/dced/mxd_tripgeneration.html Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1227, Packet Page 1350 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-56
evaluating various smart growth trip generation methods9, recommended by SANDAG for use on mixed-use smart growth developments10, and has been used successfully in multiple certified EIRs in California.

TABLE A1
MAINSTREET/MXD+ MODEL

VALIDATION STATISTICS COMPARISON
Validation Statistic ITE raw ITE with internalization MainStreet/MXD+ Daily
Average Model Error1 28% 16% 2%
% RMSE2 40% 27% 17%
R-Squared3 0.77 0.89 0.96
AM Peak Hour
Average Model Error 54% 49% 12%
% RMSE 54% 53% 21%
R-Squared 0.81 0.81 0.97
PM Peak Hour
Average Model Error 49% 35% 4%
% RMSE 64% 49% 15%
R-Squared 0.40 0.65 0.97

1. Average model error measures the difference between the estimated trip generation and the counted trip generation of the 28 survey sites.

2. RMSE stands for percent root mean squared error is a demand assessment of performance of transportation models in that it does not apply average that would allow over-estimates and under-estimates to cancel one another out and it penalizes proportionally more for large errors. A % RMSE of less than 40% is generally considered acceptable in transportation modeling.

3. R-squared is a statistical measure that indicates, in this case, the degree to which each method explains the variation in trip generation among the 27 survey sites. An R-Squared value closer to 1.0 indicates that the method fully explains the variation in trip generation amongst the survey sites and would be suitable to be used for that set of site types.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.
8 ”Traffic Generated by Mixed-Use Developments—Six-Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures.” Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 137(3), 248–261.
9 Shafizadeh, Kevan et al. “Evaluation of the Operation and Accuracy of Available Smart Growth Trip Generation Methodologies for Use in California”. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012. 10 SANDAG Smart Growth Trip Generation and Parking Study. http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=378&fuseaction=projects.detail Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1228, Packet Page 1351 Amendments to the Draft EIR
Final Environmental Impact Report 4-57
Appendix M – Campus Town Water Supply Assessment
Global Changes to the Draft EIR and Appendix M: Monterey Peninsula College water allocation is hereby revised from 9.0 to 9.7 AFY. Therefore, all references in the Draft EIR and the WSA to the City of Seaside unallocated amount of water from its FORA allocation should be read as changing from 181.3 to 180.6. The City of Seaside’s existing water sub-allocation is also revised from 831.2 to 831.9 AFY. Relatedly, the Project’s demand for water that cannot be met using the FORA allocation is revised from 260.3 to 261.0 AFY, and Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 is revised to require a water offset of 261.0 AFY along with the additional text revisions outlined in the revisions to Section 4.16 above.

It also has a small desalination plant in the Central Marina Service Area that is currently not in operation.

The 6,600 acre-feet per year amount includes 5,200 acre-feet from the 180-foot and 400-foot aquifers, along with 1,400 acre-feet per year from the 900-foot or Deep Aquifer.

After execution of this agreement and until Project Implementation, Ford Ord/POM/RC may withdraw a maximum of 6,600 acre-feet of water per year from the Salinas Basis, provided no more than 5,200 acre-feet per year are withdrawn from the 180-foot aquifer and 400-foot aquifer.

Table 4-4 City of Seaside Sub-Allocations
Land Use Jurisdiction Existing Groundwater Allocation (AFY) City of Seaside
SunBay Apartments 120.0
Brostram Park (Bay View MHP) 84.8
Seaside Highlands 168.5
Seaside Resort 161.4
MPUSD 81.0
Monterey College of Law 2.6
Monterey Peninsula College 9.0 9.7
Chartwell School 6.4
Main Gate "Retail Lifestyle Mall" 149.0
American Youth Hostile Hostel 5.5
Seaside Senior Living 40.0
Other Existing Use 3.0
City of Seaside Total 831.29
FORA Allocation 1012.5
City of Seaside Unallocated 181.3 180.6
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1229, Packet Page 1352 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
4-58
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1230, Packet Page 1353 References
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-1
5 References
Ahtna Environmental. 2019. Technical Summary Report – Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctanic Sulfonate Basewide Review of Historical Activities and Groundwater Monitoring at Operable Unit 2, Former Fort Ord, California. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. September 27, 2019.

ALH ECON. 2019. Urban Decay Prospects Associated with The Campus Town Specific Plan, Seaside, California. November 2019.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed October 2019).
_____. 2018. “California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2018 Edition. Last modified: July 11, 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed January 2019). ____. 2019a. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/nationalambient-air-quality-standards (accessed October 2019). ____. 2019b. “California Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards (accessed October 2019).
____. 2019c. “Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/background-air-qualitystandards (accessed October 2019). ____. 2019d. “New Source Review.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/new-sourcereview-permitting-programs/new-source-review (accessed October 2019).

California Center for Sustainable Energy. 2013. California Plug-in Electric Vehicle Driver Survey Results. May 2013.

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2018. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2017 with 2010 Census Benchmark. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed October 2018).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2016. U.S. Per Capita Electricity Use by State in 2016. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/us_per_capita_electricity.html (accessed December 2019).
_____. 2019. “Federal – State Joint Environmental Process.” https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/public_adviser/joint_process.html (accessed October 2019).

California Natural Resources Agency. 2018. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action:

Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines. November 2018. Page 68. http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_Final_Statement_of%20Reasons_111218.p df (accessed November 19, 2019).

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1231, Packet Page 1354 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
5-2
Coren, Michael J. 2019. People are starting to buy electric cars for the same reason they buy any other car. September 3, 2019. https://qz.com/1701143/price-not-range-is-the-reasonpeople-will-buy-electric-cars/ (accessed December 2019).

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology Western Division. 1990. Final Site Investigation Report, Fort Ord and Fort Hunter Liggett, California, Part 1- Text. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha Nebraska and Directorate of Engineering and Housing Fort Ord, California. February 8, 1990.

Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA). 2019a. Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2019-2010 through 2028-29. https://www.fora.org/Board/2019/Packet/Additional/FY19- 20_CIP_COMPLETE_DRAFT_050319_v1.pdf (accessed June 2019). _____. 2019b. 2020 Transition Transportation Study. Fiscal Year 2019/2020. October 28, 2019.

Harding ESE. 2002. Draft Final Field Investigation and Data Review, Solid Waste Management Units, Ford Ord, California. Prepared for Department of the Army Sacramento District Corps of Engineers. July 30, 2002.

Harding Lawson Associates (HLA). 1995. Basewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Fort Ord, California, Volume I – Background and Executive Summary. Prepared for Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. October 18, 1995.
_____. 1996. Interim Action Confirmation Report Site 10 - Burn Pit, Fort Ord, California. Prepared for Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. August 30, 1996.

HMH. 2019. Arborist Report. October 4, 2019.

KB Bakewell Seaside Venture II. 2018. Preliminary Post-Construction Stormwater Control Plan for Campus Town. Prepared by Ruggeri Jensen Azar (RJA). July 2018.

Marina Coast Water District (MCWD). 2016. Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. https://www.mcwd.org/docs/engr/uwmp_final_12-27-05.pdf (accessed October 2019).

Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. February 2008. http://mbuapcd.org/pdf/CEQA_full%20(1).pdf (accessed January 2019). _____. 2011. Rule 207. “Review of New or Modified Sources.” https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/drdb/mon/curhtml/r207.pdf (accessed October 2019).

Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA). 2006. Monterey County Groundwater Management Plan. May 2006.
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=22563 (accessed October 2019).

Said, Peter. 2019. Personal communication between Kurt Overmeyer (City of Seaside) and Peter Said (Fort Ord Reuse Authority) via email December 20, 2019, regarding noise, vibration, and air quality complaints.

Seaside, City of. 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report: The Projects at Main Gate Specific Plan.

August 2008. https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/417/DraftEnvironmental-Impact-Report-DEIR-PDF?bidId= (accessed December 2019). _____. 2010. The Projects at Main Gate Specific Plan. August 2010. https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/278/Projects-at-Main-Gate-Specific-Plan (accessed October 2019).

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1232, Packet Page 1355 References
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-3
_____. 2017. Seaside Fire Department 2017 Annual Report. http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=44 (accessed March 2019). _____. 2019. Solid Waste & Recycling. https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/422/Solid-Waste-Recycling (accessed December 2019).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019a. State Water Board Updates Guidelines for Testing and Reporting PFOA and PFOS As It Assesses Scope of Problem. August 23, 2019. _____. 2019b. Update on Spring 2019 State Water Board Directives for Soil and Water Samples at Likely Per- and Poly- Fluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) “Hot Spot” Locations. August 23, 2019.

True, Brian. 2019. Personal communication between Kurt Overmeyer (City of Seaside) and Brian True (MCWD) via email December 16, 2019, regarding a stormwater capture option into the sanitary sewer.

United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2018. California State Energy Profile. Last Updated November 15, 2018. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA (accessed December 2019).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. “Basic Information about the General Conformity Rule.” https://www.epa.gov/general-conformity/basic-informationabout-general-conformity-rule (accessed October 2019). ____. 2018. “Process of Reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” Last modified: July 10, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/process-reviewing-national-ambientair-quality-standards (accessed October 2019). ____. 2019. “Prevention of Significant Deterioration Basin Information.” Last modified: February 8, 2019. https://www.epa.gov/nsr/prevention-significant-deterioration-basic-information (accessed October 2019).

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1233, Packet Page 1356 City of Seaside
Campus Town Specific Plan
5-4
This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1234, Packet Page 1357 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1235, Packet Page 1358 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1236, Packet Page 1359 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1237, Packet Page 1360 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1238, Packet Page 1361 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1239, Packet Page 1362 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1240, Packet Page 1363 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1241, Packet Page 1364 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1242, Packet Page 1365 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1243, Packet Page 1366 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1244, Packet Page 1367 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1245, Packet Page 1368 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1246, Packet Page 1369 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1247, Packet Page 1370 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1248, Packet Page 1371 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1249, Packet Page 1372 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1250, Packet Page 1373 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1251, Packet Page 1374 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1252, Packet Page 1375 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1253, Packet Page 1376 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1254, Packet Page 1377 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1255, Packet Page 1378 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1256, Packet Page 1379 Attachment A Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1257, Packet Page 1380 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1258, Packet Page 1381 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1259, Packet Page 1382 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1260, Packet Page 1383 Erickson Questioned Properties May 7, 2018 Letter; Proposed Removed June 25, 2018 (R1); Final List September 10, 2018 (R2) Remove parcel
Remove a portion of the parcel (split parcel)
Note: "Land Use Approvals" means when a parcel or parcels receive land use approvals by the Land Use Jurisdiction through a specific plan, master plan, or individual project approval.

Parcels within proposed "Campus Town":

Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
1 031-151-032 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 2 031-151-029 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 3 031-151-031 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 4 031-151-040 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 5 031-151-037 FORA No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 6 031-151-039 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 7 031-040-024 MST No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 8 031-151-025 MST No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 9 031-151-036 County of Monterey No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.

Parcels that have existing Customers with Existing Meters, Area between 7th and 8th:

Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
10 031-101-060 County of Monterey Appears no water use. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.

Parcels that have existing Customers with Existing Meters Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
11 031-151-048 Parker Flats below DOD Center Existing barracks/office area. Existing water/sewer mains and services. Existing tank site
Yes Remove portion of parcel except the portion with the tank site and substation to be kept in annexation (split parcel).

Removed portion will be annexed upon future land use
approvals.
12 031-111-027 MBEST west of Blanco Existing warehouses/offices. Existing water/sewer mains and services Yes Remove portion of parcel except the portion with the building that has existing customers (split parcel).

Removed portion will be annexed upon future land use
approvals.

Specific Plans/CEQA complete on Parcel
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
13 031-031-018 Main Gate Specific Plan Area Specific Plan approved by City of Seaside No Remove portion of parcel outside Main Gate SP (split parcel). Removed portion will be annexed upon future
land use approvals.
14 031-041-011 Main Gate Specific Plan Area Specific Plan approved by City of Seaside No Remove portion of parcel outside Main Gate SP (split parcel). Removed portion will be annexed upon future
land use approvals.
15 031-021-050 Marina near Hwy 1/Del Monte Parcel is partially in University Villages (Dunes at Monterey Bay), partially in Cypress Knolls. Parcel is in both specific plans. Existing housing area. Existing water service but no customers yet. City allocated water to both. MCWD has the Booker lift station on this Parcel.

No Remove portion of parcel outside Dunes and Cypress
Knolls (split parcel). Removed portion will be annexed
upon future land use approvals.

Attachment A Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1261, Packet Page 1384 MCWD infrastructure Parcels
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
16 031-081-023 North of Preston Park (City of Marina
Property)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).

No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
17 031-121-003 North of Preston Park (UC Regents
Property)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).

No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
18 031-121-004 North of Preston Park (City of Marina
Property)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).

No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
19 031-121-045 Area s/o Chartwell School (MCWD pipeline parcel for the D zone tanks)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).

No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.

Other Parcels
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
20 031-101-052 City of Marina No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
21 031-201-012 MST No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
22 031-201-013 MST, Other Doesn't appear to be any water use. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
23 031-112-026 City of Marina, Skydiving Monterey, Ross Roofing, Other
Doesn't appear to be any water use. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
24 031-111-040 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
25 031-111-042 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
26 031-111-043 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
27 031-111-041 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.

Attachment A Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1262, Packet Page 1385 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1263, Packet Page 1386 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1264, Packet Page 1387 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1265, Packet Page 1388 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1266, Packet Page 1389 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1267, Packet Page 1390 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1268, Packet Page 1391 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1269, Packet Page 1392 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1270, Packet Page 1393 Erickson Questioned Properties May 7, 2018 Letter; Proposed Removed June 25, 2018 (R1); Final List September 10, 2018 (R2) Remove parcel
Remove a portion of the parcel (split parcel)
Note: "Land Use Approvals" means when a parcel or parcels receive land use approvals by the Land Use Jurisdiction through a specific plan, master plan, or individual project approval.

Parcels within proposed "Campus Town":

Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
1 031-151-032 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 2 031-151-029 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 3 031-151-031 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 4 031-151-040 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 5 031-151-037 FORA No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 6 031-151-039 Redevelopment Agency of Seaside No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 7 031-040-024 MST No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 8 031-151-025 MST No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals. 9 031-151-036 County of Monterey No approved projects or allocations. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.

Parcels that have existing Customers with Existing Meters, Area between 7th and 8th:

Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
10 031-101-060 County of Monterey Appears no water use. No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.

Parcels that have existing Customers with Existing Meters Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
11 031-151-048 Parker Flats below DOD Center Existing barracks/office area. Existing water/sewer mains and services. Existing tank site
Yes Remove portion of parcel except the portion with the tank site and substation to be kept in annexation (split parcel).

Removed portion will be annexed upon future land use
approvals.
12 031-111-027 MBEST west of Blanco Existing warehouses/offices. Existing water/sewer mains and services Yes Remove portion of parcel except the portion with the building that has existing customers (split parcel).

Removed portion will be annexed upon future land use
approvals.

Specific Plans/CEQA complete on Parcel
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
13 031-031-018 Main Gate Specific Plan Area Specific Plan approved by City of Seaside No Remove portion of parcel outside Main Gate SP (split parcel). Removed portion will be annexed upon future
land use approvals.
14 031-041-011 Main Gate Specific Plan Area Specific Plan approved by City of Seaside No Remove portion of parcel outside Main Gate SP (split parcel). Removed portion will be annexed upon future
land use approvals.
15 031-021-050 Marina near Hwy 1/Del Monte Parcel is partially in University Villages (Dunes at Monterey Bay), partially in Cypress Knolls. Parcel is in both specific plans. Existing housing area. Existing water service but no customers yet. City allocated water to both. MCWD has the Booker lift station on this Parcel.

No Remove portion of parcel outside Dunes and Cypress
Knolls (split parcel). Removed portion will be annexed
upon future land use approvals.

Attachment A Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1271, Packet Page 1394 MCWD infrastructure Parcels
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
16 031-081-023 North of Preston Park (City of Marina
Property)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).

No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
17 031-121-003 North of Preston Park (UC Regents
Property)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).

No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
18 031-121-004 North of Preston Park (City of Marina
Property)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).

No Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
19 031-121-045 Area s/o Chartwell School (MCWD pipeline parcel for the D zone tanks)
Existing MCWD Infrastructure on property (Property contains MCWD easements, water pipes, and sewer pipes).

No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.

Other Parcels
Map ID Parcel Description Status Customers Note
20 031-101-052 City of Marina No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
21 031-201-012 MST No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
22 031-201-013 MST, Other Doesn't appear to be any water use. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
23 031-112-026 City of Marina, Skydiving Monterey, Ross Roofing, Other
Doesn't appear to be any water use. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
24 031-111-040 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
25 031-111-042 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
26 031-111-043 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.
27 031-111-041 UCSC (regents) in Airport area No projects, no allocations. No Added by MCWD to Erickson's list. Will be annexed upon future land use approvals.

Attachment A Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1272, Packet Page 1395 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1273, Packet Page 1396 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1274, Packet Page 1397 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1275, Packet Page 1398 8/3/23, 11:25 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Fwd: Inquiry Regarding Availability of New Housing Element for Public Viewing Kimberly Cole
Wed 8/2/2023 1:18 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Alia Elyas < >
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 12:12 PM
To: Kimberly Cole <[email protected]>
Cc: Gabriel Sanders < >
Subject: Inquiry Regarding Availability of New Housing Element for Public Viewing You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hello,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing on behalf of MBEP, a local non-profit organization in the Monterey Bay area,  and we have been eagerly anticipating the release of the updated 6th Cycle Housing Element for the city of Monterey and we are keen to review the proposed strategies and policies that will shape the city's housing landscape. Understanding the importance of public participation in this crucial planning process, we would like to inquire about the anticipated date for when the new Housing Element will be available for public viewing.

We would also like to kindly request that once the new Housing Element is ready for public viewing, you notify us by email at:

Furthermore, if there are any additional opportunities for community involvement or public meetings related to the Housing Element, we would greatly appreciate receiving such information.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to receiving updates on the availability of the new Housing Element. And please feel free to reach out to us if you require any further information or have any questions or concerns.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Alia Elyas
--
______________________________
Alia Elyas
Policy and Research Associate | Monterey Bay Economic Partnership 3180 Imjin Road, #153, Marina, CA 93933
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1276, Packet Page 1399 8/3/23, 11:25 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1277, Packet Page 1400 September 4, 2023
Colton Hall and Community Development Department
580 and 570 Pacific St
Monterey, CA 93940
Subject: City of Monterey Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Dear Mayor Williamson, City Councilmembers, and Director Cole, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) supports recommendations for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Draft made available to the public on August 2nd, 2023. The City of Monterey’s Draft Housing Element incorporates policies in alignment with recommendations from our white paper, Practical Housing Policy: Increasing Supply and Affordability; which spans the following five policies:
● Streamline permitting and reduce discretionary reviews:
● Increase allowable densities
● Reform impact fees
● Increase funding sources for affordable housing
● Optimize Inclusionary Housing Ordinances
Specific comments and recommendations for the programs included in the Housing Element are below.

Opportunity Areas – Map 3-14
MBEP supports designation of the opportunity areas outlined on Map 3-14.

Identifying priority areas for infill development is critical for guiding resource allocation for developers and city staff alike.

Recommendations:
● Ensure streamlining incentives (by-right/ministerial approval, CEQA exemption, objective guideline evaluation) are available in all opportunity areas in exchange for inclusion of affordable units. See recommendations for Program 1-D.
● Implement form-based code or a building envelope-based design regime that allows for greater building heights, decreased setbacks, greater F.A.R., and as a result, higher density than strictly following zoning designations would allow.
● Implement impact fee reductions and deferrals for infill housing ● Reduce parking requirements for projects developed within ¾ mile of transit routes with service frequency every hour during commute hours
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1278, Packet Page 1401 Programs 1-B: Multi-family Residential Overlay amendments; 1-C: Specific Plan Updates; and 1-D:Permit Streamlining Pilot Project
MBEP supports streamlined permitting and higher density housing in areas of Monterey with high concentration of jobs, transit access, and other critical Fair Housing resources. ● Amendments to increase density limits in the Multi-Family Residential Overlay (1-B) and Specific Plan areas (1-C) increase feasibility for housing that is relatively affordable by design or deed-restricted. Reducing parking requirements and increasing height limits adds to feasibility and net affordability.
● Creating the Permit Streamlining Pilot area program (1-D), Educational Workforce Housing Overlay, and Congregational Overlay represents a significant step in enabling by-right housing development and drastically reducing the time, cost, and risk associated with the permitting process. MBEP strongly supports the delegation of design review to City staff.

Recommendations:
● Extend the 3-year sunset on the Permit Streamlining Program (1-D) until the City meets its RHNA goals for VLI, LI, and moderate income affordable housing. ● Devise a set of criteria by which the Permit Streamlining program can be applied to any qualifying parcel in the City of Monterey, including all parcels inside of the designated Opportunity Areas (Map 3-14.) Conditions that would support higher density multifamily housing may exist outside of those areas and could mirror those of Senate Bill-35 (Wiener, 2017), AB-2011 (Wicks, 2022), SB-423 (Wiener, 2023), or factors including:
○ Environmental Safety: The area should either be outside of any sensitive environmental zones, including those related to flood or sea-level rise, wetlands, or fire risk – or – a set of mitigation measures and engineering solutions to be met to earn ministerial approval. ○ Infrastructure Readiness: The area must possess or have a viable plan and funding to access necessary dry and wet infrastructure to support a density of up to 60 dwelling units per acre.
○ Zoning Compatibility: The parcel should already be zoned to allow housing development as a permitted or conditional use and adjoin existing urban use parcels on at least 75% of its perimeter (see SB-423 parcel qualifying conditions.) ○ Transit Proximity: The area should be within 0.5 miles of a transit route that offers service intervals less than 60 minutes during weekday commute hours. As occupancy in the area increases and transit service increases proportionately, decrease the threshold for eligibility gradually to 15 minutes or fewer.
● Programs 1-E: Education Workforce Housing Overlay and 1-F: Congregational Overlay MBEP supports both of these overlay programs and the objective development standards that will enable by-right development of housing on associated sites.

Recommendation: Increase the density limit allowed by right in the Educational Workforce Housing Overlay from 30 du/acre to 60 du/acre in order to better avail of MPUSD-owned sites.

Alternatively, apply a form-based code that uses building envelopes and objective development and design guidelines to determine final unit counts so that the final density is based on efficient use of space.
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1279, Packet Page 1402 ● Program 1-G: Surplus Municipal Parking facilities
MBEP supports the designation of Surplus Municipal Parking Facilities for the purpose of lower income housing development.
● Program 1-H: Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan
MBEP supports the stated objective of the Fort Ord and Ryan Ranch Specific Plans: “to foster the creation of a mixed-use village on a portion of the site to provide housing, jobs, schools, shops, services and recreation for future residents while also preserving carefully selected areas of natural open space and habitat.”
○ Recommendation: Ensure that development of the area includes adequate public transit service to provide a viable local and inter-city option for commutes to nearby job centers and resource areas.
● 1-I: Highway 68 area Plan Update
MBEP supports the simultaneous goals of development and open-space preservation on the 50-acre, MPUSD-owned parcel identified for low and moderate income housing units.

Recommendation: Given that the identified site adjoins a parcel identified by the County of Monterey for its 6th Cycle RHNA, MBEP recommends collaborating with County staff for considerations related to infrastructure buildout, developer identification, and buildout of parcels.

Ensure coherence of zoning, use patterns, and natural resource preservation across jurisdictional lines.
● 2-A: By-Right Rezoning Sites from Prior Inventories:

MBEP supports the by-right development of housing on sites from previous two sites inventories totaling 1,177 units to very low income households and 769 for low-income households. ● Program 2-C: ARC Review
MBEP strongly supports the revision to City code limiting ARC review to objective standards.

Recommendation: Apply the same model to Planning Commission review of housing projects that include affordable housing.
● 2-D: Revise adopted Plans with Objective Standards
MBEP strongly supports the establishment of objective standards for the specific planned areas of the City of Monterey.
● 2-E: Revise Parking Requirements
MBEP strongly supports reducing the minimum parking requirements to one space per unit for all units located within one half mile of public transportation, reduction for peak demand in mixed-use development, and broad consideration of parking requirement constraints to development for future code modifications.

Recommendation: Allow for deeper reduction of parking requirements where shared parking options are available on existing, underutilized city lots which are not already identified for redevelopment.
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1280, Packet Page 1403 ● 2-I: Inclusionary Zoning
MBEP supports the aims of the inclusionary zoning requirements to increase the stock of affordable housing.

Recommendation: Undertake a study of the financial feasibility of the current 20% inclusionary requirement, including the potential for a codified 10% moderate/10% lower income stipulation and other proportions. Many factors affect the feasibility of inclusionary requirements; these can include location, market factors such as labor costs and the cost of borrowing, and the scale of development. Typically, greater scale and density allows for greater flexibility in inclusionary proportions and depth of affordability. MBEP recommends examining the workability of a sliding scale for inclusionary affordable housing, where requirements and concessions from the city increase with the scale of the development.
● 2-J: Water Distribution Policy and 2:K: Addressing Water Supply Constraints MBEP supports the development of a methodology for allocating existing and emergent water credits for projects that include affordable housing until the State Water Resources Control Board lifts the cease-and-desist order for adding new water meters. Ensuring that the City and water management district prioritize available credits is a good faith acknowledgement of the deep need.
● 3-A: Legal Services and Fair Housing Education
MBEP supports expanding educational efforts for fair housing practices among both tenants and landlords. The City should take all possible measures to mitigate illegal and discriminatory practices.
● 3-C: Local Density bonus
MBEP supports the local density bonus program for smaller parcels to facilitate at least 300 units affordable to lower income households, including at least 75 rental units with 2 or 3 bedrooms.

Recommendation: Extend the density bonus to parcels of all sizes, scaling it inversely to parcel size. Incentivizing the production of 2 and 3 bedroom units even for larger parcels will benefit the housing stock for working families and households.
● 3-F: Affirmative Marketing of Affordable Housing Opportunities MBEP strongly supports the affirmative marketing of available sites for affordable housing development, active pursuit of public funding sources, and provision of technical assistance for affordable housing fund applications.

Recommendation: Ensure that marketing efforts become an opt-in accessible program to developers with a history of developing mixed income housing, including for-profit developers who opt into notifications.
● 3-G: Zoning Incentives for Deed Restricted ADUs/JADUs MBEP strongly supports offering incentives for creation of ADUs and JADUs for lower income households through increases to allowable lot coverage and FAR, complementing SB-9 and SB-10 provisions.
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1281, Packet Page 1404 ● 4-B Rental Assistance Pilot Program
MBEP strongly supports implementation of a rental assistance program independent from Housing Authority vouchers.

Recommendation: Implement the broadest rental assistance program possible with the funds available. Undertake a study to determine the relative economic impact of offering broader, shallower subsidy vs. narrow, deeper subsidy. Based on annual results, evaluate whether to increase funding to the program (when fiscally possible) in order to increase impact in the manner identified as most effective.

Overall, MBEP strongly supports the forward-thinking approach of the City’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element. Please reach out to MBEP Director of Housing and Community Development, Gabriel Sanders at with questions or requests for technical assistance.

Sincerely,
Tahra Goraya, MA, MPA
President & CEO
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1282, Packet Page 1405 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1283, Packet Page 1406 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1284, Packet Page 1407 8/3/23, 1:08 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Scoping Meeting
Alice Ann Glenn <[email protected]>
Thu 8/3/2023 11:18 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Christy,
I will not be able to attend the Monday meeting.

My major input, though this may not be the time for it, is as we look at housing, and the need to increase the amount of low and very low income housing, is the planning department, as have other cities in the area, going to create say four ADU footprints, that can be used on property without lots of redtape, and what will the EIR for then building those look like so the building can happen quickly??? I am afraid that our city planning department is known for being slow in getting permits, etc done, which may be due to understaffing, and is that something we need to look at as we try and meet the housing needs? I looked at the list of EIR considerations, which I think is the focus for Monday night, and in my limited knowledge of what needs to be considered, that looked good with one addition from my view point. The SAFETY of foot traffic as the build outs happen. I am a walker, and continue to be alarmed at where there is no sidewalk to walk, or it is all broken up and dangerous, not to mention drivers being oblivious to me.

Though I am not a bike rider, I think safety for riders as we build out should also be considered, as I see too many drivers ignoring both pedestrians and riders.

Alice Ann Glenn
Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1285, Packet Page 1408 9/5/23, 8:41 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Alice Ann Glenn < >
Sat 9/2/2023 5:12 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join Land Watch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join Land Watch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that Land Watch recommends.

Sincerely,
Rev. Alice Ann Glenn
Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1286, Packet Page 1409 8/28/23, 8:52 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
amy brewster < >
Sat 8/26/2023 4:03 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch message don't often get email from . Learn why this is
important
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
<Name>
<City>
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1287, Packet Page 1410 9/1/23, 9:37 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
amy brewster < >
Fri 9/1/2023 5:37 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch@ Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Amy Brewster
Salinas resident since 1981
Retired teacher in Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1288, Packet Page 1411 8/28/23, 8:50 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Andrew Bear < >
Fri 8/25/2023 6:07 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch@ message don't often get email from . Learn why this is
important
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Rev. Andrew Bear
Salinas, CA
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1289, Packet Page 1412 8/24/23, 9:03 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Andy Wasklewicz
Thu 8/24/2023 8:32 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch [Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear City of Monterey,
As a resident of the Monterey Peninsula, I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Andrew Wasklewicz
Carmel, CA 93923
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1290, Packet Page 1413 9/1/23, 9:38 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Anna Baker
Fri 9/1/2023 8:27 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]> >;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey, I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs. However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development. I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units. Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends. Sincerely, <Name> <City>
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1291, Packet Page 1414 8/31/23, 8:44 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 I Support Infill Housing
Ashley Edge < >
Thu 8/31/2023 12:10 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hi!
I'm a Monterey resident, environmental advocate, and real estate agent. I'm writing to share that I'm eager for Monterey to prioritize infill housing rather than sprawl.

Like many young-ish professionals, I dream of being able to walk and bike safely from my home to work, the store, and restaurants. I dream of plentiful rooftop gardens and parks, not parking garages. I'm not interested in living in a place where I'm car-dependent and losing time to traffic. I support LandWatch's comment letter. I want climate-friendly and affordable infill housing. Save the sprawl for the wildlife.

Thank you for reading, and for the valuable work you do to ensure that Monterey is a healthy, increasingly affordable, and safe place for all.

Kindly,
Ashley
Ashley Edge, REALTOR® (she/her)
DRE# 02205915 | Coldwell Banker Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1292, Packet Page 1415 8/30/23, 2:01 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Wed 8/30/2023 8:48 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> Cc:'LandWatch' < >
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

As a long-time resident of the Monterey Peninsula, I very much care about this issue. My parents, photographers Wynn and Edna Bullock, moved here in 1946 when I was 9 months old. I grew up in Monterey in our family home in the Monte Vista area, attended Monterey schools, and after obtaining a Master’s degree at Stanford University, returned to Monterey to live and work. After meeting my husband-to-be who was based in New England, we lived in Massachusetts for several years, but then moved back to the Peninsula in 1987 where he and I lived happily until his passing in 2015 and where I continue to make my home. I feel deeply committed to the wellbeing of our communities on the Peninsula as well as the natural environments which support them. I wholeheartedly embrace the values and recommendations of LandWatch and urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Please support the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Pacific Grove
Barbara Bullock-Wilson, Author/Writer
Family Photography LLC
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1293, Packet Page 1416 8/25/23, 1:24 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Butch Kronlund < >
Fri 8/25/2023 11:21 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch@ [Some people who received this message don't often get email from .

Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
<Name>
<City>
Sent from my iPhone
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1294, Packet Page 1417 8/30/23, 1:57 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Housing issues and water
Charlene Zilius < >
Wed 8/30/2023 8:33 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Obviously it’s better to have infill than sprawl…that’s a no brainer. However, I think the real priority is whether there will be enough WATER to even increase housing. Many counties such as SLO are banning more development (including business!) for the simple reason that there will not be enough water in the future. If agriculture is limited to areas where there Is more water, then housing can expand, but that must be addressed first. Meanwhile better transportation (like light rail) is needed. We can’t keep pumping the groundwater.

Charlene Zilius
Al MacDonald
Sent from my iPad
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1295, Packet Page 1418 8/28/23, 8:43 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Charlotte Bear < >
Fri 8/25/2023 3:42 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Rev. Charlotte Bear, Chaplain, US Army Veteran
Chair, Monterey Bay CA Chapter
Climate Reality Project
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1296, Packet Page 1419 8/25/23, 8:22 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Dale_Hillard < >
Thu 8/24/2023 9:00 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch [Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Dale Hillard
Salinas
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1297, Packet Page 1420 8/25/23, 8:45 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
David Dickins < >
Thu 8/24/2023 2:17 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. Most importantly, it would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is presently no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill, without expanding community sprawl. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units. Encouraging urban infill over further encroachment on open space, will lead to a more walkable and vital community that is less dependent on single occupancy car trips.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
David Dickins
306 Belladera Court
Monterey, CA 93940
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1298, Packet Page 1421 8/9/23, 9:45 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important FW: Feedback on Housing Plan Revision
Matthew Buggert
Tue 8/8/2023 1:18 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Christy,
Could you forward this email to retain for the record? I think it was a gentleman who preferred to submit his comments via email above the card writing.

Thank you,
Matthew
Matthew Buggert (he/him)
Associate Planner | City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street | Monterey, CA 93940
831-646-3885 (main) | 831-646-1739 (desk)
[email protected] | have your say | city website
From: David Finkbeiner < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 11:43 AM
To: Matthew Buggert <[email protected]>
Subject: Feedback on Housing Plan Revision
Dear Matthew,
My comment about the revised housing plan are as follows:
1/ Utilize the expansive asphalt parking areas especially on North Fremont for new housing. 2/ Work with the school district rezone and develop excess school district property for teacher housing. 3/ Rezone property on Garden Road for residential use.

Thanks,
David Finkbeiner
1230 Roosevelt St.
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1299, Packet Page 1422 9/1/23, 9:34 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
David Prina
Thu 8/31/2023 8:22 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> Cc:LandWatch
Learn why this is important
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs. However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development. I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units. Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
David Prina
Prunedale
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1300, Packet Page 1423 8/25/23, 8:42 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Dawn H < >
Thu 8/24/2023 1:19 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch Learn why this is important
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Dawn Hartsock
Seaside
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1301, Packet Page 1424 8/28/23, 8:54 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Don King < >
Sat 8/26/2023 6:20 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely, Don King
<Name>
<City>Salinas
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1302, Packet Page 1425 8/30/23, 1:59 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Dustin Wright
Wed 8/30/2023 8:47 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear City of Monterey,
As a resident of Marina, I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord.

We are already seeing the deleterious effects of sprawl development here in Marina and Monterey is heading, quite literally, down the road to greater congestion, worsening climate impacts, and the destruction of native ecologies.

Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Dustin Wright
Marina
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1303, Packet Page 1426 9/1/23, 9:26 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 City of Monterey Public Review Draft Housing Element
Ernest Long < >
Thu 8/31/2023 1:12 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Please accept this note as my opposition to opening the Fort Ord lands for compliance with California requirements for new housing.

Instead, I endorse Landwatch's proposal that the City of Monterey opt to use infill strategies to comply.

As a former resident of Los Angeles County and Sacramento County, I can state that expanding outward will lead to greater congestion of traffic, more pollution, more hours traveled by residents, and probably will encourage profit motivated land developers to build bigger and more expensive houses.

We need to find ways to house people close to where they work and go to school.

Walking and bike riding should be encouraged. Keeping the population within existing boundaries will help the City evolve to a more people friendly environment and limit additional greenhouse pollution.

Thank you.

Ernie Long
Carmel Valley, CA
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1304, Packet Page 1427 8/30/23, 2:05 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Gregor Cailliet < >
Wed 8/30/2023 10:57 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> Cc:LandWatch
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey -
We join LandWatch in urging you, the City of Monterey, to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development.

This includes the City's ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting
and adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, we also join LandWatch in opposing the city's plan to locate 2,100 housing units - approximately 60% of the City's RHNA allocation on environmentally sensitive land on the former Fort Ord. This amount of sprawling development would create additional traffic and cause  significant climate effects. It would also disturb hazardous material sites, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

We urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill.The City's own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Gregor and Diane Cailliet
712 Grace Street, Monterey, CA 93940
Gregor: Professor Emeritus, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1305, Packet Page 1428 8/30/23, 2:19 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Harry Robins < >
Wed 8/30/2023 2:05 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch < >
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important 8/30/2023
Dear City of Monterey Leaders and Planners,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Simply put, I am totally opposed to any initiatives that include or advocate the development of open space.  Enough is enough.  We see and are forced to endure the negative impacts of uncontrolled and misguided urban sprawl on a daily basis.   Act on behalf of the interests of your tax-paying constituents, not on those of the clowns who inhabit Sacramento.  Please consider all factors before you act.

Sincerely,
Harry Robins
Deer Flats Park, Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1306, Packet Page 1429 8/25/23, 8:41 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Re: City of Monterey Public Review Draft Housing Element Heather Johnston
Thu 8/24/2023 1:00 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> Cc: < >
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Sir/Madam,
This past month wildfires have destroyed Lahaina, my hometown -Yellowknife – has been evacuated because of raging wildfires, ocean temperatures have reached historic levels, a hurricane flooding threated Southern California and the City of Monterey Public Review Draft Housing Element proposes to unnecessarily sprawl onto natural lands and generate more greenhouse gas emissions!
The City proposes to put 2,100 new units in that Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan, which represents nearly ~60% of the City’s unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. LandWatch supports infill development where jobs are located and basic infrastructure is in place. However, by relying on vacant, greenfield land on the former Fort Ord, the City will generate significant greenhouse gas emissions as well as significant biological and other environmental impacts—impacts that would not occur on infill properties and non-vacant land in urbanized portions of the City.

Two years ago LandWatch presented the City of Monterey with a net zero strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As we noted:

Based upon data from the 2016 Climate Action Plan, Monterey’s emissions today derive overwhelmingly from two sources: transportation (primarily automobiles), and natural gas usage in buildings. … Achieving Monterey’s vehicle and building electrification and vehicle miles traveled reduction goals can be substantially facilitated through increased urban infill.

Yes, more housing on the Monterey Peninsula is critical, but if the planet matters it must be climate-friendly infill, not sprawl. And, Monterey can meet its housing obligations without Fort Ord land. Pacific Grove, Carmel, and Sand City are figuring out how to grow in and up rather than out because they have no choice. The City of Monterey should understand that what’s happening on Earth right now means they don’t have a choice, either.

Sincerely,
Heather Johnston
Heather Johnston Architect
Better living is designed
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1307, Packet Page 1430 8/25/23, 8:41 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1308, Packet Page 1431 8/25/23, 8:39 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Ida Nishimura >
Thu 8/24/2023 1:00 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch < >
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, while I applaud the deveIopment of 2,100 housing units, I  join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate these units on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord.

Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Ida Nishimura
Salinas, California
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1309, Packet Page 1432 8/25/23, 8:32 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Irene Finn
Thu 8/24/2023 10:49 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Alice Kalman
Monterey
Sent from my iPad
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1310, Packet Page 1433 8/25/23, 8:33 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Irene Finn < >
Thu 8/24/2023 10:51 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch . >
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Dan Ravinsky
Monterey
Sent from my iPad
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1311, Packet Page 1434 8/25/23, 8:35 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Irene Finn < >
Thu 8/24/2023 10:51 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>; [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Ida Raynes
Monterey
Sent from my iPad
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1312, Packet Page 1435 8/25/23, 8:37 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Irene Finn < >
Thu 8/24/2023 10:54 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>; [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Michael Pavlov
Monterey
Sent from my iPad
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1313, Packet Page 1436 8/25/23, 8:38 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Irene Finn < >
Thu 8/24/2023 11:07 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> < >
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Rudolf Tenenbaum
Pacific Grove
Sent from my iPad
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1314, Packet Page 1437 8/25/23, 8:25 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
James Tarhalla
Thu 8/24/2023 9:16 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>; >
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development. Doesn’t state law require the identification of a permanent water source before housing projects can be approved?
I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
James Tarhalla
Monterey County
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1315, Packet Page 1438 8/25/23, 8:24 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Jana Matheson < >
Thu 8/24/2023 9:08 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>; < >
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear City of Monterey,
Your actions will either support the health of our beautiful county or contribute to the impending downfall of
it’s natural and sustaining environment.

I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Jana Matheson
Monterey
Sent from my iPhone
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1316, Packet Page 1439 8/30/23, 2:07 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Housing Opportunity Sites
Jane Parker >
Wed 8/30/2023 11:19 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Cc:Levi Hill <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hello Ms Sabdo,
I am trying to stay up to date on Monterey's Housing Element and cannot for the life of me find it on the City's website! I swear I have seen it somewhere and decided to read it when I had time and brainpower. And now the document eludes me.

Would you please send me a copy, including the map of housing opportunity sites, or a link? Thank you! One concern I have, but want to read the documents first, is the proposed use of Fort Ord land for a substantial number of housing units to meet the state's RHNA requirements. I am curious as to whether there is a way to look at either more areas of the city for zoning that perhaps increases in heights or densities in currently proposed areas that would encourage in-fill. I am aware of the challenge related to the state's view of likelihood of development and how that affects the proposed unit counts, but I am hopeful that a closer look at some ideas that have been tabled or downplayed could help resolve the issues. As you know, in-fill is difficult but sprawl is expensive both in terms of lawsuits and the costs of infrastructure installation and maintenance, distance from schools, grocery stores and other public services, impacts to police and fire, etc.

Once I read the draft plan, I would like to meet with you to go over these things before it's too late to possibly present an alternative vision for the housing element.

Thank you for all you are doing and your willingness to connect me with the housing element! Sincerely,
Jane Parker
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1317, Packet Page 1440 8/30/23, 2:03 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Janet Whitchurch < >
Wed 8/30/2023 10:21 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>; < >
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Janet Whitchurch
Monterey
<Name>
<City>
Sent from my iPad
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1318, Packet Page 1441 8/25/23, 8:27 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Janice Neal < >
Thu 8/24/2023 10:10 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> Cc: >
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

The time for the City to make proactive decisions with their long-term effects is NOW. They may be difficult decisions, but that's what is needed for the future good of our community and our planet.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Janice Neal
Hannon Ave., Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1319, Packet Page 1442 8/25/23, 8:44 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 City of Monterey plans to build on Ft. Ord rather than infill Jeff Hawkins
Thu 8/24/2023 1:49 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> Cc:Jeff Hawkins <[email protected]>; < >
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
As a 30+ year resident of the Monterey Peninsula, I strongly urge Monterey to reconsider your plans to provide additional housing. Building on Ft. Ord is the easy temporary solution, but simply creates future headaches on traffic, public safety, and the environment.

The current plans go against the whole climate change acknowledgement that your City has embraced, thus why contribute to the problem instead of going forth wisely in the evolving world we see being severely impacted by us now? I vigorously support LandWatch's efforts to advise the City of Monterey and hope you plan accordingly.

Regards,
Jeff Hawkins
Carmel, CA 93923
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1320, Packet Page 1443 8/30/23, 2:02 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
John T. Heyl
Wed 8/30/2023 9:24 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> >
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
John Heyl
Carmel Valley, CA
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1321, Packet Page 1444 1 City of Monterey September 4, 2023
Community Development Department
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, CA 93940
Attn: Christy Sabdo
Ref: City Of Monterey Housing Element – Draft
Subj: Public Comments on draft Housing Element
City of Monterey Staff,
Thank you for putting together a Housing Element that is more than a “paper exercise” and shows authentic intention to facilitate housing in our City.

I have a few suggested improvements. In the interest of brevity, I am sorting them into categories and with bullet points below:
- Top Priorities:
o Increase permit streamlining opportunities to the maximum extent ▪ Expand Housing Element Program 1-D Permit Streamlining Project – expand by geography, allow the policy to apply everywhere if certain criteria are met, etc.
▪ Develop and rely heavily on quality objective design standards in more areas of the City
▪ Reduce the discretionary review requirements for many project types, not just housing. Often, housing projects take months or years to process and schedule for public hearing sequences. Staff time could be easily freed up to focus on housing by reducing discretionary reviews across the board (design review for signs, design review or use permits for small structures such as trash enclosures, use permits for many non- offensive uses). This reduction in discretionary reviews relies heavily on having solid objective design standards (above).
▪ Embrace state level policies at the local level, making small tweaks as necessary to make them more useful in our locality
• AB-2011- tweaks to requirements related to transit proximity and/or frequency and roadway widths needed to make this bill more relevant to our local area
• SB 35 / SB-423 (prospective)- See Exhibit A – Currently this program suggestion is written for “employer sponsored housing” but could be expanded to include other specialty categories of housing, housing located in priority areas, or highly desired housing types. • SB 9 – The housing element currently embraces ADUs but does not take advantage of SB 9. SB 9 is arguably more powerful, especially in an area like ours where many area “house rich and cash poor.” SB 9 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1322, Packet Page 1445 September 4, 2023
Ref: Housing Element Draft – Public Comments
allows for multiple units on the same property, subdivision of an existing lot, or a combination of both.
o This would allow for slightly greater density in areas that already have access to utilities, road networks, and amenities. o The ability to sell a portion of a homeowner’s lot could be a very powerful tool for people who need to fund in home care, medical expenses, deferred home maintenance, or other
expenses.
o Increase height limits in select areas but ensure that the quaint character of Monterey is not significantly changed
▪ For example, increase height limits beyond those currently proposed in the draft plan, in areas such as Alvarado, Lighthouse, North Fremont but implement policies that control average block heights or other similar control mechanisms.
• This concept of “average heights” was inspired by the “average density” allowed in the density overlay area of the Downtown Specific Plan
o Remove known constraints to housing production and density ▪ Eliminate or reduce parking if common- sense measures can be taken to ensure adequate transportation opportunities exist for residents • Within a certain proximity of a bus stop, for instance .5 miles • If bike parking areas are provided to residents + the site is within a certain proximity, such as 1 mile, of transit stop or an employmentintensive area • If the residence is part of a live- work arrangement (for instance, a residence on a school site for a teacher)
▪ Create a Policy/ Program specifically intended to “clean” the existing zoning code of policies that are prohibitive to housing or housing density. • Reduce or eliminate setbacks, FAR/ Lot Coverage Ratios, impractical height limits (limit is too short to allow for modern foundation systems + solar + HVAC equipment, etc).
• Where two different zones meet, eliminate requirements to apply setbacks, lot coverage/ FAR, etc. of the more restrictive zone. o Create a new program to fully implement Housing Element Policy 1.4 ▪ Policy 1.4 reads: “Incentivize and facilitate housing development on properties owned by schools, churches, synagogues, mosques, and businesses so that interested property owners can build housing to help meet the needs of the local workforce.”
▪ The Housing Element directly addresses housing on sites owned by schools (see Program 1-E page 62) and religious institutions (see Program 1-F page 62). These programs are fantastic steps in the right direction. Both programs lean on existing state codes or legislation as models.
▪ There is currently no program for “businesses” included in the Housing Element. A program should be added to promote the production of housing by the business community
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1323, Packet Page 1446 September 4, 2023
Ref: Housing Element Draft – Public Comments
▪ Landwatch, in collaboration with business- community housing advocates such as myself, drafted the attached proposed Exhibit A program for streamlined, ministerial permitting of employer sponsored housing. This program, much like the ones that already exist in the housing element for religious institutions and schools, is modeled after existing state level legislation (SB 35).
- Nice to have
o “Form Based Code” or similar
▪ This is a much heavier lift but could be truly valuable in addressing community concerns around housing.
• Typically, objectors are focused on how the project will impact them personally. It is more appropriate for neighbors to engage on items they can see or interact with–building style, pedestrian walkways, public spaces, etc – than trying to control end use, which is largely private and not visible to those outside of the property. • By focusing on form instead of end user, discussions centered on classist or racist assumptions can be greatly reduced
▪ Focus very little on end use and more on how the building itself interacts with the public space
▪ Develop and rely heavily on objective design standards I look forward to reading the next iteration of the Housing Element! Thank you for your hard work and consideration,
Kathryn Avila
Monterey Resident
Housing Enthusiast
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1324, Packet Page 1447 September 4, 2023
Ref: Housing Element Draft – Public Comments
Exhibit A
Employer-Sponsored Housing Policy and Program
Policy
The City shall provide streamlined ministerial permitting for employer-sponsored attached housing.

Implementing program
The City shall enact an ordinance to provide for ministerial permitting of employersponsored attached housing. Qualifying developments that meet the following objective zoning, design review, and use standards shall be permitted through ministerial review and without any requirement for a conditional use permit:
• Infill: The development is located on an infill site.[i] • Excepted sites: The site is not
o in the coastal zone under the Coastal Act
o habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species;
o farmland of statewide and local importance;
o wetlands;
o earthquake/seismic hazard zones;
o federal, state, and local preserved lands, NCCP and HCP plan areas, and conservation easements;
o riparian areas;
o Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) facilities and sites not cleared for residential use;
o lands under conservation easement;
o landslide hazard, flood plains and, floodways; or
o very high wildfire hazard as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.[ii]
• Other excepted sites: The development does not require demolition of deedrestricted affordable units, rent-controlled units, or historic structures on a national, state, or local register.[iii]
• Objective development standards: The development shall satisfy applicable objective zoning standards and objective design review standards and shall be allowed applicable density bonuses.[iv]
• Priority of use: Available housing units shall be offered first to employees of the sponsoring employer, then to public agency employees, then to members of the public.[v]
The program shall be administered as follows:
• Application: The City shall notify a sponsoring employer within 60 days of submission whether or not an application meets objective zoning standards.

Absent such notice, applications shall be deemed to meet objective zoning standards.[vi]
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1325, Packet Page 1448 September 4, 2023
Ref: Housing Element Draft – Public Comments
• Design Review: The City shall notify a sponsoring employer within 90 days of submission whether or not an application meets objective design review standards. Absent such notice, applications shall be deemed to meet objective design review standards.[vii]
• Expiration: Approvals shall expire within 3 years unless vertical construction is in progress. A one-year extension may be granted if the employer sponsor demonstrates significant progress such as applying for a building permit.[viii] [i] “Infill site” could be defined in an implementing ordinance using the language from Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(2) [SB 35] or Public Resources Code Section 21094.5(e)(1)(B) [CEQA infill exemption].
[ii] Excepted sites could be defined in an implementing ordinance using the language from Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6) [SB35].
[iii] The other excepted sites could be defined in an implementing ordinance using the language from Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(7) and (a)(10) [SB 35]. [iv] “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]. [v] Priority of use conditions and procedures could be defined in an implementing ordinance using language similar to that in Government Code Section 65914.7(a)(3) [AB 2295]. [vi] Application review procedures could be based on the Government Code Section 65913.4(b) [SB 35].
[vii] Design review procedures could be based on the Government Code Section 65913.4(c) [SB 35].
[viii] Expiration terms could be based on the Government Code Section 65913.4(e) [SB 35].

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1326, Packet Page 1449 8/31/23, 8:44 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Laura Davis < >
Thu 8/31/2023 6:18 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>; >
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Laura C. Davis
Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1327, Packet Page 1450 9/5/23, 8:45 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Laura Tugwell < >
Sat 9/2/2023 9:55 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> >
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Laura Tugwell
Carmel Highlands
Sent from my iPhone
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1328, Packet Page 1451 9/1/23, 9:33 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Lauren Keenan < >
Thu 8/31/2023 7:55 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch >
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear City of Monterey,
We join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, we  also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
William and Lauren Keenan
Corral de Tierra
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1329, Packet Page 1452 9/1/23, 9:15 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Linda Davis
Thu 8/31/2023 9:17 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Linda A Davis
Royal Oaks, California 95076 (Monterey County)
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1330, Packet Page 1453 8/31/23, 9:07 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Lizzy Eichorn
Thu 8/31/2023 7:31 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch < >
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Lizzy Eichorn
Carmel Valley
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1331, Packet Page 1454 9/5/23, 8:37 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Stop sprawling and destroying Monterey
annie griffin < >
Sat 9/2/2023 12:27 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Cc:annie griffin < >
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear City of Monterey,
The Land Use Plan that goes along with the Governor's mandate needs to be challenged in court because it is unlawful to force cities that do not have water to comply.

This governor must be challenged. I hope you will sollicite other cities such as Cambria to consider a lawsuit joined by many cities to stop this building nightmare that cannot possibly be realized.

The city should focus on empty buildings  ,boarding house availability,and mass transit alternatives NOW
.Image if you worked with MST to have buses going to and from Salinas to Monterey every half hour. That could reduce half of the stand still traffic we are experiencing at 8:00 am each weekday on Highway 68.

Instead there are only two buses that go that route a day! We are living under a cloud of car pollution that is destroying our brains. Conclusive proof of that now confirms that the iron oxides caused by car exhaust is  causing Alzheimers and dementia in young and old alike.
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubs.acs.org%2Fdoi%2Ffull%2F10.1021%2Facs.est.1c04706&data=05%7C01%7Csa bdo%40monterey.org%7C694338a86f3a48ea9bd508dbabeaa81b%7C2d28750aec9c4719bd9af1d62aed9 f0c%7C0%7C0%7C638292796574572172%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJ QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AnuNiB4FRMCj51fTLx9 BpQO%2F8mSytNL8DuogfCjIKwg%3D&reserved=0
Yes, you as well. We are all being affected by car pollution which your planning creates without addressing this terrifying health threat.

Please educate yourselves and act. Save our trees which are the number one factor that can help reduce pollution cheaply and effectively.

Thank you,
Sincerely
, Lorna Moffat
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1332, Packet Page 1455 8/9/23, 1:34 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Draft Housing Document
Marie McDonough < >
Mon 8/7/2023 6:45 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hello,
Just a few remarks about the Document -
We are seniors living in Castroville because we can't afford the enormously expensive homes anywhere else in the County.  It would be nice to be able to buy a small house or even a townhouse/condo near my husband's job in Monterey.

However, if housing continues to be built in the 700k-900k and above range, this will continue to put owning a home out of our reach and every generation after us.  Stop building homes that most people can't buy.  At the same time you can address climate change and all the other challenges this area is facing now and in the future.

Consider tiny houses.  Places like Portland, Oregon and other cities in the US are beginning to allow various types of non-traditional homes.  Creative use of land and dense construction will have to be utilized as we really don't have a huge area to work with.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,
Marie McDonough
Castroville
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1333, Packet Page 1456 8/25/23, 8:20 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Mark Anicetti < >
Thu 8/24/2023 8:41 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch >
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
<Name>
<City>
Sent from my iPhone
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1334, Packet Page 1457 8/30/23, 1:52 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Mark Anicetti < >
Wed 8/30/2023 8:27 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch >
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
<Name>
<City>
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1335, Packet Page 1458 9/1/23, 9:35 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 (No subject)
Mlmartin4 < >
Thu 8/31/2023 8:31 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Please appreciate and support the reasoned approach Landwatch is taking.

Marlene Martin
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1336, Packet Page 1459 8/18/23, 11:08 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Fwd: A new question has been added to Q & A
Laurie Huelga
Thu 8/17/2023 5:57 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Just making sure you got this.

Get Outlook for iOS
From: City of Monterey <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 1:56:37 PM
To: City of Monterey - Suggest Hotline <[email protected]> Subject: A new question has been added to Q & A
Hi there,
Just a quick heads up to let you know that a new question has been asked at Monterey 2031 - General Plan Update by Mary Pendlay.

The question that was asked is:

Where are the proposed areas for building housing?
Please DO NOT reply to this email. If you want to provide an answer to this question, sign into your site and respond to the question from within the Q & A tool.

Regards
Bang The Table Team
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1337, Packet Page 1460 8/25/23, 8:26 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
MEGAN MAYER < >
Thu 8/24/2023 9:56 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> Cc:landwatch < >
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I strongly urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient highdensity sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Our beautiful landscape grows scarcer every year. Please protect what we have by reducing sprawl development.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Megan G. Mayer
Pebble Beach, California
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1338, Packet Page 1461 8/28/23, 8:55 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Nancy Harray >
Sun 8/27/2023 4:51 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch < >
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends. I love walking around Monterey and hope that those who live in affordable new housing in Monterey will enjoy the same privilege.

Sincerely,
Nancy Harray
Monterey
Sent from my iPad
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1339, Packet Page 1462 8/17/23, 4:35 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/3 Fw: Encouraging Affordable Housing in Monterey- A new direction Oncall Planning
Thu 8/17/2023 4:09 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Hi Christy,
Below are comments from Ms. Soule on the Housing Element.

Thank you,
Erica Barrera
Administrative Assistant
City of Monterey • Planning Division
570 Pacific Street • Monterey, CA 93940
Please submit Planning applications to [email protected] or call (831) 646-3885 to connect with Planning staff.

From: Nancy Soulé
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 7:58 PM
To: City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>; Oncall Planning <[email protected]>; Hans Uslar <[email protected]>
Subject: Encouraging Affordable Housing in Monterey- A new direction Dear City Council Members, Planning Department and City Manager Hans Uslar, I have been listening to your discussions over the past few months and attended the Community Open House on August 7. The issue of finding enough housing is a huge problem, but I believe the council is attacking it in a way that discourages investors from making more housing, rather than using strategies to make the development of more units attractive and easier. I would like you to consider looking at this from the landlords and developer's point of view. Unfortunately 3 minutes before city council or short comments on cards doesn't give me time and space to develop my thoughts. My suggestions:

1. Request a property tax update rather than a rental registry. a. Annually update tax status of homeowners exemptions and request basic rental data only, rather than create a rental registry. Owners who claim their property as a principal residence receive a homeowner's exemption of $7000 of assessed value annually, for as long as it remains their principal residence (lived in over 180 days of the year). The city should encourage the county assessor to request re-certification annually so that owners who have moved away can be taxed at the appropriate amount. We have owned our home for more than 14 years and have NEVER received a request to re-certify that our home is our primary residence, even though our mailing address of record is our post office box. Increased property tax revenue could be put toward a housing initiative. Owners can be informed that if they do not complete the form, they will lose their homeowner's exemption. b. As is done for property we own in Washoe County, Nevada, the certification form sent by the county assessor to all owners in the spring, prior to the actual property tax bill, requests information that can be used to help the city assess their housing inventory. The form could have check boxes reflecting current use: primary residence, second home, vacation home, Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1340, Packet Page 1463 8/17/23, 4:35 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/3 family member, or rental. If rented, it also asks for amount of monthly rent, whether heat/electricity is included, and number of bedrooms. For multiple units, a separate form is used. No tenant name is asked. No lease is requested for review. At the bottom, the owner certifies the information is correct and that they will inform the assessor's office of any changes.

The back of the form contains Q&A, such as what to do if the home is in escrow, in construction, etc. However, this form continues to be sent every year. Using the assessor's office for this one sheet mailing is considerably less expensive than the rental registry discussed by council.
c. A rental registry as discussed by City Council is intrusive and discourages landlords from wanting to invest in a rental unit. Asking for a lease is exceptionally intrusive, for it invades the privacy of not only the landlord but the tenant. I personally know of women who painstakingly need to protect their privacy and identity, and you can verify with women's shelters that some of the women and families are escaping unsafe environments. Do not discourage them by making them part of a database, even if you do not publicly reveal their name, for databases are often breached. As I hear from those I ask about why they don't go for a Mills Act designation, they don't want the city telling them what to do. I believe the same answer will come if the city requests leases and a rental registry. Investors will go elsewhere instead of creating a rental unit here.
d. Go on record against rent control. Just the discussion of possibly implementing rent control is enough to discourage development. Even a modest single-family residence for sale at $1,000,000 is likely to require a down payment of around $200,000, and a monthly mortgage payment of $7,011 at 8% (principal, interest, taxes and insurance) for 30 years. Ask yourself if YOU would invest in a new rental property if you couldn't rent it at market prices. Many people purchase a home here as a rental to someday retire in, but need it to be feasible. Local landlords who have good tenants and keep rates stable would re-think that policy and raise rates to the maximum allowed each year if a rent contol policy limits their ability to adjust the rent to market rate when a tenant leaves.
e. Economics 101 and simple logic tells us that supply and demand control the rates for rents.

2. Role of the City: Encourage the Creation of New Rental Housing by being a Resource for Landlords
a. Make available (but do not require) a fill-in-the-blanks rental or lease agreement that complies with current laws and include the required disclosures a landlord needs to provide. b. Provide a sample application to help new landlords.
c. Help an owner to update a property for electrical, plumbing and other code issues by having a program to lend for such repairs, to be paid back over time or deferred until sale for a low-income owner making an additional unit.
d. Have written materials on how to become a good landlord, with expectations on how to deal with tenants, how to give proper notices, etc.
e. Publish results of the property tax update form annually: the average rents for each sized unit, number of rental units reported. Keep it basic only. f. Create a "Project Match" as has been done by other communities, which could pair up an owner who has rooms to rent with possible pre-screened candidates that could be interviewed and selected by the owner. Such a program would have the project manager create the rental documents, resolve disputes, or if unresolved, would handle the process of moving the tenant out of the home. This could help single residents who do not require or cannot afford a private apartment. Perhaps a local non-profit could take this on, with city referrals and perhaps some funding.
g. Can the city assist with the lack of companies offering insurance for property owners? h. Let landlords know that they can obtain an application and check credit, but encourage them to use one of the services, such as Trans Union Smart Move, where the applicant pays the fee directly to the agency, thereby eliminating the need for the landlord to charge an application fee. With a completed application, the landlord provides the agency the contact Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1341, Packet Page 1464 8/17/23, 4:35 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 3/3 information and the agency obtains the social security number, fee, and authorization to send the credit report to the landlord directly from the prospective tenant. This also allows the tenant to share this report to other landlords without additional fees.

3. Role of the City: Be a Resource for Tenants
a. Provide written information for tenants to understand credit and budgeting or offer periodic seminars perhaps put on by a local bank or lender on understanding and improving credit worthiness.
b. Provide tenants written guidance on how to be a good tenant, such as basic sanitation standards and guidance with keeping a property clean and healthy. Give advice on expectations for being considerate of others living nearby. c. Discourage pet ownership, which further reduces the number of properties available to a tenant. If they do not have a true disability, discourage them from falsely declaring an emotional support or therapy animal that they then leave in the unit during the day. This behavior greatly discourages people from opening their property as a rental. d. As in 2f above, encourage single tenants to pair with a roommate of similar interests and help facilitate this through a "Project Match" type of program. e. Have a list of common rental websites (such as zillow.com or rent.com) and let tenants know that they can access this at the library if they have no internet. f. Consider a city subsidy as was done during covid, to assist low income renters. g. Resources for tenants and landlords could be posted in a housing resource section of the city website, to avoid the expense of office time and to make it available 24/7. Of course, making this available in other languages would help greatly.

Thank you for your consideration and all you do for our city! Nancy Soulé
Larkin Street
Monterey, CA 93940
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1342, Packet Page 1465 8/9/23, 1:37 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Housing Issues
Mon 8/7/2023 11:33 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Greetings,
I am a former Monterey resident who relocated to assist my 82 year old sister.  I want to come back, but the cost of housing has made it virtually impossible to come back to the area I love and consider my home.   The cost of housing is more than my retirement, so I am stuck in a place I don't want to live.

I had a mobile home in Marina after being priced out of Monterey prior to my move and the space rent for the park I lived in is now 1100.00 per month.  The park is paid for and greed has taken over most rental markets.  The waiting lists are substantive and I probably will die before my name would come up on any elgibility list.

I am a retired Letter Carrier who ended my career in Monterey.   I miss it and it makes me very sad to think I will never be able to "go home".

Thank you for listening and I hope you can find some solutions to the never ending housing shortages.

Patty Cramer
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1343, Packet Page 1466 8/28/23, 3:42 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Renee Hardenstein < >
Mon 8/28/2023 12:51 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> Cc:landwatch >
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units. Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Renee Hardenstein
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1344, Packet Page 1467 8/25/23, 1:31 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Richard D. Lee < >
Fri 8/25/2023 12:52 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City%2��s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City%2��s plan to locate 2,100 housing units %2�� approximately 60% of the City%2��s RHNA allocation %2�� on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City%2��s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Richard Lee
Salinas, Ca
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1345, Packet Page 1468 9/5/23, 8:47 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Robert Evans < >
Sun 9/3/2023 2:40 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> Cc:landwatch@
Dear City of Monterey,
We join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, we also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units, about 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation on the former Fort Ord city owned parcel. Will this development be a self-contained community? If there no or few supporting businesses (grocery, hardware, cleaners, places to eat, etc.) for the residents, they will have to travel into either Monterey or Seaside! These new vehicle miles will cause significant climate impacts.

We urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Robert Evans & Roberta Myers
Terry Street
Monterey, CA 93940
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1346, Packet Page 1469 8/30/23, 2:15 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 RE: Comments on the City of Monterey Draft Housing Element and on the Scope of Its CEQA Review
ROBERT FRISCHMUTH < >
Wed 8/30/2023 12:25 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> 1 attachments (3 MB)
080723-LWComments-MontereyHEU.pdf;
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hi,
I support the comments in the LandWatch letter, (copy attached.) Thanks for giving it your attention.

Robert Frischmuth
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1347, Packet Page 1470 8/30/23, 2:18 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Rodger Langland < >
Wed 8/30/2023 1:19 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>; <landwatch
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Rodger & Carol Langland
Carmel Valley,CA
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1348, Packet Page 1471 8/25/23, 9:55 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/junkemail/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8R… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Sam Norris < >
Fri 8/25/2023 12:14 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;CC: LandWatch < >
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey, I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs. However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development. I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units. Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends. Sincerely,
Colette Erreca-Norris
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1349, Packet Page 1472

SHARON DWIGHT
Lobos Street, Monterey, CA 93940
September 2, 2023
RE: City of Monterey General Plan Housing Element Update TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Some random thoughts concerning the current General Plan Housing Unit update:
1) As pressure is brought to bear on communities across the state to add significant numbers of housing units, we in Monterey need to keep in mind what brings visitors to our community (the beauty of Nature and the role Monterey has played historically in California – they come to see a small town by the Bay.) Whatever we do to meet the mandated numbers, we mustn’t destroy the essence of what we are and have been. Vegetation and respect for the historic assets in town must be part of whatever is built. 2) Expect whatever is built to be here for 60 or more years. It needs to fit into the built environment. We are on a peninsula. Traffic and parking issues must be addressed, whether the State requires it or not. • If we can’t travel around town easily in our private vehicles (LOS C or D or F are not sustainable and are not good for business!), Monterey becomes a less desirable place to live, work or visit. Since we can’t widen the roads, we must provide improved bus service through our business districts from residential neighborhoods and around town
• Parking is needed – at least one parking space per unit. Where Monterey allows dense development, parking must be provided. Since the State prohibits requiring it of developers, the City must plan to provide the parking.
3) When the General Plan Update was prepared in the early 2000s, the committee thought East Downtown could be planned to accommodate more housing. The committee envisioned a stepping up of height from 2- story along Del Monte to 4-story nearer Fremont; reconfiguring roadways in between so tree-lined ‘parkway’ for pedestrians would provide green space between taller buildings. 4) Thought needs to be given to the environmental effect of taller buildings on the prevailing coastal wind pattern. Air quality in Monterey is, for the most part, very good. Movement of air is essential for that to be true. If clustered, tall buildings are added to the downtown, dispersing of polluted air near the tunnel will not take place. There must be space between buildings to provide for air movement. 5) State Building and Fire Codes require building materials and setbacks to prevent fire from spreading one building to another. We mustn’t compromise in this area (e.g. reducing setbacks to minimums) lest we see what happened in Paradise, CA, repeated here.
6) Earlier Housing Elements required multiple housing complexes to include 3- or 4-bedroom units to accommodate families. The City has not followed through on this requirement and we must if want families to live in Monterey.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sharon Dwight, Monterey Resident
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1350, Packet Page 1473 9/1/23, 9:36 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Sheila Smith
Thu 8/31/2023 10:00 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;landwatch@ < >;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development. I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units. Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Sheila Smith
Prunedale
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1351, Packet Page 1474 8/25/23, 8:30 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Subject: Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update Thu 8/24/2023 10:25 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> Cc:landwatch@
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Shirmaine Jones
Madison Street
Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1352, Packet Page 1475 8/30/23, 2:06 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Stephanie Woods < >
Wed 8/30/2023 10:58 AM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;landwatch Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units. Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Stephanie Woods, Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1353, Packet Page 1476 9/1/23, 9:32 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Suzanne Worcester
Thu 8/31/2023 3:29 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> <landwatch >
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Suzanne Worcester
Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1354, Packet Page 1477 8/28/23, 8:44 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Thomas Knight < >
Fri 8/25/2023 4:03 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch >
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs. However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development. I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units. Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Thomas Knight
Watsonville
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1355, Packet Page 1478 8/25/23, 8:46 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Anthony Amarante
Thu 8/24/2023 3:27 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;CC: LandWatch < >
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled.

It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development. I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units. Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Tony Amarante
Frequent Visitor to Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1356, Packet Page 1479 8/29/23, 1:23 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Fw: Rezoning CasaNova properties (CasaNova project)
Kimberly Cole
Tue 8/29/2023 12:20 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
From: Tony Flores
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Hans Uslar <[email protected]>; Levi Hill <[email protected]>; Kimberly Cole <[email protected]>; Ed Smith <[email protected]>; Frank Flores < >
Subject: Rezoning CasaNova properties (CasaNova project) Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Good Morning City Council
Frank and I would like the City of Monterey to consider rezoning the vacant properties located along the 500 block of CasaNova, and both sides (north and south) of the same block along the paper street known as English Avenue.

Prior to any commitment of rezoning we would like to know of any housing and/or development requirements.

Thank you
Tony and Frank Flores
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1357, Packet Page 1480 8/28/23, 8:47 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Salinas411 < >
Fri 8/25/2023 5:51 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> Cc:landwatch
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

Please note 'walkable' cities are vital in Monterey County now. This necessitates Workforce Housing on existing land infill inside the City of Monterey. Our workforce, mainly in the hospitality industry, must live close enough to walk to work.

We have an easy opportunity to make a real difference in the climate, livability and preservation of natural spaces. This also helps to solve the 'worker drain' as the best professionals in hospitality move out of area to live where they can afford housing.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable 'workforce housing' and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Trish Triumpho Sullivan
Main Street, Salinas CA 93901
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1358, Packet Page 1481 8/28/23, 8:47 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 "The difference between try and triumph is a little umph." ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: Please note that this transmission may contain confidential business information. You may not disseminate the information contained in this email without the prior written consent of its author. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print, copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this message in error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete this message [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1359, Packet Page 1482 8/25/23, 8:47 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Whitney Stewart Gravel
Thu 8/24/2023 8:18 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatc <l >
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
Whitney Gravel
Seaside, CA
Sent from my iPad
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1360, Packet Page 1483 9/1/23, 9:30 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Comments on City of Monterey Housing Element Update
Thu 8/31/2023 2:10 PM
To:City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;landwatch [Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear City of Monterey,
I join LandWatch in urging the City of Monterey to adopt a Housing Element Update that focuses on sustainable, affordable housing development. This includes the City’s ambitious RHNA goal and its plan to adopt policies and programs to simplify project permitting and reduce housing costs.

However, I also join LandWatch in opposing the City’s plan to locate 2,100 housing units — approximately 60% of the City’s RHNA allocation — on environmentally sensitive open space on the former Fort Ord. Allowing sprawl development of this magnitude would cause significant climate impacts by inducing vehicle miles traveled. It would also impinge on sensitive biological resources, disturb a hazardous materials site, and worsen groundwater overdraft. Moreover, there is no available water supply for Fort Ord development.

I urge the City to follow the leadership of other cities that plan to meet their RHNA obligations by focusing on climate-friendly infill. The City’s own analysis provides sufficient high density sites for both affordable and market rate units.

Thank you for supporting the sustainable growth strategy that LandWatch recommends.

Sincerely,
W P Marien
DRO
Sent from my iPhone
[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1361, Packet Page 1484 To: Levi Hill, Planning Manager, Planning Division
Christy Sabdo, Associate Planner, Planning Division
From: Claire Villegas, Dyett & Bhatia
Re: Community Open House Summary
Date: August 16, 2023
The community open house hosted on August 7 was intended to provide Monterey residents an introduction to the Draft Housing Element Update, including legal requirements and contents of the Housing Element, solicit feedback on content for the Draft Housing Element and potential environmental impacts to be analyzed in the CEQA document, and answer questions from the community. As part of the General Plan Update’s inclusive and participatory decision-making process, this feedback will inform a more comprehensive and representative General Plan and CEQA document that aligns with the community's needs and aspirations.

TIME AND LOCATION
Monterey Conference Center, Steinbeck Room
Monday, August 7, 2023, 6:00-8:30 PM
1 Portola Plaza, Monterey, CA 93940

MEETING SUMMARY
This memo presents a summary of the information and feedback gathered during the community open house meeting. At the event, attendees were encouraged to circulate to seven different stations set up around the room and engage with both City Planning Division staff and representatives from the Monterey 2031 consulting team, Dyett & Bhatia.

Participants had the opportunity to ask questions, interact, and provide feedback.

Participants were generally interested in housing development in the community, learning about opportunity sites, and the various strategies to achieve the RHNA. In addition, many also voiced concerns about constraints such as water supply and natural hazards.

In total, approximately 80 community members attended the open house meeting at the Monterey Conference Center. The following section includes a summary of input collected at each station from the participants of the meeting. Images of the boards used in the meeting can be found on the project website1, and photos of boards containing Post-it note comments are included in Appendix A of this document. Scanned photos of comment cards on the Draft Housing Element and Monterey 2031 Project are included in Appendix B, and scanned photos of EIR scoping comment cards are included in Appendix C. 1 Community Open House - Boards Displayed:
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031/widgets/58946/documents Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1362, Packet Page 1485 SUMMARY OF INPUT BY STATION:

Station 1: Welcome and Sign In
The first introductory station provided residents with background information on the Monterey 2031 Project, displayed community demographic data, and offered a summary on community survey results. Participants were primarily interested in the RHNA numbers as well as community survey results. Many were surprised by survey results that showed a high level of support for building housing across the eight opportunity areas. A handful of attendees inquired about an opening presentation from Staff.

Station 2: Addressing Barriers to Housing
Station 2 framed the context for housing development in Monterey and outlined some of the key challenges for development projects. The board provided information on a few methods the City could employ to influence the financial feasibility of projects.

Most attendees were relatively unfamiliar with the development process so many people were educating themselves on regulatory barriers. Participants were very supportive of the City implementing “creative solutions” to further housing developments. The sample programs, “Permit Streamlining Pilot Program,” and prioritizing water supply to affordable housing projects received favorable attention. Most agreed that objective design standards should be applied to housing projects to remove procedural hurdles. Many participants continued to reiterate the need to address the water supply issue before wanting to discuss other barriers to housing.

Station 3: Sites Available for Housing
Station 3 featured three boards that introduced the housings sites and summarized their capacity to meet RHNA. The boards provided a detailed look at development potential in infill areas, highlighting that the capacity of infill sites alone would not be enough to satisfy RHNA requirements. Accordingly, larger sites in the southeast are also proposed to ensure a balance of housing types to meet current and projected need.

Overall, comments were supportive of the housing sites identified. Several attendees expressed support for workforce housing in a mixed-use village format at Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch, especially for people already employed in the area. Several other attendees suggested additional sites to add to the inventory, including the In Shape site on North Fremont and the commercial property at 465 Tyler Street, whose owners provided their contact details and talked about their plans to redevelop the site once water is available. Visitors to this station also suggested new policy concepts: one older renter expressed concern for her situation if rents keep rising as she contemplates retirement, suggesting the need for a program to address this need; several other commenters asked about getting on a list to be notified as new housing becomes available, indicating that a service to connect property managers and prospective tenants such as that envisioned by United Way would be well received.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1363, Packet Page 1486 Station 4: Expanding Workforce Housing
Station 4 highlighted strategies in the Housing Element that focused on expanding workforce housing in Monterey, which include the Education Workforce Overlay, the Congressional Overlay, and zoning incentives for Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADUs). The board provided an overview of the commute patterns, breakdown of employment industries in the City of Monterey and Monterey County, as well as average salaries for essential workers.

Overall, attendees expressed support for strategies, particularly the educational workforce overlay. Attendees were interested in housing built on MPUSD sites, and pondered if units would be built next to schools, would be rental or for sale, or be solely for MPUSD employees.

Many attendees were pleased with strategies; however, many did express concerns about the water supply in Monterey and additional parking generated from ADUs. Visitors to the station engaged with the zoning incentives for ADUs, and suggested having pre-approved ADUs plans or technical assistance for those who would like to develop one.

Station 5: Furthering Fair Housing
Station 5 introduced the topic of fair housing and characterized fair housing issues in Monterey, drawing on the findings of Appendix D – Fair Housing Assessment to the Public Review Draft Housing Element
The main topic of discussion at the Furthering Fair Housing station was the need for affordable housing for those that work in the City of Monterey. To identify the need for this population, the Draft Housing Element should expand on the table titled “Poverty Rates in the City of Monterey, 2020” to include the people that work in the City of Monterey (i.e., include race/ethnicity and population below poverty level). People that work in the City of Monterey and cannot afford housing in the City experience difficult commutes to and from the City each day. It was suggested that Fair Housing Programs should be provided for the people that already work in the City of Monterey, and even include affordable housing preferences for those that currently work in the City of Monterey. One commenter noted that the City should account for those that live in boats in the Monterey Harbor and Marina.

Station 6: Emergency Preparedness and Response
Station 6 was intended to collect input to inform the Safety Element. There were two boards that introduced the range of natural and human-made hazards in Monterey and presented various strategies for increasing emergency preparedness and building community resilience.

Many participants had concerns for sea level rise and dismissed potential added density in the downtown due to proximity to flood zones. One community member wanted to see the tsunami zone layer added to the map. Others had concern for fire severity zones and wanted the City to clear fuel from the greenbelt areas. Also, some community members wanted the City to embrace more undergrounding efforts. Most attendees felt that they were prepared for disasters. Most had emergency food, water, kits, and vehicles available, but lacked the planning components including meeting location, funds, financial information, and communication plans. There were a lot of comments regarding the (in)adequacy of the evacuation routes, specifically for the New Monterey area and regional evacuation routes ("storms will cause the peninsula to become an island" concept was repeated several times).

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1364, Packet Page 1487 Many were interested in more community involvement in developing emergency plans within neighborhoods and discussed potential City initiatives to encourage neighborhood associations and neighbors to plan for emergencies (i.e., mailers and other tools to encourage collaboration amongst neighbors, or with organizations such as CERT).

Station 7: Environmental Impact Analysis
Station 7 intended to offer information about the CEQA process and provide participants an opportunity to comment on potential environmental impacts that should be studied. Scoping comment cards were available at this station for people to fill out.

Several of the questions asked by participants were related to clarifying the scope of the project and how the environmental document would assess the potential impacts. For instance, there was some confusion about whether the project actually involved building the residences or rather planning for them to be built (program vs project EIR). The attendees noted concerns related to habitat areas (such as for those species depicted on the poster board), potential loss of trees associated with development, and building near forested areas, sea level rise, hazardous material areas (prior contaminated areas such as old gas stations and the Fort Ord site), and earthquake-susceptible areas. Questions included asking how air quality would be assessed, what the City anticipated doing about water, curiosity about the historic threshold of “50 years,” and how many opportunities for public input the City is required to conduct.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1365, Packet Page 1488 Appendix A: Open House Board Photos with Comments
Station 1: Welcome and Sign In
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1366, Packet Page 1489 Station 1: Transcribed Comments
1A The 3-legged stool. Does the City Council actually support this? 1B Why not show percentage of units are rentals? 66%
1C “We’re all built out” neighborhoods
Station 2: Addressing Barriers to Housing
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1367, Packet Page 1490 Station 2: Transcribed Comments
Unlikely to be honest. Excessive dependence on claims of Pure Water Monterey supply Station 3: Sites Available for Housing
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1368, Packet Page 1491 Station 3: Transcribed Comments
3A High Rise residential zones needed!
3B Suggestion: is there any type of waiting list for people to all their names? In Shape is a viable site / Cypress Center is non
I’m interested in being on a wait list for housing. Either rental or purchase (preferred). When might we expect a list to be started?
Utilize parking lots around the city for housing
3C Senior housing options
Lunch options for Ryan Ranch employees
Support for workforce housing at Fort Ord
Develop For Ord parcel. Annex Tarpey Flats (a salute to Tom Rowley). Annex all land on Hwy 68 to Salinas boundary – go for it.

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1369, Packet Page 1492 Station 4: Expanding Workforce Housing
Station 4: Transcribed Comments
Lessen infrastructure within ADU (stove/oven)
Preapprove ADU plans
Suggestion:
• Sample rental agreement
• Technical assistance for landlord
• Tenant/landlord education
• Rent subsidy
Should have noted that 8790 of Monterey workers commute in Cooperation with MPC and MPUSD needs to happen
Do you guys have anything for DLI instructors? First time home buyers Zone that allows high rise residential development
Prioritize family housing and allow preference for people who work but do not live in Monterey
Enrollment at MPUSD has decreased significantly since 1991 but accelerating recently.

Families are leaving
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1370, Packet Page 1493 Station 5: Furthering Fair Housing
Station 5: Transcribed Comments
All data for workers as well as population
Those people have tough commutes to/from Monterey each day People live on boats in the Marina/harbor?
Add a pref. for workers in Monterey for new aff. housing Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1371, Packet Page 1494 Station 6: Emergency Preparedness and Response
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1372, Packet Page 1495 Station 6: Transcribed Comments
6A People will use the claimed threat of sea level rise to oppose density housing in Downtown/Waterfront/Del Monte area
6B People will use these arguments about emergency response to oppose building anything Provide helicopter rescue when roads are blocked
During winter storms a tree fell on Del Monte by substation @ Scout that took out power to Monterey PG’s PB. Why not underground utilities on main arteries to ensure power not disrupted and escape routes are clear? CERT teams were called out because of Highway 1 and 68 between Morse/CHOMP because of trees/wires down/ What if ALL these events happened at the same time?? Please protect our escape routes and perhaps get these other communities to help
I live in New Monterey I am emergency. There are no viable evacuation routes for New Monterey
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1373, Packet Page 1496 Station 7: Environmental Impact Analysis
Station 7: Transcribed Comments
How many groups will sue the City claiming the EIR is inadequate? They will gum up the plan for years
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1374, Packet Page 1497 Appendix B: Draft Housing Element and Monterey 2031
Comment Cards
Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1375, Packet Page 1498 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1376, Packet Page 1499 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1377, Packet Page 1500 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1378, Packet Page 1501 Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1379, Packet Page 1502

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1380, Packet Page 1503 Appendix C: EIR Scoping Comments

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1381, Packet Page 1504

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1382, Packet Page 1505

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1383, Packet Page 1506

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1384, Packet Page 1507

Attachment A
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1385, Packet Page 1508

MEMORANDUM
To: City of Monterey City Council and Planning Commission From: Community Development Department and Dyett & Bhatia Re: Staff Recommended Revisions to the Draft Housing Element Date: September 11, 2023
This memo documents some additional staff recommended refinements to the Draft Housing Element for the consideration of the Planning Commission and City Council. These refinements are recommended in view of a preliminary conversation with HCD staff held on Friday September 8 and additional research into existing conditions at Fort Ord.

Refinements to the Draft Inventory of Housing Sites
The following is a summary of recommended refinements and revisions to the Draft Sites Inventory included in the Public Review Draft Housing Element. Attachment B1 includes updates to Map 3-15 Sites Available for Housing, Map 3-1 Pipeline Projects, and Table 3-4 Summary of RHNA Capacity from the Draft Housing Element that reflect these changes as well as the addition of sites whose owners requested inclusion during the 30-day comment period (identified in Attachment 3 to the packet).

Fort Ord Projections
Staff conducted a review of deed restrictions applicable to properties at Fort Ord. Two of the six parcels within the City of Monterey (APNs 031-191-018-000 and 031-191-019-000) are subject to deed restrictions that require remediation of Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) and reimbursement agreements with federal agencies. These parcels are the northernmost parcels on the site. The timeline for completion of these activities is approximately 60 months, which would mean that housing construction on these sites within the 8-year Housing Element Cycle would be challenging to complete. Accordingly, they have been removed from the inventory and the text of Program 1-H Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan is revised as follows:

Program 1-A Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan. In a community survey conducted for the Housing Element that garnered over 1,050 responses, the former Fort Ord Military Base was the area of the city identified most favorably for new housing to meet current and projected need. Adjacent Ryan Ranch, home to a regional medical center and office park south of the airport, was also ranked highly as a location for new townhomes and apartments by respondents. Integrating new housing into this area would need to be done carefully and in a way that responds to the variety of preferences and concerns that community members expressed through the survey, as described in Chapter 3. Therefore, the City will prepare a specific plan to establish a clear vision for the area and to guide future development and conservation, identify infrastructure needs and financing mechanisms, and establish measures to ensure sustainable development and adequate resource Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1386, Packet Page 1509

MEMORANDUM
protection. The overarching objective should be to foster the creation of a mixeduse village on a portion of the site to provide housing, jobs, schools, shops, services and recreation for future residents while also preserving carefully selected areas of natural open space and habitat. The Specific Plan should prioritize housing and mixed-use development on any combination of the parcels shown on Map 3-15 Sites Available for Housing. Additionally, given that the City of Monterey is the property owner, incentives should be incorporated to ensure that at least 220 of the new homes planned will be affordable to moderate income households and at least 220 homes will be affordable to lower income households.

Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: (a) identify funding sources and release RFP by end of 2024; (b) complete site remediation work, special status species surveys, and biological study by the end of Q3 2026; (c) bring draft specific plan to City Council for adoption in Q4 2028
Objective: 1,660 new housing units, including 220 homes affordable to moderate income households and 220 homes affordable to lower income households Funding: General Fund and grant funding
Heritage Harbor
Based on direction from the City Council received at the June 20 Study Session, two properties owned by the Monterey Bay Aquarium at Heritage Harbor were included on the inventory of housing sites and City staff conducted outreach to the property owner to gauge interest in redevelopment of the properties with housing during the planning period. On August 28, staff met with representatives of the Monterey Bay Aquarium to discuss the housing needs of their employees, the Aquarium's plans for the properties it owns, and the Aquarium's interest in a potential employer sponsored housing overlay. Aquarium staff provisionally indicated that other properties owned by the Aquarium may potentially be better candidates for housing than Heritage Harbor, although no formal response was provided at the meeting the Aquarium is going to consider information shared at the meeting and come back to staff at a later date. Nevertheless, given the initial informal feedback from staff and in view of the fact that Heritage Harbor is located within the Coastal Zone where residential uses are not typically permitted by the Coastal Commission, staff recommends removing the site from the inventory. Even with the removal of the 90 units at Heritage Harbor, the revised inventory would have sufficient capacity to meet the City's RHNA obligations at all levels with a buffer.

Moderate Income Housing Projections
Moderate income RHNA units are those that would be affordable to households making 80-120 percent of the area median income for Monterey County. In many California jurisdictions it is possible to demonstrate that smaller market rate housing units would be affordable to moderate income households on a per square foot basis by linking rents and sales prices that Moderate income households can afford to pay with local market prices. However, given the high demand for housing and the commensurate rents and sales prices in the City of Monterey, this is not possible. Therefore, staff consulted with HCD on September 8, 2023 regarding appropriate methodologies for projecting the realistic capacity for moderate income units.

Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1387, Packet Page 1510

MEMORANDUM
Based on guidance received from HCD, Table 3-4 in the Draft Housing Element has been revised to show capacity for moderate income housing reflecting the following assumptions:
• 30 percent of ADUs and JADUs permitted during the planning period would be affordable to Moderate income households, based on the findings of a statewide ADU affordability study prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); • 10 percent of the units built on the 50-acre MPUSD property within the Highway 68 Specific Plan area would be affordable to Moderate income households, based on the City's inclusionary requirements to be revised per Program 2-I Inclusionary Zoning; • 10 percent of the units projected for Above Moderate sites in infill areas would be affordable to Moderate income households, based on the City's inclusionary requirements to be revised per Program 2-I Inclusionary Zoning;
• 1 Moderate Income unit will be developed as part of the proposed 1045 Cass Street pipeline project newly added to the inventory based on property owner interest; • 220 of the total 1,660 units at Fort Ord would be affordable to Moderate Income households, pursuant to Program 1-H Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan as revised; • Program 3-C Local Density Bonus will be revised to also offer additional bonus density for projects that provide commitments to construct additional Moderate Income units over and above any Moderate units required under the City's Inclusionary Ordinance. It is assumed that this would incentivize an additional 93 moderate income units, which is equivalent to 10 percent of the total number of units projected for Above Moderate sites in infill areas.

Accordingly, the text of Program 3-C is revised as follows:

Program 3-C Local Density Bonus. Enact a local density bonus program that offers additional density over the maximum base permitted in the Monterey City Code as an incentive for projects that consolidate small, adjacent lots; and/or develop 2- and 3-bedroom units; and/or commit to additional Moderate Income units over and above any provision of such units required under the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Program. The local density bonus program would complement additional density available to qualifying projects under State Density Bonus law with the objective of addressing particular local constraints and needs. The prevalence of parcels less than 0.5 acres in size in centrally located parts of the city is a constraint on infill development and the city has a relatively high rate of overcrowding, due in part to the fact that a disproportionate share of large households live in poverty.

Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Adopt local density bonus provisions by Q2 2025 Objective: Facilitate development of 300 units affordable to lower income households, 93 units affordable to Moderate Income households, and 75 rental units with two or three bedrooms over the planning period Funding: General Fund
Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1388, Packet Page 1511

MEMORANDUM
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Appendix D (Fair Housing Assessment) to the Draft Housing Element includes an analysis of existing conditions and trends related to Fair Housing. During the 30-day review period, staff conducted further review of the Appendix and recommends the clarifications and additions shown in track changes in the updated version of the Appendix, included here as Attachment B2. In summary, these revisions include:
• Minor text amendments for clarification shown in track changes; • Additional of Section D.6, including a discussion of how buildout of the proposed inventory would improve or exacerbate fair housing conditions in Monterey, pursuant to HCD guidance contained in Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (April 2021); and
• Inclusion of a matrix summarizing fair housing issues identified in Appendix D, contributing factors and programs from Chapter 4 Housing Action Plan that address them (Table D-17).

Attachments:
• B1: Revised Map 3-15 Sites Available for Housing, Map 3-1 Pipeline Projects, and Table 3-4 Summary of RHNA Capacity
• B2: Revised Appendix D – Assessment of Fair Housing
Attachment 4
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1389, Packet Page 1512 A"achment B1:

Revised Map 3-15 Sites Available for Housing,
Map 3-1 Pipeline Projects, and
Table 3-4 Summary of RHNA Capacity
Attachment B-1
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1390, Packet Page 1513 Table 3-4 Summary of RHNA Capacity
Income Category Moderate
Opportunity Area Vacant Non-vacant Vacant Non-vacant Subtotal Downtown 0 219 259 478
North Fremont 0 263 24 86 373
Garden Road 0 515 0 0 515
Lighthouse 0 31 11 254 296
Pacific/Munras/Cass 0 38 0 92 130
Del Monte 0 126 0 0 126
Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch 220 220 1,220 1,660
Vacant Low Density Residential 111 111
Vacant High Density Residential 33 33
ADUs @ 15/year 72 36 12 120
Educational Workforce Overlay 100 100
Pipeline projects 109 1 393 503
County Courthouse Site 130 130
50-acre MCSD Site 64 64 512 640
590 Perry Lane Site 50 50
Elk's Lodge Site 94 94
Del Monte Shopping Center 150 150
Heritage Harbor Office Complex
Local Density Bonus 93
Subtotal 206 1,808 1,051 2,123 5,509
Total by RHNA Category 2,014 414 3,174 5,602
Lower Income Inclusionary Requirement (10%) 93
Moderate Income Inclusionary Requirement (10%) 93
Adjusted Total RHNA 2,107 506 3,174 5,787
RHNA 462 3,654
Buffer 161 44 1,928 1,498

8.25% 9.57% 154.74%
Very Low and Low Above Moderate
1,946 1,246
Attachment B-1
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1391, Packet Page 1514 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via
Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry
Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier
Field
Larkin School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park Huckleberry
Hill Nature
Preserve
Don Dahvee Park
Iris
Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol Site
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaji to
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
US Navy
La Mesa Village
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Housing Sites Inventory\Map 9_Pipeline Projects New.mxd Pipeline Projects
Very Low/Low/Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Mixed Income
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Parks and Recreation
Water
µ
Map 3-1: Pipeline Projects
Attachment B-1
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1392, Packet Page 1515 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via
Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry
Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier
Field
Larkin School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park Huckleberry
Hill Nature
Preserve
Don Dahvee Park
Iris
Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol Site
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaji to
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
US Navy
La Mesa Village
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Housing Sites Inventory\Map 10_Preliminary Housing Inventory Sites.mxd Sites available for Housing
Very Low/Low/Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Mixed Income
Opportunity Areas
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Parks and Recreation
Water
Fairgrounds
µ
Map 3-15: Sites Available for Housing
Attachment B-1
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1393, Packet Page 1516 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Formatted: Font: Gill Sans Std
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.25", Right: 0.25"
Appendix D:

Assessment of Fair Housing
Style Definition: Table Title
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1394, Packet Page 1517 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Table of Contents
D.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity.............................................................. D-2 D.2 Segregation and Integration ................................................................................ D-11 D.3 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence .................. D-39 D.4 Disparities in Access to Opportunity .................................................................. D-43 D.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs & Displacement Risk ................................... D-56 D.6 Sites Inventory....................................................................................................... D-70 D.7 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................... D-71 List of Figures
Map D-1: Neighborhood Segregation.......................................................................................................... D-19 Map D-2: City of Monterey Diversity Index.............................................................................................. D-20 Map D-3: Racial Segregation/Integration (2010), Monterey County.................................................... D-21 Map D-4: Racial Segregation/Integration (2020), Monterey County.................................................... D-22 Map D-5: Persons with Disabilities, City .................................................................................................... D-23 Map D-6: Persons with Disabilities, County .............................................................................................. D-24 Map D-7: Percent of Children in Female Headed Households, City ................................................... D-27 Map D-8: Percent of Children in Married Headed Households, City.................................................. D-28 Map D-9: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households, County............................................. D-29 Map D-10: Low- to Moderate-Income Population, Block Group, City............................................... D-30 Map D-11: Low- to Moderate-Income Population, Block Group, County......................................... D-31 Map D-12: Poverty Status (2014)................................................................................................................. D-33 Map D-13: Poverty Status (2019)................................................................................................................. D-34 Map D-14: Housing Vouchers (2019), City................................................................................................ D-35 Map D-15: Housing Vouchers (2019), County.......................................................................................... D-36 Map D-16: R/ECAP and RCAA Locations, Monterey County............................................................... D-41 Map D-17: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Composite Score, City of Monterey ................................... D-42 Map D-18: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Economic Score, City of Monterey...................................... D-49 Map D-19: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Education Score, City of Monterey...................................... D-53 Map D-20: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Environmental Score, City of Monterey ............................. D-55 Map D-21: Homeowner Cost Burden, City of Monterey ...................................................................... D-58 Map D-22: Renter Cost Burden, City of Monterey ................................................................................. D-59 Map D-23 Overcrowded Households, City of Monterey ...................................................................... D-61 Formatted: TOC 1
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1395, Packet Page 1518 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Map D-24: Sensitive Communities............................................................................................................... D-67 Map D-25: Overall Displacement Risk, City of Monterey...................................................................... D-68 Table of Charts and Tables
Table D-1: Rate of Denial by Race/Ethnicity (2021), City and County .................................................. D-6 Chart D-1: HMDA Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity, City of Monterey ........................................ D-8 Chart D-2: HMDA Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity, Salinas MSA (Monterey County)............. D-8 Chart D-3: HMDA Home Improvement Loan Applications, 2021.......................................................... D-9 Chart D-4: HMDA Home Purchase Loan Applications, 2021.................................................................. D-9 Table D-2: Population Growth by Race/Ethnicity, Monterey County, 2010-2040........................... D-13 Chart D-5: Timeline of Segregation Policies in United States............................................................... D-14 Table D-3: Monterey County Subdivisions by Race/Ethnicity, 2020.................................................... D-15 Table D-4: Change in Race/Ethnicity, City of Monterey and Monterey County, 2010-2020......... D-16 Chart D-6: City of Monterey and Monterey County Dissimilarity Index........................................... D-17 Table D-5: Children Under 18 Years in Monterey Households, 2020................................................ D-25 Table D-6: Poverty Rates in City of Monterey, 2020.............................................................................. D-32 Table D-7: Assisted Housing Projects, City of Monterey....................................................................... D-38 Chart D-7: Share of Units Affordable to 80 Percent AMI, County of Monterey ............................. D-38 Table D-8: Domain and Indicators for HCD/TCAC Opportunity Maps............................................ D-43 Chart D-8: Opportunity Indices, Population Above Poverty Level...................................................... D-45 Chart D-9: Opportunity Indices, Population Below Poverty Level...................................................... D-46 Table D-9: Share of Unemployment by Race/Ethnicity, Monterey County........................................ D-47 Table D-10: CAASP Scores ........................................................................................................................... D-51 Table D-11: CAASP Scores by Race in Ethnicity, Monterey Peninsula Unified................................. D-51 Table D-12: Monterey High School ............................................................................................................. D-51 Table D-13: CAASP Scores, 2022................................................................................................................ D-52 Chart D-10: Cost Burden for Owner Occupied Housing by Race/Ethnicity, City of Monterey .. D-57 Chart D-11: Cost Burden for Renter Occupied Housing by Race/Ethnicity, City of Monterey ... D-57 Table D-14: Monterey Substandard Housing Issues, 2020..................................................................... D-62 Chart D-12: Age of City of Monterey Housing Stock, 2020 ................................................................. D-63 Table D-15: Racial/Ethnic Group Share of General and Homeless Population in Salinas/Monterey and San Benito Counties ................................................................................................................................ D-65 Table D-16: AFFH Housing Element Sites Analysis.................................................................................. D-72 Table D-17: Findings........................................................................................................................................ D-73 Formatted: Table of Figures, Tab stops: 6.18",
Right,Leader: …
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1396, Packet Page 1519 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-1
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
D Assessment of Fair Housing
California Assembly Bill (AB) 686, passed in 2018, amended California Government Code section 65583 to require all public agencies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. AB 686 requires the Housing Element to include an assessment of fair housing issues in the City of Monterey with 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 based on available federal, State, and local data; an assessment of contributing factors; an identification of fair housing goals based on the analysis; and a series of actions to achieve the goals.

The City of Monterey is within the three county Monterey Bay Region, which covers Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties. It is the third most populous of the 12 cities in Monterey County after Salinas and Seaside and the fourth wealthiest, behind Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, and Pacific Grove. The population of Monterey and the three other wealthiest cities is also less diverse than the other jurisdictions in the county; 68 percent of households in the city are white compared with 29 percent for Monterey County as a whole1. This data helps to create a broader context for identifying and analyzing fair housing.

DATA/RESOURCES CONSULTED
This document relies a variety of resources including data from the 2020 US Census and the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate Data Profiles published by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments1
, the Monterey County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice2 prepared in collaboration with the cities in Monterey County and the Housing Authority County of Monterey, AFFH Mapping and Data Resources provided by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD),3 the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee 2023 Opportunity Area Maps 4 and other sources including the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and data from the following entities:
• Monterey County Housing and Community Development Department, • Monterey County Housing Authority,
• Monterey County Economic Development Housing Office.
1 Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, City of Monterey Housing Element Data Package, 2022 2 Monterey County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2019 3 https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60 4 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2023-ctcac-hcd-opportunity-map Deleted: sectionsection
Deleted: HousingHousing
Deleted: threethree
Deleted: countycounty
Deleted: ThisThis
Deleted: helpshelps
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1397, Packet Page 1520 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-2
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
D.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity
Fair housing services include education and training, counseling, investigation, and enforcement activities provided by State, federal, and local agencies as well as non-governmental organizations.

These activities are intended to ensure that a variety of housing options are available to individuals and households regardless of their protected characteristics such as race, color, gender, gender identity, religion, age, national origin, familial or marital status, disability, source of income, sexual orientation, and other factors that have been used to deny or limit housing choices. Property owners, real estate professionals, and government agencies historically used these considerations in ways that have severely constrained opportunities for individuals in these “protected” groups to live in housing that meets their needs in neighborhoods and communities with high-quality amenities and resources.5 Fair housing enforcement and 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 ensure community members are aware of fair housing laws and their rights under those laws. This capacity includes educating landlords, tenants, property management companies, government officials, agency staff, and real estate professionals to identify regulatory and real estate practices that maintain or create housing barriers to protected groups. Enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing.

FAIR HOUSING SERVICES
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has several programs that fund State and local agencies to conduct fair housing services and activities, including the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP). These groups communicate with housing providers, conduct investigations, perform testing to help determine if someone has experienced discrimination, and provide information and assistance. The FHAP funds the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to enforce Federal fair housing laws in California. The closest FHIP to Monterey is Project Sentinel, a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Santa Clara that HUD funds to provide education, outreach, and enforcement.

Housing discrimination complaints can be filed directly with HUD, with the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing, with Project Sentinel, or with local housing providers such as Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Housing. Housing discrimination complaints are one method to evaluate the extent of fair housing issues in a community. Monterey also contracts with the ECHO to provide fair housing and tenant-landlord counseling services. The Community Development Department provides contact information for ECHO and links to an ECHO information sheet on the City website at https://monterey.org/city_hall/departments/housing_programs/index.php ECHO, based in Hayward, was founded in 1964 as a fair housing agency and now provides a variety of housing services to low- and moderate-income clients in the Bay Area and on the Central Coast. 5 Rothstein, Richard. The Color of Law. N.p., Perfection Learning Corporation, 2019.

Formatted: Font: Minion Pro
Commented [CS1]: Punctuation choice?
Commented [KC2R1]: Addressed
Formatted: Font: Minion Pro
Deleted: llandlordlandlord
Formatted: Font: Minion Pro
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1398, Packet Page 1521 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-3
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
ECHO has been providing fair housing services to Monterey, Salinas, Seaside, and Monterey County’s urban unincorporated communities since 2017.

California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) has 17 offices statewide including one in Salinas. CRLA operates a state-wide Fair Housing and Foreclosure Prevention Program under guidance of HUD that assists victims of housing discrimination. They focus on the needs of farmworker communities, those living in unincorporated areas, and other underserved areas of California that have been subject to segregation and historic patterns of discriminatory housing and lending practices.

United Way Monterey County’s 211 program assists residents of Monterey and other cities in the county who believe they have been subjected to housing discrimination with referrals to ECHO, CRLA, and other organizations that operate statewide. The 211 program provides a call-in number and a website (https://211montereycounty.org/legal-assistancex/victim-services/housingdiscrimination/) with information about organizations that assist persons experiencing housing discrimination.

Monterey collaborates with the County, the Housing Authority of Monterey County, the cities of Salinas and Seaside, and the cities of Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, and Sand City in the County that receive entitlement funding from HUD. One of the requirements for maintaining eligibility for 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 is to “actively further[] fair housing choice” through:
• Completion of an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), • Actions to eliminate identified impediments; and
• Maintenance of fair housing records.6
The 2023-2024 Annual Action Plan the City of Monterey submitted to HUD as the application for funding from the CDBG program, commits Monterey to funding organizations, including ECHO and Legal Services for Seniors, to provide supportive services to homeless and low-income populations, specifically to assist in fair housing education and counseling on housing and home lending discrimination.7 For the 2022-2023 financial year, the City of Monterey committed to providing fair housing support services for 75 persons with CDBG funds through its contract with ECHO Housing..

Fair housing complaints are not the only indication of fair housing conditions, but data from ECHO, along with records published by the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), provide a basis for viewing Monterey in a broader context. 6 Monterey County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2019 7 City of Monterey Annual Action Plan FY 2023-2024, Executive Summary, https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Housing%20Programs/Plans%20&%20Reports/Action%20 plan/DRAFT_Monterey_Annual_Action_Plan_FY23-24.pdf
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1399, Packet Page 1522 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-4
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
In 2017, each jurisdiction had five clients who filed fair housing complaints. The majority of those filing complaints, including all of the complainants from Monterey, were white. Mental and physical disabilities were the most frequently alleged bases for discrimination. Of the 15 cases from Monterey County, only five allegations were sustained. Three of those were resolved through conciliation, but two were referred to DFEH and HUD.

When an individual reports possible discrimination it is considered an inquiry. Between 2013 and 2021, there were a total of 17 HUD inquiries made in the City of Monterey. Inquiries become formal complaints and cases once the FHEO or HUD determines the discrimination can be filed under one of the laws they enforce.

According to the 2020 Annual Report published by DFEH, only nine of 128 discrimination complaints from all jurisdictions within and including Monterey County was related to housing. As of 2020, there were six HUD cases filed, with three cases based on disability bias, one based on a familial status bias, and none based on racial bias. This represents an increase from 2010 when two cases were filed with HUD with only one based on an alleged disability bias and none asserting discrimination based on either familial status or racial bias.

FAIR HOUSING AUDIT REPORT
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.

In FY 2017, ECHO conducted a Fair Housing Audit that included the cities of Monterey, Salinas, the urbanized communities of Monterey County, and several Bay Area jurisdictions. The audit tested 134 properties, including five in Monterey, ten in Salinas, and five in urban areas of Monterey County. The 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.

In the first phase of the testing, communications began with emails. Among the 20 tests conducted in Monterey County communities, ten percent received differential treatment based on the name used in the emails, a minority name (Laquesha Jackson) vs. a majority name (Megan O’Reilly). In the City of Monterey, there were no cases of differential treatment while Salinas had one. 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.

OUTREACH AND CAPACITY
Fair housing outreach and education is imperative to ensure that those experiencing discrimination know when and how to seek help.

Deleted: frequentlyfrequently
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1400, Packet Page 1523 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-5
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
At a public Monterey workshop held in 2017 for the purpose of drafting the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), participants asserted that new housing is being built to target wealthier residents making it more difficult for other residents to find housing. The phrase “invasion of Silicon Valley” was stated as a greater concern for the residents and they expressed ECHO Housing should be used more to address fair housing concerns in Monterey.

To gather input on the most recently published Consolidated Plan, three publicly noticed meetings were held as follows: October 17, 2019, at El Estero Park Center, Monterey, California, November 13, 2019 at Few Memorial Hall, Monterey California, and January 9, 2019 at Few Memorial Hall, Monterey. California Engagement activities were used to gather input on the highest community and housing needs. The results of the input were narrowed to the three highest priorities: 1. Affordable housing 2. Homelessness services- prevention and housing 3. Community outreach. The meetings were legally noticed in English and Spanish through the Herald, publicized through the City’s website, and notices were emailed to the organizations from the contact list of partners and service organizations the City has compiled from past stakeholder and community meetings related to grant funding from HUD.

In addition to the meetings described above, a Housing 2020 Community Workshop & Open House was held on December 9, 2019 from 6 to 8 pm at the Monterey Conference Center. The purpose of the Housing Workshop was to provide updates on plans for new affordable housing and new laws affecting renter protections as well as for accessory dwelling units. Additionally, this meeting was meant to encourage residents to connect with City staff as well as the City’s community partners and to share their perspective on the challenges for housing in the City of Monterey. The meeting included an open house where residents could engage with the City’s community partners working on housing inventory improvements, partners which included the United Way, ECHO Housing, and Community Human Services (CHS). Specific topics included: new renter protections (AB 1482) (also available in Spanish), new rules for building an ADU (granny flat), increasing density for housing, Garden Road rezoning for housing, and analysis of City-owned property for housing. To publicize the Housing 2020 Community Workshop & Open House, dynamic bilingual outreach in English and Spanish was conducted to reach a large audience, which included public noticing in the Monterey Herald, publicizing the event on social media (Nextdoor, Twitter, Facebook), traditional media, and Podcasting with a local non-profit media company.

FAIR HOUSING PROGRAMS
Monterey residents facing homelessness have access to fair housing programs. The Housing Resource Center (HRC) was formed in 2009 after a merger between the Housing Advocacy Council and the Monterey County Housing Alliance. They provide homeless prevention services to low-income residents of Monterey County such as emergency rental assistance, security deposit guarantees, tenant education, and financial literacy education. The merger led to the creation of a cohesive HUDapproved organization that provides a continuum of housing support services and financial literacy education. HRC aims to address individuals’ and families’ basic need for safe and stable shelter. They service all Monterey County regions.

The City has a record of funding Legal Services for Seniors for Fair Housing and performs similar outreach as ECHO does to the community. Additionally, the City hosts public meetings regarding Fair Housing and encourages other local groups to provide workshops and distribute information. To Commented [CS3]: Maybe here and there throughout the
document reintroduce what the acronym AI stands for: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Commented [KC4R3]: Addressed
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1401, Packet Page 1524 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-6
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
address language barriers, the City keeps bilingual (English and Spanish) flyers and brochures of Fair Housing provider information at the Community Development public counter. The City also distributes these flyers and brochures at the City’s public library. Random testing to identify issues, trends, and problem properties is performed through the City’s current housing service provider, ECHO housing, in addition to annual fair housing audits. Through the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program, home purchasers are required to receive HUD-approved first-time homebuyer education courses that cover financial literacy and basic lender and real estate education. The courses are offered in English and Spanish by a HUD-approved counselor. This program was set up to address the low home purchase approval rates in the City and the underrepresentation of Hispanic households in the ownership housing market in the City, as identified in the City’s 2017 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). To address this impediment, the City also encourages residents to do extensive research of prospective lenders and available first-time homebuyer loan programs such as CalHFA and USDA, and contracts out to ECHO the monitoring of fair housing service contractors with lending activities in the City.

LENDING SERVICES
Discrimination in lending practices can be a major contributor to fair housing issues in a community, as this limits the ability of individuals to live in a location of their choosing. Loan denial rates can be informative of which kinds of discrimination are most prevalent in a community and which groups might need more loan application education targeted towards them. Loan denial rates can be derived from data provided by lending institutions in compliance with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). Between 2011 and 2021, loan applications in the County increased. In 2021, 16,201 loans originated in Monterey County. In 2018, 7,042 loans originated in Monterey County and in 2011, 7,586 loans originated in Monterey County. In 2021 as presented by Table D-1, all races and ethnicities had greater denial rates in the County than the City except for Native American applicants indicating this group might need greater targeted outreach directed towards it.

Table D-1: Rate of Denial by Race/Ethnicity (2021), City and County Race/Ethnicity City County
White (Non-Hispanic) 9.4% 10.0%
Hispanic/Latino 10.3% 13.9%
Black or African American 7.4% 13.7%
Native American 57.1% 25.5%
Asian 9.5% 12.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.0% 12.4%
Two or More Races 0% 9.3%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data, 2021
Commented [CD5]: We only have one. Are they distributed by the Book Mobile?
Commented [KC6R5]: Addressed
Deleted: AI
Commented [CS7]: What is this?
Commented [KC8R7]: Addressed
Deleted: .

Commented [CS9]: Between 2011 and 2021…?
Commented [KC10R9]: Addressed
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1402, Packet Page 1525 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-7
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Charts D-1 and D-2 provide an overview of lending patterns in the City of Monterey compared to Monterey County. Chart D-1 shows that such potentially discriminatory lending patterns have continued at the County level up until the year 2021. The City has similarly seen uneven lending patterns and as of 2021 (the most recent year that data is available) Native American applicants had the highest loan denial rates, followed by Hispanic applicants, and Non-Hispanic White applicants.

As Chart D-1 demonstrates, Non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander applicants have seen a decline between 2018 and 2021 in loan denial rates while the other applicant groups have seen more variation between increases and decreases in loan denial rates. Most groups at the County level have seen steady decline between 2018 and 2021 in loan denial rates other than Black or African American and Native American applicants. Other groups have either maintained the same rate in the last couple years or reduced the rate by a few percentage points. Charts D-3 and D-4 demonstrate that in 2021 the City had higher loan approval rates for both home improvement and home purchase loans than the County.

The data do not indicate the grounds for the denial, and can not be used to prove that the denials were not justified on the basis of standard financial criteria; however, the trend suggests both a potential for bias within the financial system and a need for financial literacy training among non-whites, particularly Native American applicants, to help those groups better understand how to improve their credit scores.

BROKERAGE SERVICES
The Monterey County Association of Realtors (MCAR) is the primary association of real estate brokers or salespersons whose business is in the City of Monterey. MCAR has a Multiple Listing Service (MLS)—MLSListings Inc—and is part of the Norcal MLS Alliance, an MLS data integration project across the seven leading MLSs in Northern California. MCAR is bound by the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice of the National Association of Realtors (NAR), which explicitly states in Article 10 that members shall not discriminate against any person based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity. In addition to adopting the ethics standards set by the NAR, the state branch promotes its own diversity and inclusion programs, such as the Latino Initiative Voices in Action program, which provides educational materials for members on homeownership opportunities and fraud prevention.

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Between 2017 and 2019, the City of Monterey conducted outreach to property management companies in the community to help increase awareness of and expand education around fair housing laws. By reaching out to small rental properties where the owners and managers were potentially unaware of the fair housing laws, the City sought to address the identified discriminatory practices from the City’s 2017 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI).

Additionally, the California Apartment Association developed the California Certified Residential Manager Program (CCRM) to provide comprehensive series of courses gears towards improving the approach, attitude and professional skills of on-site property managers. The program consists of 31.5 hours of training, including fair housing and ethics courses titled “Fair Housing: It’s the Law” and “Ethics in Property Management”. Additionally, the National Association of Residential Property Managers (NARPM) offers courses in ethnics and fair housing.

Deleted: AI
Commented [CS11]: What is this?
Commented [KC12R11]: Addressed
Deleted: .

Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1403, Packet Page 1526 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-8
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Chart D-1: HMDA Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity, City of Monterey Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data, 2018-2021
Chart D-2: HMDA Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity, Salinas MSA (Monterey County) Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data, 2018-2021

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%
White (NonHispanic)Hispanic/Latino Black or African
American
Native American Asian Native Hawaiian
and Other Pacific
Islander
Two or More
Races
City of Monterey
2018 2019 2020 2021

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%
White (NonHispanic)Hispanic/Latino Black or
African
American
Native
American
Asian Native
Hawaiian and
Other Pacific
Islander
Two or More
Races
Salinas MSA
2018 2019 2020 2021
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1404, Packet Page 1527 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-9
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Chart D-3: HMDA Home Improvement Loan Applications, 2021 Source : Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data, 2021
Chart D-4: HMDA Home Purchase Loan Applications, 2021
Source : Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data, 2021

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
City of Monterey Salinas MSA
Home Purchase
Approved Denied Other

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%
100.0%
City of Monterey Salinas MSA
Home Improvement
Approved Denied Other
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1405, Packet Page 1528 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-10
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt

FAIR HOUSING COMPLIANCE
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), FEHA Regulations (California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 2, sections 12005-12271), and Government Code section 65008 applies to actions of a city, county, city and county, or other local government agency making them “null and void” if they deny an individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or other land use in the state because of membership in a protected class, the method of financing, and/or the intended occupancy.

More specifically, the Government Code imposes requirements related to housing including the following:
• Government Code section 8899.50 requires all public agencies to administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.
• Government Code section 11135 et seq. prohibits discrimination and requires full and equal access to all programs and activities conducted, operated, administered, or funded with financial assistance from the State, regardless of one’s membership or perceived membership in a protected class, as that term is defined in Government Code section 12926. • Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915.)requires California jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that specify how density bonuses will be offered to incentivize affordable housing. The state law contains the minimum specifications for density bonuses. • Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5.) prohibits local agencies from disapproving housing developments, including farmworker housing and emergency shelters, or requiring conditions that make such housing infeasible except under certain conditions specified in the law.
• No-Net-Loss Law (Gov. Code § 65863.) is meant to ensure that development opportunities remain available throughout a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation (RHNA) period, especially for low- and moderate-income households. It prohibits jurisdictions from lowering residential densities without substantial evidence.
• Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code § 65913.1.) requires jurisdictions to designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use with sufficient standards in relation to growth projections.
• Excessive subdivision standards (Gov. Code § 65913.2.) prohibits jurisdictions from imposing design criteria that make residential development infeasible. • Limits on growth controls (Gov. Code, § 65302.8.) describes how flood plains are used in comprehensive planning and zoning.
• Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65583, esp. subds. (c)(5), (c)(10).) governs state-required housing elements.

As a recipient of the Community Development Block Grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds, the City is required to maintain Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) certification and to demonstrate compliance through its Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans, which are submitted to HUD for Deleted: .).)
Deleted: .).)
Commented [CS13]: Are these going to be summarized too as the first two in this list?
Commented [KC14R13]: Need to be summarized
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1406, Packet Page 1529 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-11
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
approval prior to receipt of the funds. Monterey has not denied any entitlements for affordable housing project in its jurisdiction, and will implement this Housing Element to ensure adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA obligations during the planning period and to comply with other legal requirements.

Monterey has made a number of revisions to its Specific Plans and Zoning Code to implement its current General Plan and Housing Element and is committed to making further revisions to meet all applicable requirements of State law based on the review undertaken to prepare this Housing Element.

Many of these revisions will advance fair housing. Section D.6, Summary and Conclusions, identifies areas where constraints to furthering fair housing remain. The Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) describes the specific programs Monterey will undertake during the planning period to remove or lessen these constraints.

D.2 Segregation and Integration
Patterns of segregation within a community may arise from both public and private housing discrimination, whether intentional or unintentional. Although racial and ethnic segregation is perhaps the most common and well-known form, other protected classes may also experience segregation. This section explores patterns and trends of segregation based on race and ethnicity, disability, familial status, and income level in the City of Monterey and the surrounding region. These groups are not mutually exclusive, and there may be considerable overlap across each protected class.

Historically throughout the U.S., including in California and Monterey County, restrictive and exclusionary zoning practices have contributed to racial and economic segregation. 8 The First Peoples of Monterey include the Rumsen and Esselen Ohlone nations. At the time of the arrival of Spaniards in 1770 it is estimated that the indigenous population of the Monterey Bay was approximately 7,000 people (10). At the arrival of Fr. Junipero Serra, Don Gaspar de Portola, and Fr.

Juan Crespi in 1770 a Presidio and Royal Chapel was constructed and Monterey was declared for New Spain. Although the original plan for the Missions was to hold the lands in the trusts of the church for ten years and build a civilian town; in 1834 the lands in Monterey were transferred to private holdings. (10) The Ohlone communities of Rumsen, Esselen, and Salinan background still live in the area today.

Historical records show that African-Americans lived and worked in Monterey County and in what is now the city of Monterey as early as the 18th century. Several Africans are known to have been ship maintenance workers aboard the San Antonio, the ship on which Fr. Junipero Serra arrived in the region. At that time, what is now Monterey, was the Spanish territory of Alta California. Alejo Nino, an African Spaniard and free man, who came to the Monterey area with Junipero Serra in the 18th century was the first black man buried in Alta California. His grave is in the Presidio in Monterey. The Juna Bautista de Anza exploration and colonization trail of 1775-1176 included Afromestizos from Mexico (11). Because few women were among the first Africans who settled in the Alta California territory, many of the first black settlers married Mexican or native American women. Africans first entered Mexico in 1519 and frequently intermarried; their descendants were considered mulattos or 8 Shahan Shahid Nawaz et al., "Single-Family Zoning in the Monterey Region: A California Zoning Atlas Snapshot”, Othering and Belonging Institute, University of California, Berkeley, July 10, 2023, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/single-family-zoning-monterey-region#footnote1_rj19xwi Commented [CD15]: Please verify. The city has denied
proposals for development on its property in response to RFP.

Commented [KC16R15]: Clarified. “The City hasn’t denied any entitlements for affordable housing projects. The City denied entering into an exclusive negotiating agreement with a company that responded to the City’s RFP to develop affordable housing on City land. The City’s RFP started with 4 parcels in the RFP and the City chose 1 parcel (MidPen) - the project that is now moving forward behind City hall. “
From Christy on 8/18/2023.

Formatted: Space After: 6 pt
Deleted: Restrictive
Deleted: in Monterey County and other regions across California. c…ommunity characteristics (like rents, housing costs, and ommunity characteristics (like rents, housing costs, and educational attainment) with the degree of restrictive zoning
Deleted: ommunity characteristics (like rents, housing costs, and attainment) with the degree of restrictive zoning
Deleted: manman
Commented [BE19]: Afro-latinos or afromestizos.

Commented [KC20R19]: Addressed
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1407, Packet Page 1530 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-12
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Afromestizos. In the mid-1830s, two men with multiracial backgrounds , Lt. Col. Manuel Victoria and Pio Pico, were appointed governors of Alta California. 9 Even though Mexico had a strict class system, it neither enslaved nor restricted those of African heritage. Mexico had a strict caste system that led to many Afromestizos seeking opportunities in Alta California. While the first slaves were brought to Mexico in the 16th century under New Spain, Mexico abolished slavery in 1839. Later in the 19th century, black men and women who were slaves, runaway slaves, or free joined the original settlers. In 1849, delegates to California’s first Constitutional Convention met at Colton Hall in Monterey and agreed to prohibit slavery in the new state. Section 18 of Article I stated, “Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crimes, shall ever be tolerated in this State.”10 Because California was not a slave state, many of those who arrived as slaves were able to buy their freedom or escape slavery and lived free in Monterey.

Thirty years later, delegates to a second constitutional convention meeting in Sacramento, amended the Constitution by adding “Article 19, Chinese” which forbid the employment of Chinese by any corporation or by any state or local government“ except in punishment for crime”. Section 4 went on to authorize “all necessary power to the incorporated cities and towns of this State for the removal of Chinese without the limits of such cities and towns, or for their location within prescribed portions of those limits” and authorized the State Legislature to establish legislation to prohibit “the introduction into this State of Chinese”.11 Despite mandates like this, the federal Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and the State’s Alien Land Law (1913), Asians came to the Monterey peninsula to work in the County’s thriving agricultural and fishing industries with the Japanese arriving in Monterey during the 1890’s after the Chinese Exclusion Act (13). The first Asian settlers included part of a group of immigrants from China who arrived in the early 1850s settling first at Point Lobos in Carmel and then at Point Alones, next to the present site of the Monterey Bay Aquarium. The small fishing village at Point Alones initiated the fishing economy in Monterey. After the village burned in 1906, due to arson according to some sources, the Chinese were not allowed to return to Point Alones and moved throughout the region and established another village at McAbee Beach, a short distance to the north and now the heart of the Cannery Row area of Monterey. 12 The Japanese community used white business partners to start canning businesses at Cannery Row.

Many of the African American families who came to the Monterey peninsula worked in agriculture, but as Monterey became a tourist destination many found jobs in hotels and restaurants and also as domestic workers. As early as 1902, the peninsula also became a place for military service. In 1917 as 9 Adkins, Jan Batiste, African Americans of Monterey Count”, Arcadia Publishing, 2015.

10. Architectural Resources Group, “National Historic Landmark District and Downtown Area Context Statement and Reconnaissance Survey: Monterey, California.” Prepared for City of Monterey, adopted February 21, 2012, revised May 1, 2012, 15.
10 “JoinCalifornia: Election History for the State of California”, http://www.joincalifornia.com/page/11 11 "Afro-Latino Presence in Early California”. https://www.nps.gov/juba/learn/historyculture/afro-latinos.htm 11 Constitution of the State of California, Adopted March 3, 1879, https://archives.cdn.sos.ca.gov/collections/1879/archive/1879-constitution.pdf 12 Marangoni-Simonsen, Dominique, A Forgotten History: How the Asian American Workforce Cultivated Monterey County’s Agricultural Industry, Despite National Anti-Asian Rhetoric, p. 230-234, Hastings Envt'l L.J. 229 (2021) https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_environmental_law_journal/vol27/iss1/6 13 Lyon, Sandy. The Japanese of the Monterey Bay Region. 1997 Formatted: Not Highlight
Commented [BE21]: New Spain did allow slavery. Abolished in 1839 by Mexico
Commented [KC22R21]: Addressed
Formatted: Not Highlight
Deleted: sW
Deleted:

Formatted: Hyperlink
Formatted: Hyperlink
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1408, Packet Page 1531 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-13
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
the United States entered World War I, the federal government established Fort Ord as a military training base for soldiers stationed in the nearby Presidio in Monterey. The presence of the base discouraged both housing and infrastructure development contributing to Seaside’s reputation as a less desirable place to live than Monterey especially as World War II brought the expansion of Fort Ord. By the end of the war, when President Harry S. Truman ordered full desegregation of the armed services, Seaside was still an unincorporated suburb of Monterey. Because of the increasing use of racially restrictive covenants in Monterey and many other communities in the county, many African Americans retiring from the military who were unable to purchase homes elsewhere in the area, remained in Seaside, which incorporated in 1954. By 1980, the black population of Seaside was 29.3 percent, larger than any other city in the county, but with the closure of Ford Ord the black population declined to 12.1 percent in 2000. Seaside still has the largest black population of any city in the county,

7.2 percent compared with 3.5 percent in Monterey.

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Racial and ethnic patterns of segregation in the City of Monterey are better understood in the context of changing regional and local demographics and historical settlement precedents. As shown in Table D-2, the population of Monterey County increased by 2.0 percent between 2010 and 2020, with a projected increase of 5.6 percent between 2020 and 2040. In the ten years between 2010 and 2020, the Hispanic/Latino population had the greatest growth rate of 12.7 percent followed by the Non-Hispanic Multiracial category (10.2 percent). All other groups saw small reductions in their numbers while the Non-Hispanic White population experienced the greatest percent of decline in residents (-3.1 percent). Looking forward to 2040, it is anticipated that the Non-Hispanic Multiracial and Hispanic/Latino groups will continue to see the greatest increases in population (23.4 percent and 16.6 percent, respectively), followed by Non-Hispanic Native Americans (10.8 percent) and Non-Hispanic Black or African Americans (1.9 percent). All other groups will see slight reductions in their populations as shown in Table D-2.

Table D-2: Population Growth by Race/Ethnicity, Monterey County, 2010-2040 Race/Ethnicity County Percent Change
2010 2020 2040 Forecast 2010-2020 2020-2040
White (Non-Hispanic) 137,308 133,076 124,779 -3.1% -6.2% Hispanic/Latino 230,783 260,033 303,158 12.7% 16.6%
Black or African American (NH) 11,452 11,085 11,292 -3.2% 1.9% Native American (NH) 1,410 1,412 1,564 -0.1% 10.8%
Asian (NH) 24,015 23,691 22,137 -1.3% -6.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander (NH)
1,895 1,921 1,902 -1.4% -1.0%
Multiracial (NH) 9,142 10,072 12,433 10.2% 23.4%
Minority¹ 278,697 298,142 352,486 7.0% 18.2%
Total 416,005 441290 477,265 2.0% 5.6%

1. Minority refers to any person not listed as NH White Source: California Department of Finance, Table P-2D County Population by Total Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Race (2010-2060) Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1409, Packet Page 1532 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-14
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Chart D-5: Timeline of Segregation Policies in United States Source: Rothstein, Richard. The Color of Law. N.p., Perfection Learning Corporation, 2019.

Commented [CS25]: Please include source for this chart
Commented [KC26R25]: Added source
Deleted: Page Break
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1410, Packet Page 1533 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-15
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
The geographical distribution of race and ethnicity throughout the County is uneven. As shown in Table D-3, Monterey County has thirteen Census County Subdivisions with varying shares of NonHispanic White, Hispanic/Latino, and Non-Hispanic Other Races (Black or African American, Native American, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and Multiracial). The City of Monterey is in the Seaside-Monterey Subdivision. It has the highest share of Non-Hispanic Other Race residents in the County and has the smallest difference in percentage between its Hispanic/Latino population and Non-Hispanic White population.

Table D-3: Monterey County Subdivisions by Race/Ethnicity, 2020 White (NH) Hispanic/Latino Other Race (NH)
Carmel Valley 83.2% 11.3% 5.5%
Carmel-by-the-Sea 82.4% 8.5% 9.1%
Toro Park 75.2% 14.7% 10.1%
Big Sur 61.6% 34.0% 4.4%
San Ardo 57.9% 30.6% 11.5%
Seaside-Monterey 52.4% 26.5% 21.0%
Castroville 25.6% 63.0% 11.3%
Pajaro 23.5% 71.1% 5.5%
King City 15.8% 80.8% 3.5%
Salinas 13.6% 77.9% 8.6%
Gonzales 12.0% 72.4% 15.6%
Soledad 8.7% 88.8% 2.5%
Greenfield 5.0% 91.6% 3.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2020 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table DP05) Most of the Subdivisions with Non-Hispanic White majority populations (Carmel Valley, Carmel-bythe-Sea, Toro Park, Big Sur, and Seaside-Monterey) are adjacent to each other in the western part of the County along the coast. The remaining Subdivisions with minority-majority populations are located inland to the east and southeast (King City, Salinas, Gonzales, Soledad, and Greenfield). As a result, the County as a whole shows a pattern of racial and ethnic segregation.

As shown in Table D-4, the City remains substantially less diverse than Monterey County as a whole.

Between 2010 and 2020, the share of White residents in the City decreased slightly from 69.2 percent to 67.7 percent and the share of other ethnicities increased slightly; however, the share of White residents in the City is still more than double that of the County, which has a majority Hispanic/Latino population.

One method to gauge the extent of segregation in a jurisdiction is the dissimilarity index. The dissimilarity index measures the degree to which two groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area and is a commonly used tool for assessing residential segregation between two groups. The dissimilarity index provides values ranging from 0 to 100, where higher numbers indicate a higher degree of segregation among the two groups measured. According to HUD, dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39.99 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54.99 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.

Commented [CS27]: San Ardo is not along the coast; it is east of Hwy 101
Commented [KC28R27]: Addressed
Commented [CD29]: Isn't San Ardo east? Not along the coast.

Commented [CS30R29]: Yes, San Ardo is east of Hwy 101, not along the coast
Deleted: )
Commented [CD31]: Pajaro is also not near the coast.

Commented [CD33]: King City is east. Not along the coast Commented [LH35]: Noted in previous sentence as east.

Deleted: .

Moved (insertion) [1]
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1411, Packet Page 1534 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-16
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Table D-4: Change in Race/Ethnicity, City of Monterey and Monterey County, 2010-2020 Race/Ethnicity
City of Monterey Monterey County
2010 2020 Percent
Change
2010 2020 Percent
Change
White (NH) 69.2% 67.7% -1.5% 34.3% 29.5% -4.8%
Hispanic/Latino 14.2% 17.0% 2.8% 53.7% 59.0% 5.3%
Black or African American (NH) 2.3% 3.6% 1.3% 3.0% 2.4% -0.6% Native American (NH) 0.4% 0.3% -0.1% 0.3% 0.2% -0.1%
Asian (NH) 9.1% 6.0% -3.1% 6.0% 5.6% -0.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander (NH)

0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0%
Other (NH) 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% -0.1%
Two or More Races (NH) 4.3% 4.9% 0.6% 2.1% 2.8% 0.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 (SF1, Table P004); Census 2010 (SF1, Table P9); 2020 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table DP05)
The dissimilarity index uses non-Hispanic White residents as the primary comparison group; however, Monterey County, along with the State of California, is a majority-minority jurisdiction, meaning that non-White ethnic groups make up a majority of the population. Dissimilarity index values compare racial and ethnic groups against the distribution of non-Hispanic white residents in a community and do not directly measure segregation between minority groups (e.g., non-Hispanic Black). As Chart D-6 shows, the County dissimilarity index is significantly higher in the County, exceeding 55 for White/Hispanic between 1990 and 2020, indicating there has been a high and increasing level of segregation. The dissimilarity between White/Black residents indicates high segregation in 1990, but decreased segregation in 2020 (indicating moderate segregation). The White/Asian segregation level has been below 39.99 since 1990, indicating sustained low segregation.

Based on the dissimilarity index, levels of segregation are much lower within the City of Monterey than the County, with all scores between 1990 and 2020 falling below 39.99. Scores have not always trended downward though. In 2010, there were spikes in scores for White/Asian and White/Hispanic dissimilarity from 2000, and in 2020, the White/Black score increased as compared to 2010. As of 2020, for both the County and the City, White/Asian dissimilarity is the lowest followed by White/Black, and White/Hispanic dissimilarity is highest.

The shortcoming of the dissimilarity index is it may not capture the nuances of segregation between minority groups within the city. To capture these nuances, HCD has provided neighborhood segregation typologies developed by the Urban Displacement Project (UDP) at UC Berkeley. These typologies identify tracts based on which racial/ethnic groups have more than 10 percent representation within a given census tract. The typologies consider five racial/ethnic groups— including Black, Latinx, White, Asian, and Other.

Map D-1 shows racial integration by neighborhood in the city. New Monterey, Del Monte Beach, Villa Del Monte, and Del Monte Grove/Laguna Grande neighborhoods are Latinx-White. The Aguajito Oaks, Deer Flats, Fisherman Flats, Monterey Vista, Glenwood, and Skyline neighborhoods are mostly Moved up [1]: One method to gauge the extent of segregation in a jurisdiction is the dissimilarity index. The dissimilarity index measures the degree to which two groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area and is a commonly used tool for assessing residential segregation between two groups. The dissimilarity index provides values ranging from 0 to 100, where higher numbers indicate a higher degree of segregation among the two groups measured. According to HUD, dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39.99 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and

54.99 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation. ¶ Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1412, Packet Page 1535 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-17
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
White. The Naval Postgraduate neighborhood is Asian-White. The Presidio, Old Town, Downtown, Oak Grove, other Naval Postgraduate School area near the Bay, and Alta Mesa neighborhoods are 3 Group Mixed. As indicated by Table D-4 above, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, and non-Hispanic White residents are the three largest groups represented in the City. The non-Hispanic White population is the largest, and as Map D-1 indicates, makes up greater than ten percent of every part of the City (all the 3 Group Mixed areas include non-Hispanic White as one of the groups).

Chart D-6: City of Monterey and Monterey County Dissimilarity Index Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table B01003 and Table B03002) As a majority Non-Hispanic White community adjacent to other majority Non-Hispanic White communities in a County that is majority Hispanic, the City of Monterey can be seen as part of a racially/ethnically concentrated area of non-Hispanic White residents. However, as shown on Chart D-6, dissimilarity scores indicate that the City is less segregated than the County as a whole. Further, the 2018 ESRI Diversity Index shows that many areas of the City of Monterey are relatively racially and ethnically integrated. The index captures the racial and ethnic diversity of a geographic area in a single number, from 0 to 100 determined by the likelihood that two people selected at random are of the same race. The most diverse block groups have scores 85 or greater while the least diverse have scores of 55 or less (labeled as Lower Diversity in yellow on Map D-2). As shown in Map D-2, the areas with the highest diversity are on the eastern side of the City in Villa Del Monte, Del Monte Grove/Laguna Granada, and Casanova Oak Knoll neighborhoods. Areas of low diversity in Map D-2 are concentrated in the Monterey Vista, Deer Flats, Aguajito, and Fisherman Flats neighborhoods. The neighborhoods with lower diversity are also areas characterized as Mostly White by Map D-1, but these neighborhoods are a small sum of the total area of the City. The rest of the City have scores equal or greater than 55, 70, or even 85.

In Monterey, where there is greater population density overall and greater access to opportunities there is greater diversity than countywide. As other parts of this analysis observe, however, this diversity varies within the city and is closely associated with the prevalence of single-family zoning (see Sections D3 and D4). Map D-1 shows that access to transit, jobs, and other measures of economic, 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
1990 2000 2010 2020 1990 2000 2010 2020
City of Monterey Monterey County/Salinas MSA
Dissimilarity Index
White/Black White/Hispanic White/Asian
Commented [LH37]: Can this sentence be broken up somehow? Commented [KC38R37]: Addressed
Deleted: 2
Commented [CS39]: Verify Table D-2
Commented [KC40R39]: Corrected to Table D-4
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1413, Packet Page 1536 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-18
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
environmental, and educational opportunities is greater in the areas with the highest population numbers and the greatest diversity (3 Group Mixed). These results may be skewed, however, by the fact that the Naval Base is in the 3 Group Mixed section of Map D-1 while much of the Mostly White area of the Map is non-residential (e.g., Fort Ord and Ryan Ranch) or very sparsely settled or undeveloped like the hillside open space adjacent to Highway 68. Maps D-3 and D-4 present racial segregation and integration throughout the County in both 2010 and 2020. The maps show that the City of Monterey is a High White Segregation area, but it does not exist in isolation; other High White Segregation cities in the County are present along the western edge of the County and in the south. In both instances, those areas that are developed are zoned for single-family use only.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Persons with disabilities may face discriminatory housing practices based on their disability, including the lack of accessible dwellings and refusal by housing providers to offer reasonable accommodations.

Data shows that from a housing perspective, there are several different housing needs of disabled persons. For those disabled with a developmental or mental disability, one of the most significant problems is securing affordable housing that meets their specialized needs. Housing needs can range from institutional care facilities to facilities that support partial or full independence (such as group care homes). Supportive services such as daily living skills and employment assistance need to be integrated into the housing situation also. A disabled person with a mobility limitation requires housing that is physically accessible.

According to the 2021 ACS five-year estimates, 4,542 persons (19 percent of the non-institutionalized population) had a disability in the City of Monterey. As shown in Map D-5, there are more tracts containing 10-20 percent of the population with a disability than tracts with less than 10 percent.

However, no single census tract contains a population with a disability that exceeds 20 percent of the tract’s total population, which is the threshold typically used by HCD as an indicator of overconcentration. In the City of Monterey, there are seven residential care facilities for the elderly and one social rehabilitation facility.13
Map D-6 demonstrates areas within the County with larger populations such as in the City of Monterey, Carmel Valley, and Salinas, 10-20 percent of the population has a disability while less populated areas have less than 10 percent. This indicates the City is typical of the County. At the County level supportive housing services for those with disabilities are limited. There is area 8 adult residential facilities and two residential care facilities for the elderly. The adult residential facility (located in Greenfield) has the capacity to serve 40 people, and the residential care facilities for the elderly (located in Carmel Valley and Castroville) have the capacity to serve six persons each.

According to the California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, most of the County’s adult residential care facilities for adults and elderly are located in Salinas (25 adult residential facilities and 21 elderly residential facilities). Additionally, there are five adult day care centers and one social rehabilitation facility in Salinas. In Seaside, there are two residential care facilities for the elderly and one adult residential facility. 13 “Assisted Living Facilities in Monterey, CA” accessed on August 2 at https://www.caring.com/senior-living/assistedliving/california/monterey Deleted: showsshows
Deleted:

Deleted: ffromfrom
Commented [CS41]: the City of Monterey?
Commented [KC42R41]: Addressed
Deleted: eight
Commented [CD43]: Eight seems like a high number. Is this accurate?
Commented [KC44R43]: Corrected to seven
Deleted: Page Break
¶
Map D-1: Neighborhood Segregation ¶
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources (UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project, May 2021)¶
Page Break
¶
Map D-2: City of Monterey Diversity Index¶
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources (ESRI, 2018)¶ Page Break
¶
Map D-3: Racial Segregation/Integration (2010), Monterey County¶
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources (ACS, 2015-2019)¶ Page Break
¶
Map D-4: Racial Segregation/Integration (2020), Monterey County¶
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources (ACS, 2015-2019)¶ Page Break
¶
Map D-5: Persons with Disabilities, City¶
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources (ACS, 2015-2019)¶ Page Break
¶
Deleted: one
Deleted: facility
Commented [LH45]: This seems low given the eight that are noted in the City above.

Commented [KC46R45]: Addressed
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1414, Packet Page 1537 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton
Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier Field
Larkin
School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Don Dahvee
Park
Iris Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-1: Neighborhood Diversity Segregation
Data Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - Urban Displacement Project, 2019; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Neighborhood Diversity Segregation.mxd Neighborhood Segregation
3 Group Mixed
Asian-White
Latinx-White
Mostly White
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1415, Packet Page 1538 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monte re y
Re gional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton
Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier Field
Larkin
School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Don Dahvee
Park
Iris Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W FranklinSt Tyle r St
Pre scott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale Dr
Abre go tS
Cam
Agujaito
CasaVe rde Way
N Fre mont St
Monte cito Ave
GardenRd
ElDorado tS
MarkThomas Dr
Uppe rRagsdale Dr
Fre montSt
Gle nw oodCir
Scenic
rD
Lighthouse Ave
AugaijtoRd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVistaDr
De lMonte Ave
SBoundaryRd
Skyline Dr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-2: City of Monte re y Dive rsity Inde x
Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; PlaceWorks, 2021; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Mile s
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\City of Monterey Diversity Index.mxd 2018 Diversity Index by Block Group, ESRI
≤85
≤70
≤55
Low e r Dive rsity
City of Monte re y
Sphe re of Influe nce
Ne ighboring City
Park
Wate r
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1416, Packet Page 1539 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
IÆ
IÆ
AÔ
Aª
Aï
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
^!"

MONTEREY
FRESNO

SAN BENITO

MERCED MADERA
KINGS

SAN LUIS OBISPO KERN

SANTA CRUZ

SANTA CLARA
Chualar
Aromas
Castroville
Elkhorn
Del Monte Forest
Spreckels
Moss Landing
Pajaro
Prunedale
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Gonzales
Greenfield
Marina
Monterey
King City
Salinas
Sand
City
Soledad
Big Sur
Carmel Valley
Bradley
San Ardo
San Lucas
Lockwood
Parkfield
Seaside
D-3: Racial Segregation/Integration (2010), Monterey County 0 5 10 20
Miles
Data Source: OBI, 2022; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022.

J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Racial Segregation Integration 2010 Monterey County.mxd Racial Segregation/Integration (OBI, 2010) - Tract
No Data Applicable to
2021 Census Tract Boundary
Racially Integrated
Low-Medium Segregation
High POC Segregation
High White Segregation
! Cities in Monterey County
Monterey County
Counties
Interstate
Highways
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1417, Packet Page 1540 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
IÆ
IÆ
AÔ
Aª
Aï
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
^!"

MONTEREY
FRESNO

SAN BENITO

MERCED MADERA
KINGS

SAN LUIS OBISPO KERN

SANTA CRUZ

SANTA CLARA
Chualar
Aromas
Castroville
Elkhorn
Del Monte Forest
Spreckels
Moss Landing
Pajaro
Prunedale
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Gonzales
Greenfield
Marina
Monterey
King City
Salinas
Sand
City
Soledad
Big Sur
Carmel Valley
Bradley
San Ardo
San Lucas
Lockwood
Parkfield
Seaside
D-4: Racial Segregation/Integration (2020), Monterey County 0 5 10 20
Miles
Data Source: OBI, 2022; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022.

J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Racial Segregation Integration 2020 Monterey County.mxd Racial Segregation/Integration (OBI, 2020) - Tract
No Data Applicable to
2021 Census Tract Boundary
Racially Integrated
Low-Medium Segregation
High POC Segregation
High White Segregation
! Cities in Monterey County
Monterey County
Counties
Interstate
Highways
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1418, Packet Page 1541 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-5: Persons with Disabilities in the City
Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2015-2019); City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Persons with Disabilities in the City.mxd Percent of Population with a Disability
(ACS, 2015-2019) - Tract
10% - 20%
< 10%
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1419, Packet Page 1542 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
IÆ
IÆ
AÔ
Aª
Aï
A÷
Aã
AÔ
Aþ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
^!"

MONTEREY
FRESNO

SAN BENITO

MERCED MADERA
KINGS

SAN LUIS OBISPO KERN

SANTA CRUZ

SANTA CLARA
Aptos Corralitos
Freedom
Interlaken Soquel Rio del Mar
Capitola
Ridgemark
Hollister
Santa Cruz
Watsonville
San Juan
Bautista
La Selva
Beach
Tres Pinos
Opal Cliffs
Paicines
Biola
Cantua Creek
Lake
Nacimiento
South Dos
Palos Dos Palos
Tranquillity
Coalinga
Huron
Avenal
San Miguel
Madera
Firebaugh
Mendota
Kerman
San Joaquin
Three Rocks
Oak Shores
La Vina
Helm
Cholame
Burrel
San Benito
Idria
Chualar
Aromas
Castroville
Elkhorn
Del Monte
Forest
Spreckels
Moss Landing
Pajaro
Prunedale
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Gonzales
Greenfield
Marina
Monterey
Pacific Grove
King City
Salinas
Sand City
Seaside
Soledad
Big Sur
Carmel Valley
Bradley
San Ardo
San Lucas
Lockwood
Parkfield
D-6: Persons with Disabilities in the County
0 5 10 20
Miles
Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2015-2019); City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022.

J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Persons with Disabilities in the County.mxd Percent of Population with a Disability
(ACS, 2015-2019)-Tract
20% - 30%
10% - 20%
< 10%
! Cities in Monterey County
Monterey County
Counties
Interstate
Highways
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1420, Packet Page 1543 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-25
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
The City has enacted regulations to ensure that reasonable accommodations are made for housing designed for occupancy by, orwith supportive servicesfor personswith disabilities. As described more fully in Appendix C, the City amended the Zoning Code in 2016 to add Article 30, Reasonable Accommodation to provide a process for individuals with disabilities to request relief from the various land use, zoning, or building laws. To facilitate the review and approval process, requests for reasonable accommodation are reviewed by the City Manager or a designated staff member unless the request is submitted for concurrent review with an application for discretionary planning or zoning approval. The City has appointed an ADA Coordinator to assist applicants with preparation and submission of accommodation requests.

FAMILIAL STATUS
Familial status may be another basis for discriminatory housing practices, including discrimination against families with children. Such discrimination may limit the choices where families can live and lead to geographic concentrations within a community. In particular, female headed households with children may be targets of discrimination. Within the City, as indicated in Table D-5, most children under 18 years live in married couple families (82.9 percent), which is greater than the share in the County (69.1 percent). Female headed households are more common in the County with 20.5 percent of children under 18 living in them as compared to 9.1 percent in the City, while the percentage of male headed households is more similar between the City and the County (8.0 percent and 10.4 percent respectively). As shown in Map D-7, there is one tract in the City of Monterey comprising Downtown and Old Town with more than 20 percent of children under 18 years in female headed households, the threshold above which is considered overconcentration. Map D-8 makes it clear that almost all children in the City live in married couple households. As demonstrated by Map D-9, the County has geographically large but less populous areas in the south and a few areas in the northern and central parts of the County with 20-40 percent of children living in female headed households.

Table D-5: Children Under 18 Years in Monterey Households, 2020 Household Type City of Monterey Monterey County
Number Percent Number Percent
Married-Couple Family 1,805 82.9% 33,592 69.1%
Male Householder, No Wife Present 175 8.0% 5,069 10.4%
Female Householder, No Husband Present 198 9.1% 9,942 20.5% Total 2,178 100.0% 48,603 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table S0901) Deleted: for
Deleted: a share
Deleted: with children under 18 yearsgreater than 20 percent Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1421, Packet Page 1544 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-26
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
According to the 2012-2016 ACS, about 46 percent of female single-parent family households in Salinas lived below the poverty level (compared to less than 16 percent of all family households in the City). In Seaside, 39 percent of female single-parent family households lived below the poverty level (compared to only 11 percent of all family households in the City). While in Monterey, only nine percent of female single-parent family households lived below the poverty level (compared to only three percent of all family households in the City). In Monterey County as a whole, about 40 percent of female households lived in poverty; by comparison, 12 percent of all family households in the County lived below the poverty level. Therefore, due to the presence of a concentration of female headed households in the City of Monterey and the pattern of poverty among this group throughout the City and County, female headed households might have less choice in their housing selection. But, where they are concentrated is considered an area (Downtown and Old Town) where access to opportunity is higher than other areas, specifically for jobs and education.

INCOME LEVEL
Geographic concentration by income, including concentration of poverty, is another type of segregation that may exist within a jurisdiction. The concentration of low- or moderate-income (LMI) individuals provides one method to gauge the extent of segregation. HUD defines an LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the households have an annual income that is less than 80 percent area median income (AMI), based on HUD income definitions. Map D-10 provides the distribution of LMI block groups across the City of Monterey. As seen in Map D-10, within the City there are three LMI areas that fall within the Old Town, Downtown, Oak Grove, and Del Monte neighborhoods. The downtown LMI area is also a census tract identified as having an overconcentration of Female Households with Children Under 18 Years on Map D-7.

In Monterey County, as shown on Map D-11, LMI areas exist adjacent to the City of Monterey in the cities of Seaside, Sand City, and Del Rey, to the north near Salinas, Castroville, and Pajaro, and to the south off of the 101 Freeway near Chualar, Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield, King City, and San Lucas.

As identified in the previous section on the racial/ethnic segregation in the County (Table D-3) many of these cities fall into the County Subdivisions with majority Hispanic/Latino populations.

Poverty rates and the concentration of poverty over time can provide an insight into the economic wellbeing of households and individuals in the County and in the City. As of 2020, the City had a poverty rate of 11.5 percent and the County had a poverty rate of 12.0 percent, both of which are lower than the California poverty rate of 12.6 percent. However, poverty is unevenly distributed by race/ethnicity in the City of Monterey (see Table D-6). Residents living below the poverty line who identify as Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Asian, and Other are overrepresented when compared to their share of the total population, while residents who identify as White, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races are underrepresented among those below the poverty line. For instance, while Hispanic/Latino residents make up 14.6 percent of the total population they constitute 30.6 percent of the population living below the poverty line. Residents who identify as Black or African American, on the other hand, make up 3.0 percent of the total population but constitute 2.9 percent of the population living below the poverty line.

Formatted: Space After: 14 pt
Commented [CS53]: ?
Deleted: downtown overlaps with the
Deleted: in
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1422, Packet Page 1545 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
A»
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W FranklinSt Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsd aleDr
Abrego tS
Cam
Agu jaito
CasaVerd eWay
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Gard enRd
ElDorado tS
MarkThomasDr
Upper Ragsd aleDr
FremontSt
Glenw ood Cir
Scenic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
AugaijtoRd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVistaDr
DelMonteAve
SBound aryRd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-7: Percent of Child ren in Female-Head ed Household s in the City Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2015-2019); City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households in the City.mxd Percent of Children in Female Householder,
No Spouse/Partner Present Households
20% - 40%
≤ 20%
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1423, Packet Page 1546 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton
Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier Field
Larkin
School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Don Dahvee
Park
Iris Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-8: Percent of Children in in Married-Couple Households in the City Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2015-2019); PlaceWorks, 2021; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Percent of Children in in Married-Couple Households in the City.mxd Percent of Children in
Married-Couple Households
> 80%
60% - 80%
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1424, Packet Page 1547 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
IÆ
IÆ
AÔ
Aª
Aï
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
^!"

MONTEREY
FRESNO

SAN BENITO

MERCED MADERA
KINGS

SAN LUIS OBISPO KERN

SANTA CRUZ

SANTA CLARA
Aptos Corralitos
Freedom
Interlaken Soquel Rio del Mar
Capitola
Ridgemark
Hollister
Santa Cruz
Watsonville
San Juan
Bautista
La Selva
Beach
Tres Pinos
Opal Cliffs
Paicines
Biola
Cantua Creek
Lake
Nacimiento
South Dos
Palos Dos Palos
Tranquillity
Coalinga
Huron
Avenal
San Miguel
Madera
Firebaugh
Mendota
Kerman
San Joaquin
Three Rocks
Oak Shores
La Vina
Helm
Cholame
Burrel
San Benito
Idria
Chualar
Aromas
Castroville
Elkhorn
Del
Monte Forest
Spreckels
Moss Landing
Pajaro
Prunedale
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Gonzales
Greenfield
Marina
Monterey
King City
Salinas
Sand
City Seaside
Soledad
Big Sur
Carmel Valley
Bradley
San Ardo
San Lucas
Lockwood
Parkfield
D-9: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households in the County 0 5 10 20
Miles
Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2015-2019); City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022.

J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households in the County.mxd Percent of Children in Female Householder,
No Spouse/Partner Present Households
20% - 40%
≤ 20%
! Cities in Monterey County
Monterey County
Counties
Interstate
Highways
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1425, Packet Page 1548 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-10: Low- to Moderate-Income Population, Block Group, City Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2011-2015); HUD, 2020; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Low- to Moderate-Income Population Block Group City.mxd Low to Moderate Income Population (HUD)
Block Groups with 51% or greater
Low to Moderate Income Population
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1426, Packet Page 1549 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
IÆ
IÆ
AÔ
Aª
Aï
A÷
Aã
AÔ
Aþ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
^!"

MONTEREY
FRESNO

SAN BENITO

MERCED MADERA
KINGS

SAN LUIS OBISPO KERN

SANTA CRUZ

SANTA CLARA
Aptos Corralitos
Freedom
Interlaken Soquel Rio del Mar
Capitola
Ridgemark
Hollister
Santa Cruz
Watsonville
San Juan
Bautista
La Selva
Beach
Tres Pinos
Opal Cliffs
Paicines
Biola
Cantua Creek
Lake
Nacimiento
South Dos
Palos Dos Palos
Tranquillity
Coalinga
Huron
Avenal
San Miguel
Madera
Firebaugh
Mendota
Kerman
San Joaquin
Three Rocks
Oak Shores
La Vina
Helm
Cholame
Burrel
San Benito
Idria
Chualar
Aromas
Castroville
Elkhorn
Del Monte
Forest
Spreckels
Moss Landing
Pajaro
Prunedale
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Gonzales
Greenfield
Marina
Monterey
Pacific Grove
King City
Salinas
Sand City
Seaside
Soledad
Big Sur
Carmel Valley
Bradley
San Ardo
San Lucas
Lockwood
Parkfield
D-11: Low- to Moderate-Income Population, Block Group, County 0 5 10 20
Miles
Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2011-2015); HUD, 2020; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022.

J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Low- to Moderate-Income Population Block Group County.mxd Low to Moderate Income Population (HUD)
Block Groups with 51% or greater
Low to Moderate Income Population
! Cities in Monterey County
Monterey County
Counties
Interstate
Highways
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1427, Packet Page 1550 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-32
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Table D-6: Poverty Rates in City of Monterey, 2020
Race/Ethnicity Total Population Population Below Poverty Level Number Percent Number Percent
White (NH) 20,064 65.6% 1,441 33.3%
Hispanic/Latino 4,452 14.6% 1,323 30.6%
Black or African American (NH) 918 3.0% 127 2.9%
Native American (NH) 243 0.8% 169 3.9%
Asian (NH) 1,529 5.0% 259 6.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander (NH)
102 0.3% 0 0.0%
Other (NH) 1,576 5.2% 790 18.3%
Two or More Races (NH) 1,697 5.5% 216 5.0%
Total 30,581 100.00% 4,325 100.00%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 ACS 5-year estimates subject table (S1701) Between 2014 and 2019, patterns of poverty in the City shifted as shown on Map D-12 and Map D-13.

In 2014, the neighborhoods of Downtown, Old Town, Oak Grove, NPS, Alta Mesa had between 10 and 20 percent of their population living below the poverty line. In 2019, the areas where higher rates of the population are below poverty levels, between 20 and 30 percent, were found on the eastern edge of the City. These neighborhoods include Del Monte Beach, Villa Del Monte, Del Monte Grove/Laguna Grande, NAVY, and Casanova Oak Knoll.

HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS
Housing Choice Vouchers allow very low-income families to choose and lease or purchase safe, decent, and affordable privately-owned housing. The choice of housing is left up to each individual family with the objective of limiting segregation by income. An analysis of where households using Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) are concentrated can be useful for making sense of segregation and integration trends within a community and how well the program has worked to achieve the objective of reducing segregation by income. The HCV program aims to encourage participants to avoid highpoverty neighborhoods and promote the recruitment of landlords with rental properties in low poverty neighborhoods. The ability to achieve this is, of course, limited by the willingness of property owners to participate, as well as the type of housing available.

A study 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 showed that HCV use was concentrated in areas of high poverty, where rents tend to be lower, contrary to the program’s objectives. In areas where these patterns occur, the program has not succeeded in moving holders out of areas of poverty. In the City of Monterey, neighborhoods with concentrations of low-income populations do not overlap with those that have more than 5 percent of renters using HCV (see Map D-14). Within the County, HCV users are not concentrated in the City of Monterey. Other nearby cities to the west have fewer HCV users while in areas like Salinas HCV use is more widespread across the City (see Map D-15).

Deleted: No tracts in 2019 had poverty rates above 30 percent but whereas in 2014, no tracts had a share of households living in poverty greater than 20 percent in 2019 there were xx tracts where more than 20 percent were in poverty.

Deleted: . Additionally, while in
Deleted: ; and
Deleted: in
Deleted: with
Deleted: of the highest share of households living inpopulation below poverty levels
Deleted: western
Commented [CD65]: I am not sure what this analysis is
concluding.

Commented [KC66R65]: Addressed
Deleted: the
Deleted: where greater
Deleted: use
Deleted: do not
Deleted: overlap with areas where there are concentrations of those with low incomes
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1428, Packet Page 1551 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-12: Poverty Status (2014), City of Monterey
Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2010-2014); HUD, 2020; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Poverty Status 2014 City of Monterey.mxd Percent of Population whose income in the past
12 months is below poverty level (2010-2014)
10% - 20%
< 10%
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1429, Packet Page 1552 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-13: Poverty Status (2019), City of Monterey
Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2015-2019); HUD, 2020; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Poverty Status 2019 City of Monterey.mxd Percent of Population whose income in the past
12 months is below poverty level (2015-2019)
20% - 30%
10% - 20%
< 10%
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1430, Packet Page 1553 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
RagsdaleDr
Abreg o tS
Cam
Aguj aito
CasaVerdeWay
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
ElDorado tS
Mark Thomas Dr
U pperRag sdaleDr
FremontSt
GlenwoodCir
ScenicDr
Lighthouse Ave
Aug aij to Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVistaDr
DelMonteAve
SBoundary Rd
Sk ylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-14: Housing Vouchers (2019), City of Monterey
Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; Placeworks, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2015-2019); City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Housing Vouchers 2019 City of Monterey.mxd HCV as a Percent of Renter
Occupied Housing Units
≤5%
>5% - 15%
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1431, Packet Page 1554 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
IÆ
IÆ
AÔ
Aª
Aï
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
^!"

MONTEREY
FRESNO

SAN BENITO

MERCED MADERA
KINGS

SAN LUIS OBISPO KERN

SANTA CRUZ

SANTA CLARA
Aptos Corralitos
Freedom
Interlaken Soquel Rio del Mar
Capitola
Ridgemark
Hollister
Santa Cruz
Watsonville
San Juan
Bautista
La Selva
Beach
Tres Pinos
Opal Cliffs
Paicines
Biola
Cantua Creek
Lake
Nacimiento
South Dos
Palos Dos Palos
Tranquillity
Coalinga
Huron
Avenal
San Miguel
Madera
Firebaugh
Mendota
Kerman
San Joaquin
Three Rocks
Oak Shores
La Vina
Helm
Cholame
Burrel
San Benito
Idria
Chualar
Aromas
Castroville
Elkhorn
Del
Monte Forest
Spreckels
Moss Landing
Pajaro
Prunedale
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Del Rey Oaks
Gonzales
Greenfield
Marina
Monterey
King City
Salinas
Sand
City Seaside
Soledad
Big Sur
Carmel Valley
Bradley
San Ardo
San Lucas
Lockwood
Parkfield
D-15: Hou sing Vou chers (2019), Cou nty
0 5 10 20
Miles
Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2011-2015); HUD, 2020; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022.

J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Housing Vouchers 2019 County.mxd HCV as a Percent of Renter Occupied Housing Units
≤5%
≤15%
≤30%
! Cities in Monterey Cou nty
Monterey Cou nty
Cou nties
Interstate
Highways
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1432, Packet Page 1555 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-37
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
There are no areas in the City of Monterey where there is an overconcentration of HCVs; only one census tract had more than five percent of HCV recipients. In Monterey, fewer than five percent of the households in the Del Monte Beach, Villa Del Monte, Del Monte Grove/Laguna Grande, Casanova Oak Knoll, and NAVY neighborhoods had HCVs. By way of comparison with the rest of the County, Salinas has census tracts where 15 to 30 percent of the households are HCV recipients, but there are no tracts in Salinas or anywhere else in the County where more than30 percent of the households hold vouchers.

As of 2015, 1,459 households (as reported by the County’s 2019 AI) were on the HCV waiting list and 6,521 households were on the waiting list for Public Housing, indicating a need for the expansion of affordable housing options for those in need. Reflecting the County’s demographics, 82 percent of those on the waiting list for HCVs were White and 69 percent Hispanic.

The Housing Authority County of Monterey (HACM) has a current allocation of 4,335 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) and 199 vouchers through the HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) for veterans. However, due to federal budget reductions, only 3,235 HCVs are available for use in the County; 184 are in use in the City alone. HACM’s public housing has been converted to Project-Based Rental Assistance where tenants utilize the HCV. The conversion of HACM properties to Project-Based Rental Assistance could offer the City an opportunity to collaborate with the Housing Authority to provide funding assistance for rehabilitation and repair of HACM units.

SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
HACM provides rental assistance, develops, and manages affordable housing throughout Monterey County. The HACM owns and manages over 1,000 units of affordable rental housing throughout the County. Most of these units were originally developed as public housing units. However, beginning in 2015, HACM initiated the process of converting the public housing developments into project-based rental assistance units. That conversion process has been completed.

In addition to using vouchers issued by the Housing Authority, individual housing projects may have a percentage of total units set aside for eligible low-income households and individuals under federal, state, and/or local programs such as state and local bond programs, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), density bonus, or direct assistance programs. The location of these assisted housing units is affected by economic feasibility, which means affordable housing is more likely to be developed where the zoning allows higher density development or the cost of developable land is lower. Reducing the development costs per unit can allow for lower housing payments and lower rents.

As of 2019, there were 17 housing projects in Monterey with subsidies requiring rental to lower income households (Table D-7) including both HACM units and units funded by other programs as described above. Monterey has a smaller share of affordable housing than Salinas (Chart D-7), but a larger inventory than all other cities in the County.

Deleted: ..

Deleted: including
Commented [CS69]: In?
Commented [KC70R69]: Addressed
Deleted: Monterey (
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1433, Packet Page 1556 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-38
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Table D-7: Assisted Housing Projects, City of Monterey
Name Address Affordable Units
Casanova Plaza 800 Casanova Avenue 86
Oak Grove 1100 Second Street 5
Portola Vista 20 Del Monte Avenue 64
Montecito 242 Montecito 8
Watson 531 Watson Street 5
Osio Plaza 355 Calle Principal 30
Interim Inc 604, 606, 608 Pearl Street 19
Community Human Services 544 Pearl Street 6
Casa de la Estrella 420 Estrella Avenue 8
Centennial Gardens 399 Drake Avenue 6
Dream Theatre Site 675 Lighthouse Avenue 3
Sunrise Assisted Living 1125 Cass Street 12
Skyline Townhomes 1330 Skyline Drive 8
Van Buren Senior Housing 613 Van Buren Street 19
Casa de Los Robles 504 W. Franklin Street 6
Dela Vina Apartments 34 Dela Vina Avenue 14
El Estero Senior Apartments 151 Park Avenue 26
Monterey Hotel Apartments 410 Alvarado Street 18
Source: 2019 Monterey County Analysis of Impediments
Chart D-7: Share of Units Affordable to 80 Percent AMI, County of Monterey Source: 2019 Monterey County Analysis of Impediments
Commented [CD71]: Do the Monterey Hotel apartments
count?
Commented [KC72R71]: Yes, added to table
Formatted Table
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1434, Packet Page 1557 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-39
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
The number of affordable units in the City of Monterey can be attributed to its successful Inclusionary Housing Program. The County also assures consistent application of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 18.40 of the Monterey County Code), which requires that 20 percent of units/lots in new residential developments be affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.

The Ordinance applies to developments of three or more units/lots and exempts farm worker housing and mobile home parks. Requirements of the Ordinance can be met through on-site provision, offsite provision, and payment of in-lieu fees. Developments of three or four units/lots are expected to meet the inclusionary obligations through payment of in-lieu fees, although the developer has the option to build an inclusionary unit instead. Developments of five or more units/lots are expected to meet the inclusionary obligation through the development of inclusionary housing units. Inclusionary units are restricted for affordability in perpetuity.

The City has made recent efforts to grow its share of affordable housing evidenced by emerging pipeline projects. Ten units have been rented on City leased property at 595 Munras Avenue, two of which are affordable. There are several other projects under development that will include affordable units through the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Projects include 2300 Garden Road that was recently issued a building permit for 64 units of which 13 are affordable. The developer for 2300 Garden Road also obtained Preliminary Architectural Review approvals for an additional 91 units at 2000 and 2600 Garden Road of which 20% would be affordable units. However, the developer is reconsidering these proposals at this time and staff anticipates entirely new concepts to be submitted in 2023. Older projects such as 2200 North Fremont that included 40 Dwelling Units with eight affordable units through a seven percent Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing have been approved, but the developer is no longer actively pursuing building permits. The City also has entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for a 100% affordable low-income project (Van Buren Senior Housing Project; 669 Van Buren Street) on City owned land behind City Hall. The number of units is in the process of being refined although the developer would like to achieve 36 low-income units.

D.3 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of
Poverty and Affluence
To assist communities in identifying racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract-based definition. R/ECAPs are tracts with a non-white population of 50 percent or more and a poverty rate exceeding 40 percent or have poverty rates three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower. According to HUD estimates provided by HCD, there were no R/ECAPs in the City of Monterey either during the 2009-2013 period or in 2020. Another indicator of the presence of R/ECAPs in a community is the co-incidence of high levels of segregation and poverty. HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) developed opportunity maps to inform statewide policy for siting affordable housing for families in California. Instead of a threshold for race, the TCAC/HCD approach uses a location quotient for racial segregation. The poverty threshold is 30 percent of the population living below the poverty line and the location quotient is essentially a measure of the concentration of race in a small area compared to the county level. There are no census tracts identified as High Segregation and Poverty tracts on the TCAC/HCD Composite Opportunity Map (Map D-17). As Map D-16 shows, as of 2020 there are a four R/ECAPs in the region, all located in Salinas, 20 miles to the northeast of the City of Monterey.

Commented [KC75R74]: Need to edit
Commented [CS74]: Should we be discussing the City's
Inclusionary Ordinance here?
https://monterey.municipal.codes/Code/8
Commented [CD73]: Not sure why this discusses the County ordinance.

Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1435, Packet Page 1558 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-40
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are not formally defined by HUD or the State, but are generally considered to be areas with high concentrations of wealthy, White residents.

An article by Edward G. Goetz, et al. published in HUD’s Cityscape journal defines an RCAA as a “census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income of at least $125,000.”14 As described in a recent report focusing on the extent of single-family zoning in the Monterey Region for the California Zoning Atlas, these more affluent areas are characterized by a higher proportion of areas zoned single-family only, many of which perform poorly with respect to Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) targets for low and very-low income housing. 15 Map D-16 displays the locations of RCAAs under this definition. Within the City of Monterey, one RCAA is located completely within the city limits and one at the southern edge of the city extends into the unincorporated area and lies primarily outside of the City. In contrast, Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, and Pacific Grove lying to the west along the coast and southeast of the Monterey are identified as RCAAs.

The RCAA tract within the City of Monterey has a median income of $119,775 and 85.6 percent of the population identifies as non-Hispanic White. A notable difference between the RCAA and the rest of the City of Monterey is that 82.1 percent of the RCAA’s structures have one housing unit while only

50.8 percent of structures in the City have one housing unit.16 Additionally, only 34.3 percent of units are occupied by owners in the City while 78.6 percent of units in the RCAA are occupied by owners.

These conditions have stayed largely the same in the last ten years. In 2010, 36.3 percent of the City’s housing units were occupied by renters while 72.5 percent of housing units were owner occupied in the RCAA, meaning people in the RCAA became owners at a faster rate than in the City overall, but not by much. The RCAA’s non-Hispanic White population (82.0 percent) in 2010 and the share of one housing unit structures only changed by a couple percentage points in both the City (49.3 percent) and RCAA (79.7 percent).
14 Edward G. Goetz, et al. "Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation" (Cityscape, Vol. 21 No. 1, 2019), pp. 99-123.
15 Shahan Shahid Nawaz et al., "Single-Family Zoning in the Monterey Region: A California Zoning Atlas Snapshot”, Othering and Belonging Institute, University of California, Berkeley, July 10, 2023, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/single-family-zoning-monterey-region#footnote1_rj19xwi 16 US Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year estimates of housing by type show a decline in the percent of housing units in single-family detached structures to Monterey to 43.9 percent compared to 62.9 percent countywide.

Deleted: 10
Commented [KC79R78]: Edited
Commented [CS78]: Map D-16: R/ECAP and RCAA Locations,
County ?
Deleted: The increase in the proportion of multi-family and renter-occupied units in Monterey shown in the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-Year estimate of housing by type is very likely a result of revisions to the Zoning Code allowing more residential and mixed-use development in commercial areas.

Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1436, Packet Page 1559 D-16: R/ECAP and RCAA Locations, County
Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; Placeworks, 2021; HUD, 2020; ACS 2015 - 2019; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 2½ 5 10
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\R ECAP and RCAA Locations County.mxd Racially/Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP)
Racially Concentrated Areas of
Affluence (RCAA) Locations
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Monterey County
Other County Boundaries
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1437, Packet Page 1560 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-17: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Composite Score, City of Monterey Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; Placeworks, 2021; TCAC, 2021; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score City of Monterey.mxd TCAC Opportunity Areas 2021 - Composite Score
Highest Resource
High Resource
Moderate Resource
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1438, Packet Page 1561 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-43
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
D.4 Disparities in Access to Opportunity
To help quantify access to opportunity within a jurisdiction, HCD and TCAC 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 developed a series of Opportunity Maps to determine areas with the highest and lowest resources by census tract. Highest resource tracts are the top 20 percent of census tracts with the highest index scores relative to the region, while high resource tracts are the next 20 percent. The remaining tracts are then evenly divided into the low resource and moderate resource categories. Index scores are compiled by domain, as outlined in Table D-8 below. The economic, environmental and education domains were further aggregated to create a composite index, which determines each tract’s resource level.

Table D-8: Domain and Indicators for HCD/TCAC Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult Education
Employment
Job Proximity
Median Home Value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators
Education Math Proficiency
Reading Proficiency
High School Graduation Rates
Student Poverty Rate
Filter Poverty and Racial Segregation
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map, December 2020 Understanding disparities in access to opportunity within a community requires an assessment of the regional as well as the local context. The following section provides a summary of regional opportunity at the County level and the greater Monterey Bay Region when applicable, in addition to opportunity in the City. Citywide opportunity is broken down into the distinct categories of educational, economic, and environmental opportunity based on metrics provided by HCD.

REGIONAL CONTEXT
The 2019 AI explores the distribution of five types of opportunity: educational, employment, transportation, access to low poverty neighborhoods, and access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods. Analysis is based on indices provided by the HUD AFFH tool. The higher the index score, the better an area’s access to opportunity. The indices are defined as follows:
• Environmental Health — Summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level.

Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1439, Packet Page 1562 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-44
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
• Jobs Proximity — Quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA). • Labor Market — Provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Low Poverty — A measure of the degree of poverty in a neighborhood, at the Census tract level.
• Low Transportation Cost — 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.
• School Proficiency — 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 schools.
• 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.

Chart D-8 and Chart D-9 below show index scores based on the July 2020 HUD data release.

CONTEXT
According to the TCAC Opportunity Areas composite score (see Map D-17), not all possible resource classifications are represented in the City of Monterey; there are no census tracts identified as Low Resource or High Segregation and Poverty. The Highest Resource, High Resource, and Moderate Resource tracts are evenly distributed, with the Moderate Resource classification covering the greatest geographical expanse. The City of Monterey is not typical of the County. Even though it does not have all classifications represented, it still has a greater representation of classifications than much of the County.

Within the County, the City of Monterey, Seaside, Marina, Castroville, and Salinas are the only areas with tracts classified as Moderate Resource and only Salinas and the City of Monterey have areas classified as High Resource. The rest of the County is either classified as Highest Resource (along the coastline except for the southernmost part of the County starting near Lucia) or Low Resource (inland and south within the County). Nearby, other Highest Resource concentrations are in urban areas of neighboring San Luis Obispo County to the south and Santa Cruz and other Bay Area cities to the north.17
17 The extent of Highest Resource tracts adjacent to Low Resource tracts is not unique to Monterey County; other areas of California such as Inyo County, Siskiyou County, and Humboldt County appear to have few tracts classified as High or Moderate Resource. All these areas are some of the least densely populated areas in California, containing large amounts of wilderness and small towns. Nationally protected areas within Monterey County include Los Padres National Forest, Pinnacles National Park, Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge, and Ventana Wilderness. Additionally, along the coast, there are many marine protected areas. These protected spaces give great access to environmental opportunity but may limit access to employment and education.

Moved down [3]: ¶
Chart D-8: Opportunity Indices, Population Above
Poverty Level ¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
c¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
Source: HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020¶
Chart D-9: Opportunity Indices,
Population Below Poverty Level¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
Source: HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020¶
Moved (insertion) [3]
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1440, Packet Page 1563 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-45
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Chart D-8: Opportunity Indices, Population Above Poverty Level c
Source: HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1441, Packet Page 1564 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-46
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Chart D-9: Opportunity Indices, Population Below Poverty Level Source: HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1442, Packet Page 1565 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-47
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Economic Opportunity
According to California Employment Development Department Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Monterey experienced an unemployment rate of 4.5 percent in 2021. While this rate is a 51.3 percent decrease from unemployment rates in 2010, it is a 78.3 percent increase from the 2019 unemployment rate (2.5 percent). Monterey’s significant increase in unemployment in 2020 is likely due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to ACS 2019 five-year estimates, there were 13,939 persons in the labor force in the City of Monterey in 2019. The largest industry sector represented among the City’s working residents is Health and Educational Services (26 percent), which is a greater share of the workforce represented in the industry compared to the County (19.9 percent). Financial and Professional Services makes up the second largest group of working Monterey residents (24.1 percent). Compared to Monterey County, the number of residents employed in the Agriculture and Natural Resources industry account for significantly less of the City’s employment distribution (2 percent) than that of the County (15.6 percent).

In the City of Monterey, the number of unemployed residents (16 years and over) across all races and ethnicities declined between 2010 and 2020 (see Table D-9) although the share of unemployment by race/ethnicity has shifted with non-Hispanic White residents making up 82.6 percent of all unemployed people. This shift occurred prior to the 2020 pandemic, with 74.2 percent of unemployed people in the City identifying as non-Hispanic White in 2019. As for Monterey County, all race/ethnicities saw decline in unemployment numbers except for the non-Hispanic Two or More Races category between 2010 and 2020. At the County level, the non-Hispanic White group also saw an increase in its share of the unemployed population along with non-Hispanic Asian residents, Other, and Two or More Races between 2010 and 2019. But there was significant shift between 2019 and 2020; the Hispanic or Latino unemployed population changed by 18.8 percentage points to become 40.8 percent of the unemployed population while the non-Hispanic White group went from being 43.6 percent of the unemployed population to only 23.4 percent of it.

Table D-9: Share of Unemployment by Race/Ethnicity, Monterey County Race/Ethnicity City of Monterey Monterey County
2010 Percent 2019 Percent 2020 Percent
White (Non-Hispanic) 533 50.2% 320 74.2% 437 82.6%
Hispanic/Latino (NH) 235 22.1% 16 3.7% 0 0.0%
Black or African American
(NH)
0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Native American (NH) 13 1.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Asian (NH) 141 13.3% 46 10.7% 46 8.7%
Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander (NH)
0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Other (NH) 128 12.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Two or More Races (NH) 11 1.0% 49 11.4% 46 8.7%
Total 1,061 100.0% 431 100.0% 529 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table S2301 Deleted: is
Deleted: xx represented amount
Deleted: working
Commented [CS80]: Review wording
Commented [KC81R80]: Revised
Deleted: Page Break
Formatted Table
Formatted Table
Commented [CS82]: Place on one line
Commented [KC83R82]: Revised
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1443, Packet Page 1566 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-48
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment, the industries employing the greatest number of City residents include Health and Educational Services (26.0 percent), Financial and Professional Services (24.1 percent), and Arts, Entertainment, Accommodation, and Food Services (15.9 percent).

Compared to the County, the Agricultural and Natural Resources industry is much smaller in the City (15.6 percent compared to 2.1 percent). The City of Monterey in 2017 had the greatest number of jobs in the County followed by Salinas, Seaside, and Carmel-by-the Sea.18 Examples of its largest employers include the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula/Montage Health, Defense Language Institute, and Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey Peninsula College and the City of Monterey. Nearby, Pebble Beach Resorts in Pebble Beach, Natividad Medical Center, Premium Packing Inc., and Growers Co. in Salinas, and the US Department of Defense in Seaside are noted as top employers in the County by the State of California Employment Development Department.

The City of Monterey is located about two hours by car from San Francisco and closer to an hour from San Jose, without traffic. Within the City, there is a free trolly with stops in the downtown area and a regional transit system Monterey-Salinas Transit. It is possible to go as far as Watsonville to the north and Paso Robles to the south. The route follows Highway 101 with stops in Chualar, Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield, King City, San Lucas, San Ardo, and Bradley. Additionally, there is a route through Carmel and to Salinas with stops in other nearby cities such as Sand City, Marina, Castroville, Moss Landing, Las Lomas, and Pajaro. In total there are seven bus lines.

Map D-18 shows economic opportunity scores in the City of Monterey are mostly high in all census tracts except for one identified as having a less positive economic outcome. The Monterey Presidio (an active military base) is located within this tract and is its primary use. Access to this area and most of the tract is restricted to those with proper Department of Defense credentials. Stationed units live on the base. Although the State flags this as a tract with a less positive economic outcome, military bases typically have strong economic outcomes because of military activities that attract people from outside of the region and even State for its opportunities. The city partners with the DOD with an Intergovernmental Support Agreement which provides an economic boost for the local economy.

There are existing groups working to improve access to economic opportunity in the City of Monterey and the greater Monterey Bay region. The Monterey Bay Economic Partnership is a nonprofit membership organization consisting of public, private, and civic entities located throughout the Counties of Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz. Their Workforce Development Initiative partners with the region’s major educational institutions to provide people looking for work with resources.

For example, they provide a program called Hospitality 2 Health, a web-based resource to assist hospitality workers transition into careers at senior living communities and skilled nursing facilities in the region. The Cal Coastal Small Business Development (CCSBD) Center promotes the development, growth, and success of small businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs in Monterey and San Benito Counties. As a branch of the Central California Small Business Development Center, it helps businesses start, grow, and succeed in the region. CCSBD offers workshops, trainings, and classes for businesses, entrepreneurs, and individuals. Although they do not offer grants or loans, they do work closely with financial partners who offer a variety of loan programs, as well as other regional and community funding sources. In addition to support for small businesses, they also provide workforce development services.
18 Monterey Scorecard, September 2017. Availabe:
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/58216/636457222327600000 Formatted: Space After: 6 pt
Deleted: ,
Deleted: Middlebury Institute
Commented [CD84]: How about Community
Hospital/Montage, Defense Language Institute, and Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey Peninsula College and the City? Commented [KC85R84]: Revised
Deleted: .

Deleted: ..

Commented [CD86]: Maybe include that the city partners with the DOD with an Intergovernmental Support Agreement which is an economic boost.

Commented [KC87R86]: Revised
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing:

Exactly 13 pt
Deleted: ¶
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1444, Packet Page 1567 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-18: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Economic Score, City of Monterey Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; Placeworks, 2021; TCAC, 2021; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\TCAC Opportunity Areas Economic Score City of Monterey.mxd TCAC Opportunity Areas 2021 - Economic Score
< .25 (Less Positive Economic Outcome)

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 0.75
> .75 (More Positive Economic Outcome)
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1445, Packet Page 1568 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-50
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
No group scored a sizably smaller or greater amount than another in Labor Market Index (LMI) scores.

Within the City of Monterey, non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander residents above poverty have the highest Labor Market Index (LMI) score (71.7) by a small margin over all other groups. Black residents have the lowest score (60.86). Comparatively, Monterey County has a greater range of scores with Hispanic or Latino residents having the lowest (29.63) and non-Hispanic White residents having the highest (60.65). Overall, the scores in the City are higher than in the County (see Charts D-8 and D9).

No group scored a sizably smaller or greater amount than another in Job Proximity Index (JPI) scores.

For those above the poverty level, job proximity is very similar among all races/ethnicities in the City.

For those below poverty level, there is more variation between groups with Native American residents experiencing the lowest JPI score (75.6) and Black or African American residents experiencing the highest (89.6).

All groups in the County had lower JPI than those in the City and non-Hispanic White and Asian residents in the County had higher JPI scores than other groups (for those both above and below poverty). This reflects the concentration of these groups in the northern part of the County where many of the employment centers are also located. Since Monterey is in the north, the groups concentrated there relative to the rest of the County are going to be in closer proximity to jobs.

Because there is no overconcentration of a disabled population in the City, their ability to obtain a job should not be impacted by where they live as a group (see Map D-5).

The tracts with an overconcentration of female-headed households were classified as having a More Positive Economic Outcome for its Opportunity Area Economic Score (see Map D-7), indicating this protected group is not affected economically by its concentration.

As shown in Table D-9 above, unemployment among non-White groups in the City is lower than unemployment among non-Hispanic White residents. The County has lower unemployment among non-White groups than the City. The only group in the City with an increase in its share of the unemployed population between 2010 and 2019 was those who identified as two or more races, such as mixed-race Americans (1.0 percent to 11.4 percent), otherwise the share of non-White unemployment has lessened over time. Living in the City of Monterey as a non-White worker does not indicate you will have less of an ability to get a job than a non-Hispanic White worker.

Educational Opportunity
The County’s 24 school districts serve approximately 78,000 students. Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) serves around 9,800 students. There are ten elementary schools, two middle schools, and four high schools. Additionally, there are two charter schools (International School of Monterey, Seaside and Learning for Life, Marina). Within the City of Monterey there is one public high school and two public elementary schools. Table D-10 summarizes test score results from the 2021-2022 Smarter Balanced assessments of math and English Language Arts (ELA), which forms part of the State’s California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP). The proportion of students who meet or exceed standards in ELA or math in City of Monterey is higher than in Monterey County, but lower than in the State. Student success by race and ethnicity is unevenly distributed in Monterey Peninsula Unified (Table D-11). As shown in Table D-11 and D-12. Monterey High School has higher test scores compared to the rest of MPUSD. However, at both MPSUD and Monterey High School, non-Hispanic White, Filipino, and Asian students have higher scores than Hispanic or Latino and Black students. As shown in Table D-13, between the two elementary schools, Monte Vista scores marginally higher in both math and reading.

Deleted: Unemployment among
Deleted: not higher
Commented [CS88]: What table, chart or map does this
paragraph reference?
Commented [KC89R88]: Revised
Deleted: ; the City
Deleted: County
Deleted: Two or moremoreMore Races
Commented [CS92]: I confirmed with MPUSD on 7/28/23:

MPUSD has a total of 10 elementary schools (7 TK-6 schools and 3 TK-8 schools) and 2 middle schools (Seaside Middle School and Los Arboles Middle School).

Commented [KC93R92]: Thank you!
Deleted: Compared to the rest of the MPUSD,
Deleted: , but the
Deleted:

Commented [CS94]: I don't understand this? Can you please review this sentence and reword for clarity.

Commented [KC95R94]: Revised
Deleted: as shown in Table D-11 and Table D-12 see the same groups achieving higher scores than others (
Deleted: ).

Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1446, Packet Page 1569 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-51
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Table D-10: CAASP Scores
District/Region
Percent Met or Exceeded Standard
English Language Arts Mathematics
State of California 47.1% 33.4%
Monterey County 31.1% 9.0%
Monterey Peninsula Unified
Monterey High School

37.9%

72.6%

21.4%

32.3%
Source: California Department of Education, CAASPP, Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments, 2021-2022 Table D-11: CAASP Scores by Race in Ethnicity, Monterey Peninsula Unified Race/Ethnicity
Percent Met or Exceeded Standard
English Language Arts Mathematics
White (Non-Hispanic) 58.10% 43.20%
Hispanic/Latino 31.40% 14.80%
Black or African American 32.90% 17.00%
Native American 31.60% 26.30%
Asian 54.60% 41.60%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander

32.40% 11.80%
Filipino 57.50% 31.30%
Two or More Races 41.90% 28.00%
Source: California Department of Education, CAASPP, Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments, 2021-2022 Table D-12: Monterey High School
Race/Ethnicity
Percent Met or Exceeded Standard
English Language Arts Mathematics
White (Non-Hispanic) 79.6% 44.2%
Hispanic/Latino 63.8% 18.4%
Black or African American 75.0% 18.8%
Native American n/a n/a
Asian 80.0% 64.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander n/a n/a
Filipino 94.5% 66.7%
Two or More Races n/a n/a

1. n/a when there are fewer than ten students for privacy concerns.

Source: California Department of Education, CAASPP, Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments, 2021-2022 Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1447, Packet Page 1570 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-52
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Table D-13: CAASP Scores, 2022
Elementary Schools
Percent Met or Exceeded Standard
English Language Arts Mathematics
La Mesa Elementary 64.9% 57.9%
Monte Vista Elementary 49.8% 48.0%
Source: California Department of Education, CAASPP, Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments, 2021-2022 In 2022, MPUSD adjusted its enrollment boundaries due to declining enrollment and school closures.

Certain schools were chosen for adjustment in an effort to get them closer to district averages in racial and ethnic balance, as well as those eligible for free and reduced lunch.19 Monterey Peninsula College (MPC), a public community college of the California Community College system, is located in the City of Monterey. Other MPC campuses are located in Marina and Seaside.

MPC enrolled 6,106 undergraduate students in the 2020-2021 school year. It offers over 100 degree and certificate programs, many of which transfer to four-year colleges and universities. MPC is a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) receiving grants to expand educational opportunities for and improve attainment of Hispanic students. Like most community colleges, MPC does not have oncampus housing.

In the City, 55.7 percent of those 25 or older have a bachelor’s degree or higher while in the County

26.7 percent do. In California, 34.7 percent of those 25 or older have at least a bachelor’s degree.

Relative to the State, the City has higher educational attainment while the County has lower than both.

The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas education score, which quantifies access to educational opportunity, is provided in Map D-19. The education score is based on a variety of indicators including math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates. The education scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating more positive education outcomes.

The map depicts the area southeast of California State Route 1 (SR1) (except for the tract surrounding the Naval Postgraduate School), northeast of SR1 and just northwest of SR1 (i.e., Monterey State Beach area) as having lower educational opportunity scores than the rest of the City. The tract containing the Presidio of Monterey is classified as a less positive education outcome tract.

Transportation Opportunity
In review of opportunity index scores, Low Transportation Cost and Transit Trips between all races/ethnicities above poverty in the City do not vary greatly. As mentioned on Page D-47, the higher the index score, the better an area’s access to opportunity, in this case low transportation cost and transit trips. Hispanic or Latino residents had the highest score (68.1) and non-Hispanic White residents had the lowest (63.9). For Transit Trips, Black or African American residents had the highest score (72.7) while Hispanic or Latino residents had the lowest (70.2). For those below poverty, Native American residents had the highest score (72.0) and Asian residents had the lowest (68.6) for Low Transportation Cost. For Transit Trips, Asian residents had the highest score (73.9) and Black residents had the lowest (66.1). Amongst all opportunity index topics, Transit Trips had the greatest similarity between the County and the City.
19 https://www.montereyherald.com/2021/12/08/monterey-peninsula-unified-school-district-to-reimagine-attendancezones-school-sites/ Commented [CS96]: I deleted college and added MPC. Please verify this sentence was about MPC, thanks.

Commented [KC97R96]: Verified, about MPC
Deleted: HIS
Deleted: Low Transportation Cost and Transit Trips
Deleted: l
Deleted: t
Deleted: c
Deleted: t
Deleted: t
Commented [CS102]: What does a high score mean? Is there a table or map to refer to? Source?
Commented [KC103R102]: As indicated on page D-47, the
higher the index score, the better an area’s access to opportunity.

Commented [CS104]: What index topics were there or can you clarify for the reader?
Commented [KC105R104]: Indices are listed on D-47/D-48.

Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1448, Packet Page 1571 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-19: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Education Score, City of Monterey Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; Placeworks, 2021; TCAC, 2021; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score City of Monterey.mxd TCAC Opportunity Areas 2021 - Education Score
< .25 (Less Positive Education Outcomes)

0.25 - 0.50

0.50 - 0.75
> .75 (More Positive Education Outcomes)
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1449, Packet Page 1572 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-54
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
According to 2019 ACS 5-Year estimates (Table S0802), 9.7 percent of workers below 100 percent of the poverty level, 23.5 percent of workers between 100 to 149 percent of the poverty level, and 66.8 percent of workers at or above 150 percent of the poverty level took public transportation to work.

Ninety-one percent of people living in renter-occupied housing units take public transportation to work while nine percent of people in owner-occupied housing units take public transportation to work. Across race and ethnicities, 53.5 percent of non-Hispanic White workers 16 years and over, 7.2 percent of Black or African American workers, 0.0 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native,

13.7 percent of Asian, 0.0 percent of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 1.9 percent of Some Other Race, 12.5 percent of Two or More Race, and 16.7 percent of Hispanic or Latino workers take public transportation.

No racial and ethnic groups in the City of Monterey rely on transit to get to work at a greater rate than others. And as indicated by the Low Transportation Cost and Transit Trip opportunity index scores, there is no pattern or exceptionally low score for a specific group. It seems transit is accessible and not costly for all groups.

Environmental Opportunity
The environmental opportunity score in the TCAC Opportunity Map is based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values (see Map D-20). The CalEnviroScreen is a mapping tool that helps identify areas in the state that are most impacted by various sources of pollution. The score considers four major indicators: exposure (e.g., air quality, lead risk, etc.), environmental effects (e.g., cardiovascular disease, asthmas, etc.), socioeconomic factors (e.g., poverty, unemployment, etc.), and sensitive populations. Disadvantaged communities as defined by CalEnviroScreen 3.0 data are only located in the northern part of Monterey County in Salinas and Marina. This correlates with the areas of lowest resources and highest segregation and poverty in the Monterey Bay region. Because the City of Monterey does not have any disadvantaged communities, it is not required to adopt an environmental justice element.

For the population above poverty level in the City, all races and ethnicities scored between 70 and 80 for the Environmental Health index (see Chart D-8) with Hispanic or Latino residents scoring the lowest (73.2) and non-Hispanic White residents the highest (77.0). Among those under the poverty level, Black or African American residents scored the highest (82.8) and Native American residents scored the lowest (65.0) (see Chart D-9). For both those above and under poverty, the County scored lower.

Because there is no overconcentration of a disabled population in the City, their environmental health should not be impacted by where they live as a group (see Map D-5). The tracts with an overconcentration of female-headed households were classified as having a lower environmental health score, but not the lowest (Less Positive Environmental Outcome). Although relative to the rest of the City, this area had a lower environmental health score; it is still an environmentally healthy area relative to the State, scoring in the 34th pollution burden percentile as determined by CalEnviroScreen

3.0. Relative to the County, the City has better access to environmental health opportunity than neighboring cities to the northeast such as Seaside, Marina, Castroville, and Salinas, but the area to the south in the Carmel Valley and Big Sur census tracts rank in the best possible environmental health scores (1-5 percentiles for the State). Further south and inland in the County, the census tracts rank between the 35th and 55th percentiles for the State.

Deleted: 19.8
Deleted: those under
Deleted: take public transportation to work, while 4.2
Deleted: those
Deleted: 75.9
Deleted: those
Deleted: do
Deleted: 62.3
Deleted: residents take public transportation
Commented [CS108]: This seems like a large number. Is this correct?
Commented [KC109R108]: Revised
Deleted: , 4.3
Deleted: 16.1
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 14.4
Deleted: 1
Deleted: residents
Commented [CS110]: source
Commented [KC111R110]: Analysis is based on
transportation index scores.

Deleted:

Commented [LH112]: Only lists three.

Commented [KC113R112]: Revised
Deleted: and
Deleted: .

Commented [CS114]: Reference Map D-20 in this paragraph? It's not clear what Map D-20 means - can you summarize what the environmental score means within the City of Monterey...as we look at this map?
Commented [KC115R114]: The environmental score is
referenced at the beginning of the section. This sentence refers to the disabled population, which can be seen in Map D-5.

Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1450, Packet Page 1573 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-20: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Environmental Score, City of Monterey Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; Placeworks, 2021; TCAC, 2021; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score City of Monterey.mxd TCAC Opportunity Areas 2021 - Environmental Score
< .25 (Less Positive Environmental Outcomes)
.25 - .50
.50 - .75
.75 - 1 (More Positive Environmental Outcomes)
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1451, Packet Page 1574 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-56
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
D.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs &
Displacement Risk
According to HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo, disproportionate housing need “generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area.” Consistent with HCD guidance, this analysis evaluates disproportionate housing need in Monterey through the assessment of cost burden, overcrowding, and displacement risk. These needs are analyzed within Monterey and compared to Monterey County and the Monterey Bay region when applicable.

COST BURDEN AND SEVERE COST BURDEN
According the HCD, cost burden is the fraction of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. There are two levels of cost burden: (1) “Cost Burden” refers to the number of households for which housing cost burden is greater than 30 percent of their income; and (2) “Severe Cost Burden” refers to the number of households paying 50 percent or more their income on housing.

According to 2015-2019 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) estimates, a total of 2,659 households experience cost burden (22.7 percent) while an additional 2,480 households experience severe cost burden (21.1 percent). This means that a little less than half of all households in the city experience some level of cost burden. Of the 5,139 households experiencing some level of cost burden, 1,764 of them are considered moderate- or above-moderate-income and 1,350 of them are considered lower-income. Thus, cost burden is not limited to lower income households. Further, renters are particularly impacted by cost burden, as, unlike homeowners, they cannot build equity with their homes. Renters in the City of Monterey tend to have higher rates of cost burden than owners – for instance, 52.3 percent of all renters experience some level of cost burden while only 30.1 percent of owners do. Rates are further unevenly distributed between renters and race/ethnicity as shown in Chart D-10 and Chart D-11.

As indicated by Map D-21 and Map D-22, cost burden for renters and owners is not evenly distributed geographically and renters are more cost burdened than owners. For renters, areas south, west and northwest of the Monterey Regional Airport and within the US Navy La Mesa Village property south of Highway 1 are tracts with 60 to 80 percent of renters overpaying. In the rest of the City, all tracts have 40-60 percent of renters overpaying. For owners, tracts west and northwest of Highway 1 and along Monterey Bay have 60-80 percent of owners overpaying while more inland tracts have 40-60 percent of owners overpaying.

Cost burden is not distributed evenly across race and ethnicity in the City. As seen in Chart D-10, 42.3 percent of Black or African American residents in owner occupied units are severely cost burdened and all other races and ethnicities are between 11.1 and 15.0 percent severely cost burdened (except for American Pacific Islander and American Indian or Native Alaskan which did not have data available). Notably, Asian owners experienced 25.3 cost burden and 58.2 percent no cost burden while the rest of the races and ethnicities experienced greater no cost burden and lower cost burden percentages.

Deleted: For owners, the eastern tracts near the Monterey Regional Airport do not have an overconcentration of owners overpaying (less than or equal to twenty percent)
Commented [CS116]: Map D-22 doesn't show 20-40 percent? Commented [KC117R116]: Revised
Deleted: while the rest of the City exceeds 20 percent. The Deleted: 4
Deleted: 6
Deleted: 2
Deleted: 4
Commented [CS118]: I don't see 20-40 percent on Map D-22? Commented [KC119R118]: Revised
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1452, Packet Page 1575 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-57
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
For renter occupied units shown in Chart D-11, every group with data for owner occupied cost burden had lower no cost burden percentages, higher cost burden percentages, and lower severely cost burden percentages. Among renters, American Indian or Alaska Native residents experienced the most severe cost burden at 50.0 percent followed by Asian Pacific Islander residents (42.9 percent), and Hispanic or Latino residents (28.0 percent). The groups experiencing the highest percentages of cost burden were Black or African American (60.4 percent), Hispanic or Latino (32.0 percent), and White (27.9 percent). Interestingly, Hispanic or Latino owners had the highest no cost burden percentage, but Hispanic or Latino renters had the second lowest no cost burden percentage.

Large families are 2.1 percent more severely cost burdened than all other household types, while 4.5 percent of large families are cost burden, and 10.8 percent of all other household types are cost burden.

Tables and charts with a further breakdown of Income by Family Size, Income, and Cost Burden are accessible and discussed in the HSA.

Chart D-10: Cost Burden for Owner Occupied Housing by Race/Ethnicity, City of Monterey Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2015-2019) Chart D-11: Cost Burden for Renter Occupied Housing by Race/Ethnicity, City of Monterey Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2015-2019)

72.2%

57.7%

58.2%

73.2%

71.4%

2.2%

25.3%

15.5%

13.4%

11.1%

42.3%

15.4%

12.7%

15.0%

14.4%
100.0%
100.0%

0.4%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Other Race (NH)
Black or African American (NH)
Asian(NH)
American Indian or Alaska Native (NH)

API (NH)
Hispanic or Latino
White (NH)
No Cost Burden Cost Burden Severe Cost Burden Cost Burden Not Computed

50.7%

28.3%

53.9%

50.0%

71.4%

37.0%

48.5%

9.3%

60.4%

13.0%

32.0%

27.9%

41.3%

9.4%

18.3%

50.0%

42.9%

28.0%

23.4%

1.9%

14.8%

3.5%

0.2%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Other Race (NH)
Black or African American (NH)
Asian(NH)
American Indian or Alaska Native (NH)

API (NH)
Hispanic or Latino
White (NH)
No Cost Burden Cost Burden Severe Cost Burden Cost Burden Not Computed Deleted: Larger families are slightly more severely cost burdened than…., but not more cost burdened than other household types in the City.…
Deleted:

Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1453, Packet Page 1576 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-21: Homeowner Cost Burden, City of Monterey
Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; Placeworks, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2015-2019); City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Homeowner Cost Burden City of Monterey.mxd Overpayment by Home Owners
(ACS 2015-2019) - Tract
< 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1454, Packet Page 1577 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-22: Renter Cost Burden, City of Monterey
Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; Placeworks, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2015-2019); City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Renter Cost Burden City of Monterey.mxd Overpayment by Renters
(ACS 2015-2019) - Tract
40% - 60%
60% - 80%
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1455, Packet Page 1578 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-60
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt

OVERCROWDING
According to HUD, households having more than 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room are considered overcrowded and those having more than 1.51 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

The person per room analysis excludes bathrooms, porches, foyers, halls, or half-rooms. Map D-23 displays percentages of overcrowding, where less than 5 or 5 to 10 percent of the tract experiences overcrowding as defined by HUD. Although there is no indication by Map D-23 of tracts with over concentrations of overcrowding in the City, nearby cities in Monterey County such as Seaside, Marina, and Salinas have tracts with over concentrations (greater than 20 percent) of overcrowded households.

Moving south and inland within the County there are greater concentrations of overcrowded households though. While the City of Monterey is 94.6 percent uncrowded, the County is 86.4 percent uncrowded with eight percent more overcrowded units and 0.3 percent more severely overcrowded units than the City. As indicated by the data and relative to the region, the City overall has low overcrowding but specific groups experience greater overcrowding.

Renters tend to experience overcrowding more often than owners in the City. As discussed in the HAS, about 1.3 percent of renter-occupied households experience overcrowding and 6.55 percent experience severe overcrowding. By contrast less than 1 percent of owner-occupied households experience any level of overcrowding. Typically, in California renters experience higher rates of overcrowding than homeowners because they are more likely to be lower income than are homeowners. Lower-income households in the city (those making less than 80 percent of AMI), generally tend to have higher rates of overcrowding. As discussed in the HAS, among extremely-lowincome households (i.e., those making less than 30 percent of AMI) 3.7 percent are considered overcrowded while 5.0 percent are severely overcrowded. Among households making between 31 to 50 percent of AMI and 51 to 80 percent of AMI, 2.4 percent and 3.8 percent are considered overcrowded. This may reflect a lack of both affordable housing and housing to meet the needs of all income levels.

Rates of overcrowding are unevenly distributed by race/ethnicity in the City. Overcrowding is most prevalent among American Indian or Alaska Native, Other Races, and Hispanic or Latinx households as 20.8 percent, 5.3 percent, and 4.5 percent of each group experiences overcrowding, respectively.

Overcrowding rates are comparable for non-Hispanic white households (2.65 percent), Black or African American households of any ethnicity (1.26 percent), and for Asian households (0.81 percent) (see 2015-2019 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy).

Large families, defined as households of five or more related individuals, are a special need category under State law because they are at higher risk for overcrowding if the jurisdiction’s housing stock doesn’t have sufficient larger units with an adequate number of bedrooms. More large families in the City of Monterey rent than own. As shown in Table A-20 in the 2015-2019 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, the 2019 American Community Survey reported 109 owner-occupied households and 395 renter-occupied households with 5 or more persons in the City. Most of the households (77.0 percent) were occupied by one or two people and only 4.1 percent were occupied by large families. Of the population, 2.6 were owners in a large family and 4.9 were renters in a large family. The higher rate of renting than owning homes for large families could indicate the families do not have the income to own a large enough home. In comparison to surrounding jurisdictions, the City of Monterey has a much smaller proportion of large family households than Monterey County (19.7 percent).

Commented [CS122]: Map D-23 is by percent. Less than 5% is how many persons per room and 5%-10% on the map is how many persons per room. Can you include this in the first sentence so readers can compare to the HUD def of overcrowding
Commented [KC123R122]: Revised
Deleted: HSA
Commented [CS124]: What is "see HAS" referencing the reader to?
Source for this paragraph?
Commented [KC125R124]: Revised
Deleted: HSA
Commented [CS126]: Where is Table A-20..what is HSA…?
Commented [KC127R126]: Revised
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1456, Packet Page 1579 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-23: Overcrowded Households, City of Monterey
Data Source: ACS, 2017 - 2021; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Overcrowded Households City of Monterey.mxd Overcrowding (ACS, 2017 - 2021) - Tract
Less than 5%
5% - 10%
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1457, Packet Page 1580 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-62
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt

SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
As defined by the U.S. Census, there are two types of substandard housing problems: (1) Households without hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet and a bathtub or shower; and (2) Households with kitchen facilities that lack a sink with piped water, a range or stove, or a refrigerator. Table D-14 shows under less than 2 percent of households experienced any substandard housing problems. Estimating the number of substandard units can be difficult, but the lack of certain infrastructure and utilities can often be an indicator of substandard conditions. According to the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element, there are approximately 880 housing units experiencing serious deterioration, 2,140 in decline, and 4,830 will require maintenance, though not immediately urgent.

Table D-14: Monterey Substandard Housing Issues, 2020
Building Amenity
Owner Renter
Number Percent Number Percent
Incomplete Kitchen Facilities 8 0.2% 83 1.0%
Incomplete Plumbing Facilities 49 1.2% 0 0.0%
No telephone service available 0 0.0% 52 0.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049
A high proportion of older buildings, especially those built more than 30 years ago, may indicate that substantial housing conditions are an issue. Housing is considered substandard when physical conditions are determined to be below the minimum standards of living, as defined by Health and Safety Code section 17920.3. A building is considered substandard if any of the following conditions exist:
• Inadequate sanitation
• Structural hazards
• Nuisances
• Faulty weather protection
• Fire, safety or health hazards
• Inadequate building materials
• Inadequate maintenance
• Inadequate exit facilities
• Hazardous wiring, plumbing or mechanical equipment
• Improper occupation for living, sleeping, cooking, or dining purposes • Inadequate structural resistance to horizontal forces • Any building not in compliance with Health and Safety Code section 13143.2 In the City of Monterey, about 72.9 percent of the housing stock was constructed prior to 1980 and is over 40 years old. About 7.3 percent of the housing stock has been constructed since 2000, with only

2.9 percent constructed since 2010 (see Chart D-12). As discussed in the 2015-2019 Comprehensive Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.06", Right: 0.1", Space After: 6 pt
Deleted: section
Deleted: section
Deleted: HSA
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1458, Packet Page 1581 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-63
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Housing Affordability Strategy in Table A-32, about 0.2 percent of owners lack complete kitchen facilities while 1.0 percent of renters do. Further, approximately 1.2 percent of owners lack complete plumbing facilities while 0 percent of renters do. In total, there are 49 occupied housing units with incomplete plumbing facilities and 91 units with incomplete kitchen facilities, as shown on Table D14.

Chart D-12: Age of City of Monterey Housing Stock, 2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2016-2020), Table B25034 Any household living in substandard conditions is considered in need of assistance, even if they are not actively seeking alternative housing arrangements. As noted in Chart D-12, the portion of older housing units in Monterey, about 72.9 percent of the housing stock was constructed prior to 1980 and is over 40 years old. Approximately 75 percent of all units built before 1979 could potentially contain lead-based paint, which may pose a human health hazard.20

HOMELESSNESS
Individuals and families who are unhoused have perhaps the most immediate housing need of any group. They also have one of the most difficult sets of housing needs to meet, due to both the diversity and complexity of the factors that lead to homelessness, and to community opposition to the siting of 20 Community Development Block Grant 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan & 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan, City of Monterey, 2020.

Formatted: Not Highlight
Commented [CS129]: Source?
Commented [KC130R129]: Referenced table
Deleted: .

Deleted: Page Break
¶
Commented [CS131]: Can this chart be in color like the others? Commented [KC132R131]: Revised
Deleted: <object>
Deleted: Table D-14: Monterey Substandard Housing
Issues, 2020…¶
¶
Deleted: ¶
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1459, Packet Page 1582 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-64
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
housing that serves homeless clients. Homelessness is a countywide issue that demands a strategic, regional approach that pools resources and services. A common method to assess the number of homeless persons in a jurisdiction is through a Point-in-Time (PIT) Count. The PIT Count is a biennial census of sheltered and unsheltered persons in a Continuum of Care (CoC) completed over a 24-hour period in the last ten days of January. The unsheltered PIT Count is conducted annually in Monterey County and is a requirement to receive homeless assistance funding from HUD. The PIT Count does not function as a comprehensive analysis and should be considered in the context of other key data sources when assessing the state of homelessness in a community.

According to HUD, a CoC is a “a community plan to organize and deliver housing and services to meet the specific needs of people who are homeless as they move to stable housing and maximize selfsufficiency. It includes action steps to end homelessness and prevent a return to homelessness.” In Monterey County, Coalition of Homeless Service Providers oversees the CoC Program. According to the 2022 PIT Count, there were 74 sheltered homeless persons and 27 unsheltered persons in the City of Monterey. In addition, the racial/ethnic breakdown of Salinas/Monterey and San Benito County’s homeless population is shown in Table D-15. Those who identify as White (Hispanic and nonHispanic) represent the largest share of the unhoused population (59 percent) of the county, while Hispanic/Latinx comprise the second largest group (56 percent). Additionally, those identify as Black or African American (Hispanic or Non-Hispanic) are represented disproportionately among the unhoused population as they make up 13 percent of the homeless Monterey County residents, but only

2.6 percent of its overall population.

The racial/ethnic breakdown of Salinas/Monterey and San Benito County’s homeless population is shown in Table A-23 in the 2015-2019 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. Notably, those who identify as White (Hispanic and non-Hispanic) represent the largest share of the unhoused population (82.6 percent) of the county, while Hispanic/Latinx comprise the second largest group (36.9 percent). Additionally, those who identify as Black or African American (Hispanic or NonHispanic) represented disproportionately among the unhoused population as they make up 8.3 percent of the homeless Monterey County residents, but only 2.6 percent of its overall population.

Per HCD's requirements, jurisdictions also need to supplement county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. According to the California Department of Education, in Monterey County there were 6,764 reported K-12 students experiencing homeless in the 2017-2018 school year.21 By comparison, Monterey County has seen a 7.3 percent increase in the population of K-12 students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year (6,271 students in the 2016- 17 school year).
21 California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) Deleted: Table D-14 provides an estimate of the homeless population by household type and shelter status in Monterey County. …
Deleted: 2021
Commented [CS135]: There is a 2022 Point-in-Time Count:
https://chsp.org/continuum-of-care/coc-activities/census/ Commented [KC136R135]: Revised
Deleted: 678
Deleted: 0
Deleted: ,
Deleted: ,
Deleted: Counties, including 226
Deleted: youth and children.

Commented [KC138R137]: Revised
Commented [CD137]: I question that there were zero
unhoused. Can we use the 2022 numbers? 2022montereyfinalV2.pdf (chsp.org)
City monterey = 74 unshelterd; 27 sheltered, 101 total
Commented [KC140R139]: The information sited in this
Appendix is up to date.

Commented [LH139]: The Needs Assessment cites a 2022 PIT. "According to the 2022 PIT Count, there were 779 sheltered homeless persons and 1,625 unsheltered persons in Salinas, Monterey, and San Benito Counties, including 8 homeless youth and children, for a total of 2,404 homeless persons"
Deleted: .

Deleted: Add Table D-14 from above here.¶
Deleted: HSA
Commented [CS141]: Where is this? Is there a link where the table can be found?
Commented [KC142R141]: This is in the 2015-2019
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy.

Deleted: .

Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1460, Packet Page 1583 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-65
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Table D-15: Racial/Ethnic Group Share of General and Homeless Population in Salinas/Monterey and San Benito Counties
Racial/Ethnic Group
Number of Homeless
Population
Percent of Homeless
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
308 12.81%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
65 2.70%
Asian (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 111 4.61%
Black or African American (Hispanic and NonHispanic)310 12.90% White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 1,417 58.94%
Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and NonHispanic)193 8.03% Hispanic/Latinx 1,348 56.07%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports, 2022

DISPLACEMENT RISK
Like many places in California, housing costs in the City of Monterey and Monterey County have continued to rise over the last two decades as discussed in the HSA. It is harder to afford to live in the City of Monterey than in Monterey County. In the City, home values are 30 percent more on average than in the County. Between 2010 and 2022, City of Monterey home values increased by 97.1 percent (Zillow Home Value Index). Three-bedroom units have seen the highest increase in value, increasing by 100.2 percent in a ten-year period. The highest value housing type in Monterey is a five-bedroom or greater housing unit at $2,271,239. The typical home in the City of Monterey is a $1,130,600 fourperson, three-bedroom unit. A serious affordability gap exists, with housing only affordable to households earning 100 percent of AMI.

UC Berkley’s Urban Displacement Project (UDP) defines residential displacement as “the process by which a household is forced to move from its residence or is prevented from moving into a neighborhood that was previously accessible to them because of conditions beyond their control.” As part of this project, the research has identified populations vulnerable to displacement (named “sensitive communities”) in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost.

They defined vulnerability based on the share of low-income residents per census tract and other criteria share of renters above 40 percent; share of people of color more than 50 percent; share of lowincome households severely rent burdened; and proximity to displacement pressures. Displacement pressures were defined based on median rent increases and rent gaps.

As housing costs increase, this gap may expand and subject lower-income households to displacement pressures that have otherwise been absent or relatively low in the city. Communities of color may be particularly impacted by this dynamic. The University of California Urban Displacement Project (UDP) has provided “sensitive communities” typologies to quantify the risk of displacement within a community. Sensitive communities are those with populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. As shown in Map D-24, two tracts in Commented [CS143]: Please reference this table in the text above. There are no references to this table in this document -
Commented [KC144R143]: Revised
Deleted: 19
Deleted: 2.8
Deleted: 7
Deleted: 1.0
Deleted: 17
Deleted: 2.5
Deleted: 56
Deleted: 8.3
Deleted: 560
Deleted: 82.6
Deleted: 19
Deleted: 2.

Deleted: 250
Deleted: 36.9
Deleted: 2019
Deleted: 18
Commented [LH145]: D-24?
Commented [KC146R145]: Revised
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1461, Packet Page 1584 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-66
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
the city are considered vulnerable, adjacent to each other in the middle of the Monterey along the bay.

These tracts are in “hot markets” and their rents are on average lower than rents in nearby tracts.

In addition to the sensitive communities typology, UDP has also produced displacement typologies that more precisely describe the risk of displacement based on 2019 ACS data. The California Estimated Displacement Model (EDR) identifies varying levels of displacement risk for low-income renter households in all census tracts in California. Displacement risk means that in 2019 a census tract had characteristics which, according to the model, are strongly correlated with more low-income renter population loss than gain. In other words, the model estimates that more low-income households left these neighborhoods than moved in. As presented in Map D-25, the City has one tract identified as Probable Displacement. Meanwhile, parts of some nearby cities such as Del Monte and Sand City are classified as at risk of Probable Displacement and Seaside is classified as High Displacement. Because the model uses 2015-2019 data, the correlations between tract characteristics and low-income renter population loss are only based on this period. Tracts are assigned to one of the following categories:
• Low Data Quality: the tract has less than 500 total households or the census margins of error were greater than 15% of the estimate (shaded gray).
• Probable Displacement: the model estimates there is potential displacement of the given population in these tracts.
• Elevated Displacement: the model estimates there is a moderate amount of displacement (e.g., 10%) of the given population.
• High Displacement: the model estimates there is a relatively high amount of displacement (e.g., 20%) of the given population.
• Extreme Displacement: the model estimates there is an extreme level of displacement (e.g., greater than 20%) of the given population.

As shown in Map D-24 and Map D-25, one of the two tracts identified by UDP as a “sensitive community” is also identified as a tract at “at risk of displacement”. Therefore, there is an existing concentration of displacement risk in the City of Monterey and it is located along the bay in two tracts.

According to HCD, the conversion of federally- and -state-subsidized affordable rental developments to market-rate units can constitute a substantial loss of housing opportunity for low-income residents.

There are approximately 149,000 units of privately owned, federally assisted, multifamily rental housing, as well as tax-credit and mortgage revenue bond properties, often with project-based rental assistance. As the subsidy contracts or regulatory agreements expire, a large percentage of these units may convert to market-rate. These at-risk units are home to seniors and families with low incomes who are at risk of displacement if the developments convert.

Most affordable units in the County are at low risk of conversion, there are 64 units (0.09 percent) at moderate risk, 345 units (5.34 percent) at high risk, and 0 units (0 percent) at very high risk. There are no assisted units with covenants expiring within the planning period; however, there are 117 subsidized rental housing units in the City at risk of conversion to market rate within ten years of the planning period.

Commented [CS147]: I don't think this is the correct map number being referenced.

Deleted: 19
Commented [KC151R150]: Revised
Commented [CS150]: Reference the correct map #
Commented [LH148]: Verify map
Commented [KC149R148]: Revised
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1462, Packet Page 1585 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial Park
Huckleberry Hill
Nature Preserve
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Lower Presidio Historic Park
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc enic
r D
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-24: Sensitive Communities, City of Monterey
Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; Placeworks, 2021; UC Berkley Urban Displacement Project; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Sensitive Communities City of Monterey.mxd Sensitive Communities
Vulnerable
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1463, Packet Page 1586 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaj ito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sce ni cDr
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
MarVista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
D-25: Overall Displacement Risk, City of Monterey
Data Source: California Urban Displacement Project, 2022; Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Housing and Community Development, California, 2021; Placeworks, 2021; American Community Survey (ACS) (2015-2019); City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\Overall Displacement Risk City of Monterey.mxd Low Data Quality
Lower Displacement Risk
At Risk of Displacement
1 Income Group Displacement
2 Income Groups Displacement
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Attachment B-2
Council Regular Meeting, 9/19/2023, Item No. 19., Item Page 1464, Packet Page 1587 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-69
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Much of the protection for displacement in the City of Monterey comes from State law. All multifamily units in the City are protected by the State’s Tenant Protections Act of 2019 (AB 1482), which includes an annual rent cap and just-cause protections. The City does not have any current local rent stabilization or just-cause eviction policies in place, but did have eviction and tenant protections during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Natural hazards in California can also cause significant displacement, and some communities are at greater risk than others. As described below, Monterey is at relatively high risk to several natural hazards due to its proximity to forested areas, multiple fault lines, and bodies of water.

Earthquake
The central California coast has a history of damaging earthquake, primarily associated with the San Andreas fault, which runs through the southeastern portion of the County for about 30 miles. The County has had 429 earthquakes since 1900 and 67 earthquakes since 2000 of 4.0 magnitude or higher.

According to the 2022 Monterey County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in the event of a major earthquake, all single and multifamily structures in the City of Monterey are susceptible to earthquake impacts to varying degrees. There are 435 residential properties at risk for high liquefaction and 288 properties at risk for moderate liquefaction.

Flood
Coastal flooding in Monterey County is generally associated with Pacific Ocean storms in the months of November through February. In conjunction with high tides and strong winds, coastal flooding can be a significant hazard. In the City of Monterey, seven properties are in a 100-year flood zone and 64 properties are located in a 500-year flood zone.