Although the ordinance has not resulted in a loss of deed-restricted rental units, it has taken more affordable rental units off the market.38 Condominium conversions are subject to the inclusionary housing 37 City of Monterey, 2015-2023 Housing Element, Adopted March 23, 2016, p. 75 38 City of Monterey, Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, May 2017 https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Housing%20Programs/Plans%20&%20Reports/Action %20plan/AIUpdatefinal.pdf
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2886, Packet Page 3214 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints C-42 Hearing Draft | June 2024
requirement.
C.6 Permits and Processing Procedures
Generally, the time taken to review and approve a proposal is directly proportional to the magnitude and complexity of the project. Many types of residential development require either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission approval of a use permit as shown in Table C-8 and almost all new residential construction requires design review, which is a “discretionary” review process conducted by the Architectural Review Committeethrough a two-step process described below. Land use entitlements are processed through the Planning Division. Table C-8 below provides an overview of the process and planning authorities for each planning and land entitlement. Applications for new construction, exterior alterations, and additions are reviewed by the Development Review Committee, (DRC) comprised of department heads or their staff representatives (including the Fire and Police Chiefs) and chaired by the Community Development Director. Residential projects, either located in design review neighborhoods or are within a Design and Development Control Overlay District (D1, D2, or D3 Overlay District), require Architectural Review. Residential projects located in non-design review neighborhoods only require Architectural Review if certain criteria are met. The specific standards established by the Zoning Code largely comply with State mandates for using objective standards to regulate residential development.
CEQA and Permit Streamlining Act Compliance
The City complies with the Permit Streamlining Act through permit tracking software called Infor Public Sector v11.2 (Infor). Every permit (e.g., Architectural Review Permit, Use Permit, Environmental Permit) application received in the Planning Division and Building Department is entered into Infor, and a due date of 30-days is set for the initial application review and any subsequent resubmittals. If a project is exempt from CEQA, the Notice of Exemption findings are made through the permit approval letter. If an Initial Study or EIR is required, an Environmental Review application is submitted by the applicant and the required CEQA timing requirements are tracked through Infor. Through this process, the City complies with CEQA streamlining provisions.
Table C-8: Land Use Entitlement Processes
Entitlement
Involving New
Housing Units
Administrative ARC Planning
Commission
City
Council
Typical
Time Frame
(days)
Design Review -
Major
X 60
Design Review -
Minor
X 30
Use Permit* X 60
Variance* X 60
Rezone, General
Plan Amendment,
Tentative Map
(more than 4
lots)
X X 90
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Architectural review is required for new non-residential or multi-family buildings, new single family residences, additions, exterior alterations, accessory buildings in design review areas; new non-residential ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2887, Packet Page 3215 43 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints Hearing Draft | June 2024 C-43
or multi-family buildings, new two-story single-family homes, second story additions to single-family dwellings, second-story decks, additions to non-residential or multi-family buildings in non-design review areas; and in residential districts with a D-1 (Design Control) or D-2 (Design and Development Control) overlay or as required by any other adopted plan. (Monterey Zoning Code, Article 25, Architectural Review). The Planning Commission or City Council may also require review for any other project.
Architectural review is conducted byT the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) is , comprised of seven members, at least one of whom must be an architect or a professional in a related field, unless no such person is available for appointment when a vacancy arises (Monterey City Code, Article 5, Architectural Review Committee). Review by the ARC is required for most multi-family development unless the project is within a specific plan area and meets all the required design guidelines when it can then be reviewed administratively or unless it qualifies for streamlined review, such as under SB35. Based on the 2023 Statewide SB35 determination, multifamily and mixed use projects that make at least 10 percent of their proposed units affordable to low income households qualify for streamlined review, subject to compliance with objective zoning, subdivision, or design review standards. Given that the City's inclusionary zoning program requires projects of six units or more to make 20 percent of their units affordable to low and moderate income households, this means that in practice most projects pursuant to this Housing Element will qualify for SB35 streamlining. Such projects would not be subject to review before the ARC and the applicability criteria in Section 38-188 of the City Code will be amended to clarify through Program 2-C in the Action Plan of this Housing Element. For projects that are subject to ARC review, Tthe Architectural Review Committee (ARC) may also approve variations to required setbacks to improve the “relationship between the new construction and structures on adjacent lots and those in the immediate neighborhood.”.
The ARC decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission whose decision is subject to appeal to the City Council.
Article 25 of the Zoning Code and a handout providing an overview of the review procedure and requirements39 both describe architectural review as a two-step process that considers consistency with the General Plan and any other applicable plan or design guidelines, but neither provides a clear explanation about how this design review relates to any other discretionary planning or zoning review a project may require. Architectural review comes at the end of the development approval process, after determinations on any required use permits. Tier One Review, conducted by Staff, applies to projects that do not require any other discretionary permits and Tier Two, which requires review and approval by the City Planning Commission, Architectural Review Committee, and/or Historic Preservation Committee is for projects that do require conditional approval or deviate from the applicable development standards or design guidelines.
As described above, while the standards established by the Zoning Code largely comply with State mandates for using objective standards to regulate residential development, the City's adopted area and neighborhood plans include policies, standards, and guidelines that use imprecise terms that rely on subjective judgment, and commercial zoning district standards for mixed-use development also contain provisions that are subjective. These will be revised through Program 2-D in the Action Plan to ensure they contain objective standards and comply with other applicable State requirements.
Section 38-191 specifies findings that the ARC or City Manager must make to approve an application submitted for Preliminary and Final Review. Many of these findings require based on a subjective determination as to that the variation whether the proposed “will not compromise privacy expectations on adjacent properties beyond those incurred by adherence to standard setbacks” and that the variation is minimal and necessary to achieve conformity with one or more similarly subjective guidelines and policies 39 Architectural Review
https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Building%20&%20Safety/Permit%20Procedures/Plan ning%20Permits/Architectural-Review-2022Approved.pdf
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2888, Packet Page 3216 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints C-44 Hearing Draft | June 2024
including:
• Adopted Neighborhood Compatibility Design Guidelines:
• Design considerations contained in subsection 4 of Substandard Residential Lots; • Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee adopted View Impact policies; and, • Architectural Review Committee adopted Tree Protection Standards.
The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) may also approve variations to required setbacks to improve the “relationship between the new construction and structures on adjacent lots and those in the immediate neighborhood”.
The ARC decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission whose decision is subject to appeal to the City Council. The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) is comprised of seven members, at least one of whom must be an architect or a professional in a related field, unless no such person is available for appointment when a vacancy arises (Monterey City Code, Article 5, Architectural Review Committee).
Review by the ARC is required for most multi-family development unless the project is within a specific plan area and meets all the required design guidelines when it can then be reviewed administratively.
Article 25 of the Zoning Code and a handout providing an overview of the review procedure and requirements40 both describe architectural review as a two-step process that considers consistency with the General Plan and any other applicable plan or design guidelines, but neither provides a clear explanation about how this design review relates to any other discretionary planning or zoning review a project may require. Tier One Review, conducted by Staff, applies to projects that do not require any other discretionary permits and Tier Two, which requires review and approval by the City Planning Commission, Architectural Review Committee, and/or Historic Preservation Committee is for projects that do require conditional approval or deviate from the applicable development standards or design guidelines.
Section 38-191 specifies findings that the ARC or City Manager must make to approve an application submitted for Preliminary and Final Review. As written, the findings are based on highly subjective determinations that design features are “appropriate for the project site, the immediate area, and the City; ”, whether the proposed project will not “unreasonably impair the views, privacy, or living environment currently enjoyed by other properties;” and that whether the proposed project is “substantially consistent” with the General Plan and other plans, guidelines, and such documents applicable to the project. As such, these findings are not consistent with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov Code Sec.65589.5 (j)(1)); and therefore, through Program 2-C in the Action Plan, the City will revise them to remove findings based on subjective determinations and replace them with findings based on objective determinations.
Section 38-189.D requires that story poles and netting be installed at least 10 days before the public meeting or administrative decision for construction greater than one story; projects that involve an increase in height; or as directed by the Architectural Review Committee, Planning Commission or City Council. If safety concerns or other issues preclude installation of story poles and netting, alternative means of illustrating a project may be used at the discretion of the City Manager. Staff reports that story poles and netting are generally helpful in combatting NIMBYism, as they help to clarify proposed heights and diffuse opposition to projects. Nevertheless, to address a potential constraint associated with story poles and netting, through Program 2-M in the Action Plan the City will amend Section 38-189.D to allow an option for affordable multi-family projects to utilize 3-D modeling or other comparable methods in lieu of story 40 Architectural Review
https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Building%20&%20Safety/Permit%20Procedures/Plan ning%20Permits/Architectural-Review-2022Approved.pdf
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2889, Packet Page 3217 45 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints Hearing Draft | June 2024 C-45
poles and netting. Monterey has adopted design guidelines for single-family dwellings in the D-1 overlay district (1987), Del Monte Shores and Del Monte Villas (1992) and for the Cannery Row Conservation District (2004). Altogether, Monterey has adopted 15 plans for commercial and neighborhood districts, most of which include either advisory or prescriptive guidelines or a combination of both.
USE PERMITS
Mixed-use projects in commercial zoning districts; and apartment projects with first floor residential in select districts or planning areas that exceed a specified number of units (e.g., exceeds 4 or up to 30 units per acre) require approval of a use permit by either the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, depending on whether the project is new development or a conversion of an existing use. Such projects in the specific plan areas (i.e., zoned Planned Community, or PC) are largely permitted outright. Though not a requirement, staff encourages applicants to meet with staff early in the design process to discuss potential issues. The first formal step in the permit process is the review of the application by staff and the environmental determination. Staff reviews the proposed use and reports to the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission at a public hearing. The Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission approves the project if they can make the findings that the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare.
After Planning Commission approval, the project is reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee as described in the above section (architectural review). Findings for architectural review include compatibility with the neighborhood in terms of mass, bulk, and design, and that views of the Monterey Bay will not be impaired. Processing time typically takes about 60 days. Based on the number of building permits that are approved each year, City staff do not consider this a constraint to the development of housing. Monterey’s use of design guidelines and subjective development standards and criteria as a basis for both Planning Commission and ARC review does, however, create potential for violation of State mandates that residential projects be subject only to objective standards that require no personal judgment by municipal officials.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS
Applications requiring amendment to the Zoning Map, Zoning Ordinance, or General Plan are subject to review and approval by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council is the final decision-making body and receives a recommendation and report of findings from the Planning Commission. Upon City Council approval of the amendment request, the project proceeds through the architectural review process.
BUILDING CODES AND ENFORCEMENT
The City of Monterey has adopted all the 2019 California building codes with amendments to the Building, Residential, and Plumbing Codes regarding the expiration of permit and other revisions related to fire and seismic hazards. The City amended the Building and Residential Codes to require new roofing in all fire hazard severity zones to be fire retardant or Class A roofing. The City also amended the residential code to require automatic fire sprinklers in all new one and two-family dwellings and when alterations or repairs are made involving 50 percent or more of the linear length of walls. Code enforcement plays an important role in maintaining the quality of neighborhoods. Code enforcement deals with a range of neighborhood issues, from abandoned vehicles parked in yards or driveways to illegal conversions of garages into living spaces to unsanitary buildup of trash and debris on private property. The first “tool” in enforcing codes in Monterey is public education. When code enforcement officers explain that a law is being broken, most problems are resolved quickly. Actual code “enforcement” (usually by way of issuing citations) is normally ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2890, Packet Page 3218 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints C-46 Hearing Draft | June 2024
used only when voluntary cooperation is not received. The goal is to stay in contact with community groups to understand local concerns, and questions regarding neighborhood issues are welcomed.
LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN APPLICATION APPROVAL AND BUILDING PERMIT
ISSUANCE
Housing Element law was amended in September 2022 by the passage of AB 2234 (Rivas) to require examination of the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits. The law amended the housing element requirements to add Section 65913.3 mandating that cities and counties compile a list of information needed to approve or deny a postentitlement phase permit, post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of post-entitlement phase permits for at least five types of housing development projects, as defined, and to make those items available to all applicants for these permits. Once the applicant submits the required plans and other information, the law will allow 15 business days to review the submittal and notify the applicant in writing whether it includes all the required items. If the application is complete, the law gives the agency an additional 30 days to review the materials and either provide the applicant with a full set of comments with a request for revisions or issue the required approval. The law allows 60 days for review of applications for housing projects with 26 or more units.
The time between planning application approval and building permit issuance is influenced by a variety factors, many of which are not within a city’s control. These include the time the applicant needs to produce required technical or engineering studies; complete construction drawings and detailed site and landscape design; secure construction and permanent financing; and retain a building contractor and subcontractors.
In Monterey, this timeline varies greatly. Better resourced developers tend to move forward immediately, while smaller developers can take longer. Planning approvals last for 24 months from the date of approval, and the City works with developers to provide extensions as needed. City staff reports that it usually takes from 3.5 to 7 months for applicants to submit a complete set of plans for building permits after entitlement approval, depending on the size of the project. However, this interval can be reduced if the developer opts for concurrent review of planning and building permits. While this option is at the risk of the developer, City staff reports that many do choose to pursue it. Additionally, the City is exploring other strategies to reduce permit processing times, including establishing regular inter-departmental coordination meetings and designating a staff member track and expedite review. Program 2-M has been added to the Housing Action Plan to reflect this.
REQUESTS TO DEVELOP AT DENSITIES BELOW INVENTORY ASSUMPTIONS The projected densities used for the realistic capacity of sites on the inventory were developed based on a survey of recent residential development projects in Monterey and other surrounding jurisdictions. Several recent projects in the City of Monterey have been built at or above the densities assumed in the inventory; however, the City has received requests to develop at densities below those identified in the inventory due to water supply constraints. As an example, a development application for a site at 2560 Garden Road in the Multifamily Overlay was originally approved at 36 du/ac. However, the project involved remodeling an existing industrial building and ultimately water credits were only sufficient for 25 apartment units. As a result, the developer had to redesign the project and request approval at approximately half the density originally envisioned.
As described above, the primary constraint to development on the Monterey Peninsula is water supply.
New sources of water supply are anticipated to become available during the planning period, and through Program 2-K in the Action Plan, the City will work with water service providers to facilitate augmented water supply. Additionally, as new water supply is anticipated to become available incrementally during the planning period, through Program 2-J the City will allocate available water credits and new supply for ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2891, Packet Page 3219 47 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints Hearing Draft | June 2024 C-47
affordable housing projects as a priority. Therefore, given that new sources of water supply are anticipated during the planning period, that the inventory projections are based on actual past performance, and that the inventory includes a buffer at all income levels, the inventory has adequate capacity to meet RHNA obligations in the event that some sites develop at densities below those projected in the inventory. As described in Chapter 3 Sites Available for Housing, the inventory has a total capacity for 5,769 units, which represents a buffer of 58 percent of the City’s RHNA allocation for the planning period.
C.7 Fees
The City collects various fees from applicants to cover the costs of processing permits, including fees for planning approvals, subdivision map approvals, environmental review, public works and plan check services, and building permits. In addition to these service fees associated with development processing, the City and regional transportation agency charges several impact fees to offset the future impact of development on regional traffic and circulation, parks, and libraries. Table C-9, FY 2023 City of Monterey Planning Fees lists the planning and zoning fees most commonly applicable to residential and mixed-use development.
Table C-9: FY 2023/24 City of Monterey Planning Fees
Category Permit Type Fee
Architectural Review ARC Major $4,620.00
ARC Minor $2,102.50
Architectural Review - Admin Major $1,298.50
Architectural Review - Admin Minor $362.50
Historic Preservation Mills Act Request w/ rezone $4,422.58 Historic Preservation Mills Act Request w/o rezone $3,117.51 Historic Preservation Demolition Review $379.19
Historic Preservation Historic Permit, major $2,053.62
Historic Preservation Historic Permit, admin $536.86
Historic Preservation Historic Report, review $1,018.74 Historic Preservation Historic Survey $1,619.93
Conditional Use
Permit
Preapplication $3,000 deposit
Planning Commission Major-Deposit $4,000 deposit
Planning Commission Minor $2,392.50
Zoning Administrator $1,012.00
Permit Extension $1,014.50
Permit Amendment 2/3 of permit fee
Variance/Parking
Adjustment
Major - Planning Commission $1,894.00
Minor - Zoning Administrator $1,012.00
Subdivision Tentative Map (includes Preliminary and
Final Map)
$6,000 deposit
Minor Subdivision $4,831.50
Covenant of Easement $373.00
Lot Line Adjustment $4,259.00
Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment –
Licensed Land Surveyor Review
$4,000.00
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2892, Packet Page 3220 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints C-48 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Table C-9: FY 2023/24 City of Monterey Planning Fees
Category Permit Type Fee
Certificate of Compliance $1,534.00
Lot Merger $909.00
Plan Amendment
(Text or Map)
General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning
Ordinance
$4,000 deposit
Local Coastal Plan $5,000 deposit
Annexation $5,000 deposit
Environmental Review Environmental Impact Report Deposit based on estimated cost
Environmental Initial Study leading to a
Negative Declaration
$4,000 deposit
Concept Review Planning Commission $1740.50
Tree Permit Associated w. Development (ARC) $741.50
Associated w. Development
(Administrative)
$313.50
SB9 Ministerial
Review
$1,086.47
SB35 Ministerial
Review
$2,131.18
The City of Monterey, Master Fee Schedule, Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Table C-10 compares the estimated fees that would be charged by Monterey and six nearby jurisdictions for four-unit multi-family project with a total floor area of 2,400 sq. ft. and an estimated construction value of $850,000. Certain projects may incur additional fees for historic preservation or environmental review depending on their specific context; however, for the purpose of an equivalent comparison, the table presents typical fees for the reference project type. Data show that the City of Monterey’s zoning and architectural fees are the highest in the immediate area. Monterey’s fees for tentative and final maps for a four-unit project are more in line with most of the surrounding jurisdictions requiring a $6,000 deposit for preliminary and final maps compared, for example, with $2,800 in Del Ray Oaks, $7,925 in Marina, and $8,714 in Seaside. However, the City has recent completed an evaluation of fees that determined current level do not represent full cost recovery. Nevertheless, recognizing that residential development requires review and approval by both the Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission, which increases the time required for approval, a series of programs have been added to the Housing Action Plan to streamline project approvals and assist with the financial feasibility of housing projects.
SEWER FEES
The City of Monterey collects and transports wastewater to Monterey One Water for treatment. Monterey One requires payment of a sewer capacity charge for all new connections to cover a portion of the capital costs related to wastewater transmission, treatment, and disposal. This charge helps to cover costs related to providing and maintaining excess capacity currently available within the Regional System. The City Building Department collects the Monterey One Water connection fee of $5,654.65 per new housing unit on behalf of Monterey One Water.41 Monterey One customers also pay $38 per month for wastewater treatment. Section 9.1 of the City Code requires that property owners install a sewer relief valve and backwater valve as part of the property’s sewer lateral in the event the lowest plumbing fixture of the 41 Monterey One Water, Residential Capacity Charges https://www.montereyonewater.org/191/Residential- CapacityCharges ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2893, Packet Page 3221 49 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints Hearing Draft | June 2024 C-49
property is less than two feet lower than the nearest upstream manhole cover. It is the responsibility of the principal owner of the property to purchase and install the sewer relief vent and backwater valve. The vent and the valve assist the City with cleanup efforts related to sewage backups and are a cost-effective way to ensure the health and safety of residents in the City. 42 Table C-10: Fee Comparison for City of Monterey and Nearby Jurisdictions for Four-Unit Multifamily Project (2400 sq. ft. w. $850,000 Valuation) Jurisdiction Building Permit Zoning/Use Permit Design Review Unincorp.
Monterey County1
$6,100 $5,500 $1,6501
Carmel-by-the-Sea2 $4,872.31 + $11.40
per $1000.00 in
Valuation above
$350,000
$2,730 $5,392 + $813
Study Fee2
Del Ray Oaks3 $9,710 Base Fee +
$6.30 for each
additional $1,000
above $1,000,000
$2,990 $840
Marina4 $4,033 + $5.93 for
each $1,000 above
$500,000
$5,350 $7,7754
Monterey City5 $10,444.11 Base
Fee + $15.48
for each
additional
$1,000 above
$500,000
$4,000 deposit $4,400
Pacific Grove $10,318 + $15 for
each additional
$1,000 above
$500,000
$3,248 $4,060
Seaside6 $5,093.65 + .93 for
each additional
$1,000 above
$500,000
$1,000 $1,200
Notes:
1. Tier 4 with Use Permit approval by Planning Commission required in Medium Density Residential district.
2. Use Permit with Track Two Major design review for project in compliance with all applicable requirements.
3. Major use permit and major design review
4. Major administrative design review $1,010
5. Use Permit approved by Planning Commission with Major Architectural Review
6. Use Permit approved by Planning Commission not including pre-application review $1,107 Sources: Monterey County, Housing & Community Development Fee Schedule, adopted June 2021; Carmel-by-theSea Fee Schedule effective July 2022; Del Ray Oaks, Resolution 2015-2017; Del Ray Oaks Draft Housing Element, October 2019, Table 4-4; Marina Schedule of Fees and Charges, Ordinance 2018-03, effective July 2018; City of Monterey, Master Fee Schedule FY 2023; Pacific Grove Master Fee Schedule FY 2022-23; Seaside Master Fee Schedule 22/23.
42 City of Monterey Sanitary Sewer Lateral Inspection, Monterey City Code 30-1.2 through 30-1.6 and 9.2 https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/CommDev/Building%20&%20Safety/Residential%20Property%20 Inspections/Sanitary-Sewer-Lateral-Inspection-Form.pdf
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2894, Packet Page 3222 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints C-50 Hearing Draft | June 2024
• Sanitary sewers and laterals to serve each lot and stubbed to property line prior to paving. • Storm sewers, drains and channel improvements.
• Silt basins or other forms of erosion control as required. • Paved streets.
• Ornamental street lights.
The City’s wastewater collection system includes approximately 536,516 linear feet (102 miles) of sewer pipe, seven lift stations, and more than 2000 sewer structures including manholes, clean outs, and lamp holes. A study conducted more than a decade ago found that many of the sewer mains and structures were over a century old and at the end of their useful lives requiring $16.8 million in capital projects to prevent possible sewer backups, spills and regulatory fines.43 The monthly fees paid by customer are adjusted annually to pay the cost of operating the collection system. In addition, the City charges a one-time fee for connecting to the system to help cover the cost of upgrading sewer lines communitywide to ensure adequate operation and capacity for future growth. The City’s current development fees also include $119 for inspecting sewer laterals, $2,341 for reviewing the design of the project’s proposed storm water system, and $346 plus $99 per hour for inspection and review of the system.44 To comply with Senate Bill 1087, the City will immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to its water and wastewater providers so they can grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lowerincome households.
CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK, LANDSCAPING, TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE FEES
The City requires all new multi-family and mixed-use development to bring curbs, gutters, and sidewalks to City Standards, which may require installation of new curbs, gutters, and sidewalks if none exist. Several of the Specific Plans require street trees, at about $500 per tree. The current charge for a tree permit associated with new development is $741.50 (ARC review) or $313.50 (administrative review). 45 The City’s
street network is well established, and no new streets are planned. A planned pedestrian and bicycle network is being developed that identifies potential mitigation opportunities for new development. The City does not have an adopted traffic impact fee. New subdivisions may be required to install on and off-site improvements, including streets, highways, public ways, and easements, as well as improvements that may not be part of the subdivision but are affected by the subdivision. These are costs that may influence the sale or rental price of housing. The Monterey Code Chapter 3, Article 3, Section 33-35 establishes the following improvements to be installed by the subdivider:
• Curb, gutter, sidewalk and pathways.
• Water lines, gas and other utility services to serve each lot and stubbed to property line prior to paving.
• Water mains of the proper size to give the required fire flow as approved by the Fire Department.
Fire hydrants of a type and size approved by the Fire Department. Every subdivider shall dedicate, as a condition of subdivision approval, any and all fire hydrants and their connections, pipes, or other appurtenances, from the point they join the water main to the point where they join the hydrant.
43 City of Monterey Sanitary Sewer Utility Fee Study, June 15, 2011 https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/Public%20Works/Engineering/Environmental%20Regulations/Sa nitary%20Sewer%20Program/Monterey-Wastewater-Rate-Study.pdf 44 City of Monterey Master Fee Schedule, Fiscal Year 2023 https://files.monterey.org/Document%20Center/Finance/Schedule%20of%20Fees%20and%20Fines/Master-FeeSchedule.pdf 45 Ibid.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2895, Packet Page 3223 51 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints Hearing Draft | June 2024 C-51
• Fire alarm boxes, including design and layout, connecting to the City fire alarm system when required, and as approved, by the Fire Chief. All equipment necessary to connect the above system at the central alarm control of the Monterey Fire Department. • Street trees, except that the Planning Commission may waive this requirement where they decide that sufficient trees exist.
• Approved street name signs at all intersections, all block number changes and at other locations required and approved by the Public Works Director.
• Street barricades where required.
• Architecturally designed walls, fencing or screen planting where required. • Stop, Yield and other traffic signs as required by the Public Works Director. • Utility distribution lines and facilities, including but not limited to electric, communication, street lighting and cable television and transformers, all to be placed underground. The subdivider is responsible for complying with the requirements of this Section and he shall make the necessary arrangements with the utility companies for the installation of such facilities. • Monuments as required by this Chapter.
The subdivider may be required to install improvements for the benefit of the subdivision which may contain supplemental size, capacity or number for the benefit of property not within the subdivision as a condition precedent to the approval of a subdivision or parcel map, and thereafter to dedicate such improvements to the public. However, the subdivider shall be reimbursed for the portion of the cost of such improvements equal to the difference between the amount it would have cost the subdivider to install such improvements to serve the subdivision only and the actual cost of such improvements pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. As residential development cannot take place without the addition of adequate infrastructure, site improvement requirements are considered a regular component of housing development and do not represent a constraint to development.
C.8 Cumulative Effect of Land Use Controls and Site
Conditions
The cumulative effect of water supply constraints, the high cost of financing, the preponderance of small lots under disparate ownership in urbanized areas, and the high cost of construction presents a significant obstacle to development in the City and throughout the Monterey Peninsula. At the same time, the combination of land use controls and subjective zoning standards and review findings currently in place compounds the financial feasibility challenges faced by housing developers. Chapter 4 of this Housing Element, the Housing Action Plan, incorporates numerous strategies (discussed above) to address these challenges individually and cumulatively in order to facilitate development of the housing element inventory. The City has not adopted growth control, short-term rental, or other ordinances that adversely affect the cost and supply of residential development.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2896, Packet Page 3224 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints C-52 Hearing Draft | June 2024
C.8C.9 Transparency in Development Regulations
State Government Code Section 65940.1 requires cities and counties to provide transparency in publicizing land use controls and fees. Monterey provides links to a variety of resources on the planning process on Planning Office website46 including the Master Fee Schedule, planning and building permit information, planning application forms, instructions on the use of story poles and links to an alphabetized list of Planning Permit Applications and informational handouts. Story poles and orange netting are required for construction greater than one story; projects that involve an increase in height; or as directed by the Architectural Review Committee, Planning Commission, or City Council. The purpose is to demonstrate the proposed mass of the project, to reveal view impacts resulting from the project, and to inform the Architectural Review process. The equipment must identify the three major roof components - ridge, rake, and eave - with 18” orange netting, which is available at most hardware stores. Story poles and orange netting must be installed at least 10 days before project deliberation and must be removed after the 10-day appeal period following the date of deliberation.
The Planning Office page links to a page called Land Use Plans, Regulations, Studies where users can download the General Plan, the associated EIR, commercial and neighborhood district specific and area plans, coastal plans, and implementation plans for circulation and recreation trails and historic preservation surveys and programs. The same page includes links to the zoning map and zoning ordinance, design guidelines, and a collection of documents regarding sea level rise adaptation and climate change. Both pages include contact information for the Planning and Building staff and links to websites for related Boards and Commissions and Code Compliance.
C.10 Coastal Zone Analysis
A portion of the City of Monterey is located within the coastal zone. Therefore, pursuant to Government Code Section 65588(d), the Housing Element must report the following:
1. The number of new housing units approved for construction within the coastal zone after January 1, 1982;
2. The number of housing units for persons and families of low or moderate income required to be provided in new housing developments either within the coastal zone or within three miles of the coastal zone;
3. The number of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income that have been authorized to be demolished or converted since January 1, 1982, in the coastal zone;
4. The number of residential dwelling units for persons and families of low or moderate income that have been required for replacement or authorized to be converted or demolished as identified, and the location of the replacement units, either onsite, elsewhere within the City’s jurisdiction within the coastal zone, or within three miles of the coastal zone within the City’s jurisdiction.
Based on a review of Monterey County Assessor data and City records, the City has issued construction permits for 256 housing units in the coastal zone since 1982, of which 14 are for low income households and 22 are for moderate income households. These low and moderate income units are located in two developments: Laguna Grande at 1-65 Laguna Grande Court and English Avenue Townhomes at 565 English Avenue. Since 1982, twelve moderate income units have been converted to market rate in the coastal zone, all part of the Ocean Harbor House development at 1 and 125 Surf Way. No low-income residential 46 https://monterey.org/city_hall/community_development/planning/planning_permits.php ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2897, Packet Page 3225 53 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints Hearing Draft | June 2024 C-53
units have been demolished or converted to market rate, nor were any low- and moderate-income units required for replacement.
All of the housing stock in Monterey is located within three miles of its coastal zone. The City has had inclusionary zoning requirements in place since 1981. These requirements were initially only for moderate income units; however, in 2004, the City enacted an inclusionary ordinance requiring developers of six or more housing units to provide at least 20 percent of their project for moderate-income and low-income households. These requirements have resulted in development of 59 below market rate units citywide, including 8 Very Low, 14 Low, and 37 Moderate income units. Of these, 19 units (9 low and 10 moderate) are within the coastal zone, all part of the Laguna Grande development at 585 Laine Street.
C.9C.11 Key Findings
This section summarizes the key findings of the constraints analysis. It is intended to inform programs in the Housing Action Plan and narrative language in the body of the draft Housing Element. Key takeaways related to governmental and non-governmental constraints are provided below.
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
• Environmental constraints. The most serious environmental constraints Monterey faces are the water shortage, coastal flooding, sea level rise, and wildfires, all of which are caused or exacerbated by climate change. Additionally, humanmade hazards associated with airport safety and noise are also a consideration in Monterey. Collectively, these environmental constraints can limit the density and location of housing development appropriate in the community, and while there are measures the city can take to reduce these adverse environmental impacts, mitigation can pose an additional constraint to housing production by increasing the cost of residential development or the location and intensity of development in hazard-prone areas. The General Plan Update will need to be is based on a thoughtful strategy for integrating new housing to meet local needs while ensuring public safety and bolstering capacity for climate resilience.
• Land and construction costs. The average land value per acre in Zip Code 93940, a 16-square mile area that is wholly contained within the boundaries of the City of Monterey, increased 93 percent between 2012 and 2019. To counter the effect of high land and development costs, due to factors such as desirability as well as environmental factors like water and terrain, the General Plan encourages mixed-use, infill development in non-residential areas. Construction costs will continue to constrain development because of the city’s location as well as exogenous factors such as supply chain problems, cost of construction materials, and the availability and cost of labor. The Housing Element should incorporate strategies to reduce cost and complexity for residential development needed to serve community needs so as to help with the financial feasibility of housing projects. • Availability and cost of financing. The cost of financing has a significant effect on the affordability and availability of all almost all types of housing and on access to both owner-occupied and rental housing. After peaking at close to 5 percent during the 4th quarter of 2018, mortgage rates fell to 3.11 percent by the end of 2021 but climbed back to 7.32 percent by the end of October 2022. Meanwhile, the average home value in Monterey increased from $1.05 million in October 2021 to $1.16 million at the end of September 2022.
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2898, Packet Page 3226 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints C-54 Hearing Draft | June 2024
• Discretionary Review Requirements for Multi-Family Projects. Almost all new residential construction that is not subject to streamlined review as well as exterior alterations to projects in areas within the Design and Development Control Overlay District (Monterey Zoning Code, Article 13) is subject to requires design review. In addition, most multi-family projects with four or more units, and multi-family and mixed-use projects in commercial districts require approval of a use permit. These requirements increase the time and cost of developing housing in much of the city. Moreover, as discussed above, these processes rely in part on subjective standards and criteria that do not meet State requirements for objective standards. The Housing Element should identify opportunities to Action Plan incorporates programs to streamline review processes and incorporate objective standards for the review and approval of housing projects. • Subjective Development Standards and Guidelines. The discretionary review requirements applicable to most residential development rely on zoning standards and design guidelines that are largely subjective such as the findings required for use permits requiring a determination that projects “will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use, and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city” (Section 38-161.A.2). The approval of new condominium development as well as condominium conversions require an additional finding that applicants demonstrate “financial ability to carry out the proposed project” (Section 38-161.A.4) without any further explanation as to how this determination will be made. The Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) will commits Monterey to reviewing and revising the Zoning Ordinance and all adopted plans and policies applicable to residential development to ensure that both standards and procedures comply with State requirements to base housing project decisions on objective standards. This will include establishing standards for residential and mixed-use development to provide a clear and objective basis for decisions and revising standards for large residential care facilities to ensure those serving seven or more persons.
• Manufactured Housing. The Code includes some standards that may impede the use of either mobile homes or manufactured housing to help meet Monterey’s housing needs. These include the requirement for obtaining a Certificate of Compatibility that must be renewed every two years and prohibiting manufactured homes on lots with an average slope exceeding 10 percent. The Housing Action Plan includes a program that will revise the Zoning Code to remove these and other requirements from the Zoning Code and Subdivision Ordinance that apply standards to manufactured homes that are different from those applicable to stick-built single-family homes except as permitted by State law.
• Specific Plan Standards. Although the specific plans covering areas within and near the downtown area include modified parking requirements for residential projects, they also include policies, standards and guidelines that use imprecise terms that rely on subjective judgment. As mentioned above, the Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) commits the City to review and revision of all adopted plans, including specific and neighborhood plans, to meet State requirements. In addition to establishing objective policies and standards, pursuant to State law, Specific Plans must be consistent with the General Plan. (California Government Code Section 65454) • Coastal development requirements. Because Monterey has not yet adopted a Local Coastal Program and implementation plan for certification by the State Coastal Commission, new housing in the coastal zone requires Coastal Commission review and approval of Coastal Development Permit for most new development with the possible exception of individual single-family development. Even though State law mandates demolition protections for coastal zone housing occupied by low- and ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2899, Packet Page 3227 55 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints Hearing Draft | June 2024 C-55
moderate-income households, residential development in the coastal zone is exempt from a number of the recently enacted State housing requirements intended to remove constraints from residential development. 47
• Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels. Monterey ‘s current regulations do not recognize SRO units as a type of housing.). SRO facilities are permitted in the Downtown, North Fremont and Lighthouse Specific Plan Areas above the ground floor and with a conditional use permit on the ground floor.”48 The Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) commits the city to revising the Zoning Ordinance and other related City regulations to recognize SRO unit rented for more than 30 days as a type of housing. SRO units should, at a minimum, be permitted in the same districts as residential uses. • Parking standards. New State law enacted in 2023 (AB 2097) generally prohibits public agencies from imposing minimum parking requirements within a half-mile of major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hourspublic transit. The City will need to revise parking requirements to reduce revise the minimum requirements to one space per unit for all units located within one half mile of public transitfor compliance with State law. In addition, the City should reduce the base parking requirements for mixed use sites so that they reflect the maximum demand for parking at any one time, rather than the sum of the requirements for all individual uses. The Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) will incorporate a program to address this. • Development standards. SB 9 allows division of lots in single-family residential districts to facilitate the development of smaller scale housing that may be affordable on the basis of size in existing neighborhoods. The new requirements, which are codified in State Government Code Sections 65852.21.21 and 66411.7 require ministerial approval of a housing development with no more than two primary units in a single-family zone or subdivision of a parcel in a single-family zone into two parcels subject to compliance with objective development standards and requirements in the State law. The Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) will incorporate a program that addresses the new requirements, and the Housing Element should explore opportunities to promote and facilitate SB9 housing as appropriate in Monterey.
• Accessory Dwelling Units. The current zoning ordinance includes two sets of provisions applicable to ADUs. Section 38-112.6, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), adopted in November 2021 to comply with amendments the State adopted to that date was subsequently revised on May 3, 2022 to make the requirements consistent with the most recent changes to State law.
• Density bonus ordinance. New State laws pertaining to density bonus were enacted in 2023: AB 2334 makes important changes to the Density Bonus Law to define development capacity; and AB 1551 reinstates the ability to seek State Density Bonus Law benefits for commercial projects. Additional bonuses (including up to 80 percent for completely affordable projects) are now available. The Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) will incorporate a program that commits the City to updating its density bonus ordinance to address the new requirements. 47 See https://www.californiacoastalworks.com/post/housing-mandates-in-the-coastal-zone and https://snapadu.com/blog/adu-granny-flat-coastal-zone-san-diego-oceanside-carlsbad-encinitas/ for discussion of this issue.
48 See Downtown Specific Plan, p. 68; North Fremont Specific Plan, p. 50, and Lighthouse Specific Plan, p. 48.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2900, Packet Page 3228 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints C-56 Hearing Draft | June 2024
• Housing for Homeless Persons. In 2015, Monterey established the Safe Parking Program (Monterey Zoning Code Section 38-126), which allows the use of existing parking lots on a temporary basis to provide individuals and families living in vehicles with a safe place to park overnight while working towards a transition to permanent housing. Parking programs must be managed by a social service provider. Additional actions the city needs to take include revising the Zoning Code to comply with the requirements of AB 101, which amended the Government Code Section 65660 to require municipalities to permit a Low Barrier Navigation Center (LBNC) to be permitted by right in mixeduse districts and nonresidential zones that permit multifamily development. A LNBC is defined as a “housing-first, low-barrier, temporary, services-enriched shelter focused on helping homeless individuals and families to quickly obtain permanent housing.” The Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) commits the city to amending the Zoning Code to comply with these requirements. • Reasonable Accommodations. Article 30, Reasonable Accommodation of the Monterey Zoning Code establishes a clear process for processing requests for exceptions from the city’s land use regulations that meets the requirements of federal and State law and is similar to the model ordinance developed by Mental Health Advocacy Services available on the HCD website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/program-requirements/addressremove-mitigate-constraints/docs/model_reasonable_ accomodation_ordinance.pdf The only inconsistency between Monterey’s reasonable accommodation provisions and the Model Ordinance is that the city’s regulations do not describe any procedures for appealing decisions. The Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) includes a program committing the City to amending Article 30 to add appeal provisions consistent with the Mental Health Advocacy Services model ordinance.
• Transitional and Supportive Housing. The current Monterey Code makes several important distinctions between supportive and transitional housing and between larger and smaller facilities, some of which are inconsistent with applicable State requirements. For example, the Code requires a use permit for all supportive and transitional housing with four or more units, and district regulations impose distinctions based on the number of units although residents of supportive housing facilities may live in a single unit and both types of facilities may be operated as group housing. A program has been added to the Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) to revise the Code provisions for compliance with State law.
• Employee/Farmworker housing. To ensure compliance with State law, the City needs to incorporate into the municipal code a definition of “employee housing” that includes housing for farmworkers as well as other employees such as the service workers in hotels and restaurants. Employee housing for six or less people must be treated the same as a single-family home. The Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) will incorporate a program to address this. • Permit costs. A survey of neighboring cities indicates that building and zoning fees in Monterey are higher than in some other communities. The Housing Element Update process should identify opportunities to reduce cost and complexity to help support the financial feasibility of housing development to meet community needs. Additionally, the Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) will incorporate a program to that commits the City to reviewing fees for housing development to ensure they are commensurate with costs incurred by the City.
• Transparency. State Government Code Section 65940.1 requires cities and counties to provide transparency in publicizing land use controls and fees. Monterey provides links to a variety of resources on the planning process on Planning Office website including the Master Fee Schedule, planning and building permit information, planning application forms, instructions on the use of story poles and links to an alphabetized list of Planning Permit Applications and informational ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2901, Packet Page 3229 57 City of Monterey 2023-2031 | Housing Element Appendix C: Housing Constraints Hearing Draft | June 2024 C-57
handouts as well as links to downloadable versions of Land Use Plans, Regulations, and Studies. The City needs to also ensure that the on-line version of the Municipal Code is regularly updated and that revisions to review procedures are available on-line as well as in handouts at the Planning counter.
The Housing Action Plan includes programs to address these issues and also to meet the recently enacted regulations in Government Code 65913.3 requiring cities to compile lists specifying information applicants most provide to obtain post entitlement phase permits.
OTHER CONSTRAINTS
• Jurisdictional Constraints. There are several large institutional facilities located within the Monterey City limit over which the City has no land use authority. These include federal military facilities and educational institutions that are an integral part of the local economy. A large portion of the daytime population of these facilities resides within the City of Monterey and continued cooperation with these institutions will be important for addressing local housing needs.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2902, Packet Page 3230
APPENDIX
D
AFFH ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2903, Packet Page 3231 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-40 D.4 Disparities in Access to Opportunity .................................................................. D-45 D.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs & Displacement Risk ................................... D-61 D.6 Sites Inventory....................................................................................................... D-75 D.7 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................... D-80 List of Maps and 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-24 Map D-6: Persons with Disabilities, County .............................................................................................. D-25 Map D-7: Percent of Children in Female Headed Households, City ................................................... D-28 Map D-8: Percent of Children in Married Headed Households, City.................................................. D-29 Map D-9: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households, County............................................. D-30 Map D-10: Low- to Moderate-Income Population, Block Group, City............................................... D-31 Map D-11: Low- to Moderate-Income Population, Block Group, County......................................... D-32 Map D-12: Poverty Status (2014)................................................................................................................. D-34 Map D-13: Poverty Status (2019)................................................................................................................. D-35 Map D-14: Housing Vouchers (2019), City................................................................................................ D-36 Map D-15: Housing Vouchers (2019), County.......................................................................................... D-37 Map D-16a: R/ECAP and RCAA Locations, Monterey County............................................................. D-42 Map D-16b: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) City of Monterey ....................... D-42 Map D-17: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Composite Score, City of Monterey ................................... D-43 Map D-18: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Economic Score, City of Monterey...................................... D-51 Figure D-1: Monterey-Salinas Transit Bus Routes.................................................................................... D-55 Figure D-2: Monterey Peninsula Transit Performance Score ................................................................ D-56 Figure D-3: Housing and Transportation Costs........................................................................................ D-57 Map D-19: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Education Score, City of Monterey...................................... D-59 Map D-20: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Environmental Score, City of Monterey ............................. D-60 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2904, Packet Page 3232 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Map D-21: Homeowner Cost Burden, City of Monterey ...................................................................... D-63 Map D-22: Renter Cost Burden, City of Monterey ................................................................................. D-64 Map D-23 Overcrowded Households, City of Monterey ...................................................................... D-66 Map D-24: Sensitive Communities............................................................................................................... D-73 Map D-25: Overall Displacement Risk, City of Monterey...................................................................... D-74 List 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-14 Table D-3: Monterey County Subdivisions by Race/Ethnicity, 2020.................................................... D-14 Chart D-5: Timeline of Segregation Policies in United States............................................................... 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-18 Table D-5: Children Under 18 Years in Monterey Households, 2020................................................ D-26 Table D-6: Poverty Rates in City of Monterey, 2020.............................................................................. D-33 Table D-7: Assisted Housing Projects, City of Monterey....................................................................... D-39 Chart D-7: Share of Units Affordable to 80 Percent AMI, County of Monterey ............................. D-39 Table D-8: Domain and Indicators for HCD/TCAC Opportunity Maps............................................ D-45 Chart D-8: Opportunity Indices, Population Above Poverty Level...................................................... D-47 Chart D-9: Opportunity Indices, Population Below Poverty Level...................................................... D-48 Table D-9: Share of Unemployment by Race/Ethnicity, Monterey County........................................ D-49 Table D-10: CAASP Scores ........................................................................................................................... D-53 Table D-11: CAASP Scores by Race in Ethnicity, Monterey Peninsula Unified................................. D-53 Table D-12: Monterey High School ............................................................................................................. D-53 Table D-13: CAASP Scores, 2022................................................................................................................ D-54 Chart D-10: Cost Burden for Owner Occupied Housing by Race/Ethnicity, City of Monterey .. D-62 Chart D-11: Cost Burden for Renter Occupied Housing by Race/Ethnicity, City of Monterey ... D-62 Table D-14: Monterey Substandard Housing Issues, 2020..................................................................... D-67 Chart D-12: Age of City of Monterey Housing Stock, 2020 ................................................................. D-68 Table D-15: Racial/Ethnic Group Share of General and Homeless Population in Salinas/Monterey and San Benito Counties ................................................................................................................................ D-70 Table D-16: AFFH Housing Element Sites Analysis.................................................................................. D-78 Table D-17: Findings............................................................................................................................................. 81 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2905, Packet Page 3233 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-1
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 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2906, Packet Page 3234 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-2 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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. ECHO has been providing fair housing services to Monterey, Salinas, Seaside, and Monterey County’s urban 5 Rothstein, Richard. The Color of Law. N.p., Perfection Learning Corporation, 2019.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2907, Packet Page 3235 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-3
unincorporated communities since 2017. Additionally, 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. Further, 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/housing-discrimination/) 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. 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 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2908, Packet Page 3236 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-4 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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. 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 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2909, Packet Page 3237 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-5
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 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 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2910, Packet Page 3238 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-6 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2911, Packet Page 3239 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-7
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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2912, Packet Page 3240 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-8 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2913, Packet Page 3241 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-9
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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2914, Packet Page 3242 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-10 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2915, Packet Page 3243 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-11
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 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2916, Packet Page 3244 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-12 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2917, Packet Page 3245 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-13
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.
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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2918, Packet Page 3246 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-14 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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) 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) ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2919, Packet Page 3247 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-15
Chart D-5: Timeline of Segregation Policies in United States Source: Rothstein, Richard. The Color of Law. N.p., Perfection Learning Corporation, 2019.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2920, Packet Page 3248 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-16 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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. Further, 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.
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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2921, Packet Page 3249 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-17
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 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).
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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2922, Packet Page 3250 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-18 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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) 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, 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. 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
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2923, Packet Page 3251 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2924, Packet Page 3252 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2925, Packet Page 3253 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2926, Packet Page 3254 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2927, Packet Page 3255 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-23
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 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2928, Packet Page 3256 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2929, Packet Page 3257 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2930, Packet Page 3258 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-26 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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) 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 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2931, Packet Page 3259 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-27
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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2932, Packet Page 3260 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2933, Packet Page 3261 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2934, Packet Page 3262 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2935, Packet Page 3263 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2936, Packet Page 3264 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2937, Packet Page 3265 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-33
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).
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2938, Packet Page 3266 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2939, Packet Page 3267 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2940, Packet Page 3268 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2941, Packet Page 3269 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2942, Packet Page 3270 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-38 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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.14
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.
14 City of Monterey, 2021. Community Development Block Grant 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan & 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan. Accessed: April 3, 2024.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2943, Packet Page 3271 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-39
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
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2944, Packet Page 3272 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-40 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2945, Packet Page 3273 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-41
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.”15 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. 16 Maps D-16 and D-16B 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.17 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).
15 Edward G. Goetz, et al. "Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation" (Cityscape, Vol. 21 No. 1, 2019), pp. 99-123.
16 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 17 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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2946, Packet Page 3274 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2947, Packet Page 3275 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
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 cD r
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-16b: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs), City of Monterey Data Source: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, Version 2.0, 2023; ACS, 2015 - 2019; HCD, 2022; PlaceWorks, 2022; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\AFFH\R ECAP and RCAA Locations City.mxd Racially Concentrated Areas of
Affluence (RCAA) Locations
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Water
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2948, Packet Page 3276 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2949, Packet Page 3277 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-45
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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2950, Packet Page 3278 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-46 Hearing Draft | June 2024
• 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), most of Census tracts in the City of Monterey are identified as Highest or High Resource. The Highest Resource areas are located in central Monterey, New Monterey, and the Naval Support Activity Monterey La Mesa Village. The High Resource tracts are located south of Highway 1 and along Highway 68, covering the greatest geographical expanse. There is a Moderate Resource tract within the City, located in the southern portion of the city, near the Ryan Ranch Office Park.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. 18
18 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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2951, Packet Page 3279 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-47
Chart D-8: Opportunity Indices, Population Above Poverty Level Source: HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2952, Packet Page 3280 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-48 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Chart D-9: Opportunity Indices, Population Below Poverty Level Source: HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2953, Packet Page 3281 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-49
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 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2954, Packet Page 3282 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-50 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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.19 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 Gilroy 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.
19 Monterey Scorecard, September 2017. Availabe:
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/58216/636457222327600000 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2955, Packet Page 3283 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2956, Packet Page 3284 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-52 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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 nonHispanic 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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2957, Packet Page 3285 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-53
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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2958, Packet Page 3286 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-54 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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.20 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
Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) provides bus service in the City of Monterey and the Monterey Peninsula. MST operates teneleven routes within the city, including Routes Jazz A and Jazz B that operate at 15-minute headways as shown on Map D-X1Figure D-1. All routes connect through the Monterey Transit Plaza on Munras Avenue in Downtown MontereyThe City of Monterey is served by 15 transit routes and residents have access to 41,213 jobs within a 30-minute transit trip. The opportunity areas, which accommodate 60 percent of the projected capacity of the inventory, are all served by MST routes, and 92 percent of parcels with zoning that permits residential uses in the city are located within a 0.5-mile walk of a transit route.
20 https://www.montereyherald.com/2021/12/08/monterey-peninsula-unified-school-district-to-reimagine-attendancezones-school-sites/ ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2959, Packet Page 3287 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-55
Figure D-1: Monterey-Salinas Transit Bus Routes
Source: Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST)
Based on an analysis of connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of transit service for metropolitan areas throughout the U.S., the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) provides transit performance scores. As shown on Figure D-2Map D-X2, the Downtown, Lighthouse Avenue, and North Fremont, and Del Monte opportunity areas offer some of the best transit access in the county., These are among the most densely populated areas of Monterey and tend to have higher shares of residents from statutorily protected classes, including disabled residents (Map D-5), female headed households (Map D-7), LMI residents (Map D-10), and residents living in poverty (Maps D-12 and D-13). while lLow density single-family neighborhoods and areas of the city with limited existing development such as Fort Ord and the Highway 68 Plan Area have lower levels of transit access. The sites inventory seeks to promote mixed income housing in the Fort Ord and the Highway 68 Plan Area, and the corresponding increase in population and employment density will help support more frequent transit service to these areas in the future.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2960, Packet Page 3288 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-56 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Figure D-2: Monterey Peninsula Transit Performance Score Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology
The Housing and Transportation Index illustrates that people who live in location-efficient neighborhoods - compact, mixed-use, and with convenient access to jobs, services, transit and amenities — tend to have lower transportation costs, whereas people who live in location-inefficient places — less dense areas that require automobiles for most trips — are more likely to have higher transportation costs. In Monterey, the pattern shown when mapping Housing and Transportation Index scores (Figure D-3Map DX-3) mirrors that described in the preceding paragraph: the Downtown, Lighthouse Avenue, and North Fremont, and Del Monte opportunity areas - which offer some of the best transit access in the county, are among the most densely populated areas of Monterey, and tend to have higher shares of residents from statutorily protected classes - are areas with the lowest Housing and Transportation Index scores, meaning residents of these areas have lower combined housing and transportation costs. Conversely, low density single-family neighborhoods and areas of the city with limited existing development such as Fort Ord and the Highway 68 Plan Area have lower levels of transit and walking access and correspondingly have higher combined housing and transportation costs. The recommended benchmark is that combined housing and transportation costs should not exceed 45 percent of household income. By this measure, residents of the North Fremont, Downtown, Pacific/Munras/Cass, and Lighthouse opportunity areas have affordable combined housing and transportation costs, while residents of other areas of the city do not. It should ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2961, Packet Page 3289 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-57
be noted that there are currently no residents of the Highway 68 and Fort Ord areas, which are part of a larger Census tract that includes incorporated areas of Monterey County which have Housing and Transportation Index scores above 75 percent.
Figure D-3: Housing and Transportation Costs
The opportunity index scores shown on Charts D-8 and D-9 above provide data on Low Transportation Cost and Transit Trips for residents above and below the poverty level in the City Monterey and Monterey County. The scores indicate that residents of the city enjoy significantly better access to transit opportunity than residents of the county, regardless of income or race. Further, the scores indicate that access to transportation opportunity in the city is relatively equal for all racial and ethnic groups. Among residents above the poverty level, the difference between the highest and the lowest score for transit trips taken is approximately 3 percent, where the scores area highest from Native Americans and lowest for Hispanic residents (although still notably higher than for Hispanic residents of the county as a whole). Similarly, for those living below the poverty limit, the difference between the highest and the lowest score for transit trips taken is approximately 4 percent, and the scores area highest from Asian and Pacific Islanders and lowest for Black residents, although all groups within the City scored notably higher than for their counterparts in the county as a whole. The same trend in scores is evident for Low Transportation Cost. A review of Census data indicates that renters are more likely to commute to work via transit than homeowners in Monterey, with 1.5 percent of renters using transit compared with 0.38 percent of homeowners.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2962, Packet Page 3290 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-58 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Overall, there is no disproportionate pattern or exceptionally low score for a specific ethnic or income group in the city. Transit is accessible and relatively affordable for all ethnic and income groups.
However, as discussed below, more than 30 percent of homeowners and more than 50 percent of renters in the city experience some level of housing cost burden. As such, in combination with the high cost of housing transportation costs may add to the cost burden experienced by statutorily protected groups in Monterey. To help address this burden, MST launched a new fare policy launched in December 2022, with lower fares make bus travel more affordable for low-income households. A $2 MST fare now covers two hours of bus travel ($1 for two hours for discount fares), and when using contactless payment, there’s no tapping off when exiting, making it easy to travel anywhere in the system on one ticket. MST also offers half-priced fare for riders 65 and older. Additionally, the City is implementing plans to expand the bicycle network, as outlined in the 2021 Move Monterey MultiModal Transportation Plan.
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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2963, Packet Page 3291 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2964, Packet Page 3292 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2965, Packet Page 3293 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-61
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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2966, Packet Page 3294 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-62 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2967, Packet Page 3295 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2968, Packet Page 3296 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2969, Packet Page 3297 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-65
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).
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2970, Packet Page 3298 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2971, Packet Page 3299 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-67
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 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2972, Packet Page 3300 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-68 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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.21 Code enforcement actions also provide an indication of where substandard housing exists in the city.
On average, the City handles approximately 300 code compliance cases annually, typically related to dilapidated properties, fire damage, or plumbing issues. A review of code enforcement actions in the past two years indicates that cases occur throughout the city primarily in relation to the age of the housing stock. Older residential neighborhoods such as New Monterey and Old Town see a higher 21 Community Development Block Grant 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan & 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan, City of Monterey, 2020.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2973, Packet Page 3301 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-69
rate of code enforcement actions than newer neighborhoods. A number of fishing houses built in New Monterey in the 1940s whose occupants tend to be older adults and long-term residents have seen enforcement actions since 2020. New Monterey, which has seen the highest number of code enforcement actions since 2020, is designated Highest Resource on TCAC opportunity maps and the neighborhood does not have a share of LMI households or residents living in poverty that exceeds 20 percent, the threshold typically used as an indicator of over-concentration. Old Town is also designed Highest Resource; however, this neighborhood has a high share of LMI households (Map D-10), a high level of homeowner cost burden (Map D-21) and is vulnerable to displacement.
Substandard housing conditions are linked to displacement risk because eviction can result if the properties are condemned and because redevelopment can force lower-income residents out of their homes due to an inability to afford the new housing costs. To help address displacement risk, the City administers and manages a Housing Rehabilitation Program which encompasses a variety of home repair grants and loans intended to improve the condition of substandard owner-occupied singlefamily homes, with special emphasis placed on the remediation of health and safety housing issues.
The program coordinator works closely with participating homeowners, helping to select a contractor, supervising construction along with the contractor, and inspecting all work completed - all at no cost to the homeowner. Through implementation of Program 4-C in the Housing Action Plan, the City will continue to implement the Housing Rehabilitation Program to help low income senior homeowners remain in their homes.
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 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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2974, Packet Page 3302 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-70 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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.22 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).
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 four22 California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2975, Packet Page 3303 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-71
person, 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 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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2976, Packet Page 3304 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-72 Hearing Draft | June 2024
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.
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.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2977, Packet Page 3305 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2978, Packet Page 3306 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 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2979, Packet Page 3307 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-75
Wildfire
The State classifies Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) into three classifications: moderate, high, and very high. As shown on Map 2-2, areas in the south and southwest of Monterey are classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Areas at risk of burning are correlated with areas considered to be wildlands or area with wildland type vegetation that are generally not intensely developed. In the case of a fire in a high fire threat area, 97 residential properties would be affected while in the case of a fire in a moderate fire threat area, 1,593 residential properties would be affected.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise
Climate change will affect the people, property, economy, and ecosystems in Monterey County. Sea level rise risk exposure in the City was calculated based on the NOAA Office for Coastal Management sea level rise viewer projections. With one foot of sea level rise (2030) one residential property will be impacted, with 3 feet of sea level rise (2060) one residential property will be impacted, and with seven feet of sea level rise (2100) 15 residential properties will be impacted in the City.
Landslide
According to the 2022 Monterey County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, areas with high landslide susceptibility could affect 21 residential properties while areas with moderate landslide susceptibility could affect 679 residential properties. Additionally, approximately 24 miles of road are located in an area of moderate susceptibility to earthquake-induced landslides and about 2 miles of roadway is located in an area of high susceptibility.
Tsunami
According to the 2022 Monterey County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City is in a mapped tsunami inundation zone. In the inundation zone, a population of 1,716 and 268 residential properties are at risk in the City.
D.6 Sites Inventory
State law requires a jurisdiction to identify sites to meet its RHNA obligations throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. This includes ensuring that sites are distributed such that they combat housing discrimination, eliminate racial bias, redress historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access. Affirmatively furthering fair housing will help foster inclusive communities so that households at all income levels and of all racial/ethnic makeups can enjoy a more equitable distribution of opportunity and proximity to jobs, transit, a high-quality education, and environmental benefits. To satisfy this requirement, the extent to which buildout of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element inventory may further entrench or help ameliorate existing patterns of segregation and/or exclusion of protected categories was assessed. As previously discussed, none of the Census tracts within the City of Monterey’s corporate limits are classified as a racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP); however, one Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (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. There are no census tracts identified as High Segregation and Poverty tracts on the TCAC/HCD Composite Opportunity Map (Map D-17). The Highest Resource, High Resource, and Moderate Resource Census tracts are evenly distributed, with the Moderate Resource classification ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2980, Packet Page 3308 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-76 Hearing Draft | June 2024
covering the greatest geographical expanse. This assessment focuses on how buildout of the sites inventory would affect the concentration of lower and moderate-income households in Monterey, approximated based on characteristics such as the proportion of renter-occupied units subsidized by Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs). The results of the analysis are shown in Table D-16.
Table D-9 shows the distribution of units from the sites inventory by income category in each Census tract, alongside the existing (2021) socioeconomic characteristics of those tracts based on data made available from HCD. Census tracts in the City share many similar characteristics, such as lower displacement risk, moderate proportions of non-white population, and rent burdened households. On the other hand, the percentages of low to moderate income population, overcrowded households, and rate of HCVs have more variance. Notably, Census tracts 6053013300 and 6053012700 have relatively higher proportions of HCVs, whereas Census tracts 6053013200, 6053013100, 6053012800, and 6053012601 have the lowest levels.
Of the two Census tracts with the highest rates of HCVs, both contain lower-income and moderate sites. However, both of these Census Tracts (6053013300 and 6053012700) do not have the highest rent burdened households or percentage of non-white population. As such, development of units affordable to lower-income households in this Census tract would not contribute to segregation but rather increase opportunities for racial and economic levels to be more similar to the rest of the City.
Census Tract 6053013200 has the fewest concentration of low- to moderate-income population, with a proportion of non-white population comparable to the rest of the City. This Census tract contains the greatest share of very low, low, and moderate-income units in the sites inventory, so addition of new lower-income units would help ensure an inclusive mix of housing and reduce risk of displacement for current residents. New housing opportunities for lower-income households in Census Tract 6053013200 along the southern border of the City would likewise serve to further fair housing choice in Monterey.
As many socioeconomic characteristics are shared by Census tracts citywide, it is difficult to assess the degree to which implementation of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element would help close the gaps in access to opportunity. Nevertheless, the Housing Action Plan (see Chapter 4) and related policies in the General Plan are designed to address existing disparities and provide new opportunities to meet the needs and enrich the lives of all Monterey residents.
ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Buildout of the sites inventory will result in creation of new homes for 2,829 low and moderate income households, which represents a 45 percent increase in the number of LMI households in the City over the planning period. As described above, all of the city is designated as High or Highest Resource on TCAC maps, and as a result, buildout of the inventory will substantially increase access to educational, economic, and environmental opportunity for disadvantaged and marginalized populations and help to affirmatively further fair housing in the city and on the Monterey Peninsula.
Table D-16 shows the distribution of new housing units to Census tracts within the planning area, together with relevant socio-demographic data for each tract. As shown, two tracts accommodate the majority of new homes projected from buildout of the inventory: Tract 132, which would accommodate 37.3 percent of the total new units and 14.75 percent of the lower income units, and Tract 133, which would accommodate 30.17 percent of the total new units and 59.81 percent of the ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2981, Packet Page 3309 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-77
lower income units. These two tracts are the largest Census tracts in the planning area and the ones with the most sites of appropriate size for lower income RHNA, based on the criteria defined in State law. Tract 127 (Downtown) and Tract 125.04 (Lighthouse Avenue) are located within Highest Resource areas and have excellent access to jobs and transit; however, they have few sites larger than
0.5 acres and meeting other criteria established in State law, and as such have less capacity to accommodate lower income RHNA. Nevertheless, this Housing Element incorporates various strategies for increasing the capacity of sites in Tracts 127 and 125.04 for low and moderate income housing, including through increased maximum building heights, increased maximum density, and establishment of a local density bonus program.
Tract 133 contains three of the seven opportunity areas identified in Chapter 3, including the North Fremont and Garden Road opportunity areas which are located in proximity to jobs, services, and transit, contain relatively more sites that meet the criteria established in State law for lower income RHNA sites, and demonstrate high potential for redevelopment within the planning period. These areas are physically separated from one another by the Monterey Regional Airport and function as distinct neighborhoods even though they are located within the same Census tract. Tract 133 also has the highest rate of rent burdened households in the city and a dramatically higher rate of overcrowding than other tracts. It is also the only tract in the city that is at risk of displacement. Focusing additional below market rate housing throughout this tract will help alleviate displacement pressure and relieve overcrowding.
Tract 132, which includes Fort Ord, the 50-acre MPUSD site, and the County Courthouse site, has very little existing housing, but large amounts of vacant and underutilized land that present important opportunities to accommodate housing to serve local need. Only a portion of this tract is within the Monterey City limit, but the whole of the tract is classified as an RCAA. The integration of mixed income housing is envisioned throughout the tract, and the City's adopted inclusionary requirements will ensure that at least 10 percent of the new units are affordable to moderate income households and 10 percent are affordable to low income households. Buildout of the inventory will also diversify the range of housing types in the tract by adding multifamily housing and ADU/JADUs.
Tract 130 will accommodate approximately 5 percent of the total units projected from buildout of the inventory, but less than 1 percent of the lower income units projected. While the tract is relatively large, it is home to the Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey Peninsula College, and the San Carlos Cemetery, limiting the possibility for new housing development. Additionally, given its low-lying elevation and proximity to the Monterey Bay, much of this tract is within flood hazard areas and is projected to be significantly impacted by sea level rise. As such, there are relatively few sites that meet the criteria established for lower income RHNA sites.
Tract 125.03 (New Monterey) is a smaller tract in the western part of the city containing established small lot single-family neighborhoods. The tract is not a RCAA, containing a relatively high share of LMI households and non-White residents. Given the extent and pattern of existing development in the tract, there is little opportunity to accommodate new housing; however, the area does have the potential to accommodate ADUs and JADUs. This Housing Element contains various programs to incentivize and promote affordable ADU/JADU development, which will help diversify the housing stock and increase affordable options.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2982, Packet Page 3310 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-78 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Table D-16: AFFH Housing Element Sites Analysis
Tract 125.03 125.04 127 128 130 132
Projected Capacity
Low Income
Units 0 88 270 139 5 291
Moderate Income
Units 0 50 20 51 0 257
Above Moderate
Income Units 29 282 409 135 260 1518
Socio-Demographic Characteristics (2022 5-Year ACS Estimates) Existing
Households 1206 1368 1928 2351 2079 1551
Non-White
Population
37.89%
48.30% 34.11% 21.03% 41.55% 20.38%
Low to Mod.
Income
Households 48.92% 63.89% 56.48% 38.28% 50.22% 28.88%
Rent Burdened
Households 22.72% 42.62% 41.29% 9.32% 37.90% 4.90%
Overcrowded
Households 0.83% 1.75% 2.65% 2.04% 3.66% 0.00%
HCV Use 0.00% 1.95% 3.59% 0.00% 2.05% 0.00%
Displacement
Risk
Lower
Displacement
Risk
Lower
Displacement
Risk
At Risk of
Displacement
Lower
Displacement
Risk
Lower
Displacement
Risk
Lower
Displacement
Risk
Percent of Lower
Income Units 0.00% 4.46% 13.68% 7.05% 0.25% 14.75%
Percent Increase
in Lower Income
Units 0.00% 6.43% 14.00% 5.91% 0.24% 18.76%
Percent of Total
Units 0.52% 7.58% 12.62% 5.87% 4.78% 37.30%
While Tract 128 is designated as an RCAA, there are significant differences between neighborhoods within it. The northern part of the tract contains numerous small and mid-scale multifamily housing developments. The southern portion of the tract contains larger lot single-family homes in steeper terrain that is classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Existing uses throughout the tract are predominantly residential and given the topography and prevailing development pattern, transit access is not as good as in other parts of the city. The tract is projected to accommodate about six percent of the total capacity of the inventory and 7 percent of the total number of lower income RHNA units, including additional multifamily housing on the Elks Lodge site. Additionally, through Programs 1-J and 3-H, the City will ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2983, Packet Page 3311 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing Hearing Draft | June 2024 D-79
target housing mobility strategies in the area that go beyond the City’s RHNA obligations to expand options for low and moderate households in this High Resource area.
Overall, buildout of the inventory would increase access to opportunity for lower and moderate income households in RCAAs and throughout the planning area. While it would concentrate a large share of lower income housing in Census tract 133, the northern and southern parts of this tract are physically divided from one another by the Monterey Regional Airport such that they function as distinct neighborhoods. Each part of the tract would receive a similar number of lower income units, thereby resulting in a more proportionate share (roughly 15 percent each) of the total number of lower income units, comparable to other tracts in the planning area. Further, as tracts 133 and 132 have a notably higher share of sites meeting the criteria established in State law for lower income RHNA sites than other areas of the city, they inevitably need to accommodate a higher share of lower income RHNA in view of the prevailing development opportunities and environmental constraints. Therefore, buildout of the inventory would have a beneficial effect on access to opportunity in in the city and the Monterey Peninsula.
SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION
Dissimilarity scores indicate that many areas of the City of Monterey are relatively racially and ethnically integrated, and that the City is less segregated than the County as a whole. As described above, the share of non-White residents increased slightly between 2010 and 2020 and there are no RECAPS in the planning area; however, Monterey remains majority White and the share of White residents in the city is still more than double that of Monterey County, which has a majority Hispanic/Latino population. While more diverse than neighboring Carmel-by-the-Sea or Pacific Grove, the City is still part of a pattern of concentrated affluence in the western part of the County along the coast. There is one RCAA located completely within the City limit (tract 128) and a portion of another (tract 132) at the southern edge of the city that extends into unincorporated Monterey County and lies primarily outside of the planning area.
Through buildout of the inventory and implementation of Programs 1-H (Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan), 1-I (Highway 68 Area Plan), and 1-L (County Courthouse Site), the City will integrate mixed income throughout tract 132 and the adopted inclusionary requirements will ensure at least 20 percent of these units will be affordable to moderate and lower income households. Additionally, implementation of Programs 1-M, 1-N, and 3-G will incentivize and promote the creation of affordable ADUs and JADUs. Additionally, as noted above, through Programs 1-J and 3-H, the City will target housing mobility strategies in the area that go beyond the City’s RHNA obligations that go beyond the City’s RHNA obligations to expand options for low and moderate households in tract 128.
Therefore, overall buildout of the inventory would have a beneficial effect on the prevailing pattern of concentrated affluence in Monterey County and would not exacerbate patterns of segregation.
DISPROPORTIONATE NEEDS AND DISPLACEMENT RISK
While only one tract (Tract 133) in the city is considered at risk of displacement, cost burden and overcrowding are prevalent in Monterey. Cost burden is a major issue for older adults and low-income households in Monterey, but no area of the city has an over concentration of these populations. While they represent a small share of the population, American Indian or Alaska Native residents experience substantially higher rates of overcrowding; however, there is no discernible concentration of American ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2984, Packet Page 3312 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-80 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Indian or Alaska Native residents in any geographic area of the city. As noted above, tract 133 has the highest rate of rent burdened and overcrowded households in the city. Buildout of the inventory would focus additional below market rate housing throughout this tract will help alleviate displacement pressure and relieve overcrowding. Therefore, overall buildout of the inventory would have a beneficial effect on cost burden, overcrowding and displacement risk in Monterey.
Summary and Conclusions
State law requires that jurisdictions identify fair housing issues as well as contributing factors and priority levels for each factor. Further, a jurisdiction must identify specific goals and actions it will take to reduce the severity of fair housing issues within that jurisdiction. This section fulfills these requirements based on the assessment provided above, as well as relevant information from the 202- 2025 AI. Goals and actions related to AFFH are incorporated into the broader Housing Action Plan contained within Chapter 4 of this Housing Element.
Based on the findings of this assessment, Table D-17 presents a summary of existing fair housing issues and their contributing factors, as well as a description for each. Issues that are primarily related to environmental justice or economic development and do not have a direct bearing on fair housing will be addressed in the respective element of the General Plan update. Priority levels were assigned as follows:
• High – Designates contributing factors that limit or deny fair housing choice (i.e., has the potential to violate the Fair Housing Act).
• Medium – Designates contributing factors which should be addressed in the near term. These issues do not violate the Fair Housing Act but may increase fair housing issues in the city.
These factors may be beyond the City’s immediate capabilities to address. • Low – Designates contributing factors that either do not need to be or cannot be addressed immediately by the City but should be addressed later on during the eight-year planning period.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2985, Packet Page 3313 Table D-17: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors Priority
Level
Fair Housing Issue Description Contributing Factor(s) Meaningful Actions Geographic Targeting
2023-2031 Metrics and Timing
High
Enforcement and
Capacity
The City has seen uneven lending
patterns. 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. 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.
• Financial literacy of affected
groups
• Lending discrimination
• Legal Services and Fair Housing Education
(Program 3-A)
• Housing for ELI Households and Persons with
Special Needs (Program 3-B)
• Family-Sized Rental Units (Program 3-D)
Citywide • Provide fair housing support services for 75 persons annually during each year of the planning period (Program 3-A)
• 25 units for ELI households and persons with special needs during the planning period (Program 3-B)
• Promote the development of 20 rental units with two or three bedrooms over the planning period (Program 3-D)
• Percent change in denial rates
• Increase awareness of fair housing practices among real estate professionals and lenders
High
Segregation and
Integration
Monterey is becoming more diverse but
remains majority White. 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 Monterey County, which has a
majority Hispanic/Latino population.
• Income is the single-most significant
barrier to integration, particularly as
Non-Whites may have less access to
capital and financing.
• Few options for lower income
residents
• Inventory of Available Sites (Program 1-A)
• Multi-Ffamily Residential Overlay Amendments
(Program 1-B)
• Education Workforce Housing Overlay (Program
1-E)
• Congregational Overlay (Program 1-F)
• Surplus Municipal Parking Facilities (Program 1-
G)
• Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan (Program 1-
H)
• Highway 68 Area Plan Update (Program 1-I)
• Inclusionary Zoning (Program 2-I)
• Housing for ELI Households and Persons with
Special Needs (Program 3-B)
• Affirmative Marketing of Affordable Housing
Opportunities (Program 3-F)
Citywide, specifically
opportunity areas
(i.e. Ryan Ranch and
Fort Ord)
• Facilitate development of 1,177 units affordable to very lowincome households and 769 affordable to low-income households over the planning period. (Program 1-A and Program 3-F) • Facilitate development of 515 803 new housing units by Q4 2031 (Program 1-B)
• 1100 new housing units, at densities deemed affordableleast 30 percent of which would be made available to lower income households through long-term affordability agreements (Program 1-E)
• 100 new housing units affordable to Low and Very Low Income Households on properties owned by religious facilities (Program 1-F)
• 4850 lower income units by Q2 20287 (Program I-G)
• 1,6601,200 new housing units, including 220 100 homes affordable to moderate income households and 220 100 homes affordable to lower income households (Program 1-H)
• 640 512 new housing units, including 145 51 homes affordable to moderate income households and 145 51 homes affordable to lower income households (Program 1-I)
• Strengthen inclusionary zoning requirements to facilitate development of below market rate units, including 1,946 lower income units and 462 moderate income units (Program 2-I) • 25 units for ELI households and persons with special needs during the planning period (Program 3-B)
High
Disproportionate
Housing Needs
Cost burden is a major issue for older
adults and low-income households in
Monterey. Cost burden for renters and
owners is not evenly distributed
geographically and renters are more
cost burdened than owners. For
• Lack of availability of affordable units in
a range of sizes
• Widening income gap
• Skyrocketing land values in Monterey
Peninsula area
• Affirmative Marketing of Affordable Housing
Opportunities (Program 3-F)
• Zoning Incentives for Deed Restricted
ADUs/JADUs (Program 3-G)
• Rental Assistance Pilot Program (Program 4-B)
Citywide, specifically
Highest Resource
neighborhoods in the
south and west.
• Facilitate development of 1,177 units affordable to very low income households and 769 affordable to low income households over the planning period (Program 3-F)
• Construction of 10 new ADUs/JADUs affordable to lower income households annually over the planning period, with ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2986, Packet Page 3314 Table D-17: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors Priority
Level
Fair Housing Issue Description Contributing Factor(s) Meaningful Actions Geographic Targeting
2023-2031 Metrics and Timing
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.
• Recognize Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Units
as a Housing Type (Program 4-G)
geographic targeting to homeowners in high resource
neighborhoods (Programs 3-G)
• Provide shallow subsidies to 20 lower income households per year throughout the planning period (Program 4-B)
High
Disproportionate
Housing Needs
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).
• Lack of availability of affordable units in
a range of sizes
• High cost of living, cost burden
• Multi-Ffamily Residential Overlay Amendments
(Program 1-B)
• Education Workforce Housing Overlay (Program
1-E)
• Congregational Overlay (Program 1-F)
• Family-Sized Rental Units (Program 3-D)
Citywide • Facilitate development of 515 803 new housing units by Q4 2031 (Program 1-B)
• 1100 new housing units, at least densities deemed affordable 30 percent of which would be made available to lower income households through long-term affordability agreements (Program 1-E)
• 100 new housing units affordable to Low and Very Low Income Households on properties owned by religious facilities (Program 1-F)
• Promote the development of 20 rental units with two or three bedrooms over the planning period (Program 3-D)
High
Displacement Risk Analysis by the Urban Displacement
Project indicates risk of displacement in
eastern neighborhoods, in Old Town,
and Downtown.
• Chronic lack of new housing due to
water constraints
• High cost of living, cost burden
• Rising rents, particularly for seniors
on fixed incomes
• Legal Services and Fair Housing Education
(Program 3-A)
• Anti-Displacement Strategy (Program 4-J)
• Rental Assistance Pilot Program (Program 4-B)
• Housing Rehabilitation Program (Program 4-C)
• Recognize Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)
Units as a Housing Type (Program 4-G)
• Development and Replacement Unit
Requirements (Program 6-D)
Citywide, with
specific focus on at
risk areas shown on
Map D-25
• Beginning in Q1 2024, (a) provide funding annually to a fair housing counseling group to; (b) publish information on City website and update annually as appropriate; (c) conduct workshops or seminars annually.
• Evaluate 2 years of rental registry data by end of Q1 2026; Adopt Anti-Displacement Strategy by the end of Q4 2026
• Provide shallow subsidies to 20 lower income households per year throughout the planning period
• Beginning Q1 2024 with annual reporting the CAPER process, provide repairs to 25 lower income homes
• As part of an omnibus Code clean up effort, prepare revisions to Zoning Code to comply with State law and bring to City Council for adoption by end of 2024
• Beginning in Q1 2024, instate new development and replacement unit requirements
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2987, Packet Page 3315 Table D-17: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors Priority
Level
Fair Housing Issue Description Contributing Factor(s) Meaningful Actions Geographic Targeting
2023-2031 Metrics and Timing
Medium
Disparities in Access
to Opportunity
The City of Monterey is located on the
Monterey Peninsula, which has notably
higher access to opportunity scores
than northern and eastern parts of the
county. Access to educational,
environmental, and economic
conditions such as existing in
communities on the Peninsula is
strongly associated with positive longterm outcomes for families and children. Creating more opportunities
for disadvantaged and marginalized
populations in High and Highest
Resource areas will help the City
affirmatively further fair housing.
• Most parts of Monterey are racially
integrated and feature a range of
housing types and densities; however,
housing mobility is limited in some
neighborhoods in the south
designated as RCAAs and shown on
Map D-16B.
• These neighborhoods predominantly
feature low density single-family
housing, often not affordable for
disadvantaged groups.
Promote housing mobility by diversifying housing
types and increasing housing options for
disadvantaged groups in High and Highest Resource
Areas and Census tracts designated as RCAAs as
shown on Map D-16B by:
• Permitting multifamily housing for faculty and
staff on MPUSD school sites (Education
Workforce Housing Overlay Program 1-E)
• Permitting affordable housing on church
properties (Congregational Overlay (Program 1-
F)
• Permitting up to 6 units on single-family
properties subject to a local SB9 ordinance (SB
9 Housing Ordinance (Program 1-J)
• Facilitating homesharing matches in single-family
neighborhoods (Home Sharing and Tenant
Matching Program 3-E)
• Incentivizing affordable ADU/JADUs (Zoning
Incentives for Deed Restricted ADUs/JADUs
Program 3-G)
• Adopting a co-housing overlay to permit cohousing communities on large lots (Program 3- H)
Low density singlefamily neighborhoods
in south of city
designated as RCAAs
and shown on Map
D-16B
• Cumulative target of 200 new housing opportunities for disadvantaged households in low density neighborhoods in the south of the city designated as RCAAs and shown on Map D-16B over the planning period, including affordable ADUs, home sharing opportunities, and school and church-sponsored
affordable housing
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2988, Packet Page 3316
APPENDIX
E
PROGRESS
REPORT UPDATE
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2989, Packet Page 3317 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments Hearing Draft | June 2024 E-1
Appendix – E Fifth Cycle Housing Element
Accomplishments
This Appendix details the City of Monterey’s achievements in implementing the goals, policies, and programs from the 2015–2023 Housing Element. The City made significant progress in addressing housing needs through the development of new units, including units affordable to lower-income and special needs households. A summary of accomplishments by goal and a complete review of the City’s progress in implementing 2015–2023 policies and programs is provided in Table E-1.
E.1 Effectiveness of Programs for Special Housing
Needs
Special needs populations include farmworkers, large families, female-headed single parent households, people experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, seniors, households with extremely low incomes. As shown in greater detail in Table E-1, the City made a diligent, consistent effort to achieve its housing goals that address special housing needs through the implementation of policies and programs from the 2015–2023 Housing Element. Following is a summary of the effectiveness of programs for special housing needs:
• In 2019, MidPen completed an 100% affordable project, the Van Buren Senior Housing project, with 19 rental units of which 18 rental units are affordable to very low- and lowincome seniors at 669 Van Buren Street behind the City's Police Station. • In 2020, the City issued an RFP for 100% affordable housing developments on City owned sites at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street and 424 and 450 Madison Street. The City Council entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with MidPen Housing and in 2022, the City authorized a loan for this project (Madison Street project). The City also received a Permanent Local Housing Allocation grant award for this project in 2021 year in the amount of $116,419 of which 65% of the grant funds can be used for predevelopment costs related to affordable housing development.
• The City provided emergency repair assistance to 22 low- and moderate-income households between 2018 and 2022. 54 total households received rehabilitation assistance between 2018 and 2022 aimed at low-income population, which on average was more than double the objective to assist 5 households per year. 26 total households received assistance under the “Mr. Fixit” program to support low-income type residents owning single-family homes.
• Between 2021 and 2022, the Housing Programs Office spent $1.9 million on housing programs, including support of public services, public facilities improvements, and rehabilitation of non-profit owned facilities used to provide services to the disadvantaged, ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2990, Packet Page 3318 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments E-2 Hearing Draft | June 2024
preservation of existing affordable ownership units, and housing rehabilitation grants. $127,000 was distributed to low-income homeowners for health and safety rehabilitation grants and loans. Public services were provided to 1,714 low- and moderate-income households and individuals including services for seniors, persons with disabilities, homeless persons, youth and families. In addition, over 500 below market rate, deed restricted affordable rental and ownership housing units. Were maintained, administered and monitored. • To support people experiencing homelessness and persons with disabilities City amended its Zoning Code to:
- Allow emergency shelters as a permitted use in a variety of commercial districts throughout the City;
- Define and explicitly allow both supportive and transitional housing types in all zones that allow residential uses and treat these housing types the same as all other housing types in the same zone;
- Provide individuals with developmental disabilities reasonable accommodation rules, policies, practices, and procedures that may be necessary to ensure equal access to housing; and,
- Ensure that ADA regulations and needs are met in all projects. • The City restarted the Down Payment Assistance Program in 2020 and issued 1 new Down Payment Assistance loan for $50,000 to a qualified buyer through the City's Purchase and Resale Program, which supports low-income residents that live and/or work in the City of Monterey. In 2022, two new Down Payment Assistance loans, one totaling $36,750 and the second totaling $35,560, were given to qualified buyers through the City's Purchase and Resale Program.
• The City purchased and resold 16 total units through the Purchase and Resale Program between 2019 and 2022 to support low-income residents.
• Two housing projects at 2200 North Fremont Street and 595 Munras were granted a streamlined permitting process. 595 Munras was completed and includes units affordable to low-income population. 2200 North Fremont Street is under construction and expected to open during the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
E.2 Key Actions
Following is a summary of key actions under each 2015–2023 goal. See Table E-1 at the end of this Appendix for more details.
Goal a. Promote construction of new ownership housing units and conservation of existing ownership housing units to maintain and/or improve the existing balance between owner and rental units in Monterey.
• The City maintains a list of larger developable sites within its specific plans and regularly meets with property owners to determine future housing construction opportunities. • No single-family properties have been rezoned.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2991, Packet Page 3319 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle HE Accomplishments Hearing Draft | June 2024 E-3
• The minimum lot size for single-family subdivisions on existing R-3 lots was reduced in 2018 to help increase the stock of affordable housing.
• New ADU laws became effective to allow additional units, and the Monterey City Code was amended in 2022 to incorporate the new state ADU laws.
Goal b. Broaden the choice of rental housing types available to residents of Monterey in all price ranges and for all family sizes, while maintaining neighborhood compatibility and, where possible, using second units to encourage owner opportunities. • Densities have been increased in some specific plan areas to 100 du/acre or no limit on an individual site if overall density for an area is not achieved. • The City provides brochures that outline the City’s Voluntary Rental Guidelines in the housing office and online.
• The City continues to require a minimum 5,000-square-foot lot size for new apartment developments.
Goal c. Provide family housing opportunities on larger sites and for all income levels. • The City continues to encourage the Housing Authority and for-profit and nonprofit developers to build affordable housing for families with children whenever possible and discuss available incentives. • The City rezoned 20 properties along Garden Road from light industrial and office development to multi-family residential to support affordable housing opportunities for families with children.
Goal d. Encourage maintenance and rehabilitation of the entire housing stock. The City will continue to advertise rehabilitation programs on the City’s website and provide brochures at the City library and housing office.
• 102 households received maintenance and repair assistance provided by the City. • The City purchased a 3-bedroom deed restricted low-income unit to rehabilitate and resell as a low-income unit.
• The City's Ordinance requires new inclusionary housing units to be preserved in perpetuity with a recorded deed restriction.
• The City continues to prioritize funding or acquire funding to assist nonprofits to purchase units that may be lost from the Inclusionary Program or to acquire replacement units. • The City continues to provide online applications for the Purchase and Resale program waiting list to market affordable housing units on the City website.
Goal e. Provide for fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons, regardless of age, sex, family size, race, creed, color, or national origin. • The City worked with Monterey County on an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Regional AI) study. Echo provides fair housing services to the City of Monterey and other jurisdictions in Monterey County.
• City rehabilitation funds are distributed citywide based on applications received.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2992, Packet Page 3320 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments E-4 Hearing Draft | June 2024
• Inclusionary housing program is citywide requirement for all developments exceeding 5 units.
• In 2022, the City referred households to United Way who administered the regional rental assistance program.
Goal f. Remain sensitive to the needs of the elderly, single-parent-headed households, the disabled and large families, and develop positive programs to assist the homeless. • The City has adopted additional ordinance language to ensure that ADA regulations and needs are met in all projects.
• In 2022, the City referred households to United Way who administered the regional rental assistance program.
• The City provides $272,000 amount of public service grants annually to nonprofit providers of services and temporary housing to Monterey homeless. • The worked with the San Andreas Regional Center in Salinas to implement an outreach program that informs families within the City on housing and services available for persons with developmental disabilities.
• The City supported Van Buren Senior Housing Project and Monterey Hotel Apartments, which are both completed and occupied. Van Buren Senior Housing Project includes 19 apartment units, of which 18 are affordable units, while Monterey Hotel Apartment include three very low-income units, such as SROs, nine low-income units, and six moderate income units.
Goal g. Provide adequate sites to build new housing units for all income levels and to meet the City’s fair share of housing needs for 2015-2023.
• The City has retained zoning capacity to meet its regional fair share housing goal. • The City currently allows flexibility in development standards for projects that apply for a density bonus. In addition, the underutilized site list provided on City website.
Goal h. Provide housing that specifically meets the needs of the Monterey workforce. • Affordable housing projects at 587 and 593 Van Buren St and 424 and 450 Madison Street may potentially include 42 affordable units. The developer intends on submitting an SB35 application for seeking ministerial approval of the project. This project is still incomplete and will be constructed during the 6th Cycle Housing Element. • Zoning Code allows flexibility in designing infill housing on larger development sites.
Goal i. Provide incentives for affordable housing, workforce housing, and ownership housing to meet the unique needs identified in the Housing Element. Provide incentives to complement the inclusionary housing program, with a particular goal of maintaining inclusionary housing in perpetuity and increasing the percentage of affordable units. Parking adjustment incentives should not impact residential neighborhoods. • The City amended the Density Bonus Ordinance to provide additional incentives, including reduction in site development standards or a modification of Development Code requirements or design guidelines that exceed the minimum building standards, as well as approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the qualified housing development if ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2993, Packet Page 3321 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle HE Accomplishments Hearing Draft | June 2024 E-5
land uses will reduce the cost of the qualified housing development. These incentives apply to mixed-use/transit-oriented projects in the specific plan areas. • The City amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow density bonuses of up to 35 percent for project exceeding City inclusionary housing percentages or the state-mandated criteria; and to state that projects that receive density bonuses shall maintain affordability for the life of the project.
• The City rezoned 20 industrial properties to allow multi-family housing development. • The City ordinance requires inclusionary housing.
Goal j. The City will continue to promote sustainability and energy efficiency in residential development to lower energy use through energy-efficient urban design and through better design and construction in individual projects.
• All specific plans encourage transit priority projects.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2994, Packet Page 3322 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments E-6 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
Goal a. Promote construction of new ownership housing units and conservation of existing ownership housing units to maintain and/or improve the existing balance between owner and rental units in Monterey.
Program a.1.1. The City will continue to update its
list of larger developable sites and contact property
owners to determine opportunities for housing
construction. There will be an emphasis on
constructing housing types that provide mixed-income
and large family ownership opportunities.
2018 - Promote home
ownership
Annually, 2015-2023 Completed - The City maintains a list of larger developable sites within its specific plans and
regularly meets with property owners to determine
future housing construction opportunities.
Program a.1.2. Maintain existing single-family zoning
throughout the City. Rezoning of single-family land to
other uses should not occur without findings that the
proposed use is more beneficial to the City than
retaining single-family ownership opportunities.
Ongoing, 2015-2023 Completed - The City has maintained existing single-family zoning throughout the City as planned.
No single-family properties have been rezoned
Program a.1.3. Continue to create and adopt
development standards for mixed use areas that have
development potential for new housing units.
Adopt Lighthouse
Specific Plan by
December 2016.
Completed - In August 2016, the City created and
adopted development standards for mixed use
areas that had potential for new housing
development.
Program a.1.4. Continue to work with the major
employers in Monterey and the region to provide
targeted homeownership opportunities for employees
(see Programs h.1.1 and h.1.2).
Meet regularly with
established working
group, 2015-2023
In 2018, proposals were requested for the
allocation of water for affordable housing projects
and two project were awarded water for 10
affordable units.
In 2019, Montage Health purchased rental housing
and is considering a second project purchase.
In 2022, Middlebury Institute finished construction
on a new housing project for students at 787
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2995, Packet Page 3323 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle HE Accomplishments Hearing Draft | June 2024 E-7
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
Munras. The dormitory houses 85 students and 2
resident assistants.
Program a.1.5. Monitor and evaluate the use permit
process for new multi-family projects in the R-3 and
Commercial districts to determine whether the
process qualifies as a constraint to residential
development. Identify strategies to be implemented by
the City to remove any constraint identified by the
evaluation. Provide a summary of the evaluation (and
strategies, if identified) to HCD as a part of the City’s annual reporting requirement.
Annually, 2015-2023
Responsible
In 2018, The City processed entitlements for two
40-unit projects. One is streamlined as a TPP within
the North Fremont Specific Plan area but is
requesting additional density beyond the allowed
density bonus, which requires a use permit. The
other is within a sensitive scenic corridor and
Planning Community District, which requires a use
permit and does not qualify for a CEQA exemption.
Progress continues, though lack of water supply
continues to be significant constraint to
development. Staff has contacted the Monterey
Peninsula Water District and State Water
Resources Control Board about relaxing Condition
#2 of Cease and Desist Order. Little progress has
been made.
Program a.2.1. The City will continue allowing
additional floor area for single-family homes and
eliminate additional parking requirements with building upgrades for historic properties.
Ongoing Completed - Zoning allows flexibility.
Program a.2.2. Begin process for determining
whether City can reduce the minimum lot size for
single-family subdivisions on existing R-3 lots to
increase the stock of affordable housing, while
retaining the existing house where one is present and
Consider reducing
the minimum lot size
and amending the
Zoning Code by
June 2016.
In 2018, existing City regulations allowed for the
reduction of minimum lot size for single-family
subdivisions on existing R-3 lots.
New ADU laws became effective to allow
additional units. The Monterey City Code was
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2996, Packet Page 3324 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments E-8 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
retaining neighborhood character. The program may
use condominium, townhouse, or detached form of
housing units and shall utilize design and construction methods to maximize privacy and minimize sound
transmission.
amended in 2022 to incorporate the new state
ADU laws.
Program a.2.3. Evaluate the Down Payment
Assistance Program to determine if it will be practical to assign the City’s purchase option to qualified
buyers. Investigate opportunities to increase Down
Payment Assistance loans for equity sharing for
detached single-family houses.
Annually 2015-2023 The City restarted the Down Payment Assistance Program in 2020 and issued 1 new Down Payment
Assistance loan for $50,000 to a qualified buyer
through the City's Purchase and Resale Program. In
2022, two new Down Payment Assistance loans,
one totaling $36,750 and the second totaling
$35,560.09, were given to qualified buyers through
the City's Purchase and Resale Program.
Goal b. Broaden the choice of rental housing types available to residents of Monterey in all price ranges and for all family sizes, while maintaining neighborhood compatibility and, where possible, using second units to encourage owner opportunities.
Program b.1.1. Maintain multi-family densities at 30
units per acre in the R-3 zone, specific plan areas, and in commercial zones with the potential for density
bonuses as outlined in Program i.1.2.
Ongoing, 2014-2023 Completed - Densities have been increased in some specific plan areas to 100 du/acre or no limit on an
individual site if overall density for an area is not
achieved.
Program b.1.2. Assist the Housing Authority,
nonprofit agencies, and private developers in providing extremely low-, low-, and very low-income housing as
opportunities become available, using the current
Housing Element as a basis for action.
The City will continue to provide assistance by
streamlining the permit process. A staff member is
assigned to coordinate City reviews. The City will also Ongoing In 2018, the City provided a streamlined process for 2200 North Fremont Street as allowed in the
specific plan for design review. The project yields 8
affordable units. Dedicated staff also processed 595
Munras, yielding 10 units with one affordable unit;
and will process upcoming projects that were
awarded a water allocation in 2018.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2997, Packet Page 3325 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle HE Accomplishments Hearing Draft | June 2024 E-9
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
coordinate with the developer to help make the
project financially feasible, such as by providing lowinterest loans and other incentives when affordable housing goals are met.
In 2019, the City worked with MidPen Housing to
construct a 100% affordable project behind the
City's Police Station.
In 2020, the City issued an RFP for 100% affordable
housing developments on City owned sites.
Multiple proposals were received. In 2022, the City
Council authorized the City Manager to execute a
loan with MidPen Housing to secure a loan and
guarantee a loan obligation for an affordable
housing project at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street
and 424 and 450 Madison Street.
Program b.1.3. Evaluate the existing allocation of
Housing Choice Vouchers and encourage and support
the Housing Authority and private market landlords to
expand utilization of the Housing Choice Voucher
program.
Encourage the Housing Authority to grant 20 percent
rent exceptions for the Monterey area to provide a
greater housing choice for very low-income renters.
Encourage the Housing Authority to market the
Housing Choice Voucher programs to Monterey
landlords and post applications on the City’s website.
Encourage the Housing Authority to recruit more
Monterey families assisted by Housing Choice Voucher
into the Family Self-Sufficiency Program.
Annually, 2014-2023 2018 – The City plans to evaluate the existing allocation of Housing Choice Vouchers and
encourage and support the Housing Authority of
the County of Monterey (HACM) and private
market landlords more in the future to expand
utilization of the Housing Choice Voucher program.
The City plans to address this as part of the update
to the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2998, Packet Page 3326 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments E-10 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
Program b.1.4. The City will encourage affordable
rents by providing brochures that outline the City’s
Voluntary Rental Guidelines, but discourage citywide
rent control.
By June 2016 Completed - The City provides brochures that outline the City’s Voluntary Rental Guidelines in
the housing office and online, and new rental
guidelines were approved.
Program b.1.5. Continue to require a minimum
5,000-square-foot lot size for new apartment
developments.
2014-2023, as new
projects are
processed through
the Planning Office
Completed - The City continues to require a
minimum 5,000-square-foot lot size for new
apartment developments.
Goal c. Provide family housing opportunities on larger sites and for all income levels.
Program c.1.1. Encourage larger units with two or
more bedrooms and open spaces with sufficient area
for children’s play in R-3 developments. The City will
conduct a comprehensive review and revision of the
current parking requirement to determine the
feasibility of requiring at least one-third of any housing development over three units to provide two or more
bedrooms. All housing projects will continue to be
required to provide open space to give residents an
opportunity for outside activities.
Conduct a
comprehensive
review and revisions
of current parking
requirements by
June 2016.
2018 - The City continues to encourage larger units
with two or more bedrooms and open spaces with
sufficient area for children’s play in R-3
developments as projects come forward.
The City conducted a comprehensive review and
revision of the current parking requirement to
determine the feasibility of requiring at least onethird of any housing development over three units to provide two or more bedrooms and reported it
to be unsuccessful and does not plan to pursue this
any longer.
All housing projects are required by the City to
provide open space to give residents an
opportunity for outside activities.
Program c.1.2. Encourage the Housing Authority
and for-profit and nonprofit developers to build
affordable housing for families with children whenever
2015-2023, as
projects are
approved through
Progress continues. In 2021, staff met with multiple
developers to discuss this opportunity in a recently
rezoned area along Garden Road. Garden Road
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 2999, Packet Page 3327 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle HE Accomplishments Hearing Draft | June 2024 E-11
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
possible. The City will discuss family housing needs
with potential developers and the financial and
processing incentives that are available.
the Planning
Department
was previously only available for light industrial and
office development. The City Council adopted
zoning changes to allow multi-family residential.
Many of these developers seem interested in larger
residential units due to water limitations. Since
2020, the City has approved entitlements for 180
housing units. These housing units were either
retrofits of existing buildings or new construction.
Of the 180 housing units, 89 were entitled in 2022.
Goal d. Encourage maintenance and rehabilitation of the entire housing stock. The City will continue to advertise rehabilitation programs on the City’s website and provide brochures at the City library and housing office.
Program d.1.1. Provide emergency major repair
assistance to low- and moderate-income households.
Provide assistance to 5
households per year
2015-2023, as
funding is available
22 total low- and moderate- income households
received emergency major repair assistance. In
2018, the City assisted 18 households; in 2021 the
City assisted 1 household; and in 2022 the City
assisted 2 households
Program d.1.2. Provide rehabilitation assistance in
the form of:
Major rehabilitation loans;
Emergency repair loans; and
Home safety repair grants.
Provide assistance to 5
households per year
2015-2023, as
funding is available
54 total households received rehabilitation
assistance. In 2018 and 2019, the City assisted 18
households; in 2020 and 2021 the City assisted 7
households; and in 2022 the City assisted four
households.
Program d.1.3. Continue the “Mr. Fixit” program to
provide emergency repair assistance, weatherization
and energy retrofits to an average of 10 units per year.
Provide assistance to 5
households per year
2015-2023, as
funding is available
26 total households received assistance under the
“Mr. Fixit” program. In 2018, the City assisted 4
low-income households (estimated $40,000); in
2019, the City assisted 5 households; in 2020 the
City assisted 6 households; in 2021, the City
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3000, Packet Page 3328 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments E-12 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
assisted seven households, and in 2022 the City
assisted four households.
Program d.2.1. Investigate the option of purchasing
inclusionary housing units or other units to replace
them. Investigate programs, nonprofit sponsors, and
funding sources to retain lower-income housing units
at risk of conversion to market-rate rents.
Check on an annual
basis whether
projects are at risk
of conversion to
market rate
Ongoing - In 2018, the City purchased a 3-bedroom
deed restricted low-income unit to rehabilitate and
resell as a low-income unit. The City operates an
effective Purchase and Resale Program.
Program d.2.2. Maintain the affordability of low- and
moderate- income rental units under the Inclusionary
Housing Program through the use of deed restrictions
and continue to implement the Purchase and Resale
Program for owner-occupied inclusionary units.
Ongoing, 2015-2023 Ongoing – The City's Ordinance requires new inclusionary housing units to be preserved in
perpetuity with a recorded deed restriction. The
City purchased and resold 16 total units through
the Purchase and Resale Program: two units in
2019, five units in 2020, five units in 2020, and 4
units in 2022.
Program d.2.3. Continue to monitor at-risk units
and gauge interest in renewal through individual
contacts and surveys. Meet with property owners to
strategize what package of incentives would retain the
affordable units.
Contact property
owners annually to
determine
conversion plans.
The City continues to monitor all units at-risk units
of converting to market rate. The City purchased
and resold 16 total units through the Purchase and
Resale Program: two units in 2019, five units in
2020, five units in 2020, and 4 units in 2022.
Program d.2.4. The City will continue to explore
with local non-profits and other affordable housing
developers strategies and financing alternatives that
can be employed to produce new affordable extremely
low, low and very low-income housing in the
community.
Meet with local
nonprofits annually.
In 2020, the City issued an RFP for 100% affordable
housing developments on City owned sites. In
2022, the City authorized an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement with MidPen Housing for development
of affordable housing at 587 and 593 Van Buren St,
424 and 450 Madison Street. The City also received
a Permanent Local Housing Allocation grant award
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3001, Packet Page 3329 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle HE Accomplishments Hearing Draft | June 2024 E-13
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
in Permanent Local Housing Allocation Funds for
the affordable housing project at Van Buren and
Madison Streets. These funds will be used for
predevelopment costs related to affordable housing
(low-income housing) at this site.
Program d.2.5. Prioritize funding or acquire funding
to assist nonprofits to purchase units that may be lost from the Inclusionary Program or to acquire
replacement units.
Meet with local
nonprofits annually.
Ongoing - The City continues to prioritize funding
or acquire funding to assist nonprofits to purchase
units that may be lost from the Inclusionary
Program or to acquire replacement units. The City
operates an effective Purchase and Resale Program,
through which 16 total units were purchased and
resold: The two units in 2019, five units in 2020,
five units in 2020, and 4 units in 2022.
Program d.2.6. Analyze the feasibility of utilizing a
City-sponsored rehabilitation program to encourage
at-risk units to be retained.
Determine feasibility
by June 2010.
2018 - The City continues to successfully utilize a
City-sponsored single-family rehabilitation program,
a purchase resale first time homebuyer program,
and a down payment assistance program to retain
at- risk units.
Program d.2.7. Implement a program to reduce,
waive, or subsidize local fees associated with
preservation or replacement of at-risk units.
Implement a
program by January
2017.
Completed – No fees are associated with
preservation or replacement of at-risk units.
Goal e. Provide for fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons, regardless of age, sex, family size, race, creed, color, or national origin.
Program e.1.1. Cooperate in countywide fair
housing activities and federal government programs
that emphasize educational and counseling activities.
Ongoing, 2015-2023 Completed- The City worked cooperatively with Monterey County on an Analysis of Impediments to
Fair Housing Choice (Regional AI) study. Echo
provides fair housing services to the City of
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3002, Packet Page 3330 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments E-14 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
Monterey and other jurisdictions in Monterey
County.
Program e.1.2. Provide contract fair housing
mediation for all fair housing complaints and questions.
Advertise fair housing mediation services. Notify social service agencies of programs. Advertise programs
consistent with the City’s Housing Consolidated Plan.
Ongoing, 2015-2023 Ongoing - City contracts with ECHO fair housing services.
Program e.1.3. Distribute available housing subsidies
to sites throughout the City to avoid concentrations of subsidized housing. Inclusionary housing units should
be built on the site of market-rate housing.
Inclusionary housing should be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Ongoing, 2015-2023 Ongoing - City rehabilitation funds are distributed citywide based on applications received.
Inclusionary housing program is citywide
requirement for all developments exceeding 5 units.
A concentration of subsidized housing is not being
created.
Program e.1.4. Continue to provide online
applications for the City’s Purchase and Resale
program waiting list to market affordable housing units on the City’s website.
Ongoing, 2015-2023 Completed - The City provides online applications for the City’s Purchase and Resale program waiting
list to market affordable housing units on the City
website.
Program e.1.5. Continue to provide service referrals
to rental assistance, ownership assistance, homeless
assistance, and general community services.
Ongoing, 2015-2023 The City provides funding to Salvation Army annually. Salvation Army provides some rental
assistance with this funding. The City also provides
funding to nonprofits providing homeless services
such as Gathering Place for Women, Community
Human Services and Interim, Inc. City funds local
non-profits providing various services to qualified
households. Referrals are regularly provided based
on the issue.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3003, Packet Page 3331 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle HE Accomplishments Hearing Draft | June 2024 E-15
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
In 2020, the City provided approximately $960,000
in emergency rental assistance to low income
households.
In 2021, the City provided approximately $894,644
in emergency rental assistance to low income
households.
In 2022, the City referred households to United
Way who administered the regional rental
assistance program.
Program e.1.6. Continue to distribute Housing
Choice Voucher applications at the City’s Housing
Division and have staff available to help applicants with the process.
Ongoing Completed – Applications are available for the
Housing Choice Voucher program.
Goal f. Remain sensitive to the needs of the elderly, single-parent-headed households, the disabled and large families, and develop positive programs to assist the homeless.
Program f.1.1. Provide for needs of special housing
needs groups by complying with ADA regulations in
reviewing private development projects and in Cityassisted housing projects.
Ongoing, 2015-2023,
as projects are
processed through
the Planning
Department
Ongoing - The City has adopted additional
ordinance language to ensure that ADA regulations
and needs are met in all projects.
Program f.1.2. Market low- and moderate-income
housing programs through the use of direct advertising
including, but not limited to, the City’s website,
referrals, brochures, newspapers, and other media.
Information will be
available on the
website by June
2016.
Ongoing - The City markets low- and moderateincome housing programs through the use of direct advertising.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3004, Packet Page 3332 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments E-16 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
Program f.1.3. Encourage the schools, students, and
senior citizen groups to pursue roommate matching
service to take advantage of underutilized homes in
Monterey.
Ongoing, 2015-2023 Future program - The City refers all inquiries to the appropriate school or group on an ongoing basis
and plans to be more proactive in the future.
Program f.1.4. Develop a program of emergency
grants or loans to assist low-income households that
are threatened with eviction. Provide funds on a onetime basis to assist households that could remain in their rental housing units if back rent is paid.
2015-2023, as
funding is available
In 2020, the City provided approximately $960,000
in emergency rental assistance to low income
households.
In 2021, the City provided approximately $894,644
in emergency rental assistance to low income
households.
In 2022, the City referred households to United
Way who administered the regional rental
assistance program.
Program f.1.5. Continue to provide City assistance
to nonprofit providers of services and temporary
housing to Monterey homeless.
Ongoing, as funding
is available
Completed - Public service grants are provided
annually through a competitive process.
Program f.1.6. Amend the City’s Zoning Code to
provide individuals with developmental disabilities
reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices, and procedures that may be necessary to ensure equal
access to housing. The purpose of this is to provide a
process for individuals with disabilities to make
requests for reasonable accommodation in regard to
relief from the various land use, zoning, or building
laws of the City. As part of this program, the City will appoint a staff person to work with disabled persons
who are proposing improvements to accommodate
Amend the Zoning
Code by June 2016.
Completed - The City amended its Zoning Code in
December 2016 to provide individuals with
developmental disabilities reasonable
accommodation.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3005, Packet Page 3333 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle HE Accomplishments Hearing Draft | June 2024 E-17
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
their needs. The purpose is to streamline the permit
review process if needed.
Program f.1.7: Work with the San Andreas Regional
Center in Salinas to implement an outreach program
that informs families within the City on housing and
services available for persons with developmental
disabilities. Such collaboration should include
development of an informational brochure and
information on services on the City’s website, and
providing housing-related training for
individuals/families through workshops.
Development of
Outreach Program
by January, 2017
Completed
Program f.1.8: Develop a program to provide rental
assistance to fill the gap between income levels and the cost of housing for persons with Developmental
Disabilities. The program will include the following
steps: Step One: Work with the regional center to
identify the housing needs of the clients and assist in identifying available housing that meets those criteria.
Step Two: Identify the gaps that limit access to housing for persons with developmental disabilities (i.e.
financial, accessibility). Step Three: Develop Guidelines and market program
Assist 10 persons with
developmental disabilities
Begin Program
Development
January, 2017
In 2019, annual grants were provided to Salvation
Army.
In 2020, the City provided approximately $960,000
in emergency rental assistance to low income
households.
In 2021, the City provided approximately $894,644
in emergency rental assistance to low income
households.
In 2022, the City referred households to United
Way who administered the regional rental
assistance program.
Program f.1.9: Explore models to encourage the
creation of housing for persons with developmental
disabilities and implement a program by 2017. Such
models could include assisting in housing development
Assist 10 persons with
developmental
disabilities.
Begin Program
Development
January, 2017.
Progress continues. In 2019, the City identified city
owned properties for affordable housing
construction. In 2020, the City issued an RFP for
100% affordable housing developments on City
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3006, Packet Page 3334 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments E-18 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
through the use of set-asides, scattered site
acquisition, new construction, and pooled trusts;
providing housing services that educate, advocate,
inform, and assist people to locate and maintain
housing; and models to assist in the maintenance and
repair of housing for persons with developmental
disabilities. The City shall also seek State and Federal monies for direct support of housing construction and
rehabilitation specifically targeted for housing for
persons with disabilities.
owned sites. Multiple proposals were received. In
2022, the City authorized an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement with MidPen Housing for development
of affordable housing at 587 and 593 Van Buren St,
424 and 450 Madison Street. The City also received
a Permanent Local Housing Allocation grant award
in Permanent Local Housing Allocation Funds for
the affordable housing project at Van Buren and
Madison Streets. These funds will be used for
predevelopment costs related to affordable housing
(low-income housing) at this site.
Program f.1.10. Pursuant to Senate Bill 2, the City
will amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow emergency
shelters as a permitted use in a newly created overlay
zone along Del Monte Avenue east of the Naval
Postgraduate School, which has vacant and
underutilized parcels and is close to transit corridors and close to services. The City will create this overlay zone with specific development standards for
emergency shelters. In addition, the City will evaluate adopting development and managerial standards that
will be consistent with Government Code Section
65583(a)(4). These standards may include such items
as:
Lighting;
On-site management;
Develop this overlay
designation by June
2016.
Completed - In 2017, the City amended the Zoning
Ordinance to allow emergency shelters as a
permitted use in a variety of commercial districts
throughout the City.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3007, Packet Page 3335 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle HE Accomplishments Hearing Draft | June 2024 E-19
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
Maximum number of beds or persons to be served
nightly by the facility;
Off-street parking based on demonstrated need; and
Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in
operation.
Program f.1.11. Pursuant to Senate Bill 2, the City
must explicitly allow both supportive and transitional
housing types in all zones that allow residential uses
and treated the same as any other housing type in the
same zone. The City shall update its Zoning Ordinance
to include separate definitions of transitional and
supportive housing as defined in Health and Safety
Code Sections 50675.2 and 50675.14. Both transitional
and supportive housing types will be allowed as a
permitted use in all zones where residential uses are
allowed, subject to only the same restrictions on
residential uses contained in the same type of
structure.
Amend the Zoning
Code by June 2016.
Partially completed – In December 2016, the City
amended the Zoning Code to define and explicitly
allow both supportive and transitional housing
types in all zones that allow residential uses and
treat these housing types the same as all other
housing types in the same zone. Additional
amendments required for residential districts.
Program f.1.12. To support the development of
housing affordable to extremely low- income
households, the City shall apply for state and federal
funding and grant priority to projects that include units affordable to extremely low- income households, such
as SROs.
Annually, 2016-2023 Ongoing - Van Buren Senior Housing Project and Monterey Hotel Apartments have been completed
and are occupied.
Program f.1.13. The City will support regional
efforts to ensure that the need for farmworker
housing is met at a regional level. The City will also
Annually, 2016-2023,
zoning amendments
within six months of
Completed - The regional effort in and around
Monterey will partially address low income housing
by examining farm worker housing. The City has
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3008, Packet Page 3336 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments E-20 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
analyze zoning ordinance on a regular basis for
compliance with and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and
17021.6. Section 17021.5. If any inconsistencies are
found, amendments to achieve compliances shall be
made within six months.
discovery of
inconsistency
found no compliance inconsistency between the
local Zoning Code and State Law.
Program f.1.14. The City will support regional
efforts and pursue the following to create adequate
supportive housing for the community:
Collaborate with Coalition of Homeless Service
Providers and Monterey Homeless Exchange to
develop a target for the number of Permanent
Supportive Housing Units to be developed in the City.
This will be a combination of some percentage of the
current homeless population plus other populations in
need of supportive housing.
Pursue Tenant Based Rental Assistance funding from
HOME Program to support the operations of
permanent supportive housing communities.
Work with the medical community, including CHOMP,
the County, the Central California Alliance for Health
and other providers to support case management and
other tenancy support funding in new supportive
housing communities. Studies have shown that stable
housing results in better health outcomes and that less than 10% of the population uses a disproportionate
amount of health care resources (“Super Utilizers”).
By providing those Super Utilizers who are unstably
Annually, 2016-2023 2018 - The City meets regularly with the Coalition of Homeless Service Providers and Monterey
Homeless Exchange. However, more focus is
needed to achieve these program goals.
The City has not pursue Tenant Based Rental
Assistance funding from HOME Program to support
the operations of permanent supportive housing
communities.
The City meets regularly with the medical
community, including CHOMP, the County, the
Central California Alliance for Health and other
providers to support case management and other
tenancy support funding in new supportive housing
communities.
The City has not facilitated the integration of data
between homeless service providers, medical
service providers and the criminal justice system to
implement more effective discharge planning for
patients and inmates.
The City provides grants and support for fledgling
organizations on an annual basis through its CDBG
program.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3009, Packet Page 3337 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle HE Accomplishments Hearing Draft | June 2024 E-21
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
house (or homeless) with stable housing, hospitals and
providers can save money overall.
Encourage and facilitate integration of data between
homeless service providers, medical service providers
and the criminal justice system to implement more
effective discharge planning for patients and inmates.
Provide capacity grants and support for fledgling
organizations
2019 – 2022: Coalition of Homeless Services
Providers works closely in coordination with the
CDBG subrecipients receiving allocations listed in
the City’s plan: Community Human Services’
program, Safe Place in Monterey, that provides
counseling, family reunification, temporary shelter
and street outreach for homeless youth; Interim
Inc. that provides homeless services, emergency
and temporary housing outreach, and case
management for persons with mental illnesses; the
Salvation Army Homeless Support Services that
provides case management, voucher assistance, and
homeless outreach services; Interim’s Manzanit
House provides short-term crisis services as well as
emergency placement in Monterey’s Laguna
Grande; and the Veterans Transition Center that
provides services for homeless Veterans and their
families.
Goal g. Provide adequate sites to build new housing units for all income levels and to meet the City’s fair share of housing needs for 2015-2023.
Program g.1.1. Retain the zoning capacity to meet
the AMBAG fair share housing goal between January 1,
2015, and July 30, 2023. Retain the opportunity to
construct the remaining fair-share requirement of 157
very low-, 102 low-, 119 moderate-, and 272 above
moderate-income housing units with excess zoning
capacity for housing in mixed- use areas, apartments in commercial zones, and apartments in R-3 zones.
Ongoing, 2015-2023 Completed - The City has retained capacity to meet its regional fair share housing goal. Zoning
retained.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3010, Packet Page 3338 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments E-22 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
Program g.1.2. Encourage exceptional design and
innovative solutions for housing style, through the
implementation of the Downtown and North Fremont
specific plans. The City will soon adopt a specific plan for the Lighthouse area, another mixed-use/transitoriented development neighborhood.
Continue to adopt
and implement
design guidelines for
mixed- use/transitoriented
development
neighborhoods
(2015-2023).
Ongoing implementation - All specific plans have
been adopted, including Lighthouse Avenue.
Program g.1.3. The City will actively support the
redevelopment of underutilized mixed- use sites to
meet the City’s RHNA allocation and to provide
additional affordable housing opportunities throughout
the City near transit stops, jobs, and services. The City will assist in the development of these underutilized
sites by offering the following assistance:
The City will post a listing of underutilized sites on the City’s website and provide this list of sites to
developers interested in developing mixed-use projects
in the City.
The City will, where appropriate and when funds are
available, assist with the development of affordable
housing projects on these underutilized sites.
The City will also provide technical assistance with
applying for additional funding to construct an
affordable mixed-use project on an underutilized site.
The City will provide flexibility in development
standards on the construction of an affordable housing
Provide a listing of
sites to affordable
housing developers
in the area on a
yearly basis and
assist developers as
projects are
processed through
the Planning Office,
2015-2023
Ongoing - The City awarded water allocations to
affordable, mixed-use projects on underutilized
sites and has been provided technical assistance for
development. The City currently allows flexibility in
development standards for projects that apply for a
density bonus. Underutilized site list provided on
City website.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3011, Packet Page 3339 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle HE Accomplishments Hearing Draft | June 2024 E-23
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
project on an underutilized site including but not
limited to reduced setback requirements and reduced
parking requirements on a case-by-case basis.
Goal h. Provide housing that specifically meets the needs of the Monterey workforce.
Program h.1.1. Encourage workforce housing
programs for major Monterey employers, utilizing land
and other resources available to those employers that
could be devoted to workforce housing. Develop a
program where land costs are removed or reduced as
a cost of housing. Provide both owner and renter
housing with a requirement for permanent cost
reductions.
Continue meeting
with working group
on regular basis,
2015- 2023
In 2018, the City supported the acquisition of a
mixed use project with deed restricted units by a
major employer. In 2020, the City issued an RFP for
100% affordable housing developments on City
owned sites. In 2022, the City authorized an
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with MidPen
Housing for development of affordable housing at
587 and 593 Van Buren St, 424 and 450 Madison
Street. The City also received a Permanent Local
Housing Allocation grant award in Permanent Local
Housing Allocation Funds for the affordable housing
project at Van Buren and Madison Streets. These
funds will be used for predevelopment costs related
to affordable housing (low-income housing) at this
site.
Program h.1.2. Encourage workforce housing
programs by the City of Monterey for Monterey City
employees.
Develop programs
for City Council
consideration by
2017
2018 - 2022 The City encourages workforce
housing programs and City employees can apply for
the City’s first-time homeowner program.
Program h.1.3. Utilize zoning tools such as Planned
Unit Developments and Planned Community Zoning to
provide flexibility in designing infill housing on larger development sites.
2015-2023, as
projects are
submitted to the
Ongoing implementation - Zoning Code allows this
flexibility.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3012, Packet Page 3340 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments E-24 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
Planning
Department
Goal i. Provide incentives for affordable housing, workforce housing, and ownership housing to meet the unique needs identified in the Housing Element. Provide incentives to complement the inclusionary housing program, with a particular goal of maintaining inclusionary housing in perpetuity and increasing the percentage of affordable units. Parking adjustment incentives should not impact residential neighborhoods.
Program i.1.1. Continue to encourage mixeduse/transit-oriented projects in the specific plan areas that include affordable units by offering height and
parking exceptions to affordable housing projects.
2015-2023, as
projects are
submitted to the
Planning Office
City amended the Density Bonus Ordinance to
provide additional incentives.
Program i.1.2. Continue to allow density bonuses, as
appropriate. Amend the zoning ordinance to state that:
Density bonuses of up to 35 percent may be allowed
for projects that exceed City inclusionary housing
percentages or the state-mandated criteria for lowincome, moderate-income, and special-needs housing; and
Projects that receive density bonuses shall maintain
affordability for the life of the project.
Amend ordinance by
June 2016 and
implement as
projects are
submitted.
Completed - The City amended the Zoning
Ordinance to allow density bonuses of up to 35
percent for project exceeding City inclusionary
housing percentages or the state-mandated criteria.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance has also been
amended to state that projects that receive density
bonuses shall maintain affordability for the life of
the project.
Program i.1.3. If new water is available for future
allocation, the City shall give preference to projects
meeting fair-share housing goals.
2015-2023, as
projects are
approved through
the Planning, Office
Completed.
Program i.1.4. Develop alternatives for long-term
water supply both within and outside the framework
of the Water Management District and the California
American Water Company.
2015-2023, develop
long-term water
alternatives
City has actively participated in a regional water
supply project. Water has yet to be secured.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3013, Packet Page 3341 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle HE Accomplishments Hearing Draft | June 2024 E-25
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
Program i.1.5. The City is committed to ensuring
that there is enough water to meet the needs of all
new residential units within the 2015-2023 RHNA
period. California American Water (CalAm) is moving
forward with its Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP) consisting of slant intake wells, a
desalination plant and related facilities. The project EIR has been completed and CPUC approval is expected in
October 2016, prior to the December 2016 SWRCB
CDO deadline. Pipeline, slant well, and desalination
plant construction is expected to be completed in
2019. The City will continue its participation with the water authority and support the MPWSP.
Ongoing, 2015-2023 City has actively participated in a regional water supply project. Water has yet to be secured.
Program i.1.6. The City will continue to explore
alternatives other than density bonus allowed in state
law (Section 65915) to meet affordable housing goals.
Ongoing, 2015-2023 Progress continues - City rezoned industrial properties to allow multi-family housing
development.
Program i.1.7. The City will deliver the adopted
housing element update to water and sewer service
providers within a month after adoption. When
submitting copies of housing elements to service
providers the City will include a summary /
quantification of the local government’s regional
housing need allocation and any other appropriate
housing information.
One month
following adoption
Completed - The City provided the adopted
housing element to water and sewer service
providers within a month from adoption.
Program i.2.1. Continue to provide a minimum of 20
percent permanently affordable low- and moderateincome units for any project with six or more new 2015-2023, as
projects of 6 or
more units are
Progress continues – City ordinance requires
inclusionary housing and the City continues to
implement.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3014, Packet Page 3342 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments E-26 Hearing Draft | June 2024
Table E-1: Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of Monterey Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element. 1 2 3 4
Program Objective Timeframe in
H.E. Status of Program Implementation
housing units or for condominium conversion. The
City will also explore means and methods to provide
incentives to include inclusionary units in new
apartment construction. Residential projects are
encouraged to satisfy the requirement by providing a
minimum of 20 percent inclusionary housing units onsite. processed through
the Planning
Department
Program i.2.2. Investigate a community housing trust
to meet the need for workforce housing and other
housing needs.
Investigate a
community housing
trust by June 2017.
2018 - The City is in discussions with the County
to participate in a regional Housing trust to meet
the need for workforce housing and other housing
needs.
2019 – 2022: Future program.
Goal j. The City will continue to promote sustainability and energy efficiency in residential development to lower energy use through energy-efficient urban design and through better design and construction in individual projects.
Program j.1.1. Encourage Transit Priority Projects,
site designs, and use of building materials that promote energy efficiency.
Continue to
implement specific
plans.
Progress continues - All Specific Plans encourage
transit priority projects. Transit oriented projects
are being proposed.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3015, Packet Page 3343
APPENDIX
F
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AND
INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF
HOUSING PROJECTIONS
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3016, Packet Page 3344 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Appendix F: Additional Analysis and Information in Support of Housing Projections Table of Contents
Housing Precedent Projects and Capacity Projections in Monterey County........... F-1 Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites.................................................................................... F-26 Non-Residential Development Trends in Mixed Use and Overlay Areas................. F-37 Letters of Support.................................................................................................... F-40 Letter of Interest from Monterey Peninsula Unified School District – June 27, 2023 ....................................................................................................................F-41 Letter of Support from Monterey Peninsula Unified School District – September 24, 2023 ..........................................................................................F-43 Marina CoastWater District Letter – March 8, 2024....................................F-44 ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3017, Packet Page 3345 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Appendix F: Additional Analysis and Information in Support of Housing Projections F-1
Precedent Projects and Capacity Projections
A majority of the sites included on the housing sites inventory in Appendix A are non-vacant, meaning they contain buildings or other significant improvements that are permanent and add significantly to the value of the property. Per State law, if the inventory identifies non-vacant sites to address a portion of the regional housing need allocation, analysis is required to demonstrate the viability of sites for redevelopment with housing during the planning period. Accordingly, a survey of recent residential development projects was conducted to confirm that the characteristics of sites identified are conducive to redevelopment and to establish average as-built densities that can be applied to determine the realistic capacity of sites included in the inventory.
Although housing demand is high in the city, production has been severely constrained by water supply availability. erefore, the survey also considered recent residential development projects on comparable sites in Seaside, Marina, and Sand City that do not face the same water supply constraints as Monterey so as to provide a realistic estimate of the future capacity of sites when new water supply is available. Profiles of the recent residential precedents are included below, detailing project location, site characteristics prior to redevelopment, and approved/constructed densities. Table F-1 summarizes the pertinent characteristics of precedent high density projects surveyed, including project name, location, site size, zoning, number of units, as built density, affordability and construction status.
Table F-2 provides a comparison of development standards and permit procedures applicable to precedent projects surveyed and non-vacant sites on the Monterey housing inventory. e comparison indicates that the standards applicable to non-vacant sites in Monterey are generally more supportive of high density development than those applicable to high density developments in Sand City, Seaside and Marina.
• Density: Permitted density is generally between 20 and 35 du/ac on precedent sites, with up to 58 du/ac permitted in the MU-P zone in Sand City through bonus density intended to incentivize lot consolidation. By comparison, City of Monterey standards provide greater maximum density, with up to 100 du/ac allowed under current zoning Downtown; up to 60 du/ac proposed in the North Fremont Specific Plan Area, Garden Road, and the Pacific/Munras/Cass areas; and 30 du/ac in other mixed use areas. • Building heights: Building height limits range from 48 feet in Marina to 60 feet in Sand City. Building height limits in Monterey currently vary widely: there are no building height limits for multifamily development in the MFR overlay on Garden Road; height limits are between 2 and 4 stories downtown; up to 3 stories in other specific plan areas; and 2 stories or 25 feet in other commercial areas, with 3 stories permitted with a CUP. As discussed in Appendix C, building heights represent a potential constraint in the Alvarado district downtown and a clear constraint in the Pacific/Munras/Cass area. Accordingly, through Program 1-C the building height limit will be raised to 5 stories in the Alvarado District (where the majority of downtown opportunity sites are concentrated) and increased in the North Fremont specific plan area to integrate development at the ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3018, Packet Page 3346 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Appendix F: Additional Analysis and Information in Support of Housing Projections F-2
proposed densities. rough Program 1-B, the City will apply the MFR overlay to the Pacific/Munras/Cass area and create new standards for building heights, setbacks, and other zoning parameters as need to facilitate development at the densities envisioned and to permit development by right subject to objective standards. As described in Appendix C, the capacities projected in the inventory are achievable under current zoning standards in the Lighthouse Specific Plan area and on larger sites with Commercial zoning, such as the Del Monte Shopping Center or sites along Del Monte Avenue. • Setbacks: Setbacks vary widely for precedent projects with no minimum setbacks in the CC District in Seaside, 5-10 foot setbacks in Marina (except where projects abut existing residential), and setbacks established through a CUP process in Sand City. Similarly, setbacks in the City of Monterey vary by context. Downtown and along the commercial corridor of Abrego - areas with the highest intensity of development - there are no minimum setbacks established; on Garden Road in the MFR Overlay, front, side and rear setbacks are set at 50 feet in order to buffer new residential uses from existing adjacent commercial and industrial uses; in other areas, standards require a front setback that is within the range of neighboring properties. Given the size of sites on Garden Road and the adjacent existing uses, the setbacks established in the MFR overlay will not preclude development as envisioned in the inventory; however, as discussed in Appendix C existing side setback requirements in the Pacific/Munras/Cass area would not permit development as envisioned and accordingly, through Program 1-B the City will revise the MFR overlay to incorporate appropriate and objective development standards for setbacks and building heights. Additionally, through Programs 1-C and 2-D the City will revise adopted specific plans and the City Code to remove subjective standards and replace them with objective standards that facilitate development as envisioned in the Housing Element, including standards for setbacks.
• Parking: Parking requirements vary for precedent projects, as shown. rough Program 2-E in the Action Plan, the City of Monterey will revise parking standards to eliminate minimum requirements for projects within a 1/2 mile of major transit stop as required under State law and to reduce the minimum parking requirements for multi-unit buildings to an average maximum of 1.5 spaces per bedroom and 1 space per studio unit for projects located within one half mile of other major public transit routes. With these amendments, City standards will be comparable to those in Marina and more favorable than for precedent projects in Sand City and Marina.
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3019, Packet Page 3347 TABLE F-1 RECENTLY APPROVED OR CONSTRUCTED PRECEDENT HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS IN MONTEREY COUNTY Name/Address APN Site Size
(acres) Project Description Zoning Units Density (du/ac) Affordability Location Status Downtown
Van Buren Senior Housing Apartment Project (669
Van Buren Street) 001-512-020-000 0.46 Construct new 19-unit senior affordable apartments. PC-D Downtown Specific Planmax. 30 du/ac 19 41.30 100% Monterey Built 476 Tyler Street Mixed Use 001-574-022 0.54
Convert portion of existing ground floor commercial space and one garage space in mixed-use building into one storage unit for use by onsite tenant renting and three new studio apartments. Twenty-four units in total developed on this site.
PC-D Downtown Specific Plan
max. 30 du/ac 24 44.44 10% Low10% Moderate Monterey Approved Tyler and Pearl 001-574-015-000 0.11 Construction of 6 residential units. PC-D Downtown Specific Plan max. 30 du/ac 6 54.55 10% Low10% Moderate Monterey Approved South of Tioga Redevelopment Project Parcel R1
(California Ave and Tioga Ave) 011-601-001-000 1.28 Hotel and residential development on six newly created parcels. Planned Mixed Use (MU-P) max. 23.23 du/ac1 100 78.13 Sand City Under Construction South of Tioga Redevelopment Project Parcel R2
(California Ave and Tioga Ave) 011-601-002-000 4.11 Hotel and residential development on six newly created parcels. Planned Mixed Use (MU-P) max. 23.23 du/ac1 320 77.86 Sand City Under Construction Shores at Marina (3125 DeForest Road) 032-171-018 1.66 Multi-family residential that includes 11% affordable/inclusionary housing for Very Low Income.
C-1 Retail Business District
20-35 du/ac 58 35.00 11% Marina Approved
Average Density 55.21
Commercial corridors (high)
Seaside Senior Living Project (550 Monterey Road) 031-141-004 5.47 Construction of two buildings with parking lots, landscaping and existing small open space that would be left in a ruderal setting. The larger building will be assisted living facility and memory care facility for elderly.
CC Community Commercial
max. 25 du/ac2 144 26.33 48.6% Seaside Under Construction 2000 Garden Road 013-312-008 1.79 Conversion of an existing two-story fitness building into a three-story apartment complex with total 34 studio units.
R-4 Multifamily Residential
15-35 du/ac 34 18.99 20% Monterey Under Construction
Veteran's Transition Center Supportive Housing (229-
239 Hayes Circle) 031-021-040 2.3
A 3-story, 71-unit housing structure giving homeless veterans a place to live in perpetuity with no transitional requirements. The proposal was approved by the city of Marina in November 2018 and construction is estimated to be completed around March 2024.
R-4 Multifamily Residential
15-35 du/ac 71 30.87 100% Marina Approved
2200 North Fremont 013-171-014-000 0.92 Allow 42 dwelling units per acre density with advisory review of a new 3- story, 40-unit mixed-use building.
PC-NF North Fremont Specific Plan
20-30 du/ac 40 43.48 20% Monterey Approved
The Ascent (Broadway/Terrace Street)
012-191-001-000; 012-
191-002-000; 012-191-
003-000; 012-191-004-
000; 012-191-030-000;
012-191-031-000; 012-
191-033-000; 012-191-
034-000; 012-191-035-
000
2.85 A building workforce rental housing project with ten buildings and a total of 106 units. Ascent is the first new multi-family housing project to be built in Seaside in over 20 years; the proposal was approved in November of 2019. The project would also be mixed-use with 4,079 SF of retail.
CMX Commercial Mixed-Use
max. 25 du/ac2 106 37.19 15% Seaside Under Construction Shores at Marina (3125 DeForest Road) 032-171-018 1.66 Multi-family residential that includes 11% affordable/inclusionary housing for Very Low Income.
C-1 Retail Business District
20-35 du/ac 58 35.00 11% Marina Approved
Average Density 31.977
Notes
1. Any lots greater than 9,375 square feet (0.22 acres) grant density bonuses. Existing lots or newly consolidated merged lots of 43,125 square feet or more may be granted up to a maximum 250% density bonus.
2. Maximum number of dwelling units allowed in a project. The actual number of units allowed will be determined by the City through subdivision or planning permit approval, as applicable. 12%
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3020, Packet Page 3348 TABLE F-2 COMPARISON OF ZONING PARAMETERS - PRECEDENT PROJECTS AND CITY OF MONTEREY STANDARDS Jurisdiction Sand City Seaside Marina Monterey Monterey Zoning Planned Mixed Use (MU-P) Community Commercial (CC) C-1 Retail Business District Planned Community MFR Overlay Density 23 - 58 du/ac
(Set base density and bonuses available
for lot consolidation)
25 du/ac 20-35 du/ac 30 - 100 du/ac 60 du/ac
Height 60 feet 50 feet 48 feet (4 stories) 3 - 5 stories 5 stories Setbacks Per approved site plan (ie discretionary) Front: 0 ft Side (interior): 0 ft
Side (street side): 0 ft
Rear: 0 ft
Front: 10 ft
Side (interior): 0 ft
Side (street side): 5-10 ft
Rear: 5 ft (20 where abutting
residential)
Various
Downtown and Abrego: 0 ft
Elsewhere generally, a front
setback that is within the range of
neighboring properties
Front: 50 ft
Side: 50 ft
Corner Side: 50 ft
Rear: 50 ft
Lot Coverage Per CUP (ie discretionary) Not defined Not defined Not defined Not defined Parking 0-2 bedrooms: 1.5/unit
3+ bedrooms: 2/unit
1 covered space/ unit,
plus 1 guest space/each 10 units
1 space/unit 0 within 1/2 mile of major transit
stop;
elsewhere 1.5/1+ bedroom unit and
1/ studio
0 within 1/2 mile of major transit
stop;
elsewhere 1.5/ 1+ bedroom unit
and 1/ studio
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3021, Packet Page 3349 Monterey Housing Element
Precedents: High Density Housing Projects in Monterey County
APPENDIX F
ATTACHMENT 3 / EXHIBIT A
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3022, Packet Page 3350 Monterey
Address: 669 Van Buren Street
Prior Use: Residential
Units Developed: 19
Status: Complete
Site Area (Acres) 0.46 acres (20,038 SF)
Zone: PC-D Downtown Specific Plan
Project Density: 41.30 du/ac
On-site Parking: 10
Project Description: Removal of three buildings on Van Buren Street and 26 parking spaces to construct 19 units for extremely low, very low and lowincome seniors developed on City-owned land.
Site Location Building Exterior
COMPLETE
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3023, Packet Page 3351 Monterey (continued)
Building Rendering
Building Interior Building Exterior
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3024, Packet Page 3352 Monterey
Address: 476 Tyler Street
Prior Use: Commercial/residential
Units Developed: 24
Status: Approved
Site Area (Acres) 0.54 acres (23,522 SF)
Zone: PC-D Downtown Specific Plan
Project Density: 44.44 du/ac
On-site Parking: 17
Project Description: Convert portion of existing ground floor commercial space and one garage space in mixed-use building into one storage unit for use by on-site tenant renting and three new studio apartments. Twenty-four units in total developed on this site.
Site Location: Site Plan
APPROVED
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3025, Packet Page 3353 Monterey (continued)
Building Rendering
Existing Building
Elevation
⾃
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3026, Packet Page 3354 Sand City
Address: R1 (South of Tioga Project)
Prior Use: Industrial, commercial and residential
Units: 100
Status: Under Construction
Site Area (Acres) 1.28 acre (SF)
Height of Buildings: 85’ (5 stories + 2 stories parking) Zone: Planned Mixed-Use (MU-P)
Project Density: 78.125 du/ac
Site Location Site Plan
Parking: 151
Project Description: South of Tioga project includes a hotel and residential development on six newly created parcels. The overall project site is approximately 10.64 acres; the site was comprised mostly of blighted light industrial/warehouses, heavy commercial uses, undeveloped but degraded sand dunes and dilapidated residential structures. Demolition commenced in 2021.
Onsite Amenities: Pool club, fitness, leasing office and club room
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3027, Packet Page 3355 Sand City (continued)
Project Rendering
R1 Ground Floor Plan
Project Elevation
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3028, Packet Page 3356 Sand City
Address: R2 (South of Tioga Project)
Prior Use: Industrial, commercial and residential
Units: 320
Status: Under Construction
Site Area (Acres) 4.11 acre (179,031 SF)
Height of Buildings: 85’ (5 stories + 2 stories parking) Zone: Planned Mixed-Use (MU-P)
Project Density: 77.86 du/ac
Site Location Site Plan
Parking: 486
Project Description: South of Tioga project includes a hotel and residential development on six newly created parcels. The overall project site is approximately 10.64 acres; the site was comprised mostly of blighted light industrial/warehouses, heavy commercial uses, undeveloped but degraded sand dunes and dilapidated residential structures. Demolition commenced in 2021.
Onsite Amenities: Pool club, fitness, leasing office and club room
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3029, Packet Page 3357 Sand City (continued)
R2 Ground Floor Plan
Project Rendering
Project Elevation
Project in Context
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3030, Packet Page 3358 Marina
Address: 3125 DeForest Rd
Prior Use: Vacant
Units Developed: 58
Very-low Income 7
Status: Approved
Site Area (Acres) 1.438 acres (62,639 SF)
Height of Buildings: 65’-9” (5 stories)
Zone: C-1 “Retail Business District”
Project Density: 40.33 du/ac
Open Space: 25,495 SF
On-site Parking: 64
Project Description: Proposed project to change land use designation from multiple use to multi-family residential and zoning map amendment for change from C-1 to “SP-Shores at Marina” specific plan zoning designation.
Affordable/inclusionary housing will provide 11% of the units as Very Low Income on-site.
Onsite Amenities: 667 SF leasing office , 667 SF fitness room, 8,116 SF of passive recreation space, including roof-top BBQ areas, outdoor dining space and viewing terraces.
Site Location: Site Plan
APPROVED
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3031, Packet Page 3359 Marina (continued)
Building Rendering
Building Rendering
Elevation
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3032, Packet Page 3360 Seaside
Address: 550 Monterey Road
Prior Use: Residential Care Facility
Units Developed: 144
Status: Under Construction
Site Area (Acres) 3.2 acre (139,392 SF)*
Height of Buildings: 34’ (2 stories)
Zone: Community Commercial (CC)
Project Density: 26.28 du/ac
Project Description: Construction of two buildings with parking lots, landscaping and existing small open space that would be left in a ruderal setting. The larger building will be assisted living facility and memory care facility for elderly.
Onsite Amenities: On-site memory support, healthcare by licensed professionals and recreational activities along with cultural and therapeutic programs to seniors
Site Location Site Plan
Open Space 17,958 SF
Parking: 92
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
*Note: total land area is 5.47; buildable area is 3.2 acres Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3033, Packet Page 3361 Seaside (continued)
Project Rendering
Project Rendering
Project Elevations
Project Rendering
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3034, Packet Page 3362 Monterey
Address: 2000 Garden Road
Prior Use: Fitness Building
Units Developed (studio): 66
Status: Under Construction
Site Area (Acres) 1.79 acre (78,173 SF)
Height of Buildings: 34’ (3 stories)
Zone: I-R (Industrial Administration and
Research
Project Density: 37 du/ac
Open Space: 364 square feet per unit
Parking: 66
Project Description: Conversion of an existing two-story fitness building into a three-story apartment complex with total 66 studio units.
Onsite Amenities: Bike storage, pool deck, unit storage, balcony/patio for each unit, onsite parking, open space and shaded areas
Site Location
Site Plan
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3035, Packet Page 3363 Monterey (continued)
Building Elevations
Floor Plan Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3036, Packet Page 3364 Marina
Address: 229-239 Hayes Circle
Prior Use: Former US Army Post
Units Developed: 71
Status: Approved
Site Area (Acres) 2.4 acres (104,365 SF)
Height of Buildings: 42’ (3 stories)
Zone: R-4 Multi-family Residential
Project Density: 29.58 du/ac Open Space: 32,135 SF
Parking: 60
Project Description: A 3-story, 71-unit housing structure giving homeless veterans a place to live in perpetuity with no transitional requirements. The proposal was approved by the city of Marina in November 2018 and construction is estimated to be completed around March 2024.
Onsite Amenities: Common room, computer room, manager’s office, pet wash, laundry facilities, meditation room, fitness room, playground and services office
Site Location Site Plan
APPROVED
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3037, Packet Page 3365 Marina (continued)
Rendering Aerial View
Project Rendering Elevation
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3038, Packet Page 3366 Monterey
Address: 2200 North Fremont Blvd
Prior Use: Vacant
Units Developed: 40
Low Income 8
Status: Under Construction
Site Area (Acres): 0.92 acre (40,175 SF)
Zone: Planned Community – North Fremont
(PC-NF)
Project Density: 43.47 du/ac
Parking: 73
Project Description: Construct a three-story mixed-use building with 40 apartment units and 6,000 square feet of commercial space Site Location Site Plan
UNDER REVIEW
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3039, Packet Page 3367 Monterey (continued)
Building Rendering
Building Rendering
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3040, Packet Page 3368 Seaside
Address: Broadway/Terrace St
Prior Use: Residential, commercial, and federal
(mostly vacant)
Units Developed: 106
Affordable: 16
Status: Under Construction
Site Area (Acres) 2.85 acre (124,533 SF)
Height of Buildings: 41’ (3 stories)
Zone: Commercial Mixed-Use
Project Density: 37.19 du/ac
Project Description: A building workforce rental housing project with ten buildings and a total of 106 units. Ascent is the first new multi-family housing project to be built in Seaside in over 20 years; the proposal was approved in November of 2019. The project would also be mixed-use with 4,079 SF of retail.
Site Location Site Plan
Residential Parking: 144
Commercial Parking 12
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3041, Packet Page 3369 Seaside (continued)
Project Rendering Project Rendering
Project Rendering
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3042, Packet Page 3370 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Appendix F: Additional Analysis and Information in Support of Housing Projections F-26
Suitability of Non-Vacant Sites
e inventory identifies 157 non-vacant sites to accommodate lower, moderate, and above moderate RHNA. In the near term until additional water supply becomes available, non-vacant sites are the most viable candidates for redevelopment in the City of Monterey because water supply is available for them through a system of water credits. As discussed in Appendix C, if adequately sized water meters exist on non-vacant properties, water credits are available that can be reused to allow for redevelopment with new residential or commercial uses. By contrast, vacant sites that do not have existing water meters cannot be developed until SWRCB Order WR 95-10 is lied and a new water supply has been in operation for a number of years.
Profiles of representative non-vacant sites from each of the opportunity areas are provided below, showing aerial views of the sites, photos of existing development, and pertinent site characteristics indicating redevelopment potential. Table F-3 presents indicators of redevelopment viability for all 157 individual sites, including age of existing structures; existing versus allowable floor area; and proposed zoning. While the age of existing structures is not available for all sites, available data indicates that 85 percent of the sites have structures more than 40 years old and almost all are older than 30 years old. Additionally, the data show that existing development represents only a fraction of development permitted under current land use and zoning - 84 percent of the sites currently use less than 20 percent of the maximum allowable floor area. It should be noted that the 465 Tyler Street site downtown was added at the request of the property owners, who expressed interested in redeveloping their site with housing within the planning period.
In preparing the Public Review Dra Housing Element, the City sent a survey to all non-vacant property owners to gauge their interest in redevelopment with housing and to solicit input on the challenges they face and actions the City can take to support redevelopment for interested owners. A full 91 percent of owners who responded indicated interest in redevelopment with housing and the sites whose owners indicated they were not interested in residential redevelopment were removed. Owner input identified water supply availability as the primary barrier to redevelopment, however, other issues identified by owners included construction costs, the complexity of the permitting process, and adequate density standards to assist with development feasibility. Owner feedback informed development of programs in the action plan, including:
• Program 1-B - e City will apply the MFR overlay to the Pacific/Munras/Cass area allowing residential development at 60 du/acre by right with our discretionary review, subject to objective standards for height, setbacks, parking, and other parameters that support the development of high density housing in this area adjacent to Downtown Monterey.
• Program 1-C - e City will amend the North Fremont Specific Plan to permit allowing residential development at 60 du/acre by right with our discretionary review, subject to Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3043, Packet Page 3371 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Appendix F: Additional Analysis and Information in Support of Housing Projections F-27
objective standards to integrate higher density product, establish appropriate transitions to adjacent lower density development, and ensure the projected yield of new units can be achieved; amend the Downtown Specific Plan to increase permitted building heights in the Alvarado District, offer municipal shared parking agreements to projects that propose a minimum number of new housing units in proximity to a City-owned parking lot or structure, and incorporate additional incentives for lot consolidation; and amend the Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plan to permit 100 percent residential projects fronting Lighthouse Avenue, offer municipal shared parking agreements to projects that propose a minimum number of new housing units in proximity to a City-owned parking lot or structure, and incorporate additional incentives for lot consolidation. • Program 1-D - the City will develop and implement a Permit Streamlining Pilot Project that allows housing projects by-right in portions of the Downtown and Pacific/Munras/Cass areas with concentrations of housing opportunity sites, delegates design review to staff (except for properties in the National Landmark Historic District), and establishes expedited permitting procedures.
• Program 2-B - the City will review its permit thresholds and identify revisions to eliminate disparate treatment of residential projects for multi-family and mixed use projects with four or more units in R-2, R-3, C-1, C-2, C-3, CO, and CR Districts. • Program 2-D - the City will revise adopted plans and zoning with objective standards for multifamily and mixed use development in the 14 adopted area and neighborhood plan areas.
• Program 2-E - the City will revise parking standards to eliminate minimum requirements for projects within a 1/2 mile of major transit stop as required under State law and to reduce the minimum parking requirements for multi-unit buildings to an average maximum of 1.5 spaces per bedroom and 1 space per studio unit for projects located within one half mile of other major public transit routes. • Program 2-M - the City will identify internal process improvements to further reduce the time required for review and approval of planning, engineering, and building permits, such as establishing regular inter-departmental coordination meetings and designating a staff member track and expedite review. e City will also amend the City Code to allow for affordable multi-family projects to utilize 3-D modeling or other comparable methods in lieu of story poles and netting.
None of the owners who responded to the survey indicated that easements, leases, or other conditions would preclude development of their sites and based on municipal records and other information, the City is not aware of any existing leases, contracts or other conditions that would prevent redevelopment of the sites with housing during the planning period.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3044, Packet Page 3372 TABLE F-3 INDICATORS OF REDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FOR NON-VACANT SITES APN Owner Site Address ExistingLandUse YearBuilt ACRES BLDGSQFT LOTSQFTDB Max FAR Percent Max FAR ZONING_COD OVERLAY ZONING_1 ZONE_DESCP OPPORTUNITYAREA PROPGP PROPZON 013322010000 MARK EDEN 46 GARDEN CT Business Park/Light Industrial 1969 1.13 8402 49281 0.80 0.21 I-R RA-ES-MF I-R-130-RA-ES-MF INDUSTRIAL Garden Road/Airport Employment (E) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001681015000 REAL MANUEL J TR DAVIS LN Business Park/Light Industrial 1965 0.22 2541 9411 3.00 0.09 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001072003000 KNAPP REAL ESTATE LLC 774 LIGHTHOUSE AVE Business Park/Light Industrial 1965 0.25 5120 11079 2.00 0.23 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001071001000 MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION 899 FOAM ST Business Park/Light Industrial 1967 0.13 2000 5871 2.00 0.17 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013161028000 DANBURY MAIN LLC 2370 N FREMONT ST General Commercial 1977 3.26 33454 141981 2.00 0.12 PC NF PC-NF PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001761039000 AAT DEL MONTE LLC 100 DEL MONTE CENTER General Commercial 1984 1.94 212500 84451 3.00 0.11 C-2 SC C-2-SC COMMERCIAL-2 Outside Opportunity Areas Commercial (C) 013112039000 SVETICH JAMES M & ASSOCIATES INC 2161 N FREMONT ST General Commercial 1960 1.80 25116 78349 2.00 0.16 PC NF PC-NF PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 259041017000 HASTINGS JUSTIN H 11 THOMAS OWENS WAY General Commercial 1997 1.00 7656 43448 2.00 0.09 I-R D2-ES I-R-20-D2-ES INDUSTRIAL Ryan Ranch Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001761047000 AAT DEL MONTE 2 LLC 1500 DEL MONTE CENTER General Commercial 1984 1.16 84680 50327 3.00 0.11 C-2 SC C-2-SC COMMERCIAL-2 Outside Opportunity Areas Commercial (C) 013151026000 NG LOM & NG 2400 N FREMONT ST General Commercial 0.59 0 25715 2.00 0.00 PC NF PC-NF PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013031046000 OUTZEN CARL M TR ET AL 2200 DEL MONTE BLVD General Commercial 1976 0.43 4770 18670 3.00 0.09 C-3 D2-ES C-3-D2-ES COMMERCIAL-3 Delmonte Commercial (C) 001073005000 COSTA CHRISTOPHER A TR & COSTA PAUL T 725 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1949 0.41 3950 18039 2.00 0.07 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001572004000 WELLS FARGO BANK N A TR ET AL 464 ALVARADO ST General Commercial 1925 0.56 11225 24287 2.00 0.23 PC D PC-D PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013031088000 MOUNT KING LLC 2232 DEL MONTE BLVD General Commercial 1940 0.78 12152 34122 3.00 0.12 C-3 D2-ES C-3-D2-ES COMMERCIAL-3 Delmonte Commercial (C) 013134047000 FRISBIE PROPERTIES LLC 543 RAMONA AVE General Commercial 1968 0.56 5329 24483 2.00 0.11 PC NF PC-NF PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001074011000 WORK PATRICIA S TR ET AL 381 DAVID AVE General Commercial 1986 0.34 2533 14636 2.00 0.09 C-2 C-2 COMMERCIAL-2 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001731023000 JJ&W JIB LLC 889 ABREGO ST General Commercial 1968 0.36 1925 15742 3.00 0.04 C-2 ES C-2-ES COMMERCIAL-2 Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001581010000 CALLAHAN WESLEY N & JANICE M CALLAHAN TRS 533 HARTNELL ST General Commercial 1952 0.36 8496 15601 2.00 0.27 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001691010000 505-561 TYLER STREET LLC 559 TYLER ST General Commercial 1930 0.31 5199 13692 2.00 0.19 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001064003000 SHYMANSKI THOMAS R 471 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1951 0.28 7470 12041 2.00 0.31 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013056006000 MIND & MOTION CA LLC 205 ENGLISH AVE General Commercial 1964 0.25 7200 11051 3.00 0.14 C-3 D2 C-3-D2 COMMERCIAL-3 Delmonte Commercial (C) 001066017000 GHS SINGH LLC 663 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1930 0.25 3600 10823 2.00 0.17 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001572010000 TEABY JOHN E & MORAZ ANDREA TRS 434 ALVARADO ST General Commercial 1975 0.23 6867 9826 2.00 0.35 PC D PC-D PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001035007000 ROTTER GREGORY S TR 201 FOAM ST General Commercial 1972 0.26 6098 11123 2.00 0.27 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001025009000 MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION THE 500 FOAM ST General Commercial 0.26 0 11122 2.00 0.08 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013133002000 BENCH JOSHUA LAWRENCE ET AL 2407 N FREMONT ST General Commercial 1962 0.24 2100 10491 2.00 0.10 PC NF PC-NF PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001072012000 JOHNSON WALLIS-BARBARA TR 715 FOAM ST General Commercial 1972 0.25 2688 11104 2.00 0.12 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001693001000 HAWKS HOLDINGS M LLC 444 WASHINGTON ST General Commercial 1965 0.20 2604 8904 2.00 0.15 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001726017000 CULCASI FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 565 ABREGO ST General Commercial 1967 0.21 3149 9173 2.00 0.17 PC D-H1-ES PC-D-H1-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001696005000 ANSEL JOSEPH G JR & MICHAEL O ANSEL TR ET AL 520 ABREGO ST General Commercial 1965 0.22 1824 9456 2.00 0.10 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001661014000 PALMA ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED 1244 MUNRAS AVE General Commercial 1969 0.20 1438 8780 3.00 0.05 C-2 SC-ES C-2-SC-ES COMMERCIAL-2 Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001691007000 SAUNDERS SHAW PROPERTIES LP 560 HOUSTON ST General Commercial 1966 0.19 0 8170 2.00 0.04 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001062008000 COSENTINO LOUIE P ET AL 514 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1944 0.20 4680 8651 2.00 0.27 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001574005000 SAUCITO LAND COMPANY 482 TYLER ST General Commercial 1964 0.16 2670 7064 2.00 0.19 PC D PC-D PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001065017000 CONGDON JEFFREY TR 584 HAWTHORNE ST General Commercial 0.14 0 5978 2.00 0.14 R-3 R-3-5 RESIDENTIAL-3 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001025010000 MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION THE 528 FOAM ST General Commercial 1961 0.13 2600 5485 2.00 0.08 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001065014000 LAM TED S & TIFFANY M TRS ET AL 360 MC CLELLAN AVE General Commercial 1964 0.14 2580 6040 2.00 0.21 C-2 C-2 COMMERCIAL-2 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001066006000 VERMI ANNA C TR 611 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1966 0.14 3500 6013 2.00 0.29 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001074005000 BARSOTTI PROPERTIES LLC 831 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1988 0.14 3324 5993 2.00 0.07 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001074003000 BARSOTTI PROPERTIES LLC 867 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 0.14 0 5993 2.00 0.07 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001061005000 WRIGHT JOHN ALBERT 638 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1960 0.13 3300 5536 2.00 0.30 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001072015000 NEW MONTEREY CENTER LLC 740 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1965 0.13 3735 5528 2.00 0.09 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001065016000 CONGDON JEFFREY TR 585 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1922 0.14 1537 6019 2.00 0.14 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001065003000 APPLING MOTELS INC 571 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1966 0.14 5316 6019 2.00 0.22 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001065004000 APPLING MOTELS 557 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 0.14 0 6018 2.00 0.22 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001732009000 MONTEREY MUSEUM OF ART ASSOCIATION 590 PERRY ST General Commercial 1978 1.82 7585 79238 3.00 0.03 C-2 ES C-2-ES COMMERCIAL-2 Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001021005000 CANNERY ROW COMPANY THE 600 CANNERY ROW General Commercial 1925 0.99 8638 43227 2.00 0.10 CR CR CANNERY ROW Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001682009000 CYPRESS PLAZA INC 724 ABREGO ST General Commercial 1965 0.95 15898 41338 3.00 0.13 C-2 ES C-2-ES COMMERCIAL-2 Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001063017000 456 PROPERTIES LLC 456 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1956 0.38 8033 16535 2.00 0.24 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013134040000 2333 N FREMONT STREET LLC 2333 N FREMONT ST General Commercial 0.43 4002 18603 2.00 0.11 PC NF PC-NF PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013171015000 SOLA ALISON WORK ET AL 2228 FREMONT BLVD 8-30 General Commercial 0.70 13080 30590 2.00 0.21 PC NF PC-NF PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001682022000 BEI-SCOTT COMPANY LLC 300 FREMONT ST General Commercial 0.33 4859 14564 3.00 0.11 C-2 ES C-2-ES COMMERCIAL-2 Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001034002000 7-ELEVEN INC 398 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 0.25 3182 11024 2.00 0.14 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013171004000 SOLA ALISON W ET AL 2210 N FREMONT ST General Commercial 0.23 2291 9938 2.00 0.12 PC NF PC-NF PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001681036000 EUREKA GROUP LLC 601 CASS ST General Commercial 1940 0.23 1705 10016 3.00 0.06 C-2 ES C-2-ES COMMERCIAL-2 Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 013134036000 BEI-SCOTT COMPANY LLC 557 RAMONA AVE General Commercial 0.26 2400 11380 2.00 0.11 PC NF PC-NF PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001065001000 CONGDON JEFFREY TR 591 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1966 0.13 3512 5862 2.00 0.14 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001074002000 BUONAGUIDI JOHN F & DEBRA G TRS 883 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1966 0.11 1788 4794 2.00 0.19 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013056002000 MIND & MOTION CA LLC 215 ENGLISH AVE General Commercial 0.13 0 5568 3.00 0.14 C-3 D2 C-3-D2 COMMERCIAL-3 Delmonte Commercial (C) 001074008000 BARSOTTI PROPERTIES LLC 850 HAWTHORNE ST General Commercial 0.11 0 4734 2.00 0.07 R-3 R-3-5 RESIDENTIAL-3 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013056008000 MIND & MOTION CA LLC 2414 DEL MONTE BLVD General Commercial 1950 0.11 1810 4957 3.00 0.14 C-3 D2 C-3-D2 COMMERCIAL-3 Delmonte Commercial (C) 001035009000 BOLES ANNA L TR 214 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 1920 0.09 1609 3840 2.00 0.21 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001691012000 SAUNDERS SHAW PROPERTIES LP 580 HOUSTON ST General Commercial 1966 0.11 0 4726 2.00 0.04 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001691011000 SAUNDERS SHAW PROPERTIES LP 528 HOUSTON ST General Commercial 1948 0.04 1200 1738 2.00 0.04 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001574014000 DAVI JOHN G TR 117 PEARL ST General Commercial 1935 0.05 1312 2141 2.00 0.31 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001026001000 ELISCHER CASSADY DAVIS TR 499 WAVE ST General Commercial 1910 0.13 1299 5451 2.00 0.12 C-2 C-2 COMMERCIAL-2 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001761048000 AAT DEL MONTE LLC 1410 DEL MONTE CENTER General Commercial 1984 43.68 379124 1902479 3.00 0.11 C-2 SC C-2-SC COMMERCIAL-2 Outside Opportunity Areas Commercial (C) 001074004000 BARSOTTI PROPERTIES LLC 857 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 0.14 0 5993 2.00 0.07 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001062018000 MONTEREY PM INVESTMENTS LLC 554 LIGHTHOUSE AVE General Commercial 0.09 1482 3711 2.00 0.20 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013031047000 TORRAS LEASING CO INC 2220 DEL MONTE BLVD General Industrial 1959 1.26 3581 54968 3.00 0.02 C-3 D2-ES C-3-D2-ES COMMERCIAL-3 Delmonte Commercial (C) 013031044000 MYALL MONTEREY LLC 225 DELA VINA AVE General Industrial 1959 0.31 5000 13665 3.00 0.12 C-3 D2-ES C-3-D2-ES COMMERCIAL-3 Delmonte Commercial (C) 013031037000 MOLDENHAUER CALVIN DAVID TR ET AL 249 DELA VINA AVE General Industrial 1981 0.14 3650 6125 3.00 0.20 C-3 D2-ES C-3-D2-ES COMMERCIAL-3 Delmonte Commercial (C) 001073017000 OTTERWAY LLC 778 HAWTHORNE ST Hotel, Motel, Lodging Commercial 0.43 6064 18884 2.00 0.16 R-3 R-3-5 RESIDENTIAL-3 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001881058000 MONTEREY LODGE NO 1285 BPOE 150 MAR VISTA DR Institutional 1963 3.75 22255 163194 n/a n/a R-3 R-3-20 RESIDENTIAL-3 Outside Opportunity Areas Medium Density Residential (R-MD) 001681037000 EUREKA GROUP LLC 600 MUNRAS AVE Mixed Uses 1966 0.65 4902 28482 3.00 0.06 C-2 ES C-2-ES COMMERCIAL-2 Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 013031081000 KHALIL MAGDI & ASMA TRS 2240 DEL MONTE BLVD Mixed Uses 1986 0.60 10120 25987 3.00 0.13 C-3 D2-ES C-3-D2-ES COMMERCIAL-3 Delmonte Commercial (C) 001071015000 ALWAYS SUNNY LLC 800 LIGHTHOUSE AVE Mixed Uses 2000 0.26 5347 11487 2.00 0.12 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001064005000 WISSMEIER PETER G & WISSMEIER KARIN H TRS 401 LIGHTHOUSE AVE Mixed Uses 0.27 2217 11761 2.00 0.09 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001035013000 DAVI ANTHONY G TR 296 LIGHTHOUSE AVE Mixed Uses 1926 0.25 7260 10970 2.00 0.33 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001071006000 ALWAYS SUNNY LLC 801 FOAM ST Mixed Uses 0.26 0 11112 2.00 0.12 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001015003000 867 WAVE STREET PARTNERS 867 WAVE ST Mixed Uses 1988 0.13 3035 5581 2.00 0.27 C-2 C-2 COMMERCIAL-2 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001073010000 CRICELLI ANTONIO 724 HAWTHORNE ST Mixed Uses 0.14 0 5952 2.00 0.13 R-3 R-3-5 RESIDENTIAL-3 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001726019000 SAUNDERS SHAW PROPERTIES L P 431 WEBSTER ST Mixed Uses 1958 0.40 6810 17496 2.00 0.15 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001025015000 DEYERLE BROTHERS ENTERPRISES LLC 598 FOAM ST Mixed Uses 1963 0.25 3640 10828 2.00 0.17 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001061002000 LORNA JEAN TORKOS REVOCABLE TRUST 600 LIGHTHOUSE AVE Mixed Uses 1934 0.13 3547 5450 2.00 0.33 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001388003000 401 ALVARADO LLC TYLER ST Mixed Uses 0.14 0 6229 2.00 0.00 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001726003000 SAUNDERS SHAW PROPERTIES L P 444 ALMA ST Mixed Uses 0.12 0 5037 2.00 0.15 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001671026000 SCHOLINK LARRY G & SHONNA REE 1011 CASS ST Office 1973 0.62 15098 27032 3.00 0.12 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001683015000 MONTEREY COUNTY BANK 601 MUNRAS AVE Office 1975 0.64 7708 28024 2.00 0.14 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001074006000 OUTZEN CARL M TR 801 LIGHTHOUSE AVE Office 1956 0.55 11113 23883 2.00 0.23 PC-LH H2 PC-LH-H2 PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001603017000 920 CASS PARTNERS LLC 920 CASS ST Office 1971 0.57 3991 24734 3.00 0.05 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001661043000 M & M SMILE INVESTMENTS LLC & CRISWELL ENTERPRISES 81 VIA ROBLES Office 1945 0.38 5208 16496 3.00 0.11 R-3 AP R-3-AP RESIDENTIAL-3 Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3045, Packet Page 3373 001681057000 TRINGALI REALTY COMPANY 155 SARGENT ST 173 Office 1931 0.28 4197 11983 3.00 0.12 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001672007000 COMPAGNO JOSEPHINE D TR ET AL 193 ELDORADO ST Office 1956 0.41 5130 17883 3.00 0.07 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001696008000 ROMEKA CHRISTINA M TR ET AL 301 WEBSTER ST Office 1935 0.31 4950 13287 2.00 0.19 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001692004000 FOURSOME DEVELOPMENT COMPANY-AM CHAPTER 5 445 TYLER ST Office 1986 0.32 6851 13847 2.00 0.25 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001672011000 GATHERING FOR WOMEN MONTEREY 147 ELDORADO ST Office 1960 0.32 3992 14132 3.00 0.09 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001591034000 RAMIREZ ALFREDO & ESTRELLA C 30 DORMODY CT Office 1964 0.25 3285 10826 2.00 0.15 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001671028000 BENNETT JOHN F TR 993 CASS ST Office 1933 0.22 3558 9638 3.00 0.08 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001727011000 ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF MONTEREY THE 492 WEBSTER ST Office 1954 0.24 8742 10549 2.00 0.23 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001671031000 SCHOLINK LARRY G 159 CARMELITO AVE Office 0.20 0 8561 3.00 0.12 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001591033000 EUREKA GROUP L P 22 DORMODY CT Office 1964 0.18 1780 7648 2.00 0.12 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001603037000 HALPERN JAMES A & CHERYL TRS 1030 CASS ST Office 1975 0.14 1261 6168 3.00 0.07 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001591042000 EL DORADO MONTEREY VENTURE LLC 276 ELDORADO ST Office 1954 0.13 1308 5568 3.00 0.08 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001671027000 SCHOLINK LARRY & SHONNA REE CASS ST Office 1973 0.13 0 5774 3.00 0.12 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001672022000 LIU YING 150 CARMELITO AVE Office 1990 0.13 2138 5812 3.00 0.12 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001681002000 WILCOX WALTER J & MARTHA L TRS 182 ELDORADO ST Office 1972 0.12 982 5414 3.00 0.06 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 013312015000 REDWOOD GULCH LLC 2200 GARDEN RD Office 5.72 18914 248955 0.80 0.09 I-R RA-ES-MF I-R-130-RA-ES-MF INDUSTRIAL Garden Road/Airport Employment (E) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001693002000 HAWTHORNE GATEWAY LP 200 FRANKLIN ST Office 1982 1.26 39269 54850 2.00 0.36 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001681055000 BARNES JAMES DEREK ET AL 829 CASS ST Office 0.38 0 16350 3.00 0.00 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001692014000 KILCASKAN PROPERTIES LLC 465 TYLER ST Office 0.16 6552 7151 2.00 0.46 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013121015000 LESSER ADAM J & KHIRSTINE 530 RAMONA AVE Office 1975 0.14 2450 6027 n/a n/a PC NF-ES PC-NF-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Medium Density Residential (R-MD) 001591041000 KUCHER SUSAN D 266 ELDORADO ST 270 Office 1957 0.12 1752 5397 3.00 0.11 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001671008000 BENNETT JOHN F TRS CARMELITO AVE Office 0.11 0 4846 3.00 0.08 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001672025000 LEBOVIC GAIL S 174 CARMELITO AVE Office 1994 0.12 1426 5024 3.00 0.09 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001725007000 3-D 563 FIGUEROA ST Office 1926 0.11 1861 4688 2.00 0.20 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001672031000 MARTIN CHARLES J TR 142 CARMELITO AVE Office 1985 0.11 1100 4706 3.00 0.08 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001672033000 COMPAGNO JOSEPHINE D TR ET AL 929 CASS ST Office 0.12 0 5141 3.00 0.07 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001726006000 SAUNDERS HENRY E & DARLEEN M TRS & SAUNDERS HENRY 470 ALMA ST Office 0.09 0 3949 2.00 0.10 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001603029000 HAMMACK TRINA L 1088 CASS ST Office 1932 0.11 1313 4792 3.00 0.09 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001691004000 MAIORANA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 244 PEARL ST Office 1960 0.10 2321 4145 2.00 0.28 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001672034000 KAJIKURI HISASHI & DIANE S TRS 167 ELDORADO ST Office 1991 0.10 912 4486 3.00 0.07 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 013132016000 MAHER FOUNDATION 345 KOLB ST Office 1950 0.09 960 4127 2.00 0.12 C-1 C-1 COMMERCIAL-1 North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001726007000 SAUNDERS HENRY E 484 ALMA ST Office 1920 0.07 1422 3151 2.00 0.10 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001603030000 KRYGER HARVEY A AKA ABRAHAM H KRYGER 1084 CASS ST Office 1920 0.06 995 2563 3.00 0.13 CO ES CO-ES COMMERCIAL OFFICE Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 013312006000 TONKIN H JAMES TR ET AL GARDEN RD Office 2002 6.50 17756 282987 0.80 0.08 I-R RA-ES-MF I-R-130-RA-ES-MF INDUSTRIAL Garden Road/Airport Employment (E) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001016015000 FOURSOME DEVELOPMENT CO 784 FOAM ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.49 0 21515 2.00 0.00 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001681047000 EUREKA GROUP LP 693 CASS ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.28 0 12341 3.00 0.00 C-2 ES C-2-ES COMMERCIAL-2 Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001681034000 EUREKA GROUP LP CASS ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.31 0 13648 3.00 0.00 C-2 ES C-2-ES COMMERCIAL-2 Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001016001000 FOURSOME DEVELOPMENT COMPANY THE 141 IRVING AVE Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.26 0 11130 2.00 0.00 C-2 C-2 COMMERCIAL-2 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001064009000 LITTLE MATTHEW A & JOAN M TRS 381 MC CLELLAN AVE Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.24 0 10329 2.00 0.00 R-3 R-3-5 RESIDENTIAL-3 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001072004000 MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION 763 FOAM ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.25 0 11102 2.00 0.00 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001681048000 FIVE CORNERS INVESTMENT LLC 862 MUNRAS AVE Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.23 0 10212 3.00 0.00 C-2 ES C-2-ES COMMERCIAL-2 Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) 001692007000 ALP LP 471 TYLER ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.18 0 7871 2.00 0.00 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001574015000 HOLMAN BUILDING ASSOCIATES L P TYLER ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 1965 0.11 0 4853 2.00 0.00 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001692010000 468 WASHINGTON LLC 468 WASHINGTON ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.13 0 5880 2.00 0.00 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001016002000 FOURSOME DEVELOPMENT CO 765 WAVE ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.13 0 5534 2.00 0.00 C-2 C-2 COMMERCIAL-2 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001023008000 MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION WAVE ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.17 0 7476 2.00 0.00 C-2 C-2 COMMERCIAL-2 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001032011000 300 LLC THE 270 FOAM ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.11 0 4660 2.00 0.00 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001032010000 300 LLC THE 258 FOAM ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.11 0 4654 2.00 0.00 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001016008000 CUTINO BERT P TR ET AL 750 FOAM ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.13 0 5503 2.00 0.00 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001023009000 MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION 628 WAVE ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.08 0 3523 2.00 0.00 C-2 C-2 COMMERCIAL-2 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001572031000 DAVI ANTHONY G TR Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.26 0 11245 2.00 0.00 PC D PC-D PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001572032000 DAVI ANTHONY G TR Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.02 0 1045 2.00 0.00 PC D PC-D PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001022019000 MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION WAVE ST Parking Lots/Garage (Private) 0.26 0 11473 2.00 0.00 C-2 C-2 COMMERCIAL-2 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001534011000 CITY OF MONTEREY CALLE PRINCIPAL Public 0.50 0 21593 2.00 0.00 PC D PC-D PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001694008000 CITY OF MONTEREY ADAMS ST Public 0.26 0 11529 2.00 0.00 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001694009000 CITY OF MONTEREY 442 ADAMS ST Public 0.11 0 4631 2.00 0.00 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013151035000 SAMMUT ANTHONY & CHRISTINE TRS 2400 N FREMONT ST Service Station 2005 0.94 2929 41122 2.00 0.04 PC NF PC-NF PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013041009000 TESORO SIERRA PROPERTIES LLC 2338 DEL MONTE BLVD Service Station 1998 0.51 2400 22406 3.00 0.04 C-3 D2-ES C-3-D2-ES COMMERCIAL-3 Delmonte Commercial (C) 013133003000 FEDERAL CONSULTING INC 580 CASANOVA AVE Service Station 1950 0.36 3063 15899 2.00 0.10 PC NF PC-NF PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001683013000 CHEVRON USA INC 351 FREMONT ST Service Station 1989 0.35 2072 15321 2.00 0.07 PC D-ES PC-D-ES PLANNED COMMUNITY Downtown Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013112040000 MOVAHEDI ZAHRA H & MOVAHEDI HEYDAR A 2191 N FREMONT ST Service Station 1966 0.20 1200 8546 2.00 0.07 PC NF PC-NF PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001077001000 K BHATIA LLC 899 HAWTHORNE ST Service Station 1973 0.32 1365 13860 2.00 0.05 C-2 C-2 COMMERCIAL-2 Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 013171008000 KING KLEAN ENTERPRISES LLC 2236 N FREMONT ST Service Station 0.23 1607 10168 2.00 0.08 PC NF PC-NF PLANNED COMMUNITY North Fremont Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001074010000 WORK PATRICIA S TR ET AL 899 LIGHTHOUSE AVE Service Station 1934 0.20 890 8704 2.00 0.05 PC-LH PC-LH PLANNED COMMUNITY Lighthouse Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN) 001682023000 KUMAR GURDISH 398 FREMONT ST Service Station 0.28 0 12041 3.00 0.00 C-2 ES C-2-ES COMMERCIAL-2 Pacific/Munras Commercial (C) Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3046, Packet Page 3374 Area 1: Lighthouse
528 Foam St
SITE DETAILS
APN: 001025010000
Site Area: 0.13 acres
Existing Land Use: General Commercial
FAR: 0.16 (Low)
AV Ratio: 0.47 (Very Low)
Year Built: 1961
Commercially zoned site without a current tenant. The existing buildings are over 60 years old, and the property has an AV ratio of less than 0.5 providing an incentive for the owner to redevelop with new uses that can command higher rents or sales price. Additionally, the as built FAR is 0.16 whereas the maximum permitted FAR on the site is 2.0, which means current development uses only 8 percent of the maximum permitted, signaling strong redevelopment potential. The site is located one block east of Lighthouse Avenue, a high frequency transit corridor with shops and services.
Street View
3D Aerial View
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3047, Packet Page 3375 Area 1: Lighthouse
381 McClellan Avenue
SITE DETAILS
APN: 001064009000
Site Area: 0.24 acres
Existing Land Use: Parking Lot
FAR: 0.00 (Low)
AV Ratio: 0.00
Year Built: N/A
Property Owner Interest in Redevelopment? Yes
Commercially zoned site with no existing structures. Maximum permitted FAR on this site is 2.0 and the property is located one block west of Lighthouse Avenue, a high frequency transit corridor with shops and services. The owner has expressed interest in redeveloping the property with housing during the planning period.
Street View
3D Aerial View
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3048, Packet Page 3376 Area 2: Downtown
528-580 Houston Street
SITE DETAILS
APN: 001691007000, 001691012000, 001691011000
Site Area: 0.34 acres
Existing Land Use: General Commercial
FAR: 0.8 (Low)
AV Ratio: 0.20 (Very Low)
Year Built: 1948
Three adjacent properties under common ownership with a combined area of
0.34 acres. Existing uses consist of low-slung commercial development and surface parking. The property has an AV ratio of less than 0.2 providing a strong incentive for the owner to redevelop with new uses that can command higher rents or sales price. Additionally, the as built FAR is 0.08 whereas the maximum permitted FAR on the site is 2.0, which means current development uses only about 19 percent of the maximum permitted, signaling strong redevelopment potential. The site is centrally located in Downtown Monterey, across from a Trader Joe's supermarket and the Monterey Transit Plaza.
Street View
3D Aerial View
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3049, Packet Page 3377 Area 3: Pacific/Munras/Cass
862 Munras Avenue
SITE DETAILS
APN: 001681048000
Site Area: 0.23 acres
Existing Land Use: Parking Lot
FAR: 0.00 (Low)
AV Ratio: 0.02 (Very Low)
Year Built: N/A
Commercially zoned property developed as a surface parking lot. The site has an AV ratio of just 0.02 and maximum permitted FAR is 2.0, signaling strong redevelopment potential. The site is located within easy walking distance to Downtown Monterey, making it a good location for multifamily housing.
Street View
3D Aerial View
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3050, Packet Page 3378 Area 4: Del Monte
2220 Del Monte Ave
APN: 013031047000
Site Area: 1.26 acres
Existing Land Use: General Industrial
FAR: 0.07 (Very Low)
AV Ratio: 0.55 (Low)
Year Built: 1959
Property Owner Interest in Redevelopment? Yes
Commercially zoned site on Del Monte Avenue, an important commercial corridor that connects cities on the Peninsula. Existing use is a building materials business, but the owner has expressed interest in redeveloping the site with housing during the planning period. Low AV ratio and buildings over 60 years old are also indicators of redevelopment potential. The as built FAR is 0.07 whereas the maximum permitted FAR on the site is 3.0, which means current development uses only 2 percent of the maximum permitted, further pointing to strong redevelopment potential.
Street View
3D Aerial View
SITE DETAILS
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3051, Packet Page 3379 Area 5: North Fremont
2209 North Fremont Street
APN: 013121007000
Site Area: 0.26 acres
Existing Land Use: Abandoned Parking Lot
FAR: 0.01 (Low)
AV Ratio: 0.00 (Very Low)
Year Built: N/A
Commercially zoned property on North Fremont Street, a major commercial and transit corridor in the eastern part of the city. Developed as a surface parking lot but not currently in use. Very low AV ratio as built FAR are strong indicators of redevelopment potential. While under different ownership, the adjacent site is also vacant and were the two sites to be consolidated development potential could be further increased.
Street View
3D Aerial View
SITE DETAILS
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3052, Packet Page 3380 Area 6: Garden Road/Airport
2200 Garden Road
APN: 013312015000
Site Area: 5.72
Existing Land Use: Office
FAR: 0.08 (Low)
AV Ratio: 0.64 (Low)
Year Built: 1984
This commercially zoned property on Garden Road is currently for sale. Only a portion of the 5.72-acre site is currently developed and the as built FAR is 0.08, while the maximum permitted development intensity is 0.8 FAR, meaning that current development uses only 9 percent of the maximum permitted. AV ratio and age of existing structures also indicate redevelopment potential.
Street View
3D Aerial View
SITE DETAILS
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3053, Packet Page 3381 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Appendix F: Additional Analysis and Information in Support of Housing Projections F-37
Non-Residential Development Trends in Mixed Use and
Overlay Areas
Zoning in the Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Specific Plan areas and in the Garden Road and Pacific/Munras/Cass opportunity areas where the Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O) would apply permits 100 percent residential, mixed use, and 100 percent nonresidential projects. To support the realistic capacity projections for residential development in mixed use and overlay areas, City staff conducted a review of approved developments in these areas since 2017. e results are shown on Table F-4. Between 2017 and 2023, there were six residential mixed use projects and five 100 percent residential projects approved, which collectively resulted in 142 new dwelling units and 16,122 square feet of new non-residential space. No 100 percent non-residential project were approved in these areas during the same period and all projects involved a residential component.
Overall, the results indicate a much stronger performance trend for residential development than for non-residential development. Dwelling unit size was not readily available for the projects in Table F-4, but conservatively assuming an average unit size of 800 square feet, approximately four times more residential space was approved than non-residential space. Additionally, staff reports that the highest number of inquiries from developers and property owners interested in building housing are made regarding properties in the Garden Road opportunity area, where the MFR-O currently applies, and the Pacific/Munras/Cass opportunity area, where the MFR-O will be applied pursuant to Program 1-B. During the public review period for the Dra Housing Element. Property owners in the Pacific/Munras/Cass opportunity area submitted letters and spoke before decision-makers to request zoning changes to facilitate higher density development. e application the MFR-O to this area was done to respond to these requests and expressed interest from the development community. All of this indicates robust demand for use of the overlay in areas where it would apply.
It should also be noted that the Downtown, North Fremont, Lighthouse, and Pacific/Munras/Cass opportunity areas all include properties with Visitor Accommodating Facility (VAF) zoning, where housing is not permitted. For each opportunity area, the total acreage of VAF properties, some of which are currently underutilized, is shown on Table F-5. is data indicates that there is ample land available to accommodate non-residential development in the mixed use and overlay areas in addition to housing on opportunity sites included on the inventory.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3054, Packet Page 3382 TABLE F-4 RECENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS - CITY OF MONTEREY (2017-2023) Project No. APN Address Zoning
Residential
Units
Non-Residential
(square feet)
Planning
Approval Project Description
MU-1 001-691-001-000 595 Munras Avenue PC-D Downtown Specific Plan 10 5,499 7/19/18 Construct new two-story building with first floor retail and second floor residential
MU-2 001-672-022-000 150 Carmelito Avenue CO-ES 1 N/A Convert existing commercial to residential 001-574-005-000 479 Alvarado St PC-D Downtown Specific Plan - - N/A Existing 2686 sf commercial space. No change to sf. 001-574-005-000 479-473 Alvarado PC-D Downtown Specific Plan - 506 N/A 479-473 Alvarado common area 001-574-026-000 473-475 Alvarado PC-D Downtown Specific Plan - - N/A Existing 2589 sf commercial space. No change to sf. 001-574-029-000 473 Alvarado PC-D Downtown Specific Plan 7 2696 N/A Combine existing adjacent building at 473/375 Alvarado to make one site.
Remodel a portion of existing 1st floor for new storefront and existing 2nd floor for 7 total residential units
MU-4 001-712-010-000 537 Anthony St PC-D Downtown Specific Plan 2 611 9/3/20 Convert existing warehouse into office and 2-bedroom apartment MU-5 001-066-007-000 601 Lighthouse PC-LH Lighthouse Specific Plan 5 5055 12/6/23 Convert two-story commercial use/ theatre into 5 residential condos and remodled commercial
MU-6 001-574-029-000 476 Tyler St PC-D Downtown Specific Plan 3 1755 4/21/22 Convert existing office space and one garage space into three studio apartments
RES-1 001-671-034-000 1015 Cass Street CO-ES 7 - 10/3/22 Convert existing office to 7 apartment units RES-2 001-771-013-000 200 Glenwood Circle PC 40 - 4/8/29 Construct a new 40-unit senior independent housing RES-3 001-726-010-000 491 Webster St PC-D Downtown Specific Plan 1 - 6/27/17 Added detached garage/ADU RES-4 013-312-004-000 2300 Garden Road I-R-130-RA-ES-MF 64 - 10/27/22 Change occupancy of 35,324 sf commercial to 64 apartment units RES-5 001-062-017-000 551 Foam PC-LH Lighthouse Specific Plan 2 - 6/8/18 Convert existing mixed-use to two residential units and deck 142 16,122
Mixed-Use
MU-3
Residential
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3055, Packet Page 3383 TABLE F-5 ACREAGE AVAILABLE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - CITY OF MONTEREY Opportunity Area Total Acres of Parcels
within Opp Area
Acres of Housing
Opportunity Sites
Acres of Any Sites
with VAF Zoning
Vacant and
Underutilized VAF
Sites
Downtown 86.62 10.64 6.60 0.60
North Fremont 104.21 12.42 17.66 15.42
Lighthouse 69.51 17.09 8.04 1.21
Garden Road 297.70 77.16 2.42 2.42
Pacific/Munras/Cass 87.61 12.24 18.99 10.92
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3056, Packet Page 3384 City of Monterey | Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Appendix F: Additional Analysis and Information in Support of Housing Projections F-40
Letters of Support
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3057, Packet Page 3385
Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
PK Diffenbaugh, Superintendent
700 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: 831.645.1204 Fax: 831.649.4175
June 27, 2023
Re: Housing element program for ministerial permitting of employersponsored housing Dear Planning Director:
The Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) depends on highly qualified and diverse staff in order to meet our educational mission. One of the key constraints to attracting and retaining staff is Monterey County’s critical housing shortage and high cost of living. In order to be a proactive part of the solution to our housing crisis, MPUSD is interested in building housing for our employees on underutilized District owned property. I write to propose a program to make production of employer-sponsored housing more feasible on District owned property.
As you update your General Plan Housing Element for the 6th Cycle RHNA, state law requires you to review and mitigate governmental constraints to housing production. A critical governmental constraint is the uncertainty, delay, and expense of obtaining entitlements to build housing.
To address this constraint, the District proposes the adoption of a policy and a program for streamlined ministerial permitting of employer-sponsored housing.
Modeled after existing law AB 2295 (which was enacted in 2022 and becomes fully effective on January 1, 2024) and SB 35, the program would be implemented by an ordinance providing ministerial approval of multi-family infill housing that meets objective development and design review standards. This housing would be offered first to our employees, then to public agency employees, and then to members of the public in accordance with existing law.
The program would not apply to environmentally sensitive sites or sites with existing affordable housing or historic buildings.
Our proposal is set out in the sample language for a policy and program that could be incorporated into your forthcoming Housing Element update.
Ministerial permitting of infill housing through a well-defined, streamlined process would enable local educational agencies to make significant investments in housing to ensure the continued vitality of our educational program, our employees, and the community at large.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3058, Packet Page 3386 We welcome the opportunity to discuss our proposal with you and address your questions.
Sincerely,
PK Diffenbaugh
Superintendent
Attachment: Proposed Employer-Sponsored Housing Policy and Program Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3059, Packet Page 3387 Proposed Housing Element Policy
The City shall provide streamlined ministerial permitting for workforce housing on sites owned by a local education agency.
Proposed Implementing Program
The City shall enact an ordinance to provide for ministerial permitting of housing development projects on sites owned by a local education agency.
Qualifying projects: Projects shall meet the following qualifications:
• The project shall meet all requirements of AB 2295, including but not limited to:
§ The project is on an infill site as defined by AB 2295; § The project qualifies as an allowable use under AB 2295; § The project meets the density and height standards applicable under AB 2295; and
§ The project meets other objective development standards applicable under AB 2295.
• The project shall not be sited on habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; farmland of statewide and local importance; wetlands; earthquake/ seismic hazard zones; federal, state, and local preserved lands, NCCP and HCP plan areas, and conservation easements; riparian areas; Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) facilities and sites; landslide hazard, flood plains and, floodways; and wildfire hazard as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. • The project does not require demolition of deed-restricted affordable units, rent-controlled units, or historic structures on a national, state, or local register and will not use a mobilehome site.
• The project does not require subdivision.
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.
Design Review: The City shall notify a sponsoring local education agency 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.
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.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3060, Packet Page 3388 September 24, 2023
Dear Housing and Community Development Officer:
The education of our children within the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District depends on attracting and retaining a high quality, diverse workforce. One of the primary factors that prohibit the district from attracting and retaining high quality staff is the County’s critical housing shortage. To address this challenge the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District is interested in building housing for our employees on vacant and/or underutilized sites within the district. I write to express my support for the City of Monterey’s Educational Workforce Housing Overlay (Program 1-E) of the submitted Housing Element.
The Program is modeled after AB 2295 and SB 35 and would be implemented by an ordinance providing ministerial approval of multi-family infill housing that meets objective development and design review standards outlined in existing State law. The program would not apply to environmentally sensitive sites or sites with existing affordable housing or historic buildings.
Ministerial permitting of infill housing through a well-defined, streamlined process would facilitate the district to potentially make significant investments in housing on underutilized district owned property and ensure the continued vitality of our district, our employees, and the community at large. It is our vision to build at least 100 units of staff/workforce housing on school district properties should resources become available that would facilitate such development.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss Program 1-E and its positive impact on the community with you.
Sincerely,
Dr. PK Diffenbaugh
Superintendent, Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Dr. PK Diffenbaugh
Superintendent of Schools
P.O. Box 1031
700 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93942-1031
(831) 645-1203
(831) 649-4175 FAX
[email protected]
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3061, Packet Page 3389 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3062, Packet Page 3390 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3063, Packet Page 3391
APPENDIX
G
OUTREACH
MATERIALS
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3064, Packet Page 3392 City of Monterey 2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix G: Outreach Materials Table of Contents
Overview of Community Outreach ............................................................................. G-1 Listening Session Summaries ....................................................................................... G-4 February 21, 2023 Joint Study Session Presentation................................................ G-12 Community Survey Mailer #1 and #2 ........................................................................ G-55 Pop-Up Outreach Summary....................................................................................... G-57 Community Survey Outreach Poster ........................................................................ G-61 Community Survey Report......................................................................................... G-62 June 20, 2023 Joint Study Session Presentation ...................................................... G-236 Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Housing Element Memo............... G-281 September 19, 2023 Joint Study Session Presentation .......................................... G-286 Monterey-Salinas Transit District Comments December 8, 2023......................... G-348 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3065, Packet Page 3393 City of Monterey 2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix G: Outreach Materials Hearing Draft | June 2024 G-1
Overview of Community Outreach
Community involvement is an integral component of the Housing Element process. The City of Monterey employed a range of public outreach and engagement strategies to solicit meaningful community input that has informed the 2023-2031 Housing Element. These strategies included targeted community listening sessions, decision-maker meetings, mailers, pop-up outreach at popular locations around town, an online survey, as well as ongoing communication with the community online at the project’s website. A summary of these engagement activities is described below.
“LISTENING SESSION” FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
At the outset of the process, the City hosted a series of listening sessions with property owners, community group representatives, local architects, and others to gather information on housing needs and preferences, as well as opportunities and constraints to residential development in Monterey (page G-1). In total, 12 listening sessions were held over the course of December 6-8, 2022, at the Monterey Conference Center.
Participants included representatives from Monterey Unified School District, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Naval Postgraduate School, U.S. Army (Defense Language Institute), hospitality and service employers, downtown property owners, architects who have designed/built ADUs in Monterey, and residents.
Participant feedback from these groups helped inform program of actions in the Housing Element, including Multi-Family Residential Overlay Amendments (Program 1-B), Permit Streamlining Pilot Project to fast-track infill housing development in core areas of the city (Program 1-D), and Education Workforce Housing Overlay to permit housing development by right up to 30 du/ac on urban infill sites owned by Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (Program 1-E). These programs addresstackle development feasibility and can be found in detail in Chapter 4 Housing Action Plan.
CITYWIDE MAILERS
The City sent postcards to every household in Monterey at two key points in the process to help to raise awareness of the project and the process and keep community members informed of status and key dates (page G-49). The mailers announced the launch of the community online survey that helped inform the sites inventory, as well as dates/times of community open house meetings.
WEB AND SOCIAL MEDIA
A webpage was created on Have Your Say Monterey website to serve as a one-stop information portal for the Housing Element Update. The webpage was regularly updated throughout the course of the project to provide contextual information on legal requirements and key concepts and housed draft documents for public review. Updated content was posted to the City website and on social media regularly to keep the community informed of progress.
POP-UP OUTREACH
Using a “go to them” strategy to raise awareness of the project and provide community members with additional in-person opportunities for input, City staff conducted pop up events in March and April 2023 at locations where community members gather, such as the Del Monte Farmer’s Market, Monterey Public Library, Captain + Stoker, and the Alvarado Farmer’s Market (page G-51). The events were structured as "chalk board chats" that provided community members with opportunities to learn about the project and share quick feedback about housing strategies and programs in the Housing Element. Pop-up outreach events targeted service and hospitality workers, as well as lower-income wage earners who work in Monterey to learn about their housing experiences. The events were also an opportunity to hand out Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3066, Packet Page 3394 City of Monterey 2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix G: Outreach Materials G-2 Hearing Draft | June 2024
postcards advertising the community online survey. Public input received was used to inform programs in Chapter 4, the Housing Action Plan, including programs that address housing affordability, promote a wider variety of housing types and sizes, help ease displacement pressure, and facilitate additional water supply to support new housing development.
COMMUNITY ONLINE SURVEY
In order to gather community input to inform updates to the Housing Element, an online survey was conducted March 1, 2023, to April 30, 2023. The survey focused in particular on eight areas of Monterey with the greatest potential to accommodate new housing or other types of development in the coming years, and the questions were designed to solicit feedback that will help plan where new housing, employment, and shopping should be located and how to achieve other community objectives like improving transportation options, revitalizing older commercial streets, and preserving and enhancing neighborhood character. The survey provided residents with an opportunity to help identify and evaluate strategies for accommodating housing that informed the sites inventory and helped the City meet the legal requirements for the Housing Element. The survey was promoted via the City’s website and email blasts to community members, citywide mailers to all households in Monterey, as well as posters and newspaper (page G-52). In total, 1,068 respondents participated in the survey. A full survey report can be found on page G-56. The results of the survey guided selection of sites for inclusion on the inventory and strategies to facilitate development and redevelopment of sites. Community support for new housing was strongest in the Fort Ord, North Fremont, and Garden Road opportunity areas, so programs in the Element focused on land use and zoning changes to increase the potential for new housing in these areas. Respondents indicated the highest level of support for density and taller buildings downtown, so programs were added to raise the height limit in the Alvarado district and to incentivize high density development, such as through municipal share parking and permit streamlining. Recognizing that many community members want attainably priced starter homes and development harmonized with the natural environment, strategies for thoughtfully integrating housing at Fort Ord and in the Highway 68 Area plan were developed. Site selection was also informed by community concerns for sea level rise risk in low lying areas of the city, and programs in the Action Plan address community concerns about adequate water supply to serve new development.
PUBLIC REVIEW
The Draft Housing Element was available for public review between August 2 and September 4, 2023. In total, 77 comment letters were received during the 30-day public review period. Additionally, over 80 community members attended the Open House meeting on August 7, 2023 and provided comments at the various stations related to Housing Element topics. Overall, commenters expressed support for the content of the Draft Housing Element, including the focus on promoting and facilitating infill development and the incorporation of innovative strategies to expand housing options for all incomes and demographics in the community. A memo included in this Appendix outlines how community input has been reflected in the Draft Housing Element. Public comments informed refinements to the Draft Housing Element prior to submittal to the State for review, including the addition of some housing opportunity sites to the inventory based on expressions of owner interest and the addition and refinement of programs in the Action Plan to reflect issues of importance to the community. Program 1-E Education Workforce Housing Overlay was refined based on input from the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District; and Program 1-K Employer Sponsored Housing was added based on input from Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) and other local employers; and Program 1-I Highway 68 Area Plan Update was refined to include coordination with the County on an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to help fund the cost of infrastructure to support development in and adjacent to the Highway 68 Plan Area. The focus of the Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan was also updated to prioritize planning and development for the areas that can be most feasibly be developed in the near-term, recognizing the inter-agency coordination needed for remediation of hazardous materials on portions of the former military base.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3067, Packet Page 3395 City of Monterey 2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix G: Outreach Materials Hearing Draft | June 2024 G-3
COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE
A community open house was held on August 7, 2023, within the 30-day public comment period on the Draft Housing Element, to provide community members with an opportunity to review and share input on the content of the Draft Housing Element. The event featured a series of stations on topics in the Draft Housing Element including housing barriers, sites inventory, workforce housing, fair housing, and emergency preparedness and response. Participants were able to visit as many stations as they’d like and provide input at each interactive activity. The meeting also provided community members with an opportunity to comment on the scope and content of environmental issues that will need to be considered in the environmental impact report (EIR). A memo summarizing community input and how it has been incorporated into the Element is included in this Appendix. Based on participant input and owner interest, sites Downtown and in the North Fremont opportunity area were added to the inventory. Additionally, the Rental Assistance Pilot Program was updated to specifically reference low income senior renters as a vulnerable population to be served by the program. Participant input is also reflected through the addition of Program 1-M and 1-N, which seek to facilitate ADU production with educational outreach, technical support, and pre-approved ADU floor plans.
DECISION-MAKER REVIEW
A joint study sessionpresentation was held on February 21, 2023, before the Planning Commission and City Council to report on the progress of Monterey 2031 project (page G-6). The study session began with aThis presentation covered covering Monterey’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirement, the housing demand versus water supply, and overview of Housing, Safety, and Land Use Elements. Further, a series of study sessions before the Planning Commission and City Council were held on June 13 and 20, 2023, as the components of the Housing Element were developed and refined, to provide additional opportunity for public input and decision-maker review (page G-230). These presentations introduce several areas of the City with the greatest potential to accommodate new housing, an assessment of the capacity for new housing in each area, based on State site suitability guidelines and potential strategies to facilitate development in the area. Additionally, following the close of the 30-day public comment period, a joint study session with the Planning Commission and City Council was held to review community feedback on the Public Review Draft and receive direction on any edits or revisions to make as a result. The presentation from that study session is included in this Appendix. Based on input from City decisionmakers, incentives for ADU/JADU development were focused so as to promote the construction of affordable ADUs throughout the city, and maximum permitted density was increased in the Garden Road and North Fremont opportunity areas, recognizing the important of promoting high density infill development in these locations.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3068, Packet Page 3396
MEMORANDUM
To: Christy Sabdo, City of Monterey
From: Karen Chavez, Planner, and Andrew Hill, Principal Re: Listening Sessions Summaries
Date: January 6, 2023
Dear Christy:
This memo summarizes the fourteen listening sessions held between December 6, 2022, to December 8, 2022. In these summaries, I highlighted constraints and opportunities heard by the participants in the session, without attributing them to a specific person. I am happy to make further edits based on City input. Thank you!
Session #1 December 6, 2022, 9am
A major challenge and overall theme of the listening sessions is the lack of water supply available for residential development. Opportunities mentioned by participants include research of local case studies of workforce housing, such as Pebble Beach and Cannery Row, looking at various nontraditional alternatives such as tiny homes and assisted living quarters, as well as the reuse of Ford Ord property. North Fremont can also be possible opportunity site for housing, though participants expressed not wanting community to feel like they have been targeted or dumped on. Participants expressed curiosity in state and federal funds to bridge the gap in the housing market and the vulnerability of the city. Participants also stressed the importance of putting faces to the people that are in most need of affordable housing, such as hospitality and service workers.
Session #2 December 6, 2022, 10am
Participants outright mentioned the water supply is a major constraint in the development of housing. Other challenges Monterey faces are wildfire and sea level rise hazards. Participants mentioned various housing opportunities such as locations near North Fremont, Franklin Street, and the Downtown core. They mentioned various living trends that can be opportunities, such as co-living, age-in-place, intergenerational households, and junior accessory dwelling units.
Participants hope to desegregate income groups and research further inclusionary requirements versus inclusionary incentives. Lastly, participants suggested having online survey being distributed via flyers for residents to fill out their thoughts and concerns on housing.
Session #3 December 6, 2022, 11am
Participant in this session mentioned various constraints to housing in Monterey, which include the traffic (near Downtown), patterns of roadway, and circulation in general. Participant expressed interest in developing two properties along Del Monte Avenue, which could be suitable for marketrate apartment for demographics in need, specifically nurses, and doctors at CHOMP, students and faculty at the Naval Postgraduate School, students at Middlebury Institute, and folks that live in Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3069, Packet Page 3397 - 2 -
Downtown. Participant expressed opportunities for housing all over Monterey, such as the Bank of America building, McGraw Hill, land around Ryan Ranch, North Fremont, and Old Eddy’s restaurant.
Session #4 December 6, 2022, 1pm
Participants in this session heavily emphasized that “water supply, density, and property” were the biggest constraints to housing development. Participants noted that housing is needed the most by people who can’t afford to live where they grew up, folks living on fixed-incomes, and hospitality and service workers. When asked where opportunities for housing are, some suggested property near North Fremont specifically near Motel 6 and CVS, hangars by the airport that could potentially be converted to residential, near car wash, and on underutilized site by McDonald’s. Participants also mentioned a variety of methods to either incentivize housing or inform the community. These suggestions include retrofitting and electrification [of existing housing stock], lot splits, having contractors teach the public about development, housing programs such as co-living situations with single room and a shared kitchen, as well as sending flyers to residents on various housing solutions.
Session #5 December 6, 2022, 2pm
Participants in this session recurringly noted the bar is too low for appeals in the development process, which add barriers to housing. Participants also mentioned that the point of entry for housing in Monterey is high because of the military population that tend to bring the cost of housing up. Participants mentioned the amount of youth homeless population in the Monterey, which led to the conclusion that some type of state and local partnership is needed to combat this.
Participants also noted parking is an issue for residential development, particularly for areas that have little parking left. Following this, participants expressed a variety of opportunities for housing development, such as enhancing buildings that are already in use, setting objective design standards, and minimizing the number of hearings for development. Additionally, when asked where they saw areas of opportunity in Monterey, participants expressed lands down by the cemetery and the sport center, as well as the potential to upzone and develop the Del Monte Shopping Center. Participants also mentioned that development of accessory dwelling units can be more flexible, specifically for existing non-conforming structures. Lastly, participants expressed how expensive it is to build a residential unit, expressed interest in the City of Salinas’ blue code committee that the City can explore and emphasized the amount of additional grocery, fuel, and site drainage that is needed to develop residential units. A participant mentioned agriculture housing in the City of Greenfield that can serve as an example of workforce housing.
Session #6 December 6, 2022, 3pm
In this session, the participant mentioned that ethnic minorities such as Latino and African Americans are special needs groups in Monterey. The participant also mentioned major constraints to housing such as the cost of living and wages, lack of housing stock for service workers (teachers and folks working at CHOMP), and the linguistic isolation people may face in the community.
Participant also mentioned the suggestion to explore a vacancy tax in the city as well.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3070, Packet Page 3398 - 3 -
Session #7 December 6, 2022, 7pm
Participants in this session expressed various communities that need housing in Monterey, such as people who work in the hospitality sector, older folks who no longer can afford to live here, and younger people (about mid 30’s) who cannot afford a home. Participants also expressed the difficulty of hiring workers because they cannot afford to live in Monterey, or their commute is too long/far. Participants conveyed multiple opportunities and alternatives to housing, such as exploring the Ford Ord Reuse Plan, developing accessory dwelling units, live-work spaces (such as the Cannery Row hospitality apartments), and banning Airbnb. Participants also showed opportunity around the Lake El Estero because it is so close to transit, underutilized parcels next to McDonalds, as well as Garden Road near the airport. Lastly, participants communicated that Monterey needs mixed-income housing, corrective housing, housing with some character, and starter homes. A participant mentioned the housing in East Garrison as an example to look at.
Session #8 December 7, 2022, 9am
In this session, participants expressed various constraints in the housing market in Monterey. These constraints include the reoccurring water supply, lack of sense of urgency/no sense of completion, “red tape,” discretionary review process, and highly historic location, which limits development.
Additional challenges include multiple hearings from City Council and Planning Commission, fees by the CDWF, City and County, as well as the process of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Participants frequently mentioned the need to up the density in Monterey to attain the RHNA numbers, as well as focusing on Garden Road, Ryan Ranch, and Ford Ord to put residential development. Participants did comment that the City of Monterey staff is very friendly.
Session #9 December 7, 2022, 11am
Participants mentioned Monterey needs workforce housing for hospitality workers, people who need to commute to Monterey for work, teachers, as well as faculty at the Naval Postgraduate School/Defense Language Institute. Participants expressed various opportunities to develop housing in Monterey, such as encouraging major employers to partner with developers to develop housing, offering underused hotel units for employees, accessory dwelling units provided by churches, and encouraging Monterey Peninsula College to build housing. Participants also mentioned the idea the City spearheading a matching system for roommates, for those who need a room and residents who have available bedrooms in their home. Participants listed Cass Street, Lake El Estero, Garden Road, North Fremont, and Lighthouse for locations for housing.
Participants also expressed interest in exploring the development of commercial uses to residential units. There was enthusiasm about revitalizing the North Fremont area and revamping business around the area. Participants expressed residents may fear not knowing what development could look like, to which other participants mentioned there could be renderings made and visual preference survey sent beforehand.
Session #10 December 7, 2022, 1pm
Participants noted that there is a need for affordable, workforce housing, which prompted a discussion on what constitutes or defines “workforce housing.” Following this, participants emphasized that low-income households are most in need of housing in Monterey. Participants described MidPen Housing’s activity in the City of Monterey, detailing the process of developing a Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3071, Packet Page 3399 - 4 -
19-unit project for seniors. Participants described the hurdles in developing housing, such as the environmental constraints, funding sources, parking, stormwater management, and various documents needed for due diligence. Participants mentioned that City of Santa Cruz has a loan program for homeowners wanting to build an accessory dwelling unit, which could facilitate development and could be an opportunity for Monterey. Participants also suggested looking into housing fund examples from Capitola and Santa Cruz.
Session #11 December 7, 2022, 3pm
Participants in this session echoed the need for housing for hospitality and service workers, the challenge of traffic with additional units, and sea level rise. Participants also discussed what would climate change look for the city, such as flooding near the coast, looking out for wildfire zones, and thinking about alternative evacuation routes. Participants suggested informing the community beforehand about natural hazards and what to do if they arise. Throughout the conversation, participants conveyed many opportunities they see for housing in Monterey, like revamping the Highway 68 Specific Plan, building in Downtown and Lighthouse, and partnering with major employers of the area. Participants also mentioned developing pre-approved ADU plans, setting objective standards, and documenting where water credits are available in the City. Lastly, participants suggested there be a focus group held for people who work in the City of Monterey but don’t live here, for additional insight into housing needs.
Session #12 December 8, 2022, 9am
Participants discussed various challenges to housing that were specific to their industry. Though CHOMP does provide some temporary units for their employees, it is not meant for long-term, and it is not enough for the demand. Again, various participants echoed the theme that workers are not able to afford to live in Monterey. Participants expressed the frustration of recruitment and retainment of employees because of housing; moreso, because it is undermining the economic foundation of the City and region. Similarly, it is difficult to retain teachers as there is about 20% turnover year to year in the school district. School district is looking into purchasing land to break into the housing market, though it is proving to be difficult. Many students and families in the school district are facing homelessness and overcrowding. A participant suggested a safe parking program, where families can park their car safely between the hours of 7am to 7pm, which can respond to challenges of homeless youth. Participants frequently reiterated the importance of housing to employees’ mental health and expressed urgency for the City’s housing crisis.
Participants conveyed multiple opportunities for housing, such as higher density, developing in urban cores, creating some type of matchmaking for eligible seniors or singles who need an open room, as well as pre-approved accessory dwelling unit plans by the City, and converting commercial to residential use.
Session #13 December 8, 2022, 10am
Participants had questions about the process of RHNA allocation for Monterey and if the water supply would be available for the amount of housing units Monterey has to plan for. Participants mentioned that Navy doesn’t offer housing, so many personnel ends up living far and commuting into the Peninsula. Participants did mention that military personnel can live at La Mesa and Ord Military Communities, pending availability, and usually move from another location to the Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3072, Packet Page 3400 - 5 -
Monterey Peninsula area for their line of work. Participants also emphasized two major concerns from the session, which include sea level rise and the need for a shelter for men.
Session #14 December 8, 2022, 11am
In this session, the participant echoed many of the themes heard throughout the sessions, such as how difficult it is to afford a place to rent or own in Monterey. Many hospitality workers in general often commute long and from far because of the cost of living. Participant mentioned various opportunities to create housing, such as churches with large parking lots, shopping centers that may be abandoned or underutilized, as well as underused office/commercial that can be converted to residential. Participant was fairly on board with accessory dwelling units, though did express concern over parking.
Overall Listening Sessions Summary
The Community Development Department and planning consultant, Dyett and Bhatia, held fourteen listening sessions, between December 6, 2022 and December 8, 2022, to connect with community members and provide a forum for members to learn about the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update. Held at the Monterey Conference Center, each listening session garnered discussion on topics such as housing, land use, community character, climate resilience, and emergency preparedness. Approximately fifty-six (56) individuals, including community members, professionals, land holders, housing developers and service providers, property managers, on-profit leaders, military liaisons, and interested residents participated in the sessions. The summaries below highlight the constraints and opportunities heard by the participants in each session.
Recordings of the session are available in the title for each session.
Overall, the following are common themes/input expressed during the sessions:
Needs:
• State and local partnerships are needed to combat the youth homeless population in the Monterey.
• Housing is needed the most by people who can’t afford to live where they grew up, people living on fixed-incomes, and hospitality and service workers. • Addressing the need for affordable housing for hospitality and service workers. • Increase density in Monterey to attain the RHNA numbers. • Participants hope to desegregate income groups and research further inclusionary requirements versus inclusionary incentives.
• Participants mentioned Monterey needs workforce housing for hospitality workers, people who need to commute to Monterey for work, teachers, as well as faculty at the Naval Postgraduate School/Defense Language Institute.
• Need for mixed-income housing, corrective housing, housing with some character, and starter homes. A participant mentioned the housing in East Garrison as an example to look at. • Participants suggested raising awareness in the community about natural hazards and what to do if they arise.
• Need housing in Monterey for people who work in the service industry and hospitality sector, older people who no longer can afford to live here, and younger people (about mid Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3073, Packet Page 3401 - 6 -
30’s) who cannot afford a home. Emphasis that low-income households are most in need of housing in Monterey.
Challenges/Constraints:
• Lack of water supply is a major constraint to development of housing. In addition to water supply, density and property were noted as large constraints to housing development.
• Perceived lack of sense of urgency on behalf of the City; no sense of completion. • Impacts to traffic (near Downtown), roadway patterns, and circulation in general. • Discussion of what climate change would look like for the city, such as flooding near the coast, sea level rise, looking out for wildfire zones, and thinking about alternative evacuation routes.
• Major constraints to housing include cost of living and wages, lack of housing stock for service workers (teachers and people working at CHOMP), and the linguistic isolation people may face in the community.
• Difficulty of hiring workers because they cannot afford to live in Monterey, or their commute is too long/far.
• Participants expressed residents may fear not knowing what development could look like, to which other participants mentioned there could be renderings made and visual preference survey sent beforehand.
• Hurdles to developing housing:
o Parking requirements, particularly in areas that have little parking left o “Red tape”; discretionary review process
o Multiple hearings from City Council and Planning Commission, fees by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), City and County, as well as the process of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). o Highly historic location, which limits development
o Bar is too low for appeals in the development process o Expensive to build a residential unit
o The additional amount of amenities needed when developing residential housing, such as additional grocery stores, more fuel stations, and site drainage. o Environmental constraints, funding sources, parking, stormwater management, and various documents needed for due diligence.
Opportunities:
• Non-traditional alternatives for housing such as tiny homes and assisted living quarters. • Enhance buildings that are already in use to accommodate housing. • Various living trends that can be opportunities, such as co-living, age-in-place, intergenerational households, and junior accessory dwelling units.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3074, Packet Page 3402 - 7 -
• Encouraging major employers to partner with developers to construct housing, offering underused hotel units for employees, accessory dwelling units provided by churches, and encouraging Monterey Peninsula College to build housing. • Interest in providing market-rate apartments for demographics in need, specifically nurses, and doctors at CHOMP, students and faculty at the Naval Postgraduate School, students at Middlebury Institute, and folks that live in Downtown. • Local case studies of workforce housing, such as Pebble Beach and Cannery Row. • Live-work spaces (such as the Cannery Row hospitality apartments). • Developing additional accessory dwelling units.
• Exploring the development of commercial uses to residential units. • The idea of the City spearheading a matching system for roommates, for those who need a room and residents who have available bedrooms in their home. • Streamline housing development project in Monterey:
o Setting objective design standards and minimizing the number of hearings for development.
o Accessory dwelling units can be more flexible, specifically for existing nonconforming structures. o Agriculture housing in the City of Greenfield that can serve as an example of workforce housing.
• Potential opportunity sites for housing:
o Along North Fremont Street, including the site of former Eddie’s restaurant (2200 North Fremont), near Motel 6, CVS and car wash; and revamping businesses in this location as well
o the Downtown core (including Franklin Street, Bank of America building, underutilized sites by McDonalds and Lake El Estero; and the Monterey Sports Center)
o Garden Road
o McGraw Hill
o Convert hangers at the airport to residential
o Land around Ryan Ranch
o Reuse of Fort Ord property
o Potential to upzone and develop the Del Monte Shopping Center o Cass Street
o Lighthouse Avenue
o Revamping the SR68 Plan
Other Suggestions:
• City should look into state and federal funds to bridge the gap in housing market and vulnerability of the City.
• Participants also mentioned a variety of methods to either incentivize housing or inform the community. These suggestions include retrofitting and electrification [of existing housing stock], lot splits, having contractors teach the public about development, housing programs such as co-living situations with single room and a shared kitchen, as well as sending flyers to residents on various housing solutions.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3075, Packet Page 3403 - 8 -
• Participants expressed interest in the City of Salinas’ Blue Zones Project and suggested the City explore this type of opportunity in the City.
• Participants mentioned that City of Santa Cruz has a loan program for homeowners wanting to build an accessory dwelling unit, which could facilitate development and could be an opportunity for Monterey. Participants also suggested looking into housing fund examples from Capitola and Santa Cruz.
• Suggestion to explore a vacancy tax.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3076, Packet Page 3404 City of Monterey
City Council / Planning Commission Joint Study Session
Monterey 2031 Project Update February 21, 2023
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3077, Packet Page 3405 Important Moment
When we look back in Monterey’s
history, there are moments where the
City defined its future.
This is one of those moments.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3078, Packet Page 3406 Why?
• Unprecedented housing need
• Plan for 3,654 housing units
• Climate Change
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3079, Packet Page 3407 Regional Housing Needs
Assessment
AMBAG Regional Approach
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3080, Packet Page 3408 RHNA Allocation – Regional Approach
Pop. (2021) RHNA (6th Cycle)
Monterey 29,874 3,654
Santa Cruz 61,950 3,736
Monterey’s #s Are the Result of a
Regional Methodology
- Housing (202)
- Jobs (428)
- Jobs/Housing Imbalance (1,396)
- Transit (87)
- Resiliency (48)
- Racially Concentrated Areas (1,493)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3081, Packet Page 3409 RHNA Allocation – Regional Approach
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3082, Packet Page 3410 Elephant in the Room
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3083, Packet Page 3411 Adequate water supply for RHNA?
MPWMND Water Demand Forecast does not
include the City’s full RHNA allocation.
RHNA 2045 MPWMD Water
Demand Projections
Not included in MPWMD
water projections
7,819 new residents 1,469 new residents 6,350 new residents 4,520 new jobs
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3084, Packet Page 3412 6th Cycle Housing Element Requirements
• The State, HCD, does not require jurisdictions to act as a developer and construct 3,654 housing units by
2031.
• The City is only required by the State to accommodate this increased capacity of housing units in the 6th Cycle Housing Element update.
• However, the 6th Cycle Housing Element requirements
are in response to California’s housing challenges.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3085, Packet Page 3413 California Housing Challenges
• Not enough housing being built
• Increased inequality and lack of opportunities
• Too much of people’s incomes going toward rent
• Fewer people becoming homeowners
• Disproportionate number of Californians
experiencing homelessness
• Many people facing multiple, seemingly
insurmountable barriers – beyond just cost – in
trying to find an affordable place to live
Source: HCD
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3086, Packet Page 3414 City’s Strategic Priorities - 2023
Affordable Housing
• Value Driver #5: Champion regional and local efforts to secure adequate, affordable, and sustainable water sources for the city, now and into the future.
Water Supply
• Value Driver #6: Support efforts and policies that provide equitable access to affordable housing in Monterey and the region.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3087, Packet Page 3415 Presentation Outline
§ What is the Monterey 2031 Project?
§ Overview of Housing, Safety, and Land Use Element
Requirements
§ Approach to the project
§ Timing and next steps
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3088, Packet Page 3416 What is the Monterey
2031 Project?
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3089, Packet Page 3417 Project Components
Housing Element
Safety Element
Land Use Element
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3090, Packet Page 3418 Holistic Approach
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3091, Packet Page 3419 Water Supply
§ Water supply is a critical
impediment to new housing
§ Supply constraint addressed
through a separate process
§ Objective:
§ Update the General Plan to
satisfy legal requirements and
have it ready to implement
when water becomes
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3092, Packet Page 3420 Housing, Safety, Land Use
Element Requirements
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3093, Packet Page 3421 What is a Housing Element?
§ State-mandated element
§ City’s plan for addressing
local housing needs
§ Updated on an 8-year cycle
§ Subject to statutory
requirements
§ Mandatory review by Dept.
Housing & Community
Development (HCD)
required
elements
8 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3094, Packet Page 3422 Key Housing Element Components
§ Inventory of available sites
for housing
§ Projection of realistic
capacity
§ Assessment of housing
needs, constraints, and “fair
housing” issues
§ Program of implementing
actions
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3095, Packet Page 3423 What is RHNA?
§ RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation
§ Total number of new housing units that
City must plan to accommodate for 2023 –
2031 cycle
§ Separated into four affordability levels:
§ Very Low < 50% area median income
(AMI)
§ Low 50 – 80% AMI
§ Moderate 80 – 120% AMI
§ Above Moderate > 120% AMI
§ Monterey County AMI = $90,100 (family of 4)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3096, Packet Page 3424 RHNA Process
§ State determines the housing need
for each region of California, based
on projected population and other
factors (rates of vacancy,
overcrowding, cost-burden)
§ For the Monterey Bay Area region,
AMBAG then allocates housing
targets for each jurisdiction, based
on factors such as access to jobs,
good schools, healthy environment
§ AMBAG developed methodology
and allocations with input from
jurisdictions between 2021 and
2022
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3097, Packet Page 3425 RHNA Allocation
Monterey RHNA Allocations
CYCLE VERY LOW INCOME
(<50% of Area
Median Income)
LOW INCOME
(50-80% of Area Median
Income)
MODERATE INCOME
(80-120% of Area
Median Income)
ABOVE MODERATE INCOME
(>120% of Area
Median Income)
TOTAL
Sixth 2023-31 1,177 769 462 1,246 3,654
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3098, Packet Page 3426 Accommodating RHNA
§ City is required to zone for
sufficient capacity to meet
RHNA
§ Special requirements for
lower income RHNA sites
§ Site size parameters
§ Absence of environmental
constraints
§ Proximity to transit
§ Availability of utilities
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Sand
City
Pacific Grove
ÔA
A§
ÔA A§
ÔA
A§
1 2
4 5
3 3
3 1
4 2
5 Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton
Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via Paraiso
Park
Quarry Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier Field
Larkin
School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park
Don Dahvee
Park
Iris Canyon
Park
Del Monte Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ab rego St
Cam
Agu ajito
Casa Ve rde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sce n icDr
Lighthouse Ave
Agu ajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista Dr
Del Monte Ave
Skyline Dr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
Fairgrounds
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3099, Packet Page 3427 Multi-Pronged RHNA Strategy
§ Infill development
§ Housing at Fort Ord and Ryan
Ranch
§ ADUs/JADUs
§ Senate Bill 9 housing
§ Congregational overlay
§ To meet RHNA obligations Monterey will need to explore various strategies
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3100, Packet Page 3428 Safety Element Update
§ Update of the Housing Element triggers
statutory requirement to update the
Safety Element
§ Must incorporate newer data on natural
hazards and climate resilience,
additional analysis of emergency access
§ Countywide Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
includes additional required
information, which can be referenced
and incorporated
§ Supplement with GIS-based analysis of
evacuation routes and propose new
policies
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3101, Packet Page 3429 Land Use Element Update
§ Review and
update land
use standards
and policies as
needed to
accommodate
RHNA plan
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
Don Dahvee
Park
Iris Canyon
Park
Del Monte Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Vista Point
Greenbelt
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale Dr
Abrego St
Cam Aguajito
Casa Ve rde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sce n icDr
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
Skyline Dr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
Figure X.X: General Plan Land Use
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
C:\Users\gisdb.DB\Desktop\GPLU.mxd
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Densiity Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Open Space
Public/Semi-Public
Special Planning Area
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3102, Packet Page 3430 Community Engagement
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3103, Packet Page 3431 Community Engagement Objectives
§ Inform, engage, and solicit input
from a broad range of community
members throughout process
§ Raise awareness of Housing Element
requirements in the community
§ Use input received to shape housing
strategies, ensuring content reflects
community values and priorities
§ Provide opportunities for
community review and refinement
Build trust
with
community Empower
community
members
Remove
barriers
to engagement
Public
Outreach
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3104, Packet Page 3432 Community Engagement Methods
§ Community Listening
Sessions
§ Pop Up Outreach
§ Youth-led survey
§ Community Workshops
§ Interactive, online survey
§ Web and social media
engagement
§ Public hearings
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3105, Packet Page 3433 Community Listening Sessions - Recap
§ Held December 6-8th
at Conference Center
§ Participation from a
wide variety of
groups: architects,
builders,
neighborhood
residents, major
landowners, major
employers, and others
Key themes:
§ Monterey's housing needs are
broad - hospitality/service workers,
homeless youth, young families,
seniors
§ Lack of adequate housing
undermines economic vitality,
community health, and social fabric
§ Regulations and process
requirements are getting in the way
§ Need to build an understanding in
the community of what it takes to
get housing built
§ Urgent action is required to jump
start housing construction
§ Strategy should prioritize "low
hanging fruit" AND plan for longer
term
§ Regional cooperation needs to be
part of the housing solution
§ In fill development is an opportunity
to revitalize older commercial areas
§ Parking in neighborhoods and
commercial areas must be addressed
as we plan for more housing
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3106, Packet Page 3434 Outreach Underpinned by Analysis
§ Site feasibility analysis
§ Assessment of
constraints to housing
development
§ Emergency evacuation
capacity analysis
§ Best practices and
precedent projects to
help visualize
possibilities
A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
Pacific Ocean
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
Vista Point
Greenbelt
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Ab rego St
Cam Aguajito
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 icDr
Lighthouse Ave
Agu ajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
Skyline Dr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
Figure 7: Opportunity Sites by Tier
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\ECR\Opportunity Sites by Tier.mxd Potential Opportunity Sites
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Pipeline Projects
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Parks and Recreation
Water
Fairgrounds
Tier 1: Vacant Sites outside of environmentally contrained areas; Very Low AV Ratio Low AV Ratio or Low FAR sites outside of environmentally constrained areas Tier 2: Medium Low AV Ratio and Medium Low FAR (both) sites outside of environmentally constrained areas Tier 3: Vacant sites inside environmentally constrained areas Tier 4: Very Low AV Ratio, Low AV Ratio or Low FAR sites inside environmentally constrained areas Tier 5: Medium Low AV Ratio and Medium Low FAR (both) sites inside environmentally constrained areas Very Low AV Ratio = 0.0-0.5, Low AV Ratio = 0.51-0.7, Medium Low AV Ratio = 0.71-0.99 Low FAR Ratio = 0.0-0.2, Medium Low FAR Ratio = 0.21-0.4 AV Ratio = Improvement Value/ Land Value
FAR = Building Square Foot/ Lot Square Foot
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3107, Packet Page 3435 Analysis of Development Potential
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
Via Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
U.S. Navy
Beachfront
Veterans
Memorial 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
Ab rego St
Cam Agu ajito
Casa Ve rde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sce n icDr
Lighthouse Ave
Agu ajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
Skyline Dr
Monterey
City Hall
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
Figure 1: Vacant Land
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\ECR\VacantSites.mxd Vacant Land
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
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
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Ab rego St
Cam Agu ajito
Casa Ve rde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sce n icDr
Lighthouse Ave
Agu ajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista Dr
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
Skyline Dr
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey
Figure X.X: AV Ratio
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\ECR\Figure 3 AV Ratios.mxd Very Low AV Ratio (0 - 0.5)
Low AV Ratio (0.51 - 0.7)
Medium Low AV Ratio (0.71 - 0.99)
Improvement Value not available
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Parks and Recreation
Water
Fairgrounds
*AV Ratio is calculated as a ratio of improvement value over land value. For this analysis, AV Ratio for commercial, office, industrial, and mixed uses are analyzed.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3108, Packet Page 3436 Accounting for Hazards
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3109, Packet Page 3437 Online Survey
§ Launching March 1, 2023, accessed via haveyoursaymonterey.org § Objective: an interactive survey that is both fun and informative, inviting meaningful input from a broad cross section of the community § Format: online survey that integrates photos, maps, data § Maximize participation by providing 5, 10, and 20 minute options Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3110, Packet Page 3438 5-Minute Survey Option
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3111, Packet Page 3439 10-Minute Survey Option
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3112, Packet Page 3440 Promoting the Online Survey
§ Postcard with QR code link will be
sent to all households
§ Communitywide email blasts
§ Presence at events around town
§ Pop up outreach targeted to
hard-to-reach groups
§ Interactive activity at the library
§ Promotional pitch from
Councilmembers and
Commissioners
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3113, Packet Page 3441 Project Timeline and
Next Steps
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3114, Packet Page 3442 Key Phases
§ Project to be completed in
four distinct phases, each
with opportunities for
community input
§ Goal is to adopt the
General Plan Update
by December 2023
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3115, Packet Page 3443 Key Milestones and Dates
§ Public review of Draft Housing Element
§ HCD review of Draft Housing Element
§ Statutory deadline for adoption
30 days
90 days
Dec 15, 2023
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3116, Packet Page 3444 Project Timeline
Issue/Opportunity
Identification
Alternatives
Exploration
Draft Plan
Preparation
Adoption &
Finalization
Sept Feb
2022 2023 2024
Mar Jun Jul Sep Oct Jan
Technical
Background
Report
Joint PC-CC Study
Session
HCD Review
Draft Housing
Element
Draft Preferred Plan
and Key Strategies
Interactive
Online
Survey
Draft Land
Use/Safety
Elements
Community
Meetings
Public Review
Draft Housing
Element
Revised
Housing
Element
Adoption
Hearings
Final
General Plan
Decision-maker
meetings
Kick Off
Community
Listening
Sessions
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3117, Packet Page 3445 Next Steps
§ Interactive online survey
§ Youth-led survey
§ Technical Background Report
§ Community workshops
Mar 2023
Early 2023
Spring 2023
May 2023
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3118, Packet Page 3446 Questions/Answers
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3119, Packet Page 3447 COMMUNITY SURVEY MAILER #1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3120, Packet Page 3448 COMMUNITY SURVEY MAILER #2
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3121, Packet Page 3449 Monterey General Plan Pop-up Outreach
LOCATION
• Del Monte Shopping Center, March 17th and March 24th, 9am-12pm (2) • Monterey Public Library, March 17th, 1-3pm (1)
• Captain + Stoker, March 24th, 1:30-4pm (1)
ATTENDEES
Staff
• Karen Chavez (D&B)
• Claire Villegas (D&B)
Participants
• Approximately 70 community members at the Del Monte Farmer’s Market • About 5 community members at the library
• About 12 community members at Captain + Stoker
SUMMARY
D&B was stationed near the entrance of the Farmer’s Market on two successive Fridays to gather community input on the upcoming General Plan Update. There were three boards set up depicting 1) project background, online survey, and opportunity areas, specifically how opportunity areas were identified, 2) a poster version of the five-minute survey online, intended for participants to reflect on the strategy needed to meet Monterey’s 3,654 RHNA allocation, and 3) a map of Monterey with opportunity areas highlighted and a place for community members to share their vision for Monterey on sticky notes.
Overall, participants were supportive of a variety of housing types, specifically townhomes, fourplexes, and senior housing, to alleviate the housing crisis in Monterey. Participants were wary of the aspects needed with housing development, like proper infrastructure, water, traffic, schools, and amenities like grocery stores. Majority of participants were drawn to the old Fort Ord site as a place for new housing, though a couple participants did express the need for safety, transportation (bus routes to commute to central Monterey), and park facilities for this area. Participants noted that the Lighthouse opportunity area is already congested, and it may be best to put housing near less developed areas, such as North Fremont and Del Monte Avenue.
Another common theme heard in the pop-up events was the how expensive it is to both rent and buy in Monterey. Many older participants expressed they had been renting for decades in hopes to eventually purchase a home but have not been able to due to the rising prices in the housing market.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3122, Packet Page 3450
NOTES FROM STICKY NOTES
- Maximize urban core density
o Avail of reduced parking requirements (AB 2097) to match of exceed 88 du/acre maximum already available along Alvarado
- Plan for more centralized parking garages to serve higher density - Create streamlining process to clear CEQA/NEPA for projects that meet min density (20 du/acre) - Prioritize projects that meet minimum density (20-45 du/acre) for permitting/entitlement - Eliminate discretionary review for projects meeting minimum density and/or affordability levels (15% VLI/LI or 20-40% moderate with scaling incentives such as setback reductions or FAR increases)
- AHOs should include their own minimum densities and development guidelines that allow for easy (streamlined, ministerial) design and approval
- Find a density level across urban sites that allows for at least 2/3 of RHNA to fit before using Ford Ord
- Plan for density along arterial routes that justifies increase public transit service - Rather than just assigning sites at current zoned densities (30-45 du/acre depending on state density bonuses) create affordable housing overlays (AHOs) - Aim for only 1/3 RHNA (or less) on Fort Ord
- Whatever must be on Fort Ord, ensure transit routes extend to serve out at 15-30 minute internals to minimize vehicle traffic
- Ensure mixed use on Fort Ord so residents may both live and work - Who will build new housing? Private investors?
- Too many high-brow investors reduced opportunity to own - Salinas slender housing authority
- “Where’s the water?
- Looking forward to 2023 plan – important to protect tenants, builder’s remedy concerns - Casanova Oak Knoll Rec Center, is it open?
- North Fremont is goof for housing, but we need to consider parking - More affordable housing needed
- Housing is good, tents no good. Need water/infrastructure - Less SFR (single-family residences), more condo, fourplexes, etc - Need more affordable housing
- Old Fort Ord site has potential, why more housing?
- New City Council, excited for more progress/housing changes - Bonafacio Place and Adams. Council voted down housing here. Need mindset shift - Lighthouse is congested already
- Old Mercedes dealership, potential site
- Housing that should be affordable is out there, prices don’t accurately reflect the housing stock - Multi-family housing, commercial use housing on top, such as housing childcare, coworking, event space
- Streamline ADU preapproved plans
- More parks with new development
- Parking with new housing
- Build up and out when possible
- Fort Ord available for more housing, schools too
- Fort Ord is a good place for housing
- Strong supervision of city, police, streets. Need rules for approval - Mixed-income housing, different housing types like townhomes, duplexes - Don’t want more traffic, transportation follows
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3123, Packet Page 3451 - Cooperative housing, community-based neighborhood for seniors, students, child - Need to build up, more density = more affordability for service/hospitality workers - Garden Road would be good, close to water
- Charge hotels for water
- Bank of America parking lot, build 3-4 stories
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3124, Packet Page 3452 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3125, Packet Page 3453 Amid the ongoing housing shortage in California, the City is planning for new housing to meet current and projected need. We need to hear from you to make sure the plan reflects the priorities of our community. Please take this survey.
Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey
Scan the QR
code to tell us
what you think!
To learn more about the Monterey 2031 Project and how you can get involved, please visit: haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031 Help Build a Housing
Plan for Monterey
Survey closes March 31st
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3126, Packet Page 3454 Community Survey Report
May 2023
Monterey 2031
General Plan Update
Prepared by
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3127, Packet Page 3455 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... 1 Survey Organization and Content............................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Key Findings .............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Survey Overview and Objectives ................................................................................................. 4 Analysis of Survey Responses ....................................................................................................... 5 Demographics.................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Housing Location Preferences ...................................................................................................................................................12 In-Person Outreach Comments................................................................................................................................................24 Community Housing Preference Ranking................................................................................................................................25 Appendix A: Survey Questions ................................................................................................. A-1 5-Minute Survey........................................................................................................................................................................... A-1 10-Minute Survey ........................................................................................................................................................................ A-5 Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses: ....................................................................................... B-1 5-Minute Survey........................................................................................................................................................................... B-1 Lighthouse Area ......................................................................................................................................................................... B-10 Dowtown Area .......................................................................................................................................................................... B-38 Pacific/Munras/Cass Area......................................................................................................................................................... B-58 Del Monte Area ......................................................................................................................................................................... B-73 North Fremont Area ................................................................................................................................................................ B-86 Garden Road/Airport/Highway Area .................................................................................................................................. B-100 Ryan Ranch Area...................................................................................................................................................................... B-112 Fort Ord Area.......................................................................................................................................................................... B-123 Library Boards ......................................................................................................................................................................... B-139 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3128, Packet Page 3456 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report 1
Executive Summary
The Monterey 2031 Community Survey was conducted from March 1, 2023 to April 30, 2023 to provide residents, business owners, and people working or attending school in Monterey with an opportunity to share input that will inform strategies for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update. The survey focused in particular on eight areas of Monterey with the greatest potential to accommodate new housing or other types of development over the next 10 years, and the questions were designed to solicit feedback that will help plan where new housing, employment, and shopping should be located and how to achieve other community objectives like improving transportation options, revitalizing older commercial streets, and preserving and enhancing neighborhood character. The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish.
An online version of the survey was available via a link on the Have Your Say Monterey website, allowing people to access it on their own time from their laptop, smartphone, or home computer. A paper version of the survey was also available at the Monterey Public Library.
City staff and consultants implemented a robust program of outreach activities to raise awareness of the survey and promote participation. Mailers were sent to every address in Monterey, with provisions to ensure that both homeowners and renters received notifications. Using a “go to them” strategy, a total of eight "pop up" events were held at locations around town where community members gather. The pop-up events featured stop-and-talk stations that provide community members with opportunities to learn about the project and share input. Participation was also promoted through citywide newsletters, email blasts, posters, and posts on social media.
In total over 1,050 survey responses were received, which includes 907 online responses, input from about 120 people at pop-up events, and 42 paper comments. This survey report documents the survey methodology, provides a profile of respondents, and presents key implications for the planning process. A full and complete record of all comments received is included in the Appendix.
SURVEY ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT
The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish, with online and paper versions available.
Following key objectives were identified for the survey:
1. Inform residents, businesses, and people who work or go to school in Monterey about the purpose and need for the project and the legal requirements for the Housing Element Update;
2. Solicit community input to inform decisions about how and where to accommodate new housing and other types of development as needed to satisfy the City's RHNA obligations and community needs;
3. Garner responses from a wide variety of voices in the community to ensure a full range of perspectives is considered in preparing the General Plan Update.
Recognizing that many residents lead busy lives and may not be able to set aside time to participate in person, an online survey was designed using a software platform that has the ability to integrate images, video, and maps, allowing participants to engage with and comment directly on the material presented on their own time from their laptop, smartphone, or home computer. The online survey platform featured a user-friendly interface and a range of engaging and easy-to-use question types that allow users to quickly grasp background information and provide responses. A landing page provided a brief introduction to the project, framing the challenges and inviting survey responses to help inform strategies to address them. The survey was structured to allow participants to provide quick responses if they only have a few minutes to contribute or to take a deeper dive into issues if they have more time to spend, offering both 5-minute and 10 or more-minute versions. This approach is intended to maximize participation and allow people to Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3129, Packet Page 3457 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
2 Community Survey Report
provide meaningful input within time frame they choose. The paper version of the survey featured interactive display boards with content and questions that mirrored the 5- AND 10-MINUTE online surveys.
Drawing on the findings of an analysis of land use conditions and trends in Monterey, the survey presented eight subareas of the city with the greatest potential to accommodate new housing and other types of development, based on a consideration of land use characteristics, environmental constraints, and other hazards. Participants were asked to share their thoughts on whether each location is appropriate for housing or other types of development, what types could best be accommodated, and what other improvements or amenities would be needed to successfully integrate housing into the areas. In the 10 plus minute version, participants were also able to toggle on and off various map layers with information on environmental constraints and existing conditions to help inform their responses. All survey questions were optional.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
• Across the board, there was solid support for new housing in all eight opportunity areas. For all opportunity areas, at least 80 percent of the respondents to the 10-minute survey indicated support for new housing.
• Community support for new housing was strongest in the Fort Ord, North Fremont, Ryan Ranch, and Garden Road opportunity areas, while the Pacific/Munras/Cass and Del Monte opportunity areas received the least support.
• Respondents indicated the highest level of support for density and taller buildings downtown. A full 55 percent of respondents indicated that they believe low rise or mid-rise apartments and condominiums are an appropriate housing type downtown, including 27.1 percent mid-rise apartments and 17.9 percent low rise.
• Along the commercial corridors of Lighthouse, North Fremont, and Garden Road, respondents expressed support for a range of higher density housing types. On North Fremont and Lighthouse, there was slightly more support for mid-rise buildings (4-5 stories) than for low rise buildings (2-3 stories), while on Garden Road, townhomes and low rise buildings were preferred over mid-rise buildings.
• Respondents expressed support for a mix of housing types in the Ryan Ranch area, with townhomes and mid-rise apartments receiving the most support, followed by fourplexes/triplexes/duplexes, single-family homes, and low rise apartments.
• At Fort Ord, respondents generally expressed preference for mid to low density housing types, with townhomes and single-family homes the most preferred housing types. A number of respondents expressed interest in starter homes and entry level ownership options, which they felt were otherwise out of reach to them in the community. Even as support among survey respondents was strong for new housing at Fort Ord, it is important to note that many respondents emphasized the need to preserve and protect plants, wildlife and natural open spaces in the area. • A common theme for the Downtown Area was a vision for a “vibrant Downtown,” with respondents expressing a desire to see investments that would spur a lively community-centered environment, including new shops and businesses, parks or plazas, public art, pedestrian-only zones, and buildings that would maintain Monterey’s aesthetic and historic character. In both the Lighthouse and Downtown area, comments frequently centered on building and preserving tourism interest, which some respondents felt new housing and development could contribute to. • For most opportunity areas, survey respondents were very interested in seeing new or improved retail amenities and neighborhood attractions accompany new development, including grocery stores, markets, restaurants, coffee shops, and community activity centers. For Downtown, Lighthouse, North Fremont, and Ryan Ranch, mixed-use developments were frequently preferred Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3130, Packet Page 3458 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report 3
to provide new amenities and attractions. For Fort Ord and Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68 that are currently less developed, respondents in favor of housing thought retail amenities, public plazas, and other neighborhood attractions would be needed to serve future residential. • Another common theme in responses had to do with promoting and enhancing alternative transportation options in all 8 opportunity areas. Frequently cited interests included commuter bike paths, safer pedestrian and bike infrastructure (crosswalks, protected bike lanes), and increased connectivity of walking and biking paths throughout the City. Many respondents were eager to see a future in Monterey where they could walk or bike to work, to run errands, or to access outdoor recreation opportunities. In addition, some respondents cited improved public transit service as a way to help limit car trips.
• Many respondents also expressed interest in improving, creating, or maintaining outdoor recreation opportunities, such as family-friendly parks, trails, and dog parks. Especially in areas that are not currently developed with housing, respondents were eager to see this type of community open space included in future development plans.
• Some respondents suggested converting underutilized buildings and commercial in the Pacifc/Munras/Cass and Ryan Ranch areas. They were interested to see reuse of existing buildings in addition to new development.
• Across all 8 opportunity areas, a top-of-mind concern among respondents was whether the new housing development would be affordable or available to people who work in Monterey. Those who mentioned affordability were eager to see less "luxury housing” built, less development of investment properties or vacation homes, and more emphasis on a broad variety of housing types. • Respondents consistently identified traffic congestion and parking supply as critical issues to be addressed as new housing is planned and built in Monterey. These were mentioned most frequently in comments for Lighthouse and Downtown, as well as areas adjacent and connected to Highway
68. Some respondents suggested improved bike lines, pedestrian infrastructure, and transit alternatives, while other advocated strongly for additional parking or parking management strategies alongside new development.
• Water availability and environmental hazards were also identified as key concerns regarding new housing development. A significant proportion of respondents did not think the amount of new housing described would be feasible due to limited water resources. For areas along the coast, including Downtown, Lighthouse, and Del Monte, many respondents were either opposed to new development or wanted to ensure mitigation is implemented to address projected sea level rise.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3131, Packet Page 3459 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
4 Community Survey Report
Survey Overview and Objectives
The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish, with online and paper versions available. Following key objectives were identified for the survey:
1. Inform residents, businesses, and people who work or go to school in Monterey about the purpose and need for the project and the legal requirements for the Housing Element Update;
2. Solicit community input to inform decisions about how and where to accommodate new housing and other types of development as needed to satisfy the City's RHNA obligations and community needs;
3. Garner responses from a wide variety of voices in the community to ensure a full range of perspectives is considered in preparing the General Plan Update.
Recognizing that many residents lead busy lives and may not be able to set aside time to participate in person, an online survey was designed using a software platform that has the ability to integrate images, video, and maps, allowing participants to engage with and comment directly on the material presented on their own time from their laptop, smartphone, or home computer. The online survey platform featured a user-friendly interface and a range of engaging and easy-to-use question types that allow users to quickly grasp background information and provide responses. A landing page provided a brief introduction to the project, framing the challenges and inviting survey responses to help inform strategies to address them. The survey was structured to allow participants to provide quick responses if they only have a few minutes to contribute or to take a deeper dive into issues if they have more time to spend, offering both 5-minute and 10 or more-minute versions. This approach is intended to maximize participation and allow people to provide meaningful input within the time frame they choose. The paper version of the survey featured interactive display boards with content and questions that mirrored the 5- and 10-minute online surveys.
Drawing on the findings of an analysis of land use conditions and trends in Monterey, the survey presented eight subareas of the city with the greatest potential to accommodate new housing and other types of development, based on a consideration of land use characteristics, environmental constraints and other hazards. Participants were asked to share their thoughts on whether each location is appropriate for housing or other types of development, what types could best be accommodated, and what other improvements or amenities would be needed to successfully integrate housing into the areas. In the 10 or more-minute version, participants were also able to toggle on and off various map layers with information on environmental constraints, hazards, and existing conditions to help inform their responses. For both versions of the survey, information on the location and extent of risk related to sea level rise, tsunami, flooding, liquefaction, wildfire, and airport safety was presented. All survey questions were optional. 5-Minute Version
The 5-minute version consisted of one, interactive multi-part question and a demographic section. The multi-part question asked residents how many homes they would allocate to each opportunity area to meet the State-mandated quota to plan for 3,654 new homes by 2031. For each area, participants could choose their preferred number of homes using a sliding scale. A map was included for each area that highlighted parcels with “pipeline” projects1 and parcels with high potential for development. An open-response section also offered participants the opportunity to leave a comment about their choices before answering 5 demographic questions. In total, 480 responses were received for the 5-minute version. 1 Pipeline projects refer to development applications currently under consideration, recently approved, or under construction.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3132, Packet Page 3460 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report 5
10-Minute Version
The 10-minute version provided participants with an opportunity to explore each opportunity area in more depth through interactive maps, then describe their preferences for additional housing in each area.
Respondents had the option to choose which areas they wanted to comment on. Identical demographic questions were asked in this version of the survey. In total, 427 responses were received for the 10-minute version.
Paper Version
In addition, responses were collected during in-person outreach events and a display at the Monterey Public Library using 3 interactive boards. One board offered background on the project and provided a direct link to the online survey. The two other boards mirrored the questions asked in the 5-minute and 10-minute survey. Participants could leave comments on sticky notes on a map of opportunity areas and/or rank housing preferences using stickers. At the pop-up outreach events, staff gathered input from residents and encouraged participation in both the online survey and in-person interactive boards. 8 in-person outreach events were held:
• Del Monte Shopping Center, March 17th and March 24th, 9am-12pm, • Monterey Public Library, March 17th, 1-3pm and April 13th 11am-12pm • Captain + Stoker on March 24th, 1:30-4pm
• Farmers Market on Alvarado Street, April 11th, 18th and April 25th, 4pm – 6pm In addition, the boards were displayed in the Monterey Public Library from March 17th to April 30th with the option for participants to leave comments on sticky notes. In total, 40 people participated via the paper version at the library, and 120 people shared input at pop up events. Additionally, 2 people submitted written responses via email.
Analysis of Survey Responses
DEMOGRAPHICS
5-Minute Survey
The 5-minute survey received 480 responses. As shown in Figure 1 below, survey respondents ranged in age from 18 to over 65 and there was a balance among various age cohorts. People in the 35-44 and 65 plus age cohorts were most likely to respond and given that these cohorts represent approximately 11 percent and 19 percent of the City's population, these groups are slightly overrepresented. By contrast, the response rate for people under the age of 24 was low, indicating an opportunity to target future outreach efforts specifically toward these age cohorts to ensure their voices are reflected in the General Plan Update. The Youth-Led survey, conducted in a similar time frame, aimed to capture responses from those under 18. A summary of responses can be found in the Youth-Led Survey Report.
More respondentsfor the 5-minute survey identified as female (59.7 percent) than male (34.9 percent), while about 4 percent did not specify a gender and 1.4 percent identified as non-binary (Figure 2). There is approximately equal distribution of males and females living in the City. Women were more likely than men to take the survey, which is consistent with results from many other communities. Future outreach activities for the project should make specific efforts to engage male residents, business owners, employees, and students.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3133, Packet Page 3461 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
6 Community Survey Report
Figure 1: “What is your age?” (5-Minute Survey)
Figure 2: “What gender do you identify as?” (5-Minute Survey) Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3134, Packet Page 3462 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report 7
Figure 3 demonstrates the majority of respondents to the 5-minute survey (42.3 percent) work in Monterey, while 4.9 percent attend school in the City. Of the 303 respondents who either own or rent a home in Monterey, 42.2 percent rent while 57.8 percent owned, indicating a relatively even balance of responses from owners and renters.
Figure 3: “Do you ________ in Monterey? Check all that apply.” (5-Minute Survey) Long-term residents and workers were most likely to complete the survey, accounting for over 50 percent of 5-minute survey respondents. 18.7 percent of respondents who responded they lived or worked in Monterey for 2-4 years (Figure 4). The lowest percentage of respondents (7.5 percent) responded they have lived or worked in Monterey for 0-1 years.
Figure 4:“How long have you lived/worked in Monterey?” (5-Minute Survey) Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3135, Packet Page 3463 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
8 Community Survey Report
All neighborhoods and districts of Monterey are represented in the survey results. As shown in Figure 5, 20 percent of 5-minute survey respondents said they live/work/go to school in New Monterey, followed by 13.6 percent responding Monterey Vista, 11.3 percent responding other, 9.6 percent responding Old Town, and
8.4 percent responding Downtown. Skyline Forest and Casanova Oak Knoll had over 5 percent of the share of respondents.
Figure 5: “What neighborhood do you live/work/go to school in?” (5-Minute Survey) 10-Minute Survey
The 10-minute survey received 427 responses. As shown in Figure 6 below, the largest group of respondents for the 10-minute survey were age 65 and older (31.5 percent). There was a more even distribution between 25- and 64-year-olds, each ranging between 16 and 18.5 percent. Similar to the 5-minute survey, there were no respondents under 18 and small response from those age 18-24.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3136, Packet Page 3464 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report 9
As mentioned, older adults 65 and older represent 19 percent and adults aged 55-64 represent 12 percent, suggesting these age categories are overrepresented in the survey sample. A greater share of adults 65 and older responded to the 10-minute survey compared to the 5-minute survey.
Most respondents for the 10-minute survey identified as female (53.6 percent) than male (42.2 percent), while about 4 percent did not specific a gender and 0.5 percent identified as non-binary (Figure 7). As mentioned above, the distribution of males and females in Monterey is approximately equal, showing again women were more likely than men to respond to the 10-minute survey. A slightly greater share of males responded to the 10-minute survey than the 5-minute survey.
Figure 6: “What is your age?” (10-Minute Survey)
Figure 7: “What gender do you identify as?” (10-Minute Survey) Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3137, Packet Page 3465 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
10 Community Survey Report
As with the 5-minute survey, approximately 40 percent of those who took the 10-minute or more survey work in Monterey; however, a noticeably higher share of those who took the 10-minute or more survey were homeowners than with the 5-minute survey (see Figure 8). Renters living in Monterey were more likely to take the 5-minute survey than the 10-minute or more survey. Data on how many of the participants who work in Monterey we're renters as compared to homeowners is not available.
Figure 8: “Do you ________ in Monterey? Check all that apply.” (10-Minute Survey) As was the case for the 5-minute survey, approximately 52 percent of 10-minute survey respondents have lived or worked in Monterey for more than 11 years. 15.9 percent of respondents have lived or worked in Monterey for 2-4 years (Figure 9). The lowest percentage of respondents (8.8 percent) responded they have lived or worked in Monterey for 0-1 years. Overall, 10-minute survey respondents are therefore more likely to have lived in Monterey for over a decade, are more likely to own their home, and are more likely to be age 65 and older.
Figure 9: “How long have you lived/worked in Monterey?” (10-Minute Survey) Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3138, Packet Page 3466 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report 11
Similar to the 5-minute survey, responses to the 10-minute survey came from all neighborhoods and districts in Monterey. As shown in Figure 10, 18.1 percent of 10-minute survey respondents said they live/work/go to school in New Monterey, followed by 14.7 percent responding Monterey Vista, 14.5 percent responding Downtown, 13.2 percent responding Old Town, and 6.7 percent responding other. In a similar trend to the 5-minute survey, Skyline Forest and Casanova Oak Knoll also had over 5 percent of the share of respondents.
Figure 10: “What neighborhood do you live/work/go to school in?” (10-Minute Survey) Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3139, Packet Page 3467 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
12 Community Survey Report
HOUSING LOCATION PREFERENCES
5-Minute Survey
Respondents were asked to select how many homes they would allocate to each opportunity area on a sliding scale. A maximum number of homes was set on the sliding scale for each area. The number of maximum homes for each opportunity area is based on the density permitted under the current zoning. Areas with more vacant land and fewer environmental hazards (such as Fort Ord or Garden Road) have larger capacity, so the potential number of homes in the 5-min survey is higher. In comparison, more developed areas with less available land and more development constraints (such as Del Monte, Pacific/Munras/Cass and Lighthouse) have less capacity than other areas, thus the number of homes in the area is smaller.
Question 1: “How many new homes would you allocate to each area?” Figure 11 shows the absolute number of homes and the percentage of the maximum homes participants allocated per opportunity area on average. Dashed lines demonstrate the maximum number of homes. Fort Ord had the highest average percent allocated out of all 8 opportunity areas at 88.8 percent. Fort Ord, Ryan Ranch, and Garden Road/ Airport/Highway 68 each had over 80 percent of the maximum number of homes allocated on average. North Fremont, Del Monte, and Pacific/Munras/Cass had between 66 and 73 percent of the maximum allocated on average. These areas also had the smallest maximum homes out of all 8 areas.
Notably, Lighthouse and Downtown were the only two areas where less than 60 percent of the maximum homes were allocated on average.
Figure 12 demonstrates the median number of homes allocated per opportunity area. The median for Fort Ord, Ryan Ranch, and Garden Road/ Airport/Highway 68 is approximately 100 percent of the maximum number of homes. North Fremont’s median is approximately 99 percent of the maximum number of homes, while Del Monte and Pacific/Munras/Cass hover slightly below 90 percent. For Downtown and Lighthouse, the median is the lowest at approximately 60 percent of the maximum.
Figure 11: Average Number of Homes Allocated per Opportunity Area Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3140, Packet Page 3468 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report 13
Figure 12: Median Number of Homes Allocated per Opportunity Area Question 2: “Leave a comment about your choices if you like.” 98 of the 480 respondents included a comment about their choices(approximately 20 percent). While similar themes emerged, respondents had varying concerns about new housing in Monterey. Many respondents expressed concerns about affordability, expressing that many housing options are currently unaffordable even for working professionals. In a similar vein, respondents expressed interest in more variety of housing types for working class people in Monterey. Many wanted new housing to be prioritized for those who live or work in the city, rather than those seeking investment properties or vacation homes. Some respondents also expressed their hope that homeownership could become a more feasible option in Monterey. While many respondents were enthusiastic about the potential for new or affordable housing, respondents were consistently concerned about traffic congestion and parking issues that will result from building new housing units, especially with the high levels of commuter traffic that already exist.
Respondents who did reference preferences for infill development or vacant land development were about split on which they preferred. Some respondents were excited about building more densely in certain areas like Downtown, Lighthouse, and Del Monte that would increase access to walkable or bikeable amenities such as grocery stores and ideally alleviate traffic. A small group of these respondents were also interested in the potential for a more sustainable housing option that would not disturb habitat in other open areas.
On the other hand, a similar group of respondents elaborated on their preferences for housing and commercial development on vacant areas like Fort Ord, Ryan Ranch, and Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68 largely due to existing traffic concerns in the denser parts of the City. Often, both groups of responses acknowledged already existing problems with parking and congestion around the City. A small group of respondents expressed interest in increased public transportation options and accessibility.
Other concerns mentioned included whether it is feasible to build the number of potential new units identified with current local water availability and environmental hazard concerns, such as flooding, climate change, and fire risks to new housing. Some respondents were not in favor of building any new housing or the extent of new housing described in Monterey, a few citing traffic congestion and concerns for water availability.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3141, Packet Page 3469 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
14 Community Survey Report
10-Minute Survey
The 10-minute survey allowed respondents to choose which opportunity areas to explore and comment on.
In total, 427 people provided responses regarding one or more opportunity areas. Lighthouse received 416 responses, Downtown 364 responses, Pacific/Munras/Cass received 329 responses, Del Monte received 302 responses, North Fremont received 298 responses, Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68 received 312 responses, Ryan Ranch received 284 responses, and Fort Ord received 303 responses.
Question 1: “Do you support adding new housing in this area?” For any area respondents chose to comment on, they were first asked a “Yes” or “No” question on whether they supported new housing in the area they chose. Figure 13 shows the distribution of responses for each opportunity area for those who responded to this question for each section of the 10-minute survey. North Fremont had the highest percentage of support for new housing at 91.1 percent, followed by Pacific/Munras/Cass at 87.9 percent. The remaining six opportunity areas ranged from approximately 80 to 83 percent support. This suggests respondents who answered this question were generally in favor of new housing across all eight opportunity areas.
Figure 13: Responses to Housing Support Per Opportunity Area Question 2: “If housing is built here, what types of housing do you think should be built? Check all that apply.”
An example photo of housing type was included to suggest to respondents what this might look like in practice. Figures 4 through 11 display the distribution of housing preferences for each opportunity area.
Across all 8 areas, except for Pacific/Munras/Cass, low rise apartments and condominiums, mid-rise apartments and condominiums, and townhomes were in the top 3 for housing preferences. In 4 of the 8 areas, townhomes were the most preferred housing type with over 20 percent support for townhomes. The largest percentage of support for any housing type across 8 areas was for townhomes in the Downtown area at 27.1 percent. Single family homes on small lots were the least in favor (besides “none”) for 4 out 8 areas.
In the 4 areas where single family homes were not least in favor, ADUs were the least (besides “none”). The largest percentage of support for single family homes on small lots was in Fort Ord with 19.5 percent.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3142, Packet Page 3470 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report 15
In the Lighthouse area, 20.5 percent of respondents favored mid-rise apartments and condominiums, followed closely by low-rise apartments and condominiums and townhomes at 19.7 and 18.9 percent (Figure 14). Fourplexes, triplexes, and duplexes had 15.8 percent favor, with accessory dwelling units (ADUs) at 13.0 percent. Single family homes on small lots were least in favor at 9.3 percent.
Figure 14: Area 1 Lighthouse Housing Preferences
For the Downtown area, 27.1 respondents supported mid-rise apartments and condominiums, the largest percentage of support for any housing type across all 8 opportunity areas(Figure 15). 17.9 percent supported low rise apartments and condominiums and 16.9 percent supported townhomes. Fourplexes, triplexes, and duplexes had 15.2 percent of favor and ADUs 11.8 percent. Similarly to the lighthouse area, single family homes on small lots were least supported at 7.7 percent Figure 15: Area 2 Downtown Housing Preferences
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3143, Packet Page 3471 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
16 Community Survey Report
As shown in Figure 16, in the Pacific/Munras/Cass area, most respondents (19.7 percent) were in favor of fourplexes, triplexes, or duplexes, followed by low rise apartments and condominium and townhomes at
17.8 and 17.7 percent respectively. With a more similar share of support, mid-rise apartments and condominiums, ADUs, then single family homes and small lots followed.
Figure 16: Area 3 Pacific/Munras/Cass Housing Preferences The Del Monte area did not have a runaway housing preference: townhomes and low rise apartments and condominiums had an even share of support at 19.2 percent (Figure 17). Mid-rise apartments and condominiums and fourplexes, triplexes, or duplexes were closely behind at 18.0 and 16.6 percent support.
Single family homes (12 percent) on small lots and ADUs (11.3 percent) had the least support.
Figure 17: Area 4 Del Monte Housing Preferences
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3144, Packet Page 3472 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report 17
Figure 18 demonstrates that for the North Fremont area, the top 3 housing preferences were mid-rise apartments and condominiums (21.1 percent), townhomes (20.4 percent), and low rise apartments and condominiums (19.7 percent). With slightly less support fourplexes, triplexes, and duplexes had 16.5 percent of the share followed by ADUs at 11.3 percent and 9.7 percent support for single family homes on small lots.
Figure 18: Area 5 North Fremont Housing Preferences
Townhomes were the most preferred for the Garden Road/ Airport/ Highway 68 area at 21.1 percent (Figure 19). Low rise apartments and condominiums, mid-rise apartments and condominiums, and fourplexes, triplexes or duplexes had a similar distribution of preference with 18.4 percent, 17.6 percent, and 17.5 percent respectively. Single family homes on small lots were favored over ADUs with 14 percent compared to 9.1 percent.
Figure 19: Area 6 Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68 Housing Preferences Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3145, Packet Page 3473 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
18 Community Survey Report
Respondents also preferred Townhomes the most in the Ryan Ranch area at 20.9 percent, followed by 19.3 percent for mid-rise apartments and condominiums, 17.2 percent for fourplexes, triplexes, or duplexes, 15.8 percent for single family homes on small lots, and 15.4 percent for low rise apartments and condominiums (Figure 20).
Figure 20:Area 7 Ryan Ranch Housing Preferences
For the Fort Ord area, respondents also favored townhomes the most at 21.1 percent. This is closely followed by single family homes on small lots at 19.5 percent, the largest percentage of support for single family homes on small lots across all 8 areas (Figure 21). Fourplexes, triplexes or duplexes had 17.8 share, mid-rise apartments and condominiums 15.4 percent, and low-rise apartments and condos 14.0 percent. ADUs were the least in favor for housing type at 10.1 percent.
Figure 21: Area 8 Fort Ord Housing Preferences
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3146, Packet Page 3474 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report 19
Question 3: “Describe your vision for the future of this area. What other activities, improvements, or amenities would you like to see here? For example: “This area should have a mix of housing and shops, with a plaza for socializing and listening to live music.” Or “I’d like to see a crosswalk and street trees added on Garden Road.” Or “If new housing is to be built, we'll need strategies to manage parking in the neighborhood.” This section serves as a summary for comments for each opportunity area. Please see Appendix B to see all comments.
Lighthouse
Question 3 was optional. In total 285 comments were received, which means approximately 70 percent of participants who provided input on the Lighthouse Area chose to leave a detailed comment. Almost 40 percent of all written comments expressed parking and traffic concerns associated with building new housing, considering existing vehicle congestion issues in the Lighthouse area. Of these respondents, some strongly suggested factoring in additional parking and traffic management strategies, while others were interested in improved pedestrian safety, commuter bike paths, or public transit alternatives.
Acknowledging the area is already walkable and a draw for tourists, many respondents were interested in further developing amenities in the Lighthouse area with shops for locals and plazas or spaces for community members of all ages to socialize or host events. In addition, respondents were eager to maintain the architectural character of the area that is consistent with the city, which for many included preserving ocean views and access to the beach.
Approximately 25 percent of respondents were interested in mixed-use developments in this area, citing similar interests to bolster walkability and commercial amenities that could serve future residents and tourism. Respondents suggested this would be a good area to target housing for young professionals, families, and students. Some residents also discussed affordability concerns and were eager to build housing that would be available for people who work in the area, including on Cannery row and the Aquarium.
Respondents who were not in favor of adding housing in this area were frequently very concerned about increased traffic or noise pollution or were interested in maintaining primarily commercial uses.
Other themes that emerged include:
• Comments on Lighthouse Avenue
o Congestion concerns
o Potential to turn it into a one-way street
o Desire for safer crosswalks
• Proximity to the ocean as an environmental hazard, including limited evacuation routes with traffic concerns around the tunnel
• Concern about Tier 1 sites, especially the Andronico’s potentially being redeveloped into housing • Ensuring new housing is not utilized for vacation homes, Airbnb or other investment property • Lack of support for luxury condos or apartments
• Improving curb appeal for tourists and residents with additional street trees and addressing rundown properties Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3147, Packet Page 3475 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
20 Community Survey Report
Downtown
In total 236 comments were received, which means approximately 50 percent of participants who provided input on the Downtown Area chose to leave a detailed comment. Many respondents spoke to the potential for Downtown to continue to become a walkable, vibrant, and cultural center for all members of the community. While many respondents noted the area has been making steps in the right direction to accommodate local and tourist activity and, more could be done to increase the social and cultural character and appeal of the area. Ideas included maintain aesthetic and historical character, introducing a greater variety of shops, more outdoor dining opportunities, street trees, and plazas. One strategy suggested by a large group of respondents included developing pedestrian only or pedestrian-friendly zones, especially on Alvarado Street. Some respondents thought more mixed-use infrastructure would help support local businesses and the local economy.
Parking concerns, however, made up the largest share of responses, described as a major limiting factor in this area if new housing was built. Respondents strongly urged strategies to either manage or create parking opportunities. Other concerns related to new housing in this area included environmental hazards such as sea-level rise and tsunami risk, and existing congestion and crowding that could worsen existing problems in the Downtown area. Some respondents did not support housing in this area mainly due to existing congestion and density.
Other themes that emerged included:
• Housing for lower- and middle-income residents and workers • Support for a variety of housing types: seniors, student, veteran, artist, and workforce housing • Preserving local character
• Improved public transportation alternatives
• Concerns about unhoused individuals
Pacific/Munras/Cass
In total 188 comments were received, which means approximately 60 percent of participants who provided input on the Pacific/Munras/Cass Area chose to leave a detailed comment. A large group of respondents were enthusiastic about the potential for this area, mainly due to the existing amenities including proximity to transit, grocery stores, and the Downtown area. Building out the connection between Downtown and this area was of interest to many respondents, describing visions that included a variety of housing types, more commercial opportunities, improved pedestrian or bike paths (especially on Pacific and Munras), park options, street trees and other landscaping. Some respondents favored more specific consideration to housing density depending on the street and proximity to Downtown. There were also split opinions on the existing offices, especially medical offices in the area. Some respondents advocated for moving these to more commercial centered areas, others thought it make sense to convert some of these offices back to housing, while others preferred to maintain the commercial buildings in the area. Some respondents were also interested in adding ADUs in this area.
Parking and road concerns were again noted as a concern with the potential for new units in this area. Many commented on the challenges Cass Street presents, including split interests on maintaining or altering the current character and the existing narrow street. The existing motels were also mentioned by some respondents, again with split interests on preserving them as commercial needs or potential converting them to housing.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3148, Packet Page 3476 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report 21
Del Monte
In total 168 comments were received, which means approximately 50 percent of participants who provided input on the Del Monte Area chose to leave a detailed comment. Respondents who were interested in building housing in this area expressed a desire for more commercial uses, curb appeal, and street trees to improve pedestrian use, safety, and enjoyment. Respondents commented on the beauty and location potential of this area with proximity to Highway 1, the beach, parks, and the recreation trail. However, comments also acknowledged limitations that Del Monte Avenue poses as a high-traffic arterial, including noise, pedestrian safety, minimal commercial opportunities, and current industrial uses in the area. Some respondents suggested a pedestrian bridge over Del Monte Avenue that would connect people to the beach and decrease pedestrian proximity to the road.
Proximity to the ocean and the threat of sea level rise in this area concerned some respondents, with others strongly urging for preservation of the sand dunes. Some respondents wondered where else industrial uses could go in the City if they were to be displaced by housing and new commercial. Those who did not support new housing in this area frequently thought that traffic on Del Monte Avenue is already too congested.
Other themes that emerged included:
• Preferences for a variety of housing types depending on the surrounding streets • Maintain single-family character and R-1 zoning
• Concerns about unhoused individuals
North Fremont
In total 171 comments were received, which means approximately 60 percent of participants who provided input on the North Fremont Area chose to leave a detailed comment. Most respondents agreed this area needs investment. A large group of respondents were interested in revitalizing the area with mixed-use housing (approximately 25 percent) and improved active transportation infrastructure (approximately 15 percent), while others felt North Fremont Street would not be conducive to a pleasant residential environment due to traffic, noise, and other concerns.
Those interested in revitalization believed proximity to the highway and existing commercial amenities added to the potential for residential development. These respondents were consistently eager to see improved pedestrian safety on North Fremont, new retail and entertainment, more street trees and landscaping, and additional parks or green space. Many expressed this would be a good area for affordable projects. On the other hand, some respondents were eager to preserve the single-family character in the Fremont area, and either limit new housing development or at least keep densities low.
Respondents also had mixed opinions about the bike path on North Fremont, some suggested its removal entirely, while others thought it was necessary to establish connectivity to other protected bike paths for it to be functional. As is the case in other opportunity areas, many respondents (approximately 15 percent) voiced concerns about parking and vehicle congestion, hoping any new development would be accompanied by parking and traffic management strategies.
Other themes that emerged included:
• Mixed input on density for those interested in multi-family housing • Mixed input on the current value and potential uses of the Fairgrounds • Repurposing vacant lots and underutilized commercial. • Airport traffic, noise, and pollution concerns
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3149, Packet Page 3477 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
22 Community Survey Report
Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68
In total 172 comments were received, which means approximately 55 percent of participants who provided input on the Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68 Area chose to leave a detailed comment. Generally, respondents had diverse visions for this area. Some respondents were excited about the potential for new development, while others thought commercial and industrial uses should be preserved. Many respondents agreed that currently there is limited infrastructure and commercial to support residential without worsening vehicle traffic. Over 20 percent of respondents expressed strong concerns about airport noise, pollution, and traffic on Highway 68.
Respondents who did not support new housing in this area (approximately 15 percent) citied existing traffic concerns, Highway 68 road safety concerns, airport noise, interest in maintaining open space, and limited existing amenities. Some respondents thought it would be better to maintain commercial and industrial uses only, while others were interested in converting underutilized commercial and offices.
Many of those in favor of housing were eager to ensure that any future growth around this area would be accompanied by pedestrian and biking infrastructure, street trees and landscaping, parks or gathering spaces, more commercial and retail nearby, and overall improved connectivity to other parts of the city.
These respondents also were interested in workforce or more affordable housing options.
Other themes that emerged included:
• Some desire to maintain separation between multi-family and single-family neighborhoods if housing is developed;
• Safety concerns over current speed limit and road conditions on Highway 68; and • Support for high-density housing in the area.
Ryan Ranch
In total 153 comments were received, which means approximately 50 percent of participants who provided input on the Ryan Ranch Area chose to leave a detailed comment. Respondents also had mixed visions for this area. Many respondents interested in housing in this area felt new infrastructure would be crucial to facilitating new housing. They suggested retail conveniences, community parks or open space, more pedestrian and bike infrastructure, and better transit connectivity would increase livability for future residents while also addressing traffic concerns. Over 18 percent of respondents were also interested in new parks and open space opportunities. Many respondents were excited about housing and development that would serve the workforce or students in this area and complement existing commercial uses.
Some respondents who preferred maintaining a business environment were still in favor of adding convenience commercial (grocery stores, eateries, and other day-to-day retail) to at least serve the existing work force in the area. Interests were also divided over potential development character and intensity in this area, with some respondents eager to see more mixed-use and infill development, while others were interested in single-family homes.
Notably, a significant group ofrespondents (15 percent) did not support new housing in this area, with many interested in preserving existing uses instead. Other concerns mentioned included liquefaction risk, increased traffic on Highway 68, and airport noise. Some respondents saw proximity to highway 68 and 1 as an added convenience for any future residents, while others viewed the proximity as an externality creating traffic and congestion.
Other themes that emerged included:
• Parking considerations for any new housing developments Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3150, Packet Page 3478 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report 23
• Build affordable housing for workers or develop student housing Fort Ord
In total 167 comments were received, which means approximately 55 percent of participants who provided input on the Fort Ord Area chose to leave a detailed comment. Overall, while a strong majority of respondents supported housing at Fort Ord, those who left comments expressed a range of opinions regarding development and conservation on the site. Many respondents who were not in favor of housing frequently did not support the idea of building on undeveloped, wild land (approximately 20 percent), while others mentioned the lack of infrastructure and limited connectivity to other parts of the City as reasons for not pursuing development on the site. Other concerns raised regarding housing development on the site included airport noise, water availability, and increased traffic and road safety, especially on Highway 68.
Some of these respondents expressed preference for hiking or biking trails were created.
On the other hand, many respondents who left comments were interested in housing development that was more integrated with the natural environment or preserved some open space. Many respondents who left comments wanting to see development of this area were interested in a mix of housing types. Some thought there was opportunity to build in volume, which could potentially address affordability concerns. Many also were interested in added local amenities such as grocery stores, restaurants, and gas stations, as well as pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and new transit connections. The need for adequate parking was often cited.
Other themes that emerged included:
• Building in Fort Ord would remove burden from other already built-up and congested areas; • If partially preserved, access to existing nature environment could be a draw for future residents; • Desire to include senior housing here if amenities are also built; and • Need for a focus on sustainability in the design of new development on the site.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3151, Packet Page 3479 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
24 Community Survey Report
IN-PERSON OUTREACH COMMENTS
Comments were also collected via in-person outreach events. At each event, there were three boards set up depicting 1) project background, online survey, and opportunity areas, specifically how opportunity areas were identified, 2) a poster version of the five-minute survey online, intended for participants to reflect on the strategy needed to meet Monterey’s 3,654 RHNA allocation, and 3) a map of Monterey with opportunity areas highlighted and a place for community members to share their vision for Monterey on sticky notes.
Overall, participants were supportive of a variety of housing types, specifically townhomes, fourplexes, and senior housing, to alleviate the housing crisis in Monterey. Participants were wary of the aspects needed with housing development, like proper infrastructure, water, traffic, schools, and amenities like grocery stores.
Many participants were drawn to the old Fort Ord site as a place for new housing, though a couple participants did express the need for safety, transportation (bus routes to commute to central Monterey), and park facilities for this area. However, others were adamant that open land should be preserved.
Participants noted that the Lighthouse opportunity area is already congested, and it may be best to put housing near less developed areas, such as North Fremont and Del Monte Avenue. A few comments also were eager to see improved bike path infrastructure. Concerns about unhoused individuals, traffic, and water were also described.
Another common theme heard in the pop-up events was how expensive it is to both rent and buy in Monterey. Many older participants expressed they had been renting for decades in hopes to eventually purchase a home but have not been able to due to the rising prices in the housing market.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3152, Packet Page 3480 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report 25
COMMUNITY HOUSING PREFERENCE RANKING
An important focus of the survey was on gauging community members' preferred locations for new housing as needed to accommodate the City's RHNA obligations for the 2023-31 planning period. This input will help shape the strategy presented in the Housing Element, guiding both the selection of sites and the actions needed to facilitate development on them.
To assess preferences, several key indicators were considered:
• the average number of housing units allocated to each of the opportunity areas from the 5-minute survey;
• the average percentage of the maximum allocated to each of the opportunity areas from the 5- minute survey; and
• percentage of respondents who supported new housing to each opportunity area from the 10- minute survey.
Each of the eight opportunity areas was scored and ranked individually on these indicators, as shown on Tables 2, 3 and 4 below. For each indicator, the highest ranked opportunity area received a score of 8 and the lowest received a score of 1. Then the scores were aggregated to present total cumulative ranking out of a maximum possible 24 points. Fort Ord was therefore ranked first for housing preferences across these three indicators, with North Fremont second, followed by Ryan Ranch, Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68, Downtown, then Lighthouse. Pacific/Munras/Cass and Del Monte had under 10 total points.
Table 1: Cumulative Rankings
Total Points
Area 8. Fort Ord 20
Area 5: North Fremont 16
Area 7: Ryan Ranch 16
Area 6: Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68 15
Area 2: Downtown 13
Area 1: Lighthouse 12
Area 3: Pacific/Munras/Cass 9
Area 4: Del Monte 7
Table 2: Average Housing Units Ranking (5-Minute Survey) Average Housing Units Points
Area 8. Fort Ord 1953.73 8
Area 6: Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68 1045.23 7
Area 7: Ryan Ranch 587.46 6
Area 2: Downtown 297.79 5
Area 5: North Fremont 241.20 4
Area 1: Lighthouse 181.66 3
Area 4: Del Monte 159.74 2
Area 3: Pacific/Munras/Cass 121.88 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3153, Packet Page 3481 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
26 Community Survey Report
Table 3: Average Percent of the Maximum Units Allocated Rankings (5-Minute Survey) % of the Maximum Units (Average) Points
Area 8. Fort Ord 88.81% 8
Area 7: Ryan Ranch 83.92% 7
Area 6: Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68 83.62% 6
Area 5: North Fremont 73.09% 5
Area 4: Del Monte 69.45% 4
Area 3: Pacific/Munras/Cass 65.88% 3
Area 2: Downtown 59.56% 2
Area 1: Lighthouse 55.90% 1
Table 4: Percent Support for New Housing Rankings of All Respondents (10-Minute Survey) Support for New Housing Points
Area 1: Lighthouse 74.28% 8
Area 5: North Fremont 68.46% 7
Area 2: Downtown 68.41% 6
Area 3: Pacific/Munras/Cass 68.39% 5
Area 8. Fort Ord 63.70% 4
Area 7: Ryan Ranch 63.03% 3
Area 6: Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68 61.86% 2
Area 4: Del Monte 61.26% 1
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3154, Packet Page 3482 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report A-1
Appendix A: Survey Questions
5-MINUTE SURVEY
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3155, Packet Page 3483 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
A-2 Community Survey Report
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3156, Packet Page 3484 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report A-3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3157, Packet Page 3485 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
A-4 Community Survey Report
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3158, Packet Page 3486 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report A-5
10-MINUTE SURVEY
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3159, Packet Page 3487 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
A-6 Community Survey Report
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3160, Packet Page 3488 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report A-7
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3161, Packet Page 3489 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-1
Appendix B: Open-Ended Responses:
5-MINUTE SURVEY
Question 2 (5-Minute Survey): “Leave a comment about your choices if you like.” Fort Ord is only logical place due to space. However, there is not enough water so the whole idea is really silly. It is pushed down people’ s throat.
I'm in more support of in-fill housing than of turning any natural habitat or land into housing.
Please don’t destroy the historical feel of our city. It’s a treasure that once lost cannot be regained. Scott Weiner may be so caught up in his housing goals that he may not have noticed the boom has moved to other states. No one wants to live or shop where there is no place to park. Monterey holds a very special place in California’s history. Let’s protect that and be on the right side of history.
I grew up in the South Bay, now a very flavorless Silicon Valley. Cities (Cupertino for one) think nothing of building 22-story office/residence structures right beside one-story homes. A good many residents move away in disgust. Let’s learn from their misfortunes.
There are two hotels that are supposed to start construction one in cannery row and the other in PG. This is an obvious mistake and should instead be made into housing for the community.
Also, the way this survey is designed forces me to choose a large number of houses in Fort Ord and Garden Road.
This survey is poorly designed.
Infill the already developed areas especially those that have walkable, bikeable access to stores and other resources first before proceeding with Ft. Ord or other sprawl options! Let’s build our community! It would be great to include more/better public transportation or bike lines to accompany additional housing in high-traffic areas (especially lighthouse avenue).
Please make these houses affordable and for the working class of Monterey. Not for the Silicon Valley tech workers who are coming in and driving up the prices of homes. Also please prioritize these homes to those that don't already have one. There are many people who own their second vacation home in Monterey and live somewhere else, thus increasing the prices and limiting housing to those that live here.
There is no way 3,654 housing units will fit or should even be considered for the area. However, in addition to the 8 areas mentioned, there are areas along HWY68 that could be used if we have guaranteed water water supply.
First, HWY68 between Monterey and Toro park must be widened. As of now the situation on the road between Monterey and Salinas is appalling.
I’m concerned that building not be allowed where we know flooding is likely, but approved all the downtown units because couldn’t hit the required total otherwise. Concern also for traffic flow in senses areas like del monte or Fremont. Biggest concern is that a lot of these sites are in areas where they will likely cost a lot to live there once finished. Adding these units, in some areas on or near the water, do we end up with any affordable housing? This is just a paper exercise without water; what are the state repercussions when only a small percentage of what’s ‘required’ are built?
I had taken the 10 minute survey and it took me a lot longer but when I went to finish and it asked me to pick my neighborhood, a map appeared and I couldn’t get out and then when I hit back button it erased everything! So disappointing! I said in most areas, especially del monte, garden road, fort ord that we need affordable housing for both low and medium income! Professionals like me who make over 100k are being driven out due to high rental prices and not enough places to rent at a reasonable price. We can’t apply for low cost and can’t afford the mansions. We need tiny homes, smaller one family units and a lot more apartment complexes that help us retain a Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3162, Packet Page 3490 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-2 Community Survey Report
Question 2 (5-Minute Survey): “Leave a comment about your choices if you like.” diverse workforce. This will reduce commuting costs. There seems to be a bias in making lower cost housing and it’s why my family is having to look to move elsewhere as our family grows. I pay $2000 for a 2 bedroom 1 bath with no laundry and incredibly thin walls and that price is no longer seen here (and it’s still so expensive for what I get). As a bicultural professional that gives services to children that they can’t find elsewhere I really want to believe this will change but I just don’t see the developers wanting to really invest in affordable solutions rather than million dollar mansions….
Area 8 supports a colony of federally listed endangered native plants and should not be developed. completely incredulous that the state should mandate absurb numbers! I would seriously like to know why the following neighborhoods are not being subjected to the mandatory State's housing requirements: Fisherman's Flats, Skyline, Monterey Vista, Glenwood, Alta Mesa, Oak Grove, Deer Flats and Fisherman's Flats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your solution to the housing issue is the Fort Ord, Ryan Ranch and Garden Road areas. It is absolutely unfair to consider this issue without being equitable across the board to all of the neighborhoods. If you do put the new housing in the 3 undeveloped areas that would be fair. Otherwise I am very disappointed in this City's leadership to select only a handful of already dense neighborhoods to create a solution and leave the other above mentioned neighborhoods not affected or have to be required to do their part for a solution. This is completely wrong. I did the longer survey and did this one so I could leave these comments and I hope my words here are seriously considered and the process is done more fairly.
I would love to help and i can't figure out how to work this survey It's not feasible to reach this "goal" with the water situation as it is, and all the regulations and restriction the state imposes,
Single family housing will ruin Monterey. Condos, multi-family homes and mixed-use zoning are non negotiables in the modern climate.
I didn't see Pebble Beach ,Carmel or Seaside . I realize it's not Monterey, but its so close and its in Monterey County. Who will qualify ? Developers double the price as units are being built. Look at Seaside Highlands development . 300,000 dollar homes turned into 600,000 overnight . all I have to say is Good luck with that The city itself is full enough. At the end of the day the traffic & congestion heading north redirects onto north Fremont Ave in north Monterey. More dwellings will make the congestion even worse.
The fact that you have segregated all the different new "housing" areas above for separate comments is asinine.
Stupid. (Who the hell is going to fill out all that crap?) You are obviously all techy types that can only understand and sort out basic cultural problems if they are computer based, mathematically defined solutions someone else designed and polled. As such, you are probably stuck in your old ideas of what is acceptable housing today. Ergo, the most effective solution to our housing dilemma is to rethink what kind and size of housing to build and how to incorporate these unique units into the given, specific areas. The most cost effective solution is simple and it's available at a huge saavings vis-a-vis your outdated concept of what is acceptable "housing." Ready, guys?
Tiny homes! Prefabricated units of all sizes and requirements that can be designed to fit any and all of the new owners, renters, whoever, that will be needing homes. As the phrase goes: Keep It Simple Stupid. KISS. If you are not taking these units into consideration as both in situ, like a trailer park, or as single units fit between existing homes and buildings -- you deserve the oncoming population debacle.
MichaelLattaBooks.com ([email protected])
Utilizing the vacant land near the cannery row would be great, and adding vertical/underground parking.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3163, Packet Page 3491 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-3
Question 2 (5-Minute Survey): “Leave a comment about your choices if you like.” I believe that all of this is wrong. We need to fight population increase rather than support it. Increased population means crowding, pollution, and more climate change. If we need more low-income housing, buy some existing housing and make it low-income.
People like to talk about sustainability these days, but the most unsustainable thing is population growth.
I think that there should be investment in 55+ communities similar to SunCity, etc., in Sacramento, Roseville, Rocklin and El Dorado Hills. They are reasonably priced and the HOAs are not prohibitive. The few senior communities, like those in the Carmel Valley area, have absolutely horrendous HOAs. I was looking for something like that, as my home in Monterey has stairs, and I would love a senior community. However, the HOAs here range in the $1,500 to $2,000 per month. Totally unaffordable.
The system was a bit confusing. Business people swallowing up homes in Monterey to turn for a profit/charge high rent is the real issue.
I currently rent in the downtown area and would love to be able to buy something in a walkable area. However, I would probably not buy anything north of Pearl St. due to potential effects of climate change. I gave downtown, lighthouse, and Del Monte less than the maximum due to fears of flooding (I know it said Del Monte is not at high risk, but I am concerned about them being adjacent to risk. I gave other areas I would like to live the maximum (e.g. Pacific, North Fremont).
I had to give the outlying areas large numbers since they have the capacity, but I don't think it is fair or desirable to put all the new housing out there.
Build up the downtown area without degrading the beach and hiking trails. Take advantage of the wonderful area of the OLD Fort Ord. North Fremont area is quite undesirable.
I foresee a traffic nightmare unless you can create infrastructure for e-bikes and convince people to use them for commuting and daily chores. The current mindset of “let’s fire up my 5000 lb Suburban so I can transport my 150 lb. body on a quick trip to the local market “ is not going to cut it! No high density to close to beaches
It makes sense to select areas that will have the least impact on traffic. Areas that have more space, where dwellings can be built without impacting or taking up space of business districts are best.
CA refuses to address the underlying reasons contributing to the housing shortages. As a CA native I have seen and worked close to the myriad of variables. In fact, I have had a front row seat to the colossal waste of tax dollars and lack of accountability. As a retiree I now just wish * to leave * our unsafe, over regulated state and its continuous rhetoric. Mandating building - without consideration of, and detailed attention to, root problems across systems- is an absurdity and nothing more than propaganda. Distractions and bandaids will not solve the housing crisis - this mandate is simply a deflection of responsibility and actual leadership in Sacramento. The issues are complex, but the response - as has become the standard in CA - to mandate more building - is shortsighted. Our elected leaders have grossly failed CA. Perhaps they ought to clean up and rebuild their own house first before forcing mandates that do not address the underlying problems. To be clear, I do not object to development, but I do object to failed policy after failed policy that has left CA a complete disaster across multiple systems. Those failed policies cost money - lots and lots of money - and more, have cost Californian's their quality of life as residents of this lost state.
Any building proposals in California is troubling because of our lack of water. 3654 ! in Monterey is just troubling - water, our road conditions and already high traffic areas.
Garden Road/68 has the perfect open land space but the added traffic to the already troubled 68 traffic is a concern.
68 would be the only in and out for any homes up there.
Ford Ord and Ryan Ranch seem better as there is the space and there are many ways to get in and out of that area.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3164, Packet Page 3492 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-4 Community Survey Report
Question 2 (5-Minute Survey): “Leave a comment about your choices if you like.” Close enough to already existing markets, shops, restaurants, etc.
I put ridiculously low numbers in areas...N. Fremont, Del Monte, Pacific-Cass and downtown.
The reality of the rents I feel will still be high due to all costs involved that the people we are trying to house still won't be able to afford them.
Its already 3/31 so I am rushing with this.
This looks like a fiasco. Government has failed us all again.
It would be nice to have some more affordable housing here that is new. I don't have a million dollars to buy a house.
make home affordable for healthcare workers like me, for law enforcements, and for hardworking citizens I like all spots as long as we get some low/ moderately priced housing in our area. So many people have to live out of town even though they work in Monterey
The above exercise did not make any sense as to use up my points required me to max out my vote for every single location. So it did not allow me to prioritize...
Wherever we put these houses, they should be affordable and for the working class of Monterey. Letting people come in to buy houses 2 and 3 creates such a strain on the full time working class residents of Monterey. Not to mention the traffic coming in and out of a town with only 2 roads is ridiculous and unnecessary I do appreciate the ability to have a voice and I can't imagine how difficult this job must be when considering so many opinions.
I would prefer to see a lot of filling in of the already developed areas, which would allow residents to walk or bike to services. Building in the undeveloped areas in Fort Ord and off 68 will increase traffic, and it would be nice to be able to preserve some of the trees and nature in those areas.
By the way this took a lot longer than 5 minutes. It is a good exercise though.
Affordability is the main concern -- I anticipate those in Seaside would be more accessible financially to individuals, including with access to public transit.
Some of the options for housing allocation are TERRIBLE and already highly inundated. It would also be helpful if there were more information about the style of housing (i.e., apartments, town houses, etc). Knowing that information would help me better choose my allocations.
I LIKE GARDEN ROAD BECAUSE ITS AN OPEN SPACE THAT IS CENTRALLY LOCATED AND WILL NOT IMPACT TRAFFIC AS MUCH.
With all of these options, I am extremely concerned with traffic. This traffic on the peninsula has become so much worse in the last few years. What kinds of plans will accompany these new homes on how to combat traffic? Where will people park - specifically in the Lighthouse, Downtown, Pacific, N Fremont, and Del Monte areas? I was looking at areas that are not already congested, have more nature access and aren't heavily impacted by traffic The more we put housing near where people already work (downtown, Lighthouse district, North Fremont area, hotels and medical offices and the mall off Munras) the less traffic we'll have as people don't need to commute, or commute as long and far. Walking and biking a few blocks to work is better for health, better for traffic. Also consider where services already are, especially grocery stores to avoid food deserts. Building in the Fort Ord spot has close access to the Canyon Del Rey grocery, gas, and food services. Ryan Ranch is a food desert people will just need to commute to get basic supplies for life. But like one housing unit there could accomodate some of the staff who work the businesess there and would rather live close to work than to food or fun. Similarly Garden Road is a food desert, and there aren't many major employers. So unlike Ryan Ranch where a little housing might be worth it to some, there are unlikely to be people who want to live near the airport because it's close to work.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3165, Packet Page 3493 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-5
Question 2 (5-Minute Survey): “Leave a comment about your choices if you like.” I support already developed areas being re-designed to incorporate housing. I do not support large open/ green habitat spaces to be developed.
Downtown, Lighthouse, Del Monte, North Freemont, Pacific/Munras/Cass, and Garden Road-should be developed a little more where it can be fit in but there are significant issues with parking that would be more difficult to address in those areas.
Ryan Ranch, and Fort Ord can take the most development because of the space that is available. Public transport options should be a very high priority.
Fort Ord and Ryan Ranch could also have room for businesses like grocery stores, gas stations, and other types of businesses to serve those areas and help alleviate traffic to the existing grocery stores, etc.
Downtown areas should be the last consideration until other options to be explored. There are definitely areas to develop, but the risk to flooding is an important disincentive as the homes currently near el Estero may need to be relocated. I would be all for Lighthouse/Cannery Row, Pacific/Munras, Del Monte and Fremont (North Monterey) developments. the RR, Ft. Ord and Garden Rd/68 are no brainers. Encouraging ADU and changing some areas from R1 to R3 (I am thinking New Monterey since the area already has some mixed neighborhoods and a lot of rental property maybe there could be some incentives to encourage more housing.) Housing should prioritize reducing the need for car commuting. We should prioritize concentrating housing in walkable urban areas.
The areas off hwy 1 from Castro and El Estero through PG are traffic heavy. new housing immediate to these areas would greatly impact access to not only existing communities but also our vital businesses Make housing denser near downtown cores. It's insane that more housing is not near commercial areas and accessible by foot/bike. The amount of driving you have to do to get around Monterey is unacceptable Its not just about the area, but its also the cost of the housing in the area. Its find to build condos on canary row, but the added cost to live in them right by the beach is going to be astronomical. Many of the jobs in the area do not pay high enough to support the high mortgage payments. (speaking a nurse and teacher salary) These plans should include low income housing for an extended amount of years and not just commercial use and luxury apartments.
I'm not sure this is the correct place to mention this, but please emphasize affordable housing as much as you possibly can - I am a Monterey native and cannot afford to live here even with a successful office career. Median rent in Monterey/Seaside/PG is MUCH higher than 30% of the median salary, and even a studio in Salinas is not affordable with current rent and transportation costs. As a single person the MAJORITY of my paycheck goes towards my small 1 bedroom apartment whose water shuts off multiple times per month for emergency repairs.
Cost of living has risen hugely but salaries have not risen to match, and as a result there are many people in my situation who will soon be forced out of Monterey county.
Downtown?Del Monte is the perfect and best area to up-zone the properties to allow for higher buildings and mixed use projects with commercial @ ground with all residential above (rental or condo). If there is a way to even increase teh toal number in this area it would be even better. Additionally, all new housing will require water allocation (from somewhere?) and a relaxation of parking space requirements per unit, especially if there is a requirement for a high percentage (anything over 25%) of low-income housing per new development. Without these, making any of these residential projects economically viable will not work.
I believe the downtown area cass st where are all the Dr. Offices for years shouldn’t change. Downtown is also noisy for residential. Fort Ord has many empty lot and condos could be build to fulfill the residences needed.
I think Monterey needs to consider traffic and parking first before more housing.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3166, Packet Page 3494 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-6 Community Survey Report
Question 2 (5-Minute Survey): “Leave a comment about your choices if you like.” Any new homes should be for buyers who are going to live there. They should be a pathway to ownership and not rentals, investment properties or second & third homes.
Areas that are further from central areas will need more affordable and accessible public transit. Especially since those areas can house more people.
The areas I didn’t mark like downtown, Del Monte, Munras…can’t handle more traffic than they already have.
Ft ORD, Ryan Ranch, Garden Road have land for development and handle more traffic.
We should focus on infill. Many people in residential parts of Monterey would like to be able to have an ADU and are limited by water credits. As an example: I live in an 800 SF home on a 5,000 SF lot. I have plenty of space on my lot to build an ADU and still have lots of yard space; however, because my home is small and has only 1 bathroom, even by doing all the efficiency retrofits I could do, I wasn't able to get enough water credits for an ADU (aside from limiting needed housing, these rules favor the rich, yet again, who have houses with multiple bathrooms that use more water!), even on my lot that is zoned for multifamily housing! I could provide one more unit of housing on this lot, and others could too. So we shouldn't just look at the easy answers of big subdivisions on the outskirts because that is the simple solution. The simple solution always comes with associated issues, such as increased traffic, limited services for those living in these areas (from Fort Ord or Ryan Ranch, they would have to drive further to buy groceries etc.), expanding development closer to the wildland-urban interface where they may be more susceptible to wildfires, etc.
Additionally, in my neighborhood of New Monterey, there are quite a few old multi-family buildings that could be refurbished and made more efficient and house more living units. Provide incentives for both SFRs and MFRs to provide more housing. Would that provide all the new housing that is needed, maybe not, but it sure would help.
Let's think a bit outside the box and do better development that benefits all the residents of Monterey and strengthen our neighborhoods.
I am sorry, the mobile version is difficult for me to navigate.
My Downtown comments
All ADU’s should be mandatory affordable, what we have now is a financial windfall for absentee landlords charging market rates.
Residential privacy is gone, rentals are filled with multiple tenants in order to afford high rents, parked trucks literally are filling streets, 3 driveways on one lot?
Affordable apartments Downtown is in a rising ocean area, and directly in a Tsunami zone puts poor people in the worst danger zone of the city, prohibited in current city plans, where’s is Monterey Fire recommendations on life risk?
Gotta look at developing Aquajito Road area too. Fort Ord is nothing but space to develop housing. It’ll be key to work with federal government running NPS and USAG POM too. Develop it and make this beautiful area more affordable!
I don't see what my total is. The box says "you have already submitted your response," but the totals say zero. I think the already dense areas, Areas 1-4, should have half the maximum number. Area 5: 3/4 the number suggested, Area 6: whatever the airport land use plan will permit, and wide open spaces, Areas 6 and 7 --Fort Ord and Ryan Ranc, should have the total number suggested.
1. Are you able to restrict eligibility of applicant to Monterey residents or working in Monterey if it is in the city limits. Or restrict to Monterey county residents if in county district?
2. Once they prove they are low income, do tenants get audited the following years to show they still qualify? If not, they should move out, so another low income can move in.
3. Downtown Monterey and Cannery Row areas are so congested that I think the majority of housing should go Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3167, Packet Page 3495 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-7
Question 2 (5-Minute Survey): “Leave a comment about your choices if you like.” elsewhere where there is room for development, and transportation and stores and medical offices.
4. I didn’t get to finish the survey earlier. I think there was a computer issue. I only got to the first few areas. I think the majority of the build out should be Fort Ord area, Ryan Ranch area…areas where there is room to grow.
Thank you for allowing us to voice our opinions:)
Housing at Ryan Ranch and Fort Ord is illogical because residents would have to drive everywhere for food, entertainment, schools.
A key showing what each color represents would be helpful. Is the total number you ca get to the actual number of possible housing units? Why is New Monterey and some other areas not included? No more people beyond tunnel. Access too restrictive, not safe for evacuation as it is.
Downtown and Cannery Row housing will be tricky and will need to be conservative in housing units- it’s a commercial zone, so residents need parking and quality of life. These units shouldn’t be “cool urban” luxury homes- they need to designed for the working class. Homes along North Fremont make great sense- as there is already a bus line. Homes in Ryan Ranch and Garden Road also would be nice, but would require partnership with MST for more direct frequent bus lines to Salinas, Monterey and Carmel. Casa Munras is also ideal as there are parking along the street and a quiet commercial area, mixed with residential.
Vacation rentals are taking rental homes from the local population. We need Affordable housing.
Areas like lighthouse in Monterey will become even more full of traffic during summer and rush hour if too many new homes are put in that area.
Please build more housing! We are in an emergency and we need to build as many units as we can without delay.
PLEASE HELP US!
The rising sea level is a worry for future planning, as well as traffic, which is not addressed here. If all these additional units were added, would the roadways be worse or are we making strides to use alternative transportation? Seems like the obvious choice would be to add lots of units in Ft Ord, but does that add to the congestion on Hwy 1? Also Ryan Ranch and Garden Road/68 is also impacted if many more housing units were added in these areas, especially since grocery stores, schools, or amenities are not located in these areas.
I wouldn't develop fort ord or ryan ranch at all but we can't hit our number otherwise. Too far to drive without any services.
More higher density units should be closer into town where residents will be able to walk to most things. Further out the housing doesn’t have to be as high density as in town. Maintain a lot of mixed use area in all locations, including social areas and parks. Parking should be built into any new residential projects for residents. New housing should not be available to those looking for investment properties and/or 2nd/3rd/4th homes.
Do not contribute to sprawl by building in undeveloped areas! The City of Monterey has been guilty of approving housing in the least desirable areas (areas) because it is 'easier' than building in areas that are already developed.
Density is the key- build UP not out.
I wouldn't build new developments in areas with open land. Consider that places like Ryan Ranch and Fort Ord provide habitat from crucial species that helps our environment thrive. Without these species, it could put our ecosystem at risk of collapsing. This could limit our food and water sources.
Please be mindful of impacts like these when developing future housing and other projects for the city. concentrate development on Garden Road, Ryan Ranch and Fort Ord. Too much traffic congestion in town already and more housing in the Fremont or Del Monte corridors will only damage the quality of life of current residents and businesses. Don't want to see gentrification of Del Monte corridor as small businesses there depend Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3168, Packet Page 3496 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-8 Community Survey Report
Question 2 (5-Minute Survey): “Leave a comment about your choices if you like.” on lower rents to survive. Intensifying their neighborhood will only result in pushing out small businesses that are resident-serving.
Dense high rise infill with no parking requirements along cannery row and downtown makes by far the most sense. Let's be a real city. Urbanist living is more sustainable both economically and environmentally. We need to stop being a car dependent city.
I consider Tom Rawleyd idea to incorporate county land off 68.
I believe that near dowtown and lighhouse tio many home = too much traffic and as we are now traffic is awful already.
What we need is permit parking! That way there is a limit of people for household; otherwise people who are homeowners like myself have a spot to park
Can the rent be affordable?
Other than avoiding 4-5 story buildings next to existing single homes I am for max density.
We MUST build as much housing as water allows, not simply aim low at the minimum 3,654. Allow 2/3/4-plexes, bungalow courts, etc. in R-1 and R-E zones. Reform minimum parking requirements to make room for more units and encourage transit use, bicycling, or preferably just plain walking for daily errands/commute. Back this up with raised crosswalks, protected bike lanes, etc. so we can be safe and comfortable out on our streets, and allow limited commercial uses (a la C-1) in R-2 and R-3 zones so, again, we don't have to drive across town to buy groceries or just have a nice lunch out.
The city of Monterey needs to adress the issue of pedestrian safety, proper bike lanes that connect the various areas of the city, limit commuter traffic affecting residential neighborhoods, traffic safety in general and enforcement.
The pendestrian, cyclist and public trabsportation infrastructure in this town is very outdated and unsafe.
How about we work on fixing and updating our local area infra structures? You want to bring in more people, but nothing is done to support this increase.
There is no indication as to the type of housing - I feel there should be multiple purpose housing/ mix use and lots granny units. We need housing for women who live longer, have less income and are excellent care takers. I am in a rental where I am a resident host for an airbnb and it is heavenly. After my husband of 33 yrs divorced me at age 64 to marry a younger woman and he took the family home I have been recreating my life ever since. The arrangement of low rent to manager tge property for the owner is fantastic.
Areas not selected would have too much of a traffic impact which is already adverse in these areas If the city does not legally challenge this stupid law, we are all doomed...
We need more affordable and high density housing. We need to build to minimize sprawl and maximize walkability and park access. This means building up infrastructure concurrently. We would be wise to focus on green building projects that minimize water and energy use and possibly reuse water. Let's stop using our water resources for hotels and use them for residents.
Side note: I tried to fill out the 10 min version of the survey but it would not load on my phone Fremont needs redevelopment! Turn fort ord and ryan ranch into an east garrison like development (duplex/triplex models) with parks and shopping
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3169, Packet Page 3497 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-9
Question 2 (5-Minute Survey): “Leave a comment about your choices if you like.” Our schools our under funded and crammed with low income students and horrible ratings. I’ve lived in monterey my whole life and wish we could support the people / children already living here more. Let’s take the model that carmel and pg have !! We’ve had terrible leadership for too long. I wish we didn’t have to build any new housing.
I like the idea of having housing near work, Garden Road and Ryan Ranch. Del Monte seems a little bit noisy for housing. City Center is lovely to walk to services.
We are built out. Our roads are already too congested. Who enacted this law? I would like to see smaller, but more family friendly homes and neighborhoods created with an economy that supports good paying jobs. I would like Monterey to not be dependent on military subsidies and instead be built up as a community with long-term residents of a younger generation that reflect the environmental considerations of a coastal region.
I believe that Monterey needs to be careful to not destroy the quality of life here by over-building. Fort Ord is currently an eye-sore and already has a building footprint. I would like to see walking paths that connect homes to the Fort Ord area. Please keep open space.
It would be great to see Lighthouse accommodate families. Condos and apartments are a good way to provide homes, but again, please allow local people the opportunity to buy, not out of state or foreign investors.
Thank you.
Area 6 & 8 has lots of open space that existing wild animals and birds are used to. I would hope that if these areas are developed, the plan would incorporate corridors with native plants for animals and birds to utilize.
Place housing where service industry is prevalent.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3170, Packet Page 3498 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-10 Community Survey Report
LIGHTHOUSE AREA
Lighthouse Area Question 3 (10-Minute Survey): “Describe your vision for the future of this area.
What other activities, improvements, or amenities would you like to see here?...” This seems like a great area for further expanding apartments or condos on upper floors and shops on first floors.