Monterey City Council
July 16, 2024

Some areas are quieter and might be best for just multi-story apartments/condos. The walk-ability is great here.

Additional planning for transit and general mobility to and from downtown Monterey/Hwy 1 to this neighborhood for access to jobs is needed for residents. Given sea level rise concerns and the tunnel, greater access to this part of Monterey needs to be carefully planned.

There should be more strollable areas above the Rec trail. Figure out some way for it to be housing for people who work locally NOT second homes
Widen Lighthouse Ave. In area where it could be widened. Maybe introduce round abouts to keep traffic flowing, that would also allow left turns on Lighthouse Avenue going up into New Monterey, Instead of having to go all the way down to the David Avenue area, only to turn back on yourself using Hawthorne, it would minimize traffic flow on Hawthorne and Lighthouse Ave. With Cannery Row there it would provide ease of traffic flow. Re-Pave Foam Street the entrance to Cannery Row is hideous quality of a street.

The creation of a commuter bike path is essential and long overdue. There should also be a reduction in parking requirements for construction in this area.

We would like to see more buildings set back from Lighthouse with green space in front of any new residential/commercial buildings.

Many of the more recent structures loom over the sidewalks making the sidewalks less attractive to pedestrians.

The two kinds of units we recommend are partial to residential rather than commercial buildings or combinations thereof.

I just want to have the ability to own property near where I work one day. I worked really hard as a Marine and in graduate school after that, and am now an extremely rare case having been hired back to be a Korean language assistant professor at DLI as a civilian after being a DLI student myself around 10 years ago. And yet I have no hope of ever owning property in the area with a pay of about $83,000 a year. DLI Faculty are highly skilled, highly educated, extremely hard working professionals who do critically important work for this country and yet we by and large have to rent simply due to the location of the Presidio. And property managers can gouge as much rent as they want because they can rely on the federal government to increase our locality pay just enough to keep pace. a liveable part of the city with mix of housing and shops with safe pedestrian and bicycle pathways. A plaza would be nice with a view of the bay . Strategies to manage parking would be helpful.

Area is already built-out and over-crowded from traffic and congestion.

I think higher density residential buildings would benefit this area. It would allow more people to be in walking distance to the businesses in this area and access the aquarium easier. There might have to be some improvements to the parking garage nearby to make it more accessible or public transportation to replace needing a car.

Redirect some transit and parking to streets parallel to Lighthouse to spread congestion Make light house one way.

Make lighthouse one way. Expand development on one side of the street.

Single family homes with garage parking, which may not add to the parking problems in the area.

This area should also have a mix of housing and shops, with a plaza for socializing and kids entertainment.

Limited housing development under 3 stories
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3171, Packet Page 3499 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-11
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?...” Seems like a wonder location for townhomes, a nice way to bring families and students to this area.

Mixed use buildings, a plaza, and less cars. There are parking and traffic issues in this stretch. I would like to see a dedicated bus/bike lane on lighthouse ave with ample bike parking.

I think there is a lot of potential for apartments here, this area is very walkable. If housing is built here, there will be problems managing parking in the area, as well as traffic, which can already get very clogged.

I think that this area should have a mix of housing and commercial properties. Lighthouse is a fast-moving stroad that serves as a main throughway between Old Town and PG. I think that a key part of this development plan needs to consider how addition housing and the accompanying cars from the residents might influence the flow of traffic. For example, in multi-unit dwellings, having the entrance to parking spaces, parking lots, or garage located somewhere other than Lighthouse Ave would help to keep the flow of traffic moving.

I think that mixed-use developments with commercial space on the ground floor and residential spaces above that would do a good job of maintaining the commercial aspect of Lighthouse Ave while increasing the supply of housing.

Another concern is that the land currently being used by Andronico's is labeled as a Tier 1 property. While there is admittedly a lot of space devoted to parking here, a grocery store is an essential service for residents. As more residential units are built in this area, having close access to a grocery store will become more important.

Additionally, there are a lot of Tier 1 spots located within walking distance of Andronico's. Having a grocery store within walking distance is a big plus and could be a major selling point for housing developments.

I actually really agree with what was written in the description of this question. The area should have a mix of housing, shops, dining, etc. There will need to be strategies to manage parking. I am very excited about the possibility of affordable housing on lighthouse. I work near Lighthouse but I do not get paid nearly enough to live close by.

Mid-rise apartments or condominiums that would serve people working in and near the neighborhood. Waiving of some parking requirements, to recognize the ease of access both to a bike path and public transit. Street-level retail where appropriate. Expansion of bike paths beyond just the Recreation Trail, to encourage people to bike when running errands or commuting.

I think that using this area for commercial usage would be better. I would ideally love to see small businesses that are geared towards locals and tourists because right now its a lot of just tourists' shops and this area is not used by many locals.

I would really love to go back to making Cannery Row a non-driving street so that it can be used to also support events like "First Fridays" or "Festivals" that would highlight some of our really good local artists and non-store front businesses.

The Lighthouse area and associated environs are crucial for Monterey as prime tourist destinations, especially with the very popular and universally acknowledged Aquarium at the west end of Cannery Row. Any building works that are undertaken in that area should be empathetic to the open and people friendly atmosphere. The buildings should not create soulless canyons, the views out to the Pacific must be maintained and public access to the beach areas (eg Maccabbee Beach) must not become private areas. Tourists/visitors come to enjoy that open feeling and watch the wildlife etc. The sea and the atmosphere associated with it are magnets for tourists.

Any new buildings should be mixed commercial-residential with no more than 2-3 stories set back to maintain the 'openness' and old world charm of such an historic place. However I fear any residential buildings in that area are 'prime' real estate and the sale prices will rapidly reach the multi-million range with abuse of rental laws and other ordinances. Even if they are targeted at low income families that too will be abused when sold as has been the case in many areas of California. Perhaps it is best if the 'residential areas' were hotels? Then hotels in other areas on Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3172, Packet Page 3500 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-12 Community Survey Report
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?...” Monterey could be demolished or reworked into affordable apartments? This would retain the charm of the Lighthouse area while reaching the new housing goal?
It is interesting that the CVS parking lot has not been included in the tier 1 plans? It is a prime area and needs to be included. The other areas that include Andronico's, First Awakenings etc should not even be considered they offer services to the residents and help maintain a community outside of the tourist areas. The areas are also popular with the tourists thereby keeping those places sufficiently well used so that commercial enterprises can remain viable. Not only should any work improve the area it should not reduce the use of the area by local residents which seems to be the strategy at the moment! The area east of El Torritos is an area that seems to have been a blight on Cannery Row for many, many years and needs to be rapidly developed into something useful even making it into a picnic/rec area would be better while decisions are being made on its future.

The redevelopment of the ATC in PG in the coming years will change the dynamic for the west end of Lighthouse, the plans for that building are not well thought out and could serve as a model for 'how NOT to redevelop' aging buildings. It looks like an awful design and plan hopefully Monterey will not be so foolish.

Finally any redevelopment needs to allow for adequate parking for visitors in cars and RVs - there seems to be an increasing number of RVs in Monterey which need to be safely accommodated.

Better public transportation to facilitate traffic.

We need more affordable housing for purchase - and parking to accommodate whatever new buildings are built.

Also, because of DLI & NPS those of us who are permanent locals are being priced out of our own city because the gov't will pay whatever landlords demand, and the landlords knowing that transitory tenants have this luxury, set the prices stupidly high.

This city also needs a form of rent control.... Some of the existing ADUs are stupidly priced and more expensive than full sized houses for rent.

Maybe there could be some sort of consideration for renting to teachers too. MPUSD does NOT pay its teachers well, and many teachers are leaving the district.

These seems like an area that is ready for growth and development and appears to be an area where young professionals are moving towards. It has also seemed to me to be the spot where DLI students gravitated towards more than any other group but it now seems ripe for 20, 30, and young families to settle into. I think a lot more "mixed use" like housing, and high density housing can be added, while still preserving (or maybe adding to) the areas' aesthetic that draws in tourists.

The existing scale of buildings should be maintained, do not go over 3 stories.

I think the lighthouse area is over populated as is, other parts of Monterey can be used to develop affordable housing. Area suggested in the map as Lighthouse already has a lot of attractions and shopping, more would cause additional traffic and detour locals. Over building near the coast line takes away the beauty of Monterey. Building homes towards the hills would allow for additional housing which is needed, but not take away from the beauty of the coast. People come for the beach life, what good is it if there is no beach to see.

It would be nice to have the Alvarado street blocked off to allow just pedestrians. Creating little shops and restaurants in the middle.

Lighthouse Ave is a prime area for commercial development, and there's a tremendous opportunity to turn it into a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood. Adding higher density housing would have a great effect on local businesses within walking distance of such structures. The worst thing that would be done would be nothing at all (since these businesses currently suffer from not having easy access except by driving) or choking them out with lowdensity housing.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3173, Packet Page 3501 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-13
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?...” However, for this to really work out well, in addition to higher-density housing like medium-rise apartments, condos, and townhouses, there also needs to be significant expansion of infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists.

I believe the right thing to do would be to pinch down all the streets to one-way single lanes, expand the sidewalks, and add protected (not painted) bike lanes.

Lighthouse district has a lot of potential. It has great bones, but has always been hampered by bad traffic and poor business conditions. The neighborhood is very walkable and could support a rich diversity of local shops and restaurants that could serve both locals and visitors. I think the traffic issues along lighthouse and lack of housing are two issues holding this neighborhood back.

If population density is increased in this area traffic will become more of a problem, The traffic issue may require Lighthouse to become a one way street counterflow to Foam Street. Townhomes provide the best tradeoff between density and impact on the Tourist industry in my opinion.

Responsive streetlights
The one thing I want to see everywhere is affordable housing for both low and medium income. Rentals for a 2 bedroom are over $2000 and much higher in this particular area. This isn’t realistic if we are aiming for a diverse community. It would be great to build keeping nature in mind and maintain common areas. Parking could be underground if apartments are built so that the traffic issue in lighthouse doesn’t get worse.

Vibrant area for young professionals and families to have work/life balance. Walkability is high. Provide safe pedestrian access point with curb bumpouts. Add trees and curb appeal with new lighting like Seaside did on Broadway/Obama Way.

For lighthouse, mixed use, high priority transit corridor with headway 15 minutes to transit hubs. Allow 1 car per unit, incentive from developer to gift owner/renter annual transit pass. Add curb appeal and tree lined streets with bump outs for pedestrians.

This is one of the most economically strong areas of Monterey, but pedestrian mobility is not prioritized outside of cannery row. I would like to see more walkways along lighthouse avenue. I would like to see many of the under and unutilized lots turn into apartments and mixed use with commercial zoning.

Lighthouse Avenue is a thoroughfare for cars and hopefully bikes in the future. I disapproved of building the apartments over the businesses on this busy street and unfortunately the result is a very dark and tunnel-like corridor that receives little sun. Water will rise in these areas in the future and we should not be building housing this close to the bay. Up the hill maybe with more duplex, four, plexiglass and one-two story apartments, but there should be parks and bike roads that feed folks onto Lighthouse safely. We really need a parallel road to Lighthouse just for bikes and walkers to get to and from PG. Lighthouse is just too dangerous to park on for shopping and it was not well-thought out when these changes were made, especially since we no longer have an alternative route for cars since traffic was halted going through the DLI.

Perhaps an elevated crosswalk over Lighthouse Avenue would be best for both pedestrians and auto traffic. In this area, traffic often slows due to people parallel parking. Adding residential pedestrians who frequently cross the street could slow traffic further. Some parking on a street running parallel to Lighthouse--perhaps underground parking--would be ideal. I would always like to see trees added. A nice feature near the Aquarium is a small garden between Wave street and Cannery Row. More of that would be very welcome.

As much low income housing as possible. Lighthouse is perfect for a resurgence in the area's Arts & Entertainment culture. Artists and Entertainers need to be able to afford to live here. Make it affordable and watch it flourish. It's slightly dusty at the moment.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3174, Packet Page 3502 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-14 Community Survey Report
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?...” I would envision duplex, triplex one story housing units with a matching parking lot on the side for off street parking. I think there should be small grocery and drugstore shops every often with adjacent small garden and hardscape areas with benches next to those to bring community together. I think the multiuse housing on top of businesses on Lighthouse avenue created a very dark and shaded corridor and was sorry to see that area developed like that. Especially since parking is already a challenge on that street (way too busy) to access the shops there.

Also we should build housing up the hill and not too close to the water front area because we know the water level will be rising over time. We need to open up another main street parallel to Lighthouse going the other way to and from PG. Traffic is too congested on this one street with the DLI access closed, and not user friendly for businesses.

Some of the first-floor retail that is constantly changing hands should be allowed to go to residential - with some restrictions probably. 3 stories should be the limit for housing. The large lot next to El Torito on Cannery Row should be somewhat limited, it would be nice to include some kind of public space there. I wish there were some kind of occupancy restrictions, we certainly don't need more housing for people who just want a vacation place.

Some of the "tier 1" ideas are a bit disheartening. We have to seriously consider the limits of the tunnel, especially after 3pm daily and other times that it can take a horrendous amount of time to drive off the peninsula. Yes, the traffic issue has to be prioritized.

Please do not eliminate the old boilers or existing wood sided structures near the Chart House: they provide character to the area. Please keep the view of the Bay from the Rec trail intact.Maybe the empty parking lot across from the trailside cafe on the trail could incorporate a multi story garage with varied height condos above, but that still allow peeks of the bay from the trail? Also maybe the old buildings across from the Plaza Hotel could be re purposed as cool apartments and lofts?
We DO NOT need anymore hotels OR housing for rich people to buy to use as weekend homes. Any housing opportunities in this map area should be geared for teachers, healthcare workers or people that work in the Lighthouse/Cannery Row area. Please do not make the same mistakes as PG has recently made.

I don’t believe any additional housing should be built here. I believe this area is already well developed commercially, so putting housing here wouldn’t be feasible in my opinion.

This area is already densely built and heavily impacted with vehicle traffic, but I would support limited growth mainly where there is already existing structure that needs to be replaced. Plazas and mixed use would be appropriate.

It is important to remember that we have the best opportunity for meeting the state's housing requirements by utilizing the land along Garden Road, Ryan Ranch and Fort Ord with a well thought out plan for beautiful, nature inspired neighborhoods with a variety of housing to meet various economic levels. Utilizing those areas takes the burden off of already densely built areas such as the Lighthouse area.

Will need strategies to manage parking.

This area is already over built. And is an overburdened traffic area. I only support additional building on an as needed basis when existing structure must be replaced. Keep the new development for the State's requirements out of dense areas and create lovely, nature inspired housing in the Fort Ord, Ryan Ranch and Garden Road areas.

The area should have a variety of buildings; given the danger of sea water rising, parking on the ground floor or shops/businesses on the ground floor may be preferable to dwellings. Beauty from the Bay and additional small gardens/parks would make it attractive. Senior housing plus housing for all would be a community building plus.

More mixed use residential/commercial properties with integrated parking for residents. No "luxury apartment homes" that artificially inflate rent prices in the area. Living above/near the noise and pollution of Lighthouse is not a luxury.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3175, Packet Page 3503 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-15
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?...” Should be mixed use. Businesses below and apts. above. Utilitze the space 'above' to make way for parking to support the tenants and shoppers. Restaurant/grocery options should be 1/3-1/2 of retail space for tenants to walk instead of drive to get necessities.

This is a highly commercial area and residential should include commercial options Park
4+ story apartment buildings with commercial first floors. Bike/walk access is decent in this area already but managing parking given tourists is the major issue.
reduce car traffic on Cannery Row, Wave and Foam. Widen sidewalks and add bike lanes and street trees. Allow mix use with restaurants and shops at street level. Allow restaurants to have outdoor patio.

Mix of housing and shops; parking important, but more important not to use space for nothing but ground-level parking.

Making lighthouse more walkable and have more businesses for the community I want the folks who work in the area to be able to live in the area.

I live in this area and Lighthouse Ave. already has traffic issues with the existing populous. It gets significantly worse when there is an attraction in town like the AT&T ProAm, Concours, etc.

I feel that bringing even more people in to live in an already congested tourist area is not wise. However, I know there are a few areas around Lighthouse Ave. that are underdeveloped. There is certainly room to add some new buildings or update existing ones, but not with a high number of new apartments or homes. Where would these people even park?
This densely urban area is in need of a greenbelt with more walkable tracks and trees. Mixed use buildings are viable here. Vehicular traffic and parking will need to be seriously considered and thoughtfully developed.

Lighthouse Ave must be redesigned for the safety of both pedestrians and drivers, perhaps by eliminating street parking and adding parking lots at corner of David & Lighthouse and corner of Drake & Lighthouse.

Underground Parking.

Mix of historical buildings maintained, no change to green space, us open lots for new housing while maintaining historic character
Because of limited space I think we need to build at least 3 stories.

I’d like to see a mix of housing in this area that supports singles and families. Parking and traffic flow are the two major concerns. Whatever is built should attempt to keep with the character of Monterey If new housing is built, we need strategies to manage parking as well as traffic on lighthouse avenue. Every year this section of town gets worse for traffic. I would think roundabouts would be needed in several key intersections - like David Ave
Housing above sustainable retail is desirable. A better traffic plan for Lighthouse and the end-of-day bottleneck at the Lighthouse tunnel will be required.

I'd like to see attempts to encourage housing development overtop of existing storefronts and the mitigation of use of lighthouse ave for parking by developing parklet space in front of existing storefronts, unified as a boardwalkstyle walkway.

Clean-up the messy appearance and traffic on Lighthouse Avenue; this means that property owners along this corridor should not have should not have butcher paper over their windows for privacy purposes, dirty and Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3176, Packet Page 3504 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-16 Community Survey Report
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?...” building fronts and signage should be within a certain standard; NO NEON LIGHTING anymore!!! This means that traffic should be managed more holistically, some thought being given to alternate passage, or allowing lefthand turns as appropriate.

If there is housing to be built, that means parking will add to the already big problem. Think about building small parking garages for RESIDENTS / TENANTS (not available to tourists) to service certain block areas. They should not be staffed, but automated entry, and charges should be minimal per annum.

Businesses geared toward the people who live here
Traffic is already dense and this area should remain attractive to tourists. I was once stuck over an hour during car week, Could not get out on Lighthouse or HWY 68. All side streets were full, I finally stayed with a friend who lived on David Ave.

Here is an opportunity to create housing with less environmental impact. Residents can walk, ride bikes, even take the bus along Lighthouse.

Too crowded. The roads don’t support more people and cars.

I hope the remaining ocean view will not be obliterated by commercial development and expensive high end dwellings. Instead, workforce housing and a park by the bay giving tourists and residents a real way to get close to the water. We don't need fancy town houses, we need housing for workers who can then walk or bike to work.

Single family homes allow for homeownership instead of condos or townhomes which are more dense.

The Lighthouse area is already nearly fully developed but because of it's proximity to Cannery Row jobs, more housing is needed. High density (medium rise) is the only way to go because of little land availability. But any development should maintain the character of this area.

More housing density would support more vibrant, foot-traffic driven commerce.

Smart parking solutions will be needed to manage the additional density I would like to see this area cleaned up. I don't like seeing run down buildings and empty spaces (probably due to the high cost of rent). This is a tourist area so I don't think it makes sense to try and put "affordable" housing here.

If you can't afford to live in Monterey, you should move to a place you can afford.

The area directly adjacent to Cannery Row should be studied for environmental impact to ensure no damage is done to the Monterey Bay. If that proves to have no impact, then either low rise condos/apartments could be a good option. Another would be some sort of mixed use, where the ground floor is available for retail with living space above in the form of condos or townhomes. A good example would be Santana Row in San Jose, but at an affordable rate. Four or five story apartment buildings right along the waterfront would take away from the area and could potentially impact tourism revenue. The areas directly along Lighthouse Ave would be a better option for potentially 3 or 4 story condos. Again, this would be best utilized with storefronts on the ground level.

Mid rise apartments are a necessity! I cannot stress enough the need for changing the way we build! The average person in need of housing is single and typically young and they are not looking to start a family when they are often times SHARING what used to be single but large family homes with 4 other young hard working single Americans! This is NOT a town anymore! This is a city! Build up! That doesn't mean build ugly! Look at European styles of mixed concept urban architecture with more pedestrian spaces, neatly tucked parking garages and compact grids that go upward instead of outwards.

As a Monterey renter, my dream is to be able to own a modest home that's within walking distance to work, restaurants, and stores. I love all the above housing options except ADUs, which only aid in current homeowners' Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3177, Packet Page 3505 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-17
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?...” wealth and not for new home buyers who are desperate to own and build equity. I'd like to see more reasonablypriced and sustainably-minded housing options in this area geared for community members, NOT vacationers or investors - for both working-class and middle-class people, at prices between $400-900k. This likely means highdensity homes, which I think works especially well in this busier area of Monterey. Lighthouse could use a refresh overall. It's too busy with traffic and it deters folks from wanting to visit the shops given all the traffic noise. I recommend turning into a one-way with a protected two-way bike lane and expanded sidewalk space. Instead, direct the other way of traffic to Foam or another street, if at all possible. It'd be great to see the unused business spaces converted into residences along Lighthouse and nearby streets. Use infill lots to build sustainably-minded multi-unit homes and/or turn them into usable green spaces with native plants. This is the new Monterey I dream about!
We need affordable housing. How can we consider building in an area with Ocean Views which will make rentals expensive and already has loads of tourists with very little parking? Lighthouse Ave already backs up during rush hour, will it now come to a standstill?
My big problem with adding housing to this area is traffic. Lighthouse and the tunnel are awful as it is, both during rush hour and peak tourist times. I live in New Monterey, and it’s already too often difficult to get in and out through the tunnel, and 68 is simply too far out of the way. If there was a way to expand access to the area, I’d be fine with most of this. But that would mean either widening the tunnel and/or reworking the lower Presidio area, and I’m not sure if either of those is feasible
If it meets Coastal Commission regulations, I prefer the higher density, multi stories, with a concern that adequate parking is clearly included in the design of any infill.

New housing, more parking. More buses or light rail on Lighthouse.

Plaza for residents needed for farmers market gathering open space also a shared garden to grow vegetables Parking needed
Housing for workers who work on Cannery Row.

Improve on all aspects of active transportation, coordinate with MST to provide more frequent service.

For this and other areas in the City, I join LandWatch in supporting these policies:

1. Infill-first policy which makes maximum use of vacant infill and non-vacant developed parcels within developed areas of the City.

Upzoning to allow for high density apartments and mixed use should include at least the downtown core, the main transit corridors (Del Monte, Pacific and Fremont), Garden Road, Del Monte Shopping Center, Ryan Ranch and other already urbanized parts of the City. There are no doubt other areas within the City that could be upzoned and redeveloped.

2. “Affordable by design” zoning of 20 units/acre or more per acre.

Monterey must identify sufficient sites suitable to meet its RHNA for low- and very-low income units. The jurisdiction must show that the sites it identifies for lower income units are in fact going to support affordable housing. The statute allows jurisdictions to use higher density as a proxy for lower income affordability if parcels are zoned to allow sufficient density to accommodate the economies of scale needed to produce affordable housing. For Monterey County, the current default or Mullin density is 20 units per acre.

If a jurisdiction does not rely on the default density levels, its analysis would have to evaluate location-specific factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, and past development project experience at densities that Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3178, Packet Page 3506 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-18 Community Survey Report
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?...” accommodate housing for lower income households. The analysis could be based on information from local builders and examples of recent projects, but it cannot simply rely on subsidized housing, inclusionary ordinance housing, or density bonus housing because these tools are not a substitute for addressing whether the underlying (base) zoning densities are appropriate to accommodate the RHNA for lower income households.

In short, the analysis option requires a lot of local information and potential uncertainty - all for the sake of avoiding an increase to zoning densities. The default densities are simple and certain - HCD must accept them as a sufficient showing that adopted densities are suitable for lower income units.

HCD shares LandWatch’s focus on infill and development in resource-rich communities. It has a well developed process for determining realistic probability of development for non-vacant infill and underutilized land, which the City should employ (see HCD site inventory guidance ). If it hasn’t already, the City should begin the process of identifying non-vacant parcels and determining the realistic development capacity, a critical piece of the HCD process.

3. Avoid building housing on the former Fort Ord because it will be difficult and costly, and also because it is urban sprawl that will increase greenhouse gas emissions.

To the extent that the City identifies vacant, greenfield land on the former Fort Ord, it will need to identify and mitigate significant environmental impacts to biological and other resources — additional impacts that would not occur on infill properties and non-vacant land. As for water, properties on the former Fort Ord that are served by MCWD and identified for residential development can only be served by non-groundwater sources due to the 6,160 unit cap on new residential units served by groundwater, a limitation that does not apply to land within the already urbanized areas of the city. Moreover, ESCA requires that any amount of soil over 10 cubic yards remain on the same parcel it comes from (see Fort Ord Cleanup).

Monterey is required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for its Housing Element. If the City chooses to include vacant Fort Ord land in the site inventory, it must include an alternative that avoids or minimizes the use of such land in order to reduce impacts.

I think this is a great solution although the increase of traffic concerns me significantly. How will the peninsula support hundreds more residents (re: vehicles) with an already overtaxed infrastructure? This area is already incredibly hard to reach. This housing solution won’t work without this being considered.

Good mix of low story housing (so it doesnt block ocean view) and thats it really the area has a good amount of stores in a walkable distance so it doesnt need that much added just more housing units This area should be used primarily for shopping, tourist, public parks, restaurants and night life. Mixing with further residential increases traffic and the likelihood or competition for parking/noise control, etc Redevelop the senior center to include, a multi story (3-4) mixed use complex, with businesses spaces on Lighthouse Ave. and on site parking. This ,multi-level site can accommodate all these. City currently owns almost the entire block except for the end cap
Provide developers with financial assistance to offset the cost to develop the mandatory 20% affordable housing in order to make it financially feasible.to do so.

Lighthouse is a very vibrant area of Monterey and could support more housing. the traffic would be a nightmare though and parking has to be provided for all new homes.

This area needs to be much more walking and biking friendly due to limited parking.

Four way crosswalks and diagonal cross in center.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3179, Packet Page 3507 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-19
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?...” It would be really great to see mixed use properties with businesses, retail, and restaurants at the street level and with several floors of residential units above. Build up and revitalize cannery row so it's a place locals want to go and not just tourists!
Must have street trees and low level street lights on all streets and if new housing is to be built, each dwelling needs parking for each resident plus several visitors.

Being so close to such a big section of the Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail, it could be so neat/interesting/revitalizing to reimagine a few side-streets for spaces closed off to cars for more al fresco shopping and dining. Meaning, some of the housing developed here could be a mix of housing and commercial/shops/restaurants/bars.

Main concerns are adequate parking for residents and traffic flow. Are there park possibilities for small children? Yes, ideal for more housing, provides year around customers for businesses and entertainment. Building codes need to address soft story collapses from earthquakes
Consider view loss on multiple stories
The New Monterey Area Plan specifies the businesses should be primarily neighborhood serving and that should be the main focus with road and parking improvements.

Lighthouse is already a mix of shops and restaurants-mixed use apartments & condos with more businesses below is a good use of this corridor. More parking for clients.Better flow of traffic during rush hour.

I am open to any development that fits in with existing structures. Parking must be onsite I don't understand how you determine development potential. You mark the Monterey half of Andronico's as tier 1, but we don't have a regular grocery store (that is, not Trader Joe's or Whole Foods, which are specialty stores) anywhere else in the city. Would you propose adding housing above the store or are we talking about replacing retail space with housing?
Simple questions such as "What kind of housing do you think should be built?" are too broad to be meaningful.

Above retail space on Lighthouse? Stand-alone on a side street? Not all locations within the "opportunity area" are the same.

I would love to see New Monterey as a vibrant entertainment and shopping area with people living above and around commercial space, but traffic gridlock along Lighthouse is horrible and I generally avoid going there because of the gridlock. We have agencies that regulate development based on water availability, but nobody ever puts the brakes on an idea because of traffic. Improve the flow and create practical transportation alternatives BEFORE packing in more people.

Development priorities need to be careful not to eliminate critical and just useful resident-oriented businesses (e.g., Andronico's Market, First Awakenings, El Torito's, even Carl's Jr.), leaving just high-end options, like the Sardine Factory, that are almost exclusively visitor-oriented businesses.

This area strikes me as somewhat unappealing particularly the four lane wide heavily trafficked lighthouse. More residential units would probably make this worse and increase rush hour delays through the tunnel. Proximity to the rec trail would be nice for the residents. I think some units should be built here but don't see any intrinsic value to the city beyond helping to address the low income housing need.

I believe parking would be an issue in this area, but might be manageable with garages. A bigger issue however is the traffic speed and congestion on Lighthouse Avenue. The parallel parking on each side of the street creates significant hazards for pedestrians and vehicles. Given the importance of having an artery to access the Aquarium Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3180, Packet Page 3508 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-20 Community Survey Report
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?...” and other attractions, any housing development in the Lighthouse area should also address the existing traffic issues.

Parking will be an issue, but midrise apartments would fit in well with the busier somewhat urban feel of lighthouse. Traffic through the tunnel would also be a concern. Perhaps some lower portion of the presidio could provide another traffic access route.

This area is already heavily impacted by traffic and parking problems. Additional housing, particularly multi-unit projects would make these problems worse.

I would keep new development out of r-1 zoning.

This is a very attractive area to visitors and local residents as it is close to downtown Monterey and Cannery Row.

More affordable low, medium rise apartments for locals (such as students and faculty of the various schools) and perhaps small, affordable hotels should be built here. An additional medium-sized supermarket or mini-market should be built in addition to Adronico's. A small yet complete gym would also be very convenient. Thank you! Some Cities in California have done a good job of preserving areas that have some historic and old town feeling.

These are the Cities that are most desireable to live in and to visit. Lighthouse district is an area with some of that charm that I hope can be preserved. Also, Lighthouse has neighborhood serving business including grocery and refueling stations. These properties are listed as being prime for redevelopment, but to loose those in favor of increased density would likely mean putting more people further away from the things they needs requiring more drive time resulting in increased traffic and Co2. Even though, provided traffic and safety issues can be resolved I do support some increased housing, I hope that we can maintain those buildings and aspects of the area that make it livable and desirable. Removing a grocery store and a gas station for more housing doesn't seem like a good idea.

Onsite parking seems important. Consideration disaster response. We have no headroom for increased traffic on our roadways. The plight of pedestrians cyclists in this area is not pretty. More bicycle friendly routes and pedestrian walk ways would be desirable.

Please avoid cookie cutter architecture. More multiuse multifamily along lighthouse might work with onsite parking
some cities in California have managed to maintain districts within them that maintain an appearance and a character reminiscent of an earlier time. Today, these are the most desirable places for people to live and to visit.

People of all ages and incomes can enjoy the ambience for an hour, a day or a lifetime. Lighthouse Avenue is one area in the city of Monterey that has some of these characteristics especially in some of the older buildings that line the street many of them with neighborhood serving businesses. My prayer is that these buildings and businesses can be preserved and maintained. We should have vision to maintain those aspects of architecture and of life that help us want to live in an area no matter what your age or income level. Also, the lighthouse district serves the larger residential area with groceries and a variety of stores including a refueling station. I note though, that those properties are being listed as prime for redevelopment, and in this context that means housing. We should be cautious not to sacrifice those bits of the fabric of community that make life livable, such as grocery stores and even gas stations. If we replace a grocery store or a gas station we may wind up with more people in a smaller area that have to drive farther to get the things they need such as food, fuel and leisure. Such a development would put people into their cars more often to go farther to get the things they need thereby making the area less livable for everyone.

Presuming the traffic and safety issues can be resolved, what I would like to see in the Lighthouse district are a few more mixed use, multi-family, multi-income buildings that have on property parking. I would also like to see the more historic looking buildings along lighthouse preserved. Additionally please, Let's avoid blocks of cookie cutter architecture.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3181, Packet Page 3509 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-21
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?...” Slow down traffic on Lighthouse. Allow for more parking so that business can come alive again. Utilize inactive business buildings for dual usage. One way on Hawthorne going towards Monterey. One way on Foam towards PG. Maintain the historically recognized type of buildings with their variety and character. Underground parking lots. Keep residential development away from the rising water zones. Encourage ADU's on the hill in New Monterey and try to re-think possible residential parking solutions. Keep the low profile roof lines and if nothing else make a plan for undergrounding cables with all new development. it would be nice for businesses and street parking to be reduced on lighthouse which remains a transit road above all.

This area should have spaces for graduate students to be able to rent and share, they are constantly seeking mother in law additions (ADU's) or 1-2 bedroom apartments that are reasonable priced. It would definitely bring more life and business to the coffee shops, bars, and restaurants in the area as well.

Lots of houses are very old and without internal heating. It would be great if new houses are built, internal heating comes with it.

Power grids should be renewed as well, after all of these storms and power outages, it won't be long before people realize that Monterey is not worth the price and start to move else where.

More open space for community events
Add circulator bus system or run trolley year round and have lighthouse stop.

Area is already a good mix of housing and commercial and I believe would benefit from more housing (with adequate parking provided). Ideally the several run-down, vacant dwellings could be razed and the lots better utilized.

Dog park for those of us with doggies.

This area gets a lot of tourists over the weekends and in the summers. I imagine that if complexes are built in this area, many of them will inevitably turn into Airbnbs or VRBOs for tourists. Would love to have this area available for young working professionals (studio-2 bedrooms) who need to live in the area close to work or school--DLI, NPS, and MIIS all within walking distance. Building height should remain low in this area so as not to block the beautiful ocean view for others further up the hill and in the surrounding neighborhood. !!DRIVING!! Don't make driving through town even more of a nightmare. Work with city designers so there are more efficient ways to drive through town. Why add more people if we can't drive through town as it is.

More young people. fewer old people. More culture, less decay.

Need to update Hazards area build in any area out side of updated hazards areas is fine I currently live in PG, 1 block off Lighthouse Avenue. This area is in desperate need of new and affordable housing options that are NOT luxury mid-rise apartments and condos. I would also like to see more shops, restaurants, and amenities that will attract diverse residents and young families.

Because of the walkability, and with the proximity to DLI/Presidio where many local people work, there should just be a lot more housing. Don't go tall, more than 3-4 stories, but a combination of row-house style walk-up condominiums and multi-unit buildings with a mix of residential commercial would be nice. I don't like when housing is overly separate from commercial development - let people live closer to restaurants, shops, etc.

The cannery row area is an ideal place for pedestrianization. At least the street running through cannery row should be closed to cars (allowing deliveries only during a certain and window and permitting access with bollards). The streets through the area should be converted to 'complete streets' with a lane for cars, bikes, and expanded space for pedestrian traffic on sidewalks. Streets should be redesigned to have a maximum speed of 15- Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3182, Packet Page 3510 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-22 Community Survey Report
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?...” 20mph by the addition of raised crosswalks, protected bike lanes, and other traffic calming road furniture. With reduced speeds, signalized intersections should be converted to traffic circles. Ideally, lighthouse would undergo a road diet, bringing traffic down to one lane in each direction and one lane as a dedicated bus lane to facilitate transit access to the neighborhood. As dependence on auto traffic and need for parking declines, parking lots could be designated for development into housing.

One primary concern is parking. Parking in this area is already troublesome, as well as traffic through this area. It may be helpful to make Cannery Row one-way to minimize the traffic impact. However, any building projects need to consider parking and encourage, accessible and convenient public transportation to key businesses (e.g.

Ryan Ranch, CHOMP, Pebble Beach, Carmel BTS, etc). Additionally, we want to ensure this area stays safe and limit the crime impact by having regularly police show (bikes, mo-peds, etc) integrated into the community.

There is already not enough parking and heavy traffic along Lighthouse and Cannery Row and the Aquarium.

This area includes mixed residents; workers, retirees, students, among the lower income groups of the Peninsula. It is a transportation corridor back and forth from downtown to PG and parts of PB. The businesses Lighthouse support the locals in general. The obvious difference in the tourist destination of Cannery Row and cash growing area for Monterey in general but support area for local cities. It would be nice if housing for the Row could be formed to reduce travel for these a other tourist industry within the city to reduce traffic from other areas and to address the diminishing parking problem.

Views above the ocean are fought over. Limits should be considered if the city were to envision four story residents over first story front businesses. Residential versus business will remain difficult to address. Walkers versus bikes will also need to be improved. Consider speed limits or Rec Trail. The city has announced they have more neighborhood centers than they can support. This includes and old school that is a dollar drain on the city. Cut out a park and use the rest for starter housing for employees.

Definitely need management of parking for whatever type housing may be built. Access to many things, makes this area great for mixed income housing, allowing things affordable for those working on Cannery Row and various places on Lighthouse. Easy to catch a bus to MPC and elsewhere also.

Lighthouse Ave Specific Plan is good guiding plan for area.

Need better signal timing for cross streets to Lighthouse This is a high tourist spot with gorgeous views of the water and easy access to said water. With that said there is also a lot of traffic due to tourists and the DLI - more homes will only increase the traffic. Keep this area as is. upgrade this area to include Trees. Much of the neighborhoods just above Lighthouse are dense residential with few trees, no shade umbrella to enhance feeling of nature meets people.

Nice mix already of shops and housing; continue that, make walking more pleasant with green strips, benches, shade trees
This area is ideally suited for mid-rise apartments and condominiums. The neighborhood is walkable, and denser housing development would support improved transit service along the Lighthouse corridor. Existing retail areas along Lighthouse Avenue and Cannery Row will serve residents of new housing in this area.

Major improvements are needed to Lighthouse Avenue. The arterial currently functions to move traffic and disregards the safety of pedestrians and cyclists who use the corridor. I recognize that this is a challenging corridor for many reasons outside of the city's control (chiefly, the Presidio dividing all other possible connections between Old and New Monterey), but I would like to see this corridor reimagined in a way that prioritizes transit and active users and places secondary emphasis on the automobile.

I also suggest the city close Cannery Row to vehicular through traffic. There is no real need for private automobiles Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3183, Packet Page 3511 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-23
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?...” to move through this corridor. Limited access can be provided to shuttles and similar uses, but Cannery Row as a destination will become much more attractive when it is closed to vehicles.

Mixed use is the goal. Provide more housing options for folks at all income levels i.e. ensure that a good portion of new housing being built is affordable, and will be utilized by locals, not tourists/ second home owners. Many wonderful small businesses in this area, so more folks in walking distance would further help promote the success of these small businesses.

More stops for transit and expansions to bike lanes would make this area more accessible Parking is an issue in this area.
with new housing we need parking strategies. increase density but not too much because of increased street runoff into bay. preserve the bay
Should be low and mid range in price so Monterey workers can afford to live in Monterey. Ground floor could be commercial
mix of housing (apt/condo) with shops BUT does not obstruct views from existing residences that are more inland BUT this would need to be coupled with significantly more parking. Maybe do away with or even remodel the outlets as there are very very very minimal businesses operating there crosswalks
more restuarants
Several of the opportunity sites in this could accommodate mixed use developments with 2-3 stories of housing on top of retail on the ground floor.

Lighthouse needs some traffic calming, a road diet, one-way direction out or something to slow down and limit the cars. It's a thoroughfare in an area that is ripe for walkability in support of the businesses. Transit service is already robust, the cars make a mess of it.

With more housing density, traffic would be an issue here as it already is.

I'd like to see this area become safer for pedestrians. There are a mix of shops, restaurants, other businesses and houses already in this area, but it can be scary to cross the street. Whether it is people traveling too fast or unfamiliar with the roads/rules, it can feel unsafe. If we build more housing, we could have an issue with parking, or we could make it easy and safe to walk/bike so people would be more comfortable not having a personal vehicle.

Apartments & walkable neighborhood with grocery & nightlife.

Housing needs to take priority over other developments
If new houses are built they should include a yard and be dog friendly. Monterey is a dog friendly community but finding a rental that allows dogs and has a yard is extremely difficult.

CLEAN UP SOME OF THE UNDER DEVELOPED PROPERTIES. (YOU GOT QUITE A FEW). BUILD THREE STORY CONDOMINIUMS, BLENDING IN LOW INCOME. TURN CANNERY ROW INTO PEDESTRIAN WALK ONLY STREET. ALSO PROMOTE THE ADU IN THE NEW MONTEREY RESIDENTIAL AREA, BY

PROVIDING MATCHING GRANTS AND ONLY IF LEASED TO LOW INCOME FAMILIES, WHICH SUPERVISED BY THE NIP AND CITY. MATCHING GRANTS SHOULD HAVE A CAP OF 50K FOR A GUESTHOUSE ADU. ARRANGE WATER CREDITS WITH MPWMD FOR SUCH CONSTRUCTIONS WITH AN EXEMPTION.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3184, Packet Page 3512 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-24 Community Survey Report
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?...” If we add more housing what would you do for the roadways so we could in and out of Lighthouse? It is soooooo congested already it is hard to get out of this part of town to go anywhere else🥺 When you add all the tourists it becomes crazy. I feel Our tourism will suffer too because they will get tired of the crazy and find somewhere else to go and we rely on tourism. Our streets all over Monterey are in need of help and I feel these things are so important to the quality of this area. Then there’s the water that doesn’t just go for the residents that live here but to all the tourists that come and probably waste a lot because they don’t care about our lack of water like the residents. It can’t just be about more housing more money what about the quality of life for the residents and I have lived here all my life and want Monterey to remain a beautiful place to live and tourist to want and come enjoy Monterey. Thank you.
-This area should have a mix of housing and shops: working force affordable housing needs to be looked at thoughtfully. with a plaza for socializing, green spaces, listening to live music, events.” - A community cafe style library hub- to encourage people to come out, and utilize that space, not just for signing out books, etc. Elderly can drop by and have a conversation with a high schooler for example. Built a library of the future, serving the needs of the community and the generation ones ahead. - We'll need strategies to manage parking in the neighborhood." - EV car ( Solar panel) charging stations both added to residential housing and commercial structures. - Maximize the land space available, by going for more structures that will utilize the land to its maximum, respecting the Environemtal hazards and such. meaning, if in a lot a Mid rise 4-5 story complex can be built, this should take precedence over building a 2-3 story on the same land. - Built with strong future anticipating needs of current on next generation.

This area is already a challenge for parking, so it would be interesting to see how parking would be managed for the tenants of these homes. Especially if single family homes, the garage may be a waste of space for these homes and parking on the street is very limited in this area, as it is commercial as well.

El Torito parking lot is very underused. could go underground with that.

This area is ideal for mixed use development because of the number of workers who could live here and easily get to work by foot, bike or public transportation to the hospitality jobs and small businesses.

The Aquarium should be required to subsidize some housing for their employees because they bring so many people to the area without providing funds to support them via taxes. affordable housing welcoming to families, and street trees.

How about we fix the buildings and areas that are already there.

Lighthouse is great to visit, but including more housing will limit parking and worsen traffic.

If new housing is to be built, parking will need to be planned for at least 2 spots per dwelling. Traffic will become more congested at peak hours through the tunnel into Monterey and up Prescott/David Ave. This congestion from Lighthouse Ave to Del Monte Ave should be analyzed regardless.

A corner store/small market, like Brunos, would be beneficial for residents nearby. Choices on lighthouse are limited to 7-11. CVS, and Andronicos (not including specialty stores like International Cafe and Malinka).

I envision residents living in this area to utilize alternative modes of transportation from vehicles to bicycles.

Maybe an incentive to move to the area would be vouchers/discounts at locally-owned bike shops.

Parks with plants and trees, bicycle routes grass trees and undeveloped space Limit the the road to two lanes to allow parking with safe access It would be great if this was primarily a walking neighborhood. If there is a way to connect via transit to other areas of Monterey, perhaps residents could park cars elsewhere. This is the entertainment hub of Monterey so it should be lively, family friendly, and have easily available services for visitors and residents.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3185, Packet Page 3513 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-25
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 area already has a good start to be a place of commercial, entertainments, and residential. Increasing house density with more 4-plexes and low rise buildings enables the area to feel cosy while adding more living areas.

Putting commercial small businesses under housing could be a part of a "European" style area. Parking structures on the corners of the area provides service without blocking views. However, ways to get around without a car for people who live here would be a high priority. Avoid tall buildings that make visibility difficult and add nothing to the look of the area. Many small park-like areas can take up corners and between buildings. This is a wonderful area and could be consolidated and enhanced with more housing.

A mix of housing and shops would be great for this location I think that mid rise apartments would be great on lighthouse, parking would need to be included for the residents.

This is a great area for higher density housing, but the infrastructure to support the potential population increase would need significant improvement whether through improved traffic flow management, bike/pedestrian infrastructure, or public transportation access. As a former resident of Lighthouse Avenue, I've often believed that Lighthouse Ave. could be improved to be more pedestrian friendly by adding bulbouts at crossings, widening sidewalks, and adding a bus rapid transit lane. Making Lighthouse Ave. more pedestrian friendly would also be a benefit to the businesses along this corridor. I never feel completely safe as a pedestrian walking along Lighthouse Ave due to the heavy amount of vehicular traffic on the street. This could be accomplished by making Lighthouse Ave two lanes eastbound and one lane westbound, or one way westbound with two to three lanes east. I struggle to understand why we have a two-lane one-way westbound street on Foam where we see very little traffic and adjacent streets also supporting westbound flow; Meanwhile, Lighthouse Ave is generally the only street that carries eastbound traffic with only two lanes where we see very frequent congestion heading east towards the tunnel. Make Lighthouse more pedestrian friendly. Consider adding a bus rapid transit lane to carry more capacity. Improve biking infrastructure. There are too many cars on the road. Another consideration for new housing: instead of incentivizing vehicle ownership, develop programs around the new housing that will incentivize bike/e-bike ownership or public transit usage, i.e., bike rebates/discounts and free bus passes, etc.

Ensure Secured Parking Is Available
Parking is a high priority issue in this area and it would be important that any housing plan accommodate the increased number of cars either on-site or in designated parking garages to avoid the further overcrowding of the area streets. So many tourists come to enjoy this area and bring significant tax income to the city. Don’t further impact the city streets with increased on-street parking by increased residential density.

This county especially PG and Monterey needs to move forward to 21st century. While other towns are making changes to attract new generation/families, Pacific Grove is doing everything to drive them away. We have a shortage of medical and other professionals in Monterey County and no smart young couple/individual wants to move to Monterey because they can't even afford to rent let alone buy a property. Businesses in downtown Pacific Grove are closing and replacing with antique shops. Who's buying this old junk......

This is the heart of New Monterey - ...with the Aquarium, Steinbeck plaza and a block deemed to have the most restaurants in Monterey - could be County. For this reason, I'd like to see high-quality, high-density housing for low-mid income residences -- where people who work in the surrounding hospitality areas can live. If residents like this could be accomodated, they could walk, bike take public transit and wouldn't need cars for parking. I'd like to see a mix of housing, shops and park areas where people can socialize - and bring this area to life -- to make it more of a 'living city' that shows visitors and tourists how Monterey locals live and how we take care of the beautiful place in which we live.

Given the high traffic & tourist attraction of this area , I think it is no place for large single-family homes nor small ADUs or buildings that don't take advantage of the small foot prints available. For instance - there is a very large home - in the heart of this area on Wave street, that is vacant at least 90% of the year. I know this because I Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3186, Packet Page 3514 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-26 Community Survey Report
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?...” frequent the wine tasting room across the street from it and shake my head everytime looking at the inequitable use of land.

Has there been any attempt at holding the Presidio accountable for not providing adequate/ decent housing for there employees? They have a prime parcel of land that is underutilized/ unlivable. From what I have read/ heard the units are old/ dirty/ moldy and or laden with asbestos. Rents in the area are pegged at the amount of money that these military families are provided in the way of a stipend- anywhere from $3000-$4100 per month from the individuals that I have talked to. This exacerbates the already slim inventory of rental units in the entire area.

Effectively, other non-military folks are paying rent twice here, once with their taxes then again for their own living situation. And this for famillies that will be transferred generally within 2 short years. Presidio should be held more accountable for providing there own housing or relinquish the land back to the city for long-term redevelopment.

Its a pretty touristy area, but i could see younger people living there- folks that are more willing to put up with noise and traffic. I would probably consider a lot of studio and one bedroom units. It's also important for the City to understand traffic on Lighthouse- as it gets really backed up during rush hour- which is likely related to something at the tunnels or further down the line. But the traffic engineers should really figure this one out....if there even is a solution!
Parking is tough in this area so underground parking must be included in building plans.

Increased residential over commercial development.

Some sort of traffic mitigation. There needs to be a way to both move cars, and to have an attractive walkable neighborhood there.

Perhaps using Foam and Wave in the equation. Also, there should be a mix of housing, not just high-end and not just low-end. Affordable would be great (whatever affordable means ). Also parking will need to be managed somehow.

But an infusion of nice apartments would be an upgrade to that neighborhood! I would like to see more market options with housing
Safe Community space for children to safely run freely and play. Amenities close by such as grocery or small market. More businesses that cater to families with children and teens This area has always had varied housing types so why would the County stop that More apartments and a bigger parking structure. Better flow on Lighthouse to get people through to PG.

This area should be able to provide full sustainable housing that gives focus to long term housing and not short term renters or tourist attractions.

Lighthouse is currently a nightmare, to be honest. Its not a great place for businesses because its difficult to park near, but it would be a dream location if we had a ton more affordable housing! Making this the area where you can actually live, work, and shop is PERFECT if we make the right moves to create this. This is what this area of Monterey should have always been, especially being so close to the bike path! Having more green area (like gardens, parks, etc) to enjoy some outdoor time or community events would definitely be necessary.

Strategies to manage parking will be necessary here, in the event new housing is built here. It's already very congested due to my everyday spent in this neighborhood for work.

I foresee the City developing the Lighthouse commercial district just as a shopping center manager does. They look for a complimentary mix of businesses run by successful people with resources to operate their enterprise Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3187, Packet Page 3515 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-27
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?...” with appeal and style tastefully suited to the community look. What that means is that they turn down many applications to be sure the mix is just right.

As one who lives up hill I worry about the contagion building height has on those up hill. Views are valuable and they must be protected at least to a reasonable extent.

Multiple family buildings can be carefully added to a residential neighborhood. But will they? I didn't get much sympathy for that from the City representatives from the Planning Dept at the NMNA recent meeting. And then there's parking...

In addition to the current mix of commercial and touristic amenities, I think it would be useful to add affordable housing for the many essential workers that are employed in this area. Perhaps the apartments could also include a rooftop community garden or be mixed use if it is a redeveloped business building (having a business on the ground floor and a few housing units above.

I would like to see a public parking lots that residents could use for a fee when they have visitors with extra cars, or even for their own vehicles.

Housing in this area should not be single family homes, but rather more dense use of lots with small units in clusters with a shared common garden/outdoor area to encourage neighborhood/village like atmospheres. Any and all single family homes already in these neighborhoods should be encouraged to build ADUs if appropriate.

This is not an area that seems appropriate for multilevel apartment buildings unless they are limited to 2 stories.

In the areas closer to the commercial/mixed neighborhoods of Cannery Row, it would be good to have mixed use buildings with live/work possibilities.

Some additional senior housing would also be nice to see as part of the growth model I'd like to see this area "de-cluttered". There are too many tattoo and smoke shops, which does not present Monterey in the best light to attract families and other out of town visitors. Ocean view housing could be offered as upscale housing, which would benefit the city.

DO NOT go over three stories (two stories maximum preferred). Viewsheds should be taken into considerations of other people's properties. We should not be taking away views from houses in the New Monterey neighborhoods. We do not want New Monterey Lighthouse to become non-sun corridor because buildings are too high. I dislike the three story buildings that have been currently built on Lighthouse. The rents are high and just more out of towners buy them for a second home. Parking is also a problem and of course, more added traffic.

Lighthouse needs to be one way traffic, three lanes starting at David Avenue heading toward the tunnel.

I do not recommend making any traffic changes to Hawthorne.

Three story limit, if it still exists, needs to be repealed.

Workforce housing, parking strategies, Better traffic flow (one way on Foam and lighthouse). evacuation routes.

Fix Wave, Foam and Hawthorne Streets first. UN drivable now. Add smaller units. More trees good idea. .

Lighthouse Ave needs to be on a road diet to improve traffic and provide better pedestrian and bicycle access. A mix of dense housing and commercial services would make this area truly desirable and would also reduce traffic.

This area is ideal for mixed housing and shops. The major restraint is traffic management, parking, and emergency exiting the area
Mix of commercial lower part with housing on upper floors..

A strategy will be needed for emergency evacuation--would the DL/Presidio allow traffic through in emergency? The existing Rec path infrastructure could be improved for a more dedicated corridor for people to move by bike between Old and New Monterey. In turn, any housing units built right on Lighthouse would need parking access from Foam--the notion of turning into parking off of Lighthouse is terrifying, and off street parking would be Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3188, Packet Page 3516 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-28 Community Survey Report
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?...” essential. There is the large parking lot opposite the Mexican restaurant on Cannery Row and perhaps that could become dedicated to residential use. Further, perhaps a small jitney service or service by MST with smaller buses and more regular service could be developed. The traffic on Lighthouse is simply always going to be a problem.

A well planned mix of building types noted above with a healthy retail/residential ratio. Parking mitigation is a must.

New Monterey (NM), which includes the Lighthouse Area and Cannery Row, is sufficiently dangerous for evacuation in the event of fire or earthquake. Since shortly prior to 9/11/2001, the Presidio of Monterey closed the Pine Street gate. This gate had been used extensively by both NM and PG residents to cross to old-town Monterey.

Since its closing, we are severely constrained in evacuation options. Available are: Lighthouse Avenue (which we can access from a number of different points using back streets, but congestion is already bad) and the Holman Highway. The Holman Highway, while beautiful, is dangerous for either people who do not normally drive the road, because of potential trees falling across the road, and the fact that it is one-way in each direction. I understand that we had a verbal agreement with a former Presidio Commandant to open the Pine and Taylor gates to the public in the event of evacuation. However, if the process for clearing individuals to pass through the Presidio gates is NOT streamlined significantly (cannot be like NPS where everyone must show their driver’s license), the back-up will be horrible. Locals know these routes, along with alternate streets to access them, such as Archer, where we reside. On the one hand, I am grateful for the closure as it has decreased the number of cars speeding down Archer and then turning up McLellan to the Pine Street gate. However, I can foresee a horrible back-up on all streets.

Furthermore, we have been working on a Lighthouse/Cannery Row Traffic Plan for years. The problem has been addressed repeatedly, with varying suggestions to satisfy both the merchants and the users of the relevant streets.

We have spoken of making Lighthouse and Cannery Row one-way streets and diverting traffic up David Street to Highway 68. This would NOT stop: 1) gridlock - yes, despite what our Mayor has sworn, this does exist in spades - which hampers progress for everyone; 2) people who routinely run red lights - again an ever-increasing occurrence and risk to all drivers; and 3) difficultly in parking should one want to shop or lives on Lighthouse.

And, let’s not forget the drivers who go in the wrong direction on one-way streets and justify their action by only going half of a block.

We do not need more traffic in NM. Parking opportunities to shop on Lighthouse or even at your residence are limited as tourists and employees of merchants routinely park in lower NM.

Furthermore, does the City own all the parcels on which you propose to develop or will you encourage developers to build as the value of their land can be increased by so doing? I recollect Nelson Vega not being impressed by this idea at your presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council. There is NOT a lot of profit in renting to very-low and low-income households. As well, while I support diversity, doesn’t the inclusion of this type of tenant ‘devalue’ the rent for those who can afford to live in a property? Also, how is building all along the recreation trail and Cannery Row going to ‘preserve’ the natural beauty of Monterey? If the City plans on developing the properties (does the City own any of the indicated prime properties?), will it utilize eminent domain on the owners?
I understand that we are attempting to remove the downhill right-side crosswalks on Lighthouse in order to speed traffic. Is this good for the merchants desirous of customers who may park and shop or will this just cause more gridlock, rather than speed traffic along? Despite our new and improved traffic system (which we have been told was installed city-wide last year, but just recently were told that it is being rolled out), why is it that we cannot take photos of vehicles that violate the law and ticket them? The Lighthouse General Plan was just updated and appears to limit building height to 35’ (if the third story is set back 12’). Why on earth would we build 4 to 5 story buildings on Lighthouse or in the Cannery Row area? This would severely impact view sharing, and appears to remove public parking. I would STRONGLY oppose buildings of this sort.

Recent storms have demonstrated how easily our entire City can lose power. Hence, in addition to water, will PG&E (3CE) be able to provide sufficient power to residences proposed? Lastly, and this is generic, why does the City believe that:

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3189, Packet Page 3517 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-29
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?...” 1) hospitality or healthcare workers - I cannot imagine where else there would be growth in jobs - WANT to live where they work? How many of these employees have been surveyed? I personally see a large number of hospitality workers biking on the recreation trail, which is consistent with lesser emissions. Are we going to FORCE employees to live in Monterey, rather than in a community of culturally-similar people with shops that sell products they desire?
2) Monterey is so special and unique in that people will not move to other states or even elsewhere within the state? All reports indicate that population growth in CA is declining, so why on earth do we require MORE housing; and
3) recent college graduates should be able to rent their own apartment and young people should be able to buy homes in Monterey? I just read a great article on Mark Cuban - the multi-billionaire - in which he was quoted as saying that, after college, he shared a three-bedroom apartment with five other men? Wow, what a novel way to live! Also, why must the City make rent deposits for college graduates? Why don’t we suggest that they work, save money, and then rent? Or, better yet, study something useful so that they may earn their own living, as the older generations have done? Perhaps the City should look into the reports of record high credit card debt of those under 40? Are we attempting to reduce our property values or bankrupt lending institutions? This area should be used as a plaza for live music/entertainment/community activities. It is a popular tourist destination and one of the main pulls for Monterey tax dollars. While this would be a nice area for housing, it would be out of reach in terms of rent/mortgage for many of the average residents of the Monterey area to actually use.

This was the first area we lived in when we moved to Monterey years ago. We lived a couple blocks up the hill on Drake. It was fun to be close to the bike trail. It also has an incredible amount of underused park spaces. I assume this is because few families live here? Additionally, there was no public school nearby, leading me to ask who we would be accommodating with building in this area. The traffic on lighthouse avenue is incredibly congested. I can't imagine more people in this area - esp. during tourist season. It already feels overwhelming.

On another note, the community center is a pretty location and though I understand it is for older folks, it is a nice, centralized space/plaza.

A mix of dwellings, shops, restaurants, music venues for local and visiting upcoming musicians to play is a nice goal. The street level shops and living upstairs model can work here only if the housing is reasonably affordable to people working in the area. It helps build the sense of community. Don't make them drive to neighboring cities to live. Plaza style or expanded off - sidewalk cafe type entrance may encourage the idea. A downside side of building up is the view loss, so limited height is a good thing.

The space that last housed the Cannery Row Brewing Co. has great potential for the right combination of food and drink. It also shows the difficulty of keeping a business going in Monterey through the slow seasons and yet meet the demands of the busy times. So do all of the empty spaces in this busy tourist area. Bottom line is we need more housing that working people can move into. Looking the the 2nd or 3rd floors for that space is a part of making the finances work. Thank you and good luck to us all for positive outcomes.

This would be great to revitilize cannery row area business and create a thriving walkable extension to downtown.

Lighthouse Blvd needs a cohesive vision, not unlike the Broadway project in Seaside. Trolley service dedicated to the area could serve commercial interests. Up the hill, a somewhat greater emphasis on higher density housing might benefit, along with a dedicated satellite public safety office.

The amount of sites in this area with high potential is high, which will lead to major parking problems in an already high-traffic, dense area. Residents already avoid this area due to the congestion, crowds, and parking issues. As a result, any housing should be minimal and the least dense option. Also, all crosswalks should be very clearly delineated with flashing lights.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3190, Packet Page 3518 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-30 Community Survey Report
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?...” Mixed-use commercial/residential would be good here: commercial on the bottom; residential on top. We will also need to think about parking strategies in this high-tourist and high-traffic neighborhood.

Mixed use everywhere possible
Better bike infrastructure connecting the rest of New Monterey to Cannery Row / Recreation Trail and better bike infrastructure to commercial shops around Lighthouse. With grocery stores, the recreation trail, shops, and the tourism industry all nearby, many residents could live in this area while taking less trips by car! This area should have a mix of housing and shops, with a plaza for socializing and listening to live music.” Wider roads, with one general parking, no side road parking.

Lighthouse and downtown are the only areas of Monterey that have the potential to be walkable communities (grocery store, health care, clothing, etc.). To the extent possible, we should be adding mixed use and mid-rise housing in this area. The mixed use development on the 200 block of lighthouse (where the bike shop is) is the right idea, but I could imagine something a story higher and - I cannot emphasize this enough - an architectural style that connects to Monterey. The style of that building is so random and ugly. The mixed use building at Munras and Webster should be what we’re after. I don’t know how feasible this is, but if we add density to the Lighthouse area, a new park on the ocean side of Lighthouse Ave. would be great for families (not everyone loves the beach).

We need a better traffic plan to make Lighthouse walkable and enjoyable. I would generally like to see higherdensity housing across Monterey and Pacific Grove, along with more closed-to-vehicles areas (plazas, streets, etc).

There's a fair amount of vacant land in this area that could be used for housing. Ideally, a lot of it would be low income housing, allowing the folks that work in the local businesses (hotels in particular) to live near their work.

Even though we'd be adding to the number of people living here, it could help reduce the existing traffic as less folks would need to commute.

TURN LIGHTHOUSE IN TO A SINGLE LANE, TWO WAY STREET. Increase parking/sidewalks allow businesses to "push out" onto sidewalks. (Parkettes perhaps) Turn Hawthorn in to a two lane one way street running North. Encourage Truck/Delivery service on Hawthorn and Foam. Mini Transit Plaza on cormer of Lighthouse & David.

I live on lighthouse and can't park already within a block of my apartment without paying the city. But, no you shouldn't add more housing to this area. it's busy enough with all the tourism. You should really build safer crosswalks, like over or under lighthouse. I've almost been hit by cars several times trying to cross the street.

Traffic, is already bumper to bumper on weekends, tourists, and 3:00 to 6:00 pm Ideally, lighthouse should be one way traffic!
If new housing is to be built, we'll need strategies to manage parking in the neighborhood - traffic is already congested at times on Lighthouse.

This area should have a mix of housing and shops, with a plaza for socializing and listening to live music.

This tourist/scenic area would be too expensive to develop for any affordable housing, at least. It would also be vulnerable to Air BnB neighborhood destructiveness. It would be better to add hotels, parking, public restrooms, local & non-franchised businesses and shops. Dedicated open area for farmer’s market, light live entertainment, park space.

The ocean-front area where canneries used to be is a wreck. Consider some ocean-front restaurants in this already commercial area. For a town known for ocean beauty, we have relatively few restaurants with ocean views.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3191, Packet Page 3519 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-31
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?...” Clean up the Strough's plot of land (or whatever the correct name is). Clean up pilings and concrete all along the beach below Cannery Row.

I forgot if these units are required to have low and moderate income units and if so, great. If not, they should.

Better, more frequent public transit that includes travelling up the New Monterey Hill. Without that, we are forced to use cars. The traffic is complete gridlock on Lighthouse Avenue during the Summer and most weekends all year because of our tourist attractions. We don't need any more "Luxury" condos or homes. We need truly affordable housing for local area workers so they do not have to commute. When the tunnel is gone due to Sea Level Rise, adding any more traffic makes New Monterey, Pacific Grove and all the tourists unable to evacuate in an emergency.

Parking and traffic are horrendous problems in this area already. If housing of ANY kind is added, it needs to not make these problems worse (for current/future residents, businesses, and tourists), by insuring that resident OFF STREET parking is provided, and restricting housing units to WORKFORCE housing only -- no more luxury condos to lure wealthy out-of-town part-timers who just generate traffic without solving our housing needs. There are plenty of hotel rooms for those folk already!
Mixed-use housing where the first floor incorporates grocery stores, restaurants, and shopping opportunities. All designs should include parklets, bike lanes, bike parking, electric vehicle charge stations, and native plant landscaping. International crosswalks should be installed where all vehicle lanes stop for pedestrians. These developments should be built around alternative transportation options that are not vehicle reliant.

A mix of downstairs commercial space (with parking below first floor if possible ) apartments in the second or third stories above commercial space.

The lighthouse area contains some of Monterey's best shopping and dining opportunities. As such it should be pedestrianized and the flow of cars through the neighborhood should be restricted. When I go to the Lighthouse area it is difficult to get around during peak hours due to the car traffic and it is also noisy and unsightly. Walkable neighborhoods encourage more retail traffic and greater urban density while improving air quality and reducing traffic accidents and pedestrian-car accidents. This area should be mixed-use commercial and residential with plenty of pedestrian only space that encourages residents and visitors to enjoy all the area has to offer. needs traffic relief to avoid tunnel bottle neck
We are in desperate need of housing. Please build more apartments! Please allow ADUs! If new housing is built, please be sure that there is adequate parking and traffic flow. DO NOT add more housing to Cannery Row (or similar areas), which are already at LOS F+! I feel that this is predominately a tourist area and building in this area should be to facilitate the needs of tourists (parking, hotels, restaurants)
This area should have a mix of housing and shops, with a plaza for socializing and listening to live music. I’d like to see a crosswalk and street trees added. We'll need strategies to manage parking in the neighborhood.

Coordinated aesthetics between developments.

Parking will be a problem.

This part of Monterey has great potential for dense, walkable, mixed use development. We already have a lot of hotels in Monterey, so this area should be prioritized for housing. Affordable housing is especially needed here, where there are a lot of employment opportunities. We should not prioritize luxury condos near the waterfront like Pacific Grove is doing. It's going to slowly kill the neighborhood character of their downtown. Most of luxury Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3192, Packet Page 3520 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-32 Community Survey Report
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?...” condos and apartments are not full-time residences. Affordable housing for working Monterey residents will help support our local businesses - people will shop and eat where they live full-time. It will also help make our community for lively and vibrant.

Allowing ADUs everywhere in Monterey will help preserve existing structures while still adding density on the lot.

It is important that new housing be compatible with existing businesses, especially bars and restaurants that may be open later into the evening. In mixed-use blocks, would it be possible to require sound-reducing windows and/or thicker wall construction? Or provide some legal protection to business owners against noise complaints? In larger cities, people are used to living next to or above restaurants and bars, but I imagine some residents would complain here.

Housing along Cannery Row will need to be elevated high enough to prevent flooding with sea level rise, king tides, and storms.

Improved parking strategies are a definite need if this area is developed.

Very low income housing and parking for those residents. I suggest small homes to buy with an ADU on each one.

Or. townhomes style to rent. More very low income housing is more important than how it looks.

This is a great walkable neighborhood and building more high density housing with mixed use will maintain that benefit for the neighbors. Parking may need to be added as a consideration. Current one-way streets are helpful for parking density but could be further improved.

More housing, everywhere. Not single family units on small lots. The housing shortage is ridiculous. People clogging roads commuting in from miles away, burning all that gas. Or not moving to the area at all because they can't find housing to rent with their dog that is even close to affordable (for example). For affordable housing, you're supposed to rent a room in someone's home? Great advice, what are you supposed to do with your furfamily? Parking is already tight in this neighborhood, so any new housing needs to substantially accommodate that. The rec trail is great in that area but it’s primarily a pedestrian thoroughfare boat of the year, creative solutions that connect the residential areas that are already there to the rec trail and businesses below would be really helpful.

Mix use, retail on the bottom and living space on top. Make communities walkable, so more land can be devoted to housing area, parks, etc
Water needed. Must be a mix to include businesses and shops.

We shouldn't develop immediately along the ocean side of Cannery Row. Those units will be really expensive to maintain as we get bigger storms, sea level rise, and needing to allow for natural resource protection and access.

All of the old beachfront property west of the Charthouse Restaurant should be converted to a protected park, as it's the only nesting places for the Pelagic Cormorants and Black Oytercatchers in Monterey. That would be a bad choice for housing due to expense of building directly on the coast and the upkeep of buildings on the coast. More murals and educational paintings all along the recreational trail that goes between buildings. Mid-rise apartments along Hawthorn and Foam Street are the best bet.

The bay side of the Cannery Row Plaza property should be open space, not restaurants and condos. Consideration should be given to saving and using the Stohans building as a museum in a park like setting. We can't have too much access to the bay for both residents and visitors. Buildings on the inland side of the property should be broken up to provide views of the bay from the rec trail. There is a real need for housing for people that work on Cannery Row and at the Aquarium so consideration of development that is affordable to those individuals should be given priority versus high rent/cost housing. As the area becomes more densely developed there will have to be Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3193, Packet Page 3521 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-33
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?...” more places to put cars. Consideration should be given to requiring underground parking.

Low occupancy buildings along Lighthouse, Foam and Wave should be encouraged to redevelop as as multifamily housing. On Lighthouse and Foam building design should take into account that these are busy streets but allow for ground level housing.
would agree that parking is dire already so any development needs parking added at the same time. would like to make lighthouse more walkable. I feel as though its hazardous even getting out of your parked car. Not sure how to do that since it seems to be major thoroughfare
Plaza for socializing, outdoor eateries, and live music.

New housing added should include parking for the units on the property. The area should maintain as much green space as possible for residents to utilize. Crosswalks and traffic lights should be assessed to make sure the area is walker friendly without causing too much additional traffic.

In my opinion the area is too busy for residential use. I would focus on making the area more walking friendly and focus on commercial and public use maybe a little park would be nice If housing is built it should be lower income as there is access there to public transportation and it is walkable though that could be improved
Maintaining and improving walkability is essential. This would also be a good area to build more senior housing - there is not enough, and the percentage of older adults here continues to grow - especially as people can walk to a grocery store, pharmacy, cafes, secondhand shops, and Monterey's senior center, the Shultze Center. Because Lighthouse and Cannery Row get so congested, it would be best to encourage car-free living where ever possible, and also reopen the Presidio to drive through traffic.

Keep as a tourist area. Too nice for affordable housing This area should have a mix of housing and shops, with a plaza for socializing and listening to live music. The housing should be four stories.

This area offers transit, shop, recreation, food, drug store and other supports for housing. Any housing should include underground parking for at least one vehicle.

This is a great place to raise height limits so that we can get more dense housing achieved. Keep going with the new mixed-use developments we have seen in the last ten years. Great architecture.

Too much traffic on lighthouse already as its a gateway to PG and all the tourist attractions. Getting stuck in the traffic in the tunnel is terrible. Parking is terrible. Adding more housing will just make things so much worse I think this area is too congested already. Traffic on lighthouse is already bad as it's also the gate into PG and tourist attractions. If you do add housing I suppose mixed use w commercial on bottom housing on top.

With its proximity to the shore, this is a highly sought after region. Rents and purchase prices are high. Adding housing appears to be justified. However, it may not be feasible to build more than the minimum of affordable housing units.

If new housing is built we will need strategies to manage both parking and traffic. Lighthouse Ave. and adjacent routes are already congested heading towards the tunnel in late afternoons.

I would like to see a mix of small apartments, duplexes and single family homes on small lots. On site parking would probably need to be provided. However, an improved public transit option outside or parallel to the tunnel could potentially address some of this. Small shops should be intermixed with housing so the area would become more self sufficient reducing the need to go thru the tunnel to purchase necessities. Traffic flow would need to be addressed. Foam and Lighthouse are already impacted. There is also the issue of what happens in an emergency Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3194, Packet Page 3522 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-34 Community Survey Report
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?...” when the only exit is through the tunnel. This means working with DLI and the army to see how their facilities may impact this. They also contribute to traffic flow through the tunnel. There should also be a continued emphasis on eco friendly tourism along the Cannery Row Corridor especially along the coastal side and near the aquarium. There are also educational opportunities to be had working with the aquarium and MPC that could be incorporated in planning. For example, displays or meeting sites where classes or meetings of community groups could take place would enhance the community this side of the tunnel. Ocean Conservation, Coastal Access, Sustainability, and Environmental Social Justice issues should be included in any planning effort. The City of Monterey should work with Pacific Grove to ensure the compatibility of the general plans in adjacent areas of each city.

Parking obviously.

Se necesita estacionamiento también me gustaría más árboles en las calles New housing should include parking spaces since this is a commercial area. If parking became difficult, people might start going elsewhere to shop/dine. Add a park for people with dogs.

If housing is built, a park should be included where people could bring kids and dogs. Housing should probably include parking spaces because the area is highly commercial and we wouldn't want to make it hard to do business there, else people will stop shopping/dining in that area. no additinal building in this area as the potential for noise pollution would only go up. also, commercial building development would inc noise and light pollution. improvements should center on ensuring that coastline animals are better protected from runoff, sewage pump failures, noise/light pollution All good here
Near to nearly everything locals need.
no comments
will need underground parking & a 4-5 story parking garage like they built in downtown Mountain View Will require underground parking garages & a 4-5 story parking garage Ground floor commercial with housing above. Housing should be geared to medium income.

Traffic is already very heavy on Lighthouse. Adding housing would further overload one of the very few thoroughfares in Monterey. It could be lovely to create open areas in this district.

I think the current plans, in green, are sufficient. The charm of this area is important to retain. Encourage small businesses like markets (non touristy), services, and restaurants to occupy empty business space. Additional housing should focus on areas away from Lighthouse and Downtown.

We’ll need parking for residents and space for businesses on the first floor. The city needs to work with the local business associations and come up with a streamline and business friendly process for new small businesses to open. The majority of small businesses in town feel that the city is not business friendly and make the process for opening businesses here in Monterey extremely difficult. We also need to make sure that the developments match the beauty of the area and don’t just choose the cheapest looking design. The aesthetics of the buildings need to match the area.

I envision the Lighthouse District to have a much higher residential density and that Lighthouse Avenue would become a vibrant commercial district that has all the amenities to make it fun to live there. The plan should include exceptional alternative modes, especially biking and walking with great links to the rec trail and frequent transit service. I could see a new satellite parking structure for Lighthouse residents and tenants, instead of adding Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3195, Packet Page 3523 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-35
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?...” surface lots on every parcel. Every intersection on Lighthouse should have curb extensions that shorten crosswalks and reduce pedestrian exposure. The nice, wide sidewalks on Lighthouse should have outdoor seating, decorative street lighting, and fewer driveways.

Low rise apartments/condos with a mix of workforce housing (and prices to fit this demographic) and a few affordable priced units. NO market priced units, OR units that can be rented out for short periods (AirBNB, etc.) No units owned by out of town owners who drive up the costs of living there. The wealthy will buy these like crazy, because of location. Parking is essential for workers and these 'new' units. Traffic is so bad on Lighthouse, I can hardly leave the house on the weekends, holidays; primarily due to traffic from the Aquarium. t
Allow the vacant lots to be developed. Stop the stranglehold that someone (IDKW, but you do) has on the area.

Allow the property along the water to be developed.

The piece of Cannery Row between Hoffman and Drake is a disgrace. There a many lots along the bike path that need to be developed.

Same as downtown, shops on the bottom, residential above All of the homes, businesses and much of the peninsula's tourists have to go through the tunnel to get to this area.

The tunnel and Lighthouse Ave. can not really support much more traffic/business. Light house businesses suffer because of the lack of proper parking in this area. The area needs to use development land in this area for small scale parking lots to support existing businesses.

Do not create tall aprt complexes that look like they could be in a larger city. Keep a neighbor feel by designing new housing to look more like unique but complementary and sprucing up the existing businesses. Trees and plaza areas with outdoor dining would make this a great neighborhood to live in. Change parking to diagonal on one side of the street only along with a side parking garage. Make it feel like a charming walkable coastal small town instead of the current dingy strip anywhere usa.

Stopped going to Sports Center because parking was such a problem. Would only support 2-3 story housings if there is off street parking.

An entertainment pier with rides and attractions as well as the rebuilding of the 484 Cannery Row abandoned property into restaurants and activities.

This area should have exceptional walkability, safer crosswalks, wider sidewalks, less lanes for vehicles.

Underground parking should be considered and encouraged. This whole area should have a mix of shops and housing combined in each lot.

Support New Monterey community serving businesses and develop low rise, mixed use housing with concentration on rental units with minimum ownership units. Limit of 3 stories with all ground level to be commercial. Implement plan to increase driving lane width on the Avenue with 2 lanes into downtown, one lane toward PG and wider parking lanes on both sides of street. Accommodate with signage all parking requirements in the Cannery Row/Lighthouse Parking Garage - make it a more friendly walkable area between Cannery Row and the Lighthouse businesses and new residences.

1. The church parking lot at Prescott and Hawthorne is vacant 6 days a week. Could some arrangement be made to allow parking for Lighthouse Area shoppers.

2. The Doc in the Box building at Hoffman and Lighthouse needs to be painted a variety of colors to blend with the charming patchwork of the rest of the Avenue.

PLEASE HANS ULSAR ,
PLANNERS ATTENTION...NO MORE BUILDINGS IN NEW MONTEREY PLEASE Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3196, Packet Page 3524 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-36 Community Survey Report
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?...”

TOO MUCH TRAFFIC ALREADY

WE NEED THE FEW REMAINDING OPEN SPACES AND VACANT LOTS
Clean up the blight. Add housing above ground level store fronts. Conduct exit surveys to find out why businesses leave Monterey. Traffic congestion & road (re)surfacing are issues.

Incentivize DLI / Presidio staff to use non-single vehicle with single driver options. Tourists are bad, but DLI traffic is worse.

Focus on traffic safety on lighthouse.

If new housing is built in this area, residents woul
Whatever is built should reflect the history of this area of town. My biggest concern would be for new builds to be bland or lacking character.

The old canneries that are fenced off with chain link need to be addressed. This is a beautiful part of our coast that is being left to be nothing more than an eye-sore.

I'd like to see new construction in Monterey stay true to original architecture and the history of that particular area of town. I'd hate to see our small town charm lost to cookie-cutter, big box style development. I think this area would also be an ideal space for a boutique hotel, smaller than The Monterey Plaza & Intercontinental but still offering upscale lodging & event space.

The eye-sores that are the vacant canneries/chain link fencing along Cannery Row needs to be addressed. If nothing else, this is a part of our beautiful coast that should be enjoyed visually even if we aren't able to build on those sites.

Make Lighthouse Ave. one-way headed toward Downtown since Foam already brings traffic into New Monterey.

Then add more housing over the businesses, 45-degree parking spots (like in Pacific Grove), and encourage local shopping (walkable) by residents and tourists. Spruce up Lighthouse Ave. to look less industrial and more smalltown.

The biofuel (or electric) monterey trolleys that circumscribe a limited and uninspiring route between wharf and aquarium should be extended to year long and more importantly should go down lighthouse. Businesses there are very interested in public transportantion due to the safety issues of customers parking on a very fast moving road.

It would increase our tax base though increase in sales tax. Future residents would be incentivized by free enjoyable public transportation . Extending the trolley route and operating season is a buy now, save later strategy the city should follow.

The most significant challenge with development in LH district is traffic. We not only need to be thinking of our RHNA allocation but also Pacific Grove's since PG and Lighthouse/Cannery Row/New Monterey have only 2 ways off of the Peninsula. PG has an allocation of 1125 units all of which need to use the same roads. There should be zero development (residential and commercial) in PG and this area of Monterey until a viable transportation plan is implemented (not just planned, but implemented). I understand the need for workforce housing and that if new housing could somehow go exclusively to people who work in this district, that would be great-it would probably reduce traffic. But as we all know, the person who works for a business in this district today may not work for that business in the future. I think that there is significant room today to help alleviate some of the congestion especially with regard to Presidio traffic.

Lighthouse Avenue is congested with traffic. I would like to see a traffic solution. Placing new housing in Lighthouse seems like a poor choice due to circulation constraints.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3197, Packet Page 3525 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-37
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3198, Packet Page 3526 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-38 Community Survey Report

DOWTOWN AREA
Downtown 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?...” No more ADUs. Negatively impacting existing residences re: qualify of life, privacy, and parking.

Continuing to expand Alvarado St type mixed housing and shops development style throughout downtown is a great idea. The existing historical gardens throughout downtown help to provide green spaces even as density increases greatly (as well as access to the bike path and beach). I surveyed a class of CSUMB students if they would choose to live in apartments above shops like the ones near Alvarado St if they were available and about 50% said "definitely". The next generation is excited about being able to walk to things to do, transit, bike path and jobs. This is a great way to increase housing.

This area should be built like Work Bldg but more housing. We need shops and there should be something that draws visitors down Alvarado and maybe Munras and Calle P toward Trader Joe’s to bring customers, business to shops. Make it a vibrant place w/outdoor dining and music, somewhere both grandmas and babies could spend an afternoon. Make it appeal to all ages, not just hipsters. We need socializing areas. City folksiest went to Dubrovnik, learn from our sister cities. Add some murals, think outside the Monterey beige straight jacket. Build the proposed housing near city hall. Keep significant percentage for people who work here.

Increase parking time on Alvarado Street to 2 hours instead of 90 minutes. Round abouts at entrance of Alvarado near Alta Bakery and at intersection near Rite Aid, that area is always problematic as drivers do not know when to cross into crosswalk. Increase parking on Calle Principal to horizontal parking spaces instead of existing parallel parking.

Elimination of parking requirements. Should also include commuter bike lanes. I have had many conversations with locals on the opportunity to convert a street into a pedestrian only space. The goal in downtown is upzoning, as much as 7-8 stories.

I just want to have the ability to own property near where I work one day. I worked really hard as a Marine and in graduate school after that, and am now an extremely rare case having been hired back to be a Korean language assistant professor at DLI as a civilian after being a DLI student myself around 10 years ago. And yet I have no hope of ever owning property in the area with a pay of about $83,000 a year. DLI Faculty are highly skilled, highly educated, extremely hard working professionals who do critically important work for this country and yet we by and large have to rent simply due to the location of the Presidio. And property managers can gouge as much rent as they want because they can rely on the federal government to increase our locality pay just enough to keep pace.

Parking is important.

Mixed use with housing and shops and I like the idea of a plaza.

This area is within floor zone for tidal rise and areas for development are very, very limited. And building on stilts is NOT Monterey-style!
Again, I think adding more dense residential units to this area would benefit both the people who would live there and businesses. I currently live in this area and it's really nice having bars/restaurants in walking distance. The nearby parking garage allows for a place to put my car, and the Trader Joes allows for easy grocery shopping. It would be nice to allow for other people to have access to so much within walking distance.

More rental units in the low to very low level, possibly with State subsidy More amenities like grocery shopping,
Needs a mix of housing and shops.

Mixed use. Apartments on 2ed floor with business on 1st.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3199, Packet Page 3527 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-39
Downtown 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?...” Downtown is a great place for mid-rise apartments since there are already mid-rise buildings that can be used for additional housing, or lower buildings can be raised to meet surrounding buildings without visual issues.

More bicycle friendly
This area has a wide range of potential, I think apartments will be best for those closest to Alvarado street and the heart of downtown, where more townhomes would be better further out. Parking is going to be a huge issue, as well as increased traffic on already relatively clogged streets This is the area that I think is key to the "character" of Monterey. A very special part of this town is the way that historic buildings and landmarks are integrated with modern buildings. A key part of maintaining that integration between the styles of buildings has been to limit the height of new constructions as it keeps the older buildings from being dwarfed by new development. I am in favor of new housing units in this area, but I think that they should be limited to 1-2 story buildings. Also focusing on lower density housing such as single family homes, small lots, duplexes, and town homes would integrate better with the current feel of this area. What I mean by feel is that when you walk around the housing near Jack's Park, it feels like a small quiet neighborhood with long-term residents. Whereas a dense housing complex feels a bit more impersonal because tenants are constantly moving in and out and stay for a relatively shorter period of time. I think that type of housing is important to make more accessible in Monterey, but this is not the area to do it in.

In further developing this area, I think that it is also important to keep in mind how walkable the area is. The city has done a great job of transitioning this area to be very walkable and I want to make sure that new housing does not undermine that work. This area feels lively because of all the people that you see out and about.

Given the flooding risk near Del Monte Ave., I'd lean toward higher-density residential on underutilized lots between Washington and Tyler; and on Calle Prinicipal near Pearl.

Rental costs need to be controlled for people who are not wealthy. Instead of capping the total amount … cap rent based on the amount per square foot, something like $2-3/square foot of living space. A basic one bedroom - like 9 x 10 ft, full kitchen + a ¾ bath unit but with a full bedroom smaller, start docking the costs? The basic bathroom would be ¾ shower, toilet NOT in the shower, sink. Kitchen = full size oven/stove, full size fridge, sink. If the unit has 2 stove top burners instead of a full oven + stove or a tiny refrigerator, decrease the price based on the missing amenities.

Something like a dishwasher could be a luxury charge like $5 extra per month for basic kitchen. Granite counter tops? Bathtub? Small amounts like $5 per “luxury” item that make the unit more than just the basic one bedroom one bath.

Additionally, rent increases should be based on actual improvements in a property, not just because a landlord can increase rent. Landlord remodels a kitchen, cool then CA’s 10% increase can be applied to the property – but with a cap of so many years.

As someone who has lived in the same unit for 8 years, my landlady suddenly started increasing rent by the full California determined 10% - BUT this unit has NOT HAD ANY improvements. My income does not increase 10% a year so balancing the cost of living because of this is stressful. Not to mention frustrating because nothing has been improved.

In the downtown area, it doesn’t make sense to put lower density housing. For downtown, it should be mid-rise apartments. You get more bang for your buck. In most parts of Monterey, this might stick out or it might be too much, but we already have a massive Marriott hotel in downtown (10 stories or more), so it’s not like high rise housing would be an eyesore or anything. If we can have a 10 story hotel, why not a 10 story apartment building.

I would love to see a mix of more high density options with an emphasis on mixed used spaces that provide retail and entertainment options. I feel like this area could use more options for activities at night. I would love to see any development follow the similar design guidelines of other developments down there that keep to the historical Monterey aesthetic with nods to the adobe style and use of Monterey balconies. I think the partnership that happened with the Cooper Molera adobe has created such an asset and I have had multiple tourists or newcomers Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3200, Packet Page 3528 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-40 Community Survey Report
Downtown 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?...” to Monterey talk about it. If that could be duplicated one or two more times, downtown will be unstoppable. I feel that various updates and developments in this area over the last 25 years were very well done, and I hope more thoughtful development continues because this is one my favorite areas and I would love to see it continue to thrive.

Bike lanes and buses for salinas commuters. Buses are An excellent way to minimize traffic. Affordable housing The existing scale of the downtown should be maintained, nothing over 3 stories. Mixed use should be encouraged.

More housing would help bring more life to downtown. Alvarado street is seeing nice evolution with new businesses. It would be great to see more of this energy spread out to some of the other blocks in the downtown core. allow for slightly more density. All of the historic buildings downtown are nice but tend to turn into "dead zones", is it possible to allow for more creative uses of the collection of historic buildings? Alta Cafe is a great example.

The downtown area should not be developed until a comprehensive flood-sea level rise plan is in place.

If parking and traffic are addressed, there is potential for additional higher-density housing. The vacant auto lot at the east end of Franklin seems to be a candidate for redevelopment.

Due to limited space and the commercial aspect, these types of dwellings seem to fit in better with the area. Again affordable housing is the main issue. No way to keep increasing rent and think anyone who isn’t a millionaire can stay in town. We need diversity!
Move the Tuesday Market to keep Alvarado Street open. Maybe locate to top of Custom House Garage? Same as lighthouse. Develop for young professionals that crave vibrant walkable community. Make social spaces key like a courtyard or roof top terrace. Add decorative and pleasing curb appeal.

Curb appeal is important on Alvarado and downtown, ideally plant trees, courtyard for social areas, rooftop terrace for residents social space, use native plants to reduce water use, incentive to 1 car Households and free transit passes.

This area can absolutely support more high density housing, there are some defunct commercial lots that should be repurposed for housing. There is plenty of parking, but much of it is free, I would add more meters and maybe do away with some of the excess parking as well.

We shouldn't be building housing downtown. Too close to the bay and Lake El Estero with the rising waters expected. Instead we should be creating a primarily pedestrian-friendly and bike-centered complex downtown, rerouting buses and cars farther south away from the conference center and shoreline. We could then create dedicated bike paths for locals who commute between Monterey and PG and encourage walking more around the bay.

Same applies to Downtown as to Lighthouse. Housing for service workers and those in arts and entertainment are crucial to truly revitalizing Alvarado after the fire (still).

I would create a pedestrian zone on Alvarado and Tyller streets for restaurant access and conference-friendly use.

This would change the culture of downtown from this dangerous car traffic that competes with walkers who are trying to relax and enjoy the waterfront and shopping areas. for now I would keep traffic moving one way around these two pedestrian-dedicated streets down Polk then Del Monte. The bus triangle could stay the same to accommodate our bus-using folks! We can't build residential housing too close to the waterfront. I fear we will need to move our City Hall soon too...Maybe up the hill? Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3201, Packet Page 3529 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-41
Downtown 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?...” If housing was to be developed here, there would need to be expanded parking, and/or amenities that were in walking distance.

This is an already densely built up area with high traffic use. I only support a very limited amount of growth and mainly along the downtown areas where apartments would go to allow for the "city living" style with walking to everything. That is all.

Please keep in mind that the majority of the new housing that needs to be built should be along the vast space that is available along Ryan Ranch, Fort Ord and Garden Road. We do not want to add additional burden to other already established neighborhoods and the opportunity to do something beautiful, well planned and thoughtful could be done along these undeveloped areas and create something special and unique and nature inspired.

Again, residential parking may be a problem downtown.

This area is also crowded and densely populated with a lot of traffic. I only see additional apartments similar to what exists on Alvarado for the handful of people who like the "city living" experience. Otherwise it is best to develop beautiful, nature inspired neighborhoods within the areas of Ryan Ranch, Garden Road and Fort Ord to accommodate the need for additional housing per the State's requirements.

More mixed-use commercial/residential properties. No "luxury apartment homes" that artificially inflate rent prices. Living above or near the noise and pollution of these high-traffic areas is not a luxury, it's a necessity.

Add affordable apts. for hospitality workers in multi-story apartments above businesses downtown. This will encourage walking instead of driving to food/drink.

Highly commercial area, retail included on the bottom to generate further visitation I would love to see the older homes that are sitting empty, remodeled and made available to local workers at a fair and reasonable price. While I love vacation rentals, it is a huge detriment to the availability of living quarters for the people that help keep our businesses open. There should be an application process that limits how many can be in an area and new home buyers should not be able to apply, or must live in the house so many months out of the year. Or live in the house and only rent rooms or a building on the property. Some of these vacation rentals are ruining neighborhoods. It is running a business in an area zoned for housing. I hope the additional housing will include housing for local workers. We don’t have enough water to service what we currently have. I feel the County made a grave error not filing to be excluded from this order by the state.

Just add housing here. Perhaps parking underground/first floor (residents only obviously). Go vertical! Avoid new development/redevelopment in area impacted by flooding and sea level rise. Outside of that area, encourage mixed use development
Mix of shops and housing for people who work in the area I want the folks who work in the area to be able to live in the area.

Downtown Monterey is already congested. Parking would be a big issue.

Already crowded
I think we should be looking at existing buildings like bank that are oversized and have wasted space. Maybe they could all consolidate into one banking area and converting the current buildings into apartments. Most also have parking some with excess parking that could also be expanded into additional apartments. Review other businesses that have available space. What about Heritage Harbor? Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3202, Packet Page 3530 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-42 Community Survey Report
Downtown 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 area should have housing that primarily sits on top of shops. This area needs to really keep its character that draws people there. The area needs to have a pedestrian feel where people feel safe to walk with their families or sit outside for a meal. Parking opportunities need to be maximized here.

We need to close Alvarado and make downtown a place for outdoor dinning and celebration.

Develop a parking plan to allow easy access to this area.

We do not need traffic polluting this area, and hindering the establishment of a desirable downtown area.

Under no circumstances should single family dwellings be permitted for new construction.

Monterey could use more dense housing in the downtown area, to encourage community growth Downtown Monterey IS NOT the city's premier business and tourism district; rather, it is the wharf and Cannery Row. Downtown Monterey has become an attraction for panhandlers and homeless; not to be seen in Carmel the same way. Monterey needs leadership to clean-up its act. Too many businesses that maintain a messy appearance- -should be a code enforcement person assigned to the downtown area. Restaurants and shops look DIRTY and uninviting. Eliminate cheap NEON!!! Take this from a 5th generation resident whose family lived in the CooperMolera home. Monterey has FLUNKED compared to Carmel. Just look at the appearance of business store fronts in Carmel compared to sad Monterey.

Already dense. Dangerous for bike riders on Alvarado.

Crowded. I don’t see where you could add any
Parking is a problem. Better public transportation. Workforce housing is needed more than more high end housing that often sits empty.

While fairly charming, downtown could use a facelift. People see downtown and wander why it is so small and dated. Building up to 10 story apartments and condos in the downtown would provide the required housing and add a feeling of importance to downtown. Most visitors think Cannery Row is downtown Monterey.

Townhomes downtown that blend into the surrounding historical buildings would look good. I appreciate the way Alvarado Street looks
I think more culturally focused downtown area, with live music, artists lofts, etc to support people wanting to live downtown.

Absolutely need to maintain the historic character of downtown and the vibrant feel of dining and entertainment for locals and tourists
The focus for downtown Monterey should be on getting rid of the hobos who frequent this area. You can't walk down Alvarado without seeing hobos hanging out in front of the Walgreens or Taco Bell. There is also a problem at the entrance to Trader Joe's. Panhandlers typically stand at the entrance which is a distraction for people trying to drive in and out of the parking lot. Get rid of them! That is how you can improve downtown.

Where commercial buildings are currently in place, the idea to build additional stories but no more than one or two would be acceptable.

As a Monterey renter, my spouse's and my dream is to own a humble home in downtown Monterey so we can walk/run/cycle to work, the farmers market, MSC, restaurants, and stores. I think that high-density housing works best in the downtown area with storefronts on the first level and residences in levels 2-5. I caution too much midrise housing here though to prioritize the charm, sun, and bay views that are currently offered downtown. I think Alvarado should be a pedestrian/cycling/electric trolly service street only, no longer open to cars. My spouse and I are tired of driving and car culture, but we can only truly give it up if many of us have the option to live downtown to mitigate the need to travel to and park downtown. I also think there needs to be a better, and/or potentially a Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3203, Packet Page 3531 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-43
Downtown 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?...” second recreation path to connect old Monterey to new Monterey. The current rec path between Alvarado and Fisherman's Wharf gets really crowded during tourist season, making it difficult for locals who are cyclists and runners to efficiently travel between old and new Monterey for work and pleasure. As with any healthy built environment, please prioritize native green space, even if it's vertical on walls, GREEN ROOFS!, and/or small slivers of sidewalk plantings. Too much concrete and brick is unhealthy for all beings. Friendly Plaza is a great space, and I think it could be better utilized with live music and community events.

By adding new AFFORDABLE housing to this make-believe small town, that is compact, taller, and modern, you not only bring the future of the country back into the city making the city more vibrant, you not only make Americans of all ages enjoy their life, you will also reduce traffic on the outdated stretch of highway between Castroville and Carmel! They will be in the city that they work in. They live in. They are happy to be in.

The old Monterey savings site, now owned by Nader Agha would be great for apartments. Building should be torn down. Allow Apartments on the 1st floor because retail is getting harder to fill because of Amazon and other online business. Also the Church site on the corner of Alvarado and Franklin could be apartments. That site seems very under utilized. Also, on Calle Principal there are opportunities behind some stores that front on Alvarado for apartments.

A;lvarado s/b a plaza
I feel the ones I checked will best infill the areas that could have infill in the downtown area.

Parking for residents is critical, unless there is an assumption that folks in this area will use public transport or bikes?
More housing is needed for students and employees at the DLI. Existing single family homes would benefit from adding ADUs on their lots, which could be facilitated with a streamlined permit process.

Explore having a few downtown streets (Alvarado? Calle Principal?) closed to motor traffic (pedestrian sts). Add a few more levels to current public parking, to help accommodate new housing's parking needs. Have parking and business space under new apt/condo buildings. If new MST “surf line” only goes from Marina to Seaside, add light rail or plentiful buses to Monterey & PG. Encourage Spanish/Mexican/Californio themed architecture, perhaps including courtyards (for cafés or shops) to block cold breezes. More art galleries (featuring local artists) arts& crafts stores (local & Latino), outdoor seating, live music, non-chain stores/restaurants, such as garden stores, bookstores, hardware, stationery….toys….La Michoacana ice cream…. DECIBAL MONITORS along some streets (eg. Pearl/Figueroa/Franklin) with cameras to ID the guys with illegal, after market exhaust systems! Close Alvarado Street to car traffic, allowing only pedestrians, bicycles, farmers market.

Underground parking needed.

Add bike lanes .

Area for residents / kids to play at location site
Perfect area for mixed housing with all the benefits our lovely town of Monterey delivers.

Imporove all aspects of Active Transportation, buffer bike lanes, and reduce parking requirements.

Trepidatious about this concept. Parking concerns me greatly with this solution. What will be the impact on local businesses?
I think already vacant or run down or abandoned buildings of any type in downtown should just be converted into housing and thats it i dont think it would be a good idea to add more buildings downtown because it’ll start turning very cramped and densely populated which might not be good for a already occasionally busy downtown.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3204, Packet Page 3532 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-44 Community Survey Report
Downtown 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?...” More residential in downtown would be great as long as parking is included. It is a very walkable area now and more people living there wouldn't hurt - at least the tier 1 plan or adding Tier 2 Since the major revenue generator for the City of Monterey's is hotel tax., then I think the moratorium on hotel rooms in the downtown commercial district should be lifted. Reasons :a $60 million dollar Conference Center that needs to be supported; that additional patron will increase sales tax; that surrounding cities are aggressively building new hotels and some with conference facilities ( ie, Pacific Grove, Sand City, Marina and Seaside.) Some of the planned new hotels will offer ocean views and amenities that will become major compactors for Monterey's older facilities'. We need to protect our market share ! I did not see reference to New Monterey as a resource for affordable housing ?? I think the old Hill Top school, that is know a neighborhood facility should be consider for possible redevelopment to include housing. It's a large site in a residential area. Why was New Monterey not included in this survey. ??? I think some of the neighborhood TOT tax could be utilized to make affordable house feasible, additionally some of that revenue should be shared with the commercial districts for beautification and improvements.

Lighthouse Ave.: Plans should be undertaken for widening and funding should be aggressive undertaken for state and federal funding. It's currently an unsafe for passenger entering or existing their cars.

Retain the existing character and ambiance that makes this area such a pleasurable one to visit/shop; more development will only compound the parking/traffic situation, as many people will avoid the area at certain times of day and night, which is a proven
I think Old Town Monterey is already over crowded with homes and apartments, with no areas for parking. We really need to invest money into maintaining our Historic Old Town as it’s the heart of the city. We rely on tourism, people leave their big cities to vacation here, if we turn into a big city, we will lose what makes this place so special. A charming historic district that doesn’t encroach on the beautiful nature that surrounds us.

I’d like to see Alvarado as a pedestrian only street. I’d like to see different tenants in the big building that has the coin shop where they buy and sell jewelry and coins. It’d be cool to have a variety of tapa bars in there. It’s so dark and unwelcoming now.

The alley between Alvarado and Calle Principal ( near Rosine’s) could be a cute plaza. It’s unappealing now.

Hopefully, there would be parking and water for any new construction.

Let's create opportunities for people to "live and play" by building mixed-use properties with commercial on the street level and several floors of residential above. Please preserve our historic adobes, but increase housing density and availability in this area.

I currently live in the downtown area, and parking is my main concern. My husband petitioned for a parking permit but was denied due to the fact that our unit offers 1 spot. However, we are a 2 car household and work in different areas. Even with a permit, finding parking from May through October is difficult. This causes us great stress, and with more housing in development, this would get worse. So, please change your policy and add more parking. In order to afford this area, we really need to be a two car household so we can maintain jobs.

Secondly, I recently went to Alexandria, Virginia and loved what they did in the downtown area. They actually closed one of the main streets, which made it safer for pedestrians. Alvarado is notorious. Tourists just walk across the road without looking, people double park, and people don’t stay in their lanes at the turn at the end of road. It’s a dangerous nightmare that I try to avoid at all costs. My proposal is that Alvarado close between 10am and midnight every day between Memorial Day and Halloween during high tourist seasons. Most truck deliveries happen early in the morning or late at night, so I think it would minimally impact businesses while making the path safer for visitors and locals.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3205, Packet Page 3533 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-45
Downtown 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?...” Apartments over businesses, like across from the new Santa Cruz bank. Possibly closing off some streets like Alvarado, to walking streets ,would be conducive to over business housing. Maintaining all the green areas that now exist, for people to get out and enjoy nature. Improved transportation could even encourage one to not need a car. Restaurants of various ethnic origin and tea rooms, wine rooms and breweries could enhance over business housing. It would be necessary to clean the walkways more often of gum, spilled food and drink etc. the city would have to assure this area off limits for homelessness. But how great this sort of area would be for tourists to walk and eat etc.

Similar to areas in New Monterey, it could be interesting to consider 1 or 2 blocks a few streets (likely off of Alvarado, or in standalone areas) to build mix-use areas not available to car traffic. For example, Bonafacio Pl between Alvarado and Tyler streets; and/or somewhere more standalone like the section of Tyler St between Munras and E Pearl. Cities to look for as examples are Denver, Colorado, and Charlottesville, VA who closed off a fairly run-down Main Street to cars in the late '90s, injected a lot more mixed-use (housing, restaurants/bars, permanent art installations), and it's become a vibrant heart of the city and has generated a lot more local and tourism dollars. I'd suggest this for Alvarado St, but if we're not ready for that, then a few side streets and/or isolated blocks makes sense.

My objection to housing in this area, high tsunami risk, and ocean rising.

These risks are well known in existing city plans and reports, there’s even city you tubes that carefully explain the risks to lives and property, why isn’t this information repeated at meetings? Plan to move all the small medical offices in converted homes out of downtown and into new medical rental spaces at Ryan Ranch. Return the downtown edges to single and duplex multifamily housing units.

We need to address the plethora of one way streets. Alvarado street IS getting friendlier...outside dining and tree lighting make it nicer, but having it one way causes traffic to speed. Flower balls, fountains, more outside dining...love the new front of the Plaza hotel, it is so welcoming-why can't we use the space between the Plaza and the Wharf for daily events and not hold it open for car shows and ice rinks? If this area were filled with activity, it would link the Wharf to our downtown for strolling.

I see this area to have a mix of affordable and luxury multi-floor apartment buildings so people live close to public transportation and commercial spaces, which would also reduce the likelihood of those people owning cars and needing parking.

I think downtown is a good place for more dense development, with some conditions: (1) Retail services for people who live there should be close (i.e. they shouldn't have to drive to Del Rey Oaks or Sand City to buy groceries); and (2) parking in and traffic flow through downtown must be addressed. (Why aren't the lights timed along Franklin so that cars can slowly go through without being stopped at every intersection?) We can't just pack in more people without first improving traffic flow and providing practical transportation alternatives. We have agencies that regulate development based on water availability, but nobody seems to care much about gridlock.

How about the development opportunities for the southeast corner of Figueroa and Webster? It's parking lot! Additional residents could could support a more vibrant downtown. Would like to see a few more lower cost family friendly restaurants and ideally the return of Osio theater. Where would the residents park? More local residents enjoying a more vibrant downtown kalong with our wonderful tourists) with a few more lower cost restaurants, additional live entertainment and ideally the return of the Osio theater This area is already impacted by parking and traffic problems. Adding more housing, particularaly multi-unit projects would make these problems even worse. I talked with someone living in an upstairs unit downtown. He said that parking at the parking garage was very inconvenient for him. Also, it is important that the historic Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3206, Packet Page 3534 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-46 Community Survey Report
Downtown 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?...” character of the downtown area be preserved. If housing must be built there, please have the new buildings the same height or lower than existing historic adobes and other historic properties.

Cut down car traffic on Alvarado - make it more pedestrian friendly. Use the model they use in Norway/Denmark/Sweden where you park your car in accessible multistory lots, then walk to the shopping areas.

One lane in the center for deliveries and handicapped access. Open for traffic in the evenings as needed. Keep the extended sidewalk activity and develop it better. Keep the mix of residential and business, just use better planning with existing structures.

This area should have more affordable housing for students, faculty and staff of the major educational institutions such as the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. It would be nice to have a mix of housing, shops, restaurants a plaza for socializing. It is hard to socialize outdoors due to the lack of real parks or plazas. More public restrooms should also be available. Please KEEP and support the MONTEREY SPORTS CENTER, the only sports facility in downtown Monterey with a real pool for laps and saunas to warm up and for health therapy purposes. The adobe houses are underutilized too, except for the Cooper Molera Adobe which currently has three different business operations. It would be interesting to know how they operate and where the funds go for the sake of transparency. Some adobe houses could be use to develop community enterprises and to hold educational activities.

Thank you!
Downtown has a historic culture that should be honored. Recent construction has done a good job of honoring the culture of Downtown. More multiuse multifamily buildings might be good but not in the flood prone areas.

It is not morally or ethically supportable to place potential future residents in the areas known to be prone to tidal surge and flooding, especially if those residents are likely to be renters.

Monterey has done a fairly good job of maintaining some historic and cultural ambience in the Downtown Area, and the more recent multi-use buildings have blended nicely. I would enjoy to see more multi-use sites developed in the area provided they are coherent with and honor the Old Town character of the Downtown area.

I do not support placing new multifamily residential units in areas that will soon be prone to flooding due to sea level rise. Too often we see flooded areas with residents asking why housing was placed in harms way? Why didn't previous planners keep housing out of flood prone areas? It is not wise and not fair to put the responsibility for such decisions on potential future residents, especially so if those residents are likely to be renters. No matter how tempting it may be or how convenient it may be to current needs, to knowing place new multifamily residents in areas known to be flood prone or susceptible to tidal surge in the future would be morally and ethically unsupportable.

I would love to see more spaces for graduate students to be able to rent apartments or mother in law attachments that are nearby campus (which is in downtown monterey) and reasonable priced.

This area should have a mix of housing and shops, with indoor and outdoor community spaces for events.

Apartments/condos could be built on underutilized lots.

This area should have mix of housing, with street trees added on the sidewalk. Also, a good public transportation with Monterey neighborhood will help in managing parking in the neighborhood.

Addition of a dog park.

Young professionals are struggling to live in Monterey. This would be a great location for affordable studio-2- bedroom apartment complexes. Great proximity to MIIS, DLI, and NPS, as well as restaurants, grocery stores, and public transportation. This is a prime area for the young professionals who move to Monterey each year for continued graduate studies. Are there opportunities to utilize the top halves of the current commercial buildings Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3207, Packet Page 3535 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-47
Downtown 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?...” on Monterey--commercial on the bottom, residential on the top? Sidewalks and public transportation are already nearby, but is there potential for an additional private garage or underground private garage for residents only? There needs to be consideration for parking and driving past old Monterey as there currently is NONE. Rude to add more people. Instead, encouraging rent control is the reasonable thing to do.

More young people. fewer old people. More culture, less decay.

No building in the Tsunami Hazard zone. The sea level rise zone needs to be updated to reflect the latest NOHA data.

Building could take place in the area off of El Dorado.

Walk-up row-house style condominiums. Middlebury Institute and MPC are nearby, and students will need rental apartments. Lots of businesses nearby and the area is very walkable with lots of services nearby. Easier to drive in and out of this region as well, easier than the Lighthouse corridor.

On-site, free laundry would be nice
This area would be great for first floor commercial with residential on top. It is walkable enough and close enough to transit options that you could live car-free, so minimum parking requirements should be removed.

Any new building should consider underground parking. This is a vibrant downtown area, and it would be nice to see more community events and family oriented events.

My real answer is not “yes” or “no” but “maybe”. It would depend on available parking for any new residences. It would also depend on the number of housing units. I could see upgrading some of the old vacant buildings to add some apartments but the number needs to be limited given the already bad traffic and parking situation in downtown Monterey, especially during big events.

At the lower end of this area you will have sea water rise issues. This needs to be addressed by flagging all properties now to signal restricted development now. Hard decisions, but liability and withholding action could bury the city in decision choices later. This will also result in loss of housing and current city property development cost issues now and in the future.

Alvarado should maintain a drive and walk posture. I would suggest the city study hard going back to two-way traffic on most streets. The restaurants extended out to sidewalks are a nice touch. If the city were to go higher, I suggest five stores as max down town. This not in comparison with the existing taller hotel but fitting it in with the downtown. For any increase in housing, as you go up the hill, consider additional parking by going down but above the water table now and in the future. Maintain the Spanish historical look of not just the downtown but maintain this finish looks about the town as they draw tourists. From parking garages, identify and lay out historical tours in walkable segments with maps that include the tour walk times. The can be guided or city wide links to a city maintained tour ap link starting at times or by individual if feasible. This would include talking points along the timed tour. If you got it, flaunt it.

Monterey Airport CLAIMS to be a regional. Work with other local cities to improve local tourism and they collectively meet with the airport to address regional interests...not just pilot interest. It too needs to grow.

Looking around the state we can see how well the police department addresses finding accommodation for the homeless. While other places are lacking in tourism due to this issue, we have a program that addresses these community needs. The state needs to improve the care aspects of these individuals but the existing problem is better handled here than other less fortunate places.

City government needs to examine, identify, project improvement, and target improvements, as we work on increasing housing while maintaining what is a Monterey experience. Obviously this includes water, housing, and the other issues surrounding and accumulating in this examination. Make up an adjustable map for a PLANNED IMPROVEMENT MAP that can deal with reality. This must include getting back (when appropriate) to Community Development including bringing business to the city. We have too many vacancies around the city.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3208, Packet Page 3536 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-48 Community Survey Report
Downtown 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?...” I would love to see more business with apartments/condos on top and underground parking. The apartments above Alvarado brewing company and near osio are perfect examples of this. housing mixed with shops
stop the conversion of housing into offices and treatment space; restore the housing. Create places for the offices, agencies, service centers etc to be nearby. Be sure green space, trees and benches and walking remains easy and pleasant
I would like to see the blocks between Pearl Street and Franklin, between Calle Principal and Washington Street to be pedestrian/bicycle only with additional trees planted. In a sense I am envisioning a pedestrian zone with limited access from delivery trucks at limited times. Make it a destination. Incentivize merchants to offer outdoor dining and access to live music. Better signage about parking along the harbor or in parking garages would be necessary.

Allow for mixed use mid-rise apartment buildings with retail below. Limit access to cars and encourage use of public transportation.

I would actually like to see the city go up to 6 or 7 stories in this area. Downtown is ideally suited for more housing. Impacts of denser development in this area would be smaller than impacts of lower density development in other parts of the city. That's because this area is already well served by a dense street grid and a transit center.

Alvarado Street is a model for prioritizing pedestrian safety and enjoyment, although I would like to see this corridor closed to vehicular traffic permanently, not just during farmers markets. The city should look into narrowing Franklin Street to reduce speeding in pedestrian-heavy areas near the Sports Center and Jacks Park.

This will improve the desirability of downtown for would-be residents.

This area should have a mix of housing and shops, with a plaza for socializing and listening to live music. Also Alvarado SHOULD BE CLOSED TO TRAFFIC at least for the majority of the evening and night (maybe open from 4 AM to noon for deliveries and traffic) as it really ruins the atmosphere of a walkable downtown. The outdoor seating is nice but too many cars and aggressive drivers looking to show off really limit the appeal More multi-family housing that is affordable for local workers. The existing housing stock is primarily single family homes, the cost of which is out of reach for most people, and certainly for people who work in hospitality, etc. Providing more affordable housing for locals would benefit the local economy. Tourists will continue to come, but capping the number of residences that are not primary residences is key at this time.

More parking will be necessary, and ideally public transit, walking and bike paths to mitigate the larger number of people in a smaller area.

New housing should also include plans for Level 2 electric vehicle charging stations .

Low and Mid range in price so that workers can afford to reside in Monterey. Ground floor commercial. Alvarado should be converted to a pedestrian mall with no automobile traffic. same concern but more allowable to high rise apts with parking. Current parking structures are on the outskirts and the shuttle station parking is minimal for the purpose of the shuttle. Keep existing offices as offices around Hartnel. The community should not need to travel to so many different offices for healthcare services We need a variety of housing types that are affordable and accommodate individuals as well as families.

Four to five stories should be a minimum down town.

This neighborhood is where I live and is infinitely walkable. People, in general, will not be talked out of their cars though. Parking considerations must be accommodated as street parking is at a premium even for full time resident homeowners. Local auto repair businesses commonly use local street parking spots to store vehicles awaiting repair. San Carlos Church/School, The YMCA and local commercial businesses commonly use street parking for overflow once their lots are full yet otherwise restrict their lots from local usage. The un-homed Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3209, Packet Page 3537 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-49
Downtown 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?...” commonly park (and sleep) in cars located here in seldom enforced 72 hour street spots for extended duration. I am not complaining about the un-homed here! I am stating fact. I know and have known a number of them on a first name basis. After all, this is a conversation about housing which would be preferred by some over their cars.

I couldn’t support a more dense housing plan that doesn’t address adequate parking for its residents. But please note that otherwise, I do support housing development on underutilized lots. The high density housing proposal put forth for the current parking lot at the corner of Adams St and Bonifacio PL was one I supported. more apartments and condos here can take advantage of already good walk and bike access to shopping and entertainment. City could add some parking garage space for long term residents? Monterey should be vibrant and support people working, going to school, recreating, and accessing healthcare in the area. Housing and public transportation are very important in this area.

Dense apartments upstairs from shopping & eating.

Housing needs to take prior over other developments
If new homes are built in this area, they should be dog friendly and have a small, fenced yard. Finding a rental in Monterey that allows dogs and has a yard is extremely difficult.

PROMOTE ADU ALL THE WAY TOWARDS DLI/HIGHT STREET WITH MATCHING GRANTS FOR LOW INCOME RENTAL.
- Parking strategies and Ev Solar panel installation in mind, to be strongly considered.

I feel there is no way downtown housing will be affordable for those who work in education or in the tourism industry for instance, so please show how that affordability will work.

Same for Del Monte Beach neighborhood.

In Oak Grove there is a property perhaps the city can buy for apartments. It's an abandoned-looking storefront on the corner of 5th and Ocean. What we really need here is a playground or park for all the kids who live in the apartments here. If that cannot happen, then let's put apartments with off-street parking there, and only two stories max, in keeping with the look of the neighborhood.

Mix of Living and Retail, allowing for walking among theaters, retail, restaurants and homes. Developing "park/plaza areas" such as those that exist inside the Cooper-Molera property -(Alta Cafe, Cella restaurant), where gardens and areas to sit/benches exist. Create a more expansive area that includes housing on Pearl St, Calle Principal/Pacific Street regions for walking, shopping, entertainment, living.

There is not a lot of room for adding a large number of housing units to the downtown area, parking is already a huge struggle for those of us that live here. That being said, it could be done on a smaller scale of triplexes and duplexes with the right property, however redeveloping a large office unit into 20+ units begs the question of where will everyone park? It can’t be all about parking, but it must considered as a factor in larger developments.

The elephant in the room in the downtown area is building where sea rise is absolutely going to take over. Why invest in temporary solutions when they will displace people at a later date? The homeless shelter in the old dance studio should never have been approved for this reason. The city’s own sea level rise reports show this will be underwater! Please be smarter than this, making it someone else’s problem down the road is shameful.

I think this area is for more socializing and business, havingore housing here will increase the prices of the homes and parking is limited
These homes would be taking away parking lots that are in desperate need in that area.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3210, Packet Page 3538 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-50 Community Survey Report
Downtown 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?...” Downtown Monterey is a great area, however, adding more housing in this area will worsen traffic and create even more parking challenges.

Care needs to had in infilling downtown monterey. The height limit should be kept down to retain Monterey’s historical flavor and small city charm.

Parks bicycle routes pedestrian areas open space fewer roads Parking is an issue in this area. Consider building elevated housing with parking underneath if future flooding is a potential issue. Shorter term housing is needed in this area for the high number of students at NPS and Middlebury
The Alvarado St improvements look better every day. Replacing the older buildings with two-story buildings could give a more inviting appearance as well as adding homes. It is hard to get between streets and ugly too. Every business should be able to have funds to improve the look as well as the structure of their building. Doubling the housing seems possible. Maybe more, depending on how many streets would be involved. Parking is still awful. I would like to see Alvarado closed to through traffic and move seating and park like area develop.

Downtown is busy, parking is busy and hard to find, if building more homes, be sure to include plenty of parking that is secure for the tenants.

We have a downtown with great potential, but virtually every street is designed for vehicle traffic. I believe our downtown could develop into a more desirable destination but lacks the pedestrian traffic to make it so. Alvarado Street is a great candidate for a pedestrian only street (think Santa Monica 3rd Street Promenade). I understand there's a master plan to develop the Tyler Street garage into a public transit station - this makes sense to me. Jules Simoneau Plaza is a public space overrun with homeless and underutilized by the general public - add kid-friendly installations such as the "Lawn on D" installation in Boston to make it more attractive destination for the public and reduce vehicular traffic on adjacent streets.

Secured Parking
I'd like to see vibrant life of downtown area - celebrating the history and pulse of Monterey...so I'd like to see a mix of high-quality/density housing along with shops, plaza/marketplace and green spaces....where ideally people who work in Monterey can live there. With the small footprints available in this area - I think it should hold only high density on - mid-rise apartments/condominiums.

We need shelters and proactive solutions to the homeless in this area. It is a terrible situation and a negative spiral for everyone, particularly the unhoused and local business owners.

Parking would be an issue if apartments are built.

Downtown should/ could be so much more dense. If parking restrictions for individual businesses/ buildings are lifted it seems an easy fix. Is there a possiblity of building 'above' exisiting low rise buildings? Are *all* of the historical buildings worthy of saving preserving/ freezing? Recent wall collapse at bank building on corner of Alvarado and Pearl has been tarped over for months now. Is it worth preserving until next heavy rain? Are the other buildings that sit vacant most of the day/ year worth preserving as well? Are there tax abatement strategies that could incentivize the building of housing over the price of the land? There is a density of hospitality jobs in this area that more housing could help provide more/stable workforce who would in turn spend there dollars locally.

Possibly add residential over commercial.

The homeless problem downtown is atrocious. When I go to El Estero they don't let me feed the ducks any more.

Stop feeding the animals downtown.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3211, Packet Page 3539 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-51
Downtown 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?...” Community space for safe gathering with children and pets in mind. Gated away from busy roads.

More Apartments and more parking.

I think downtown should be more focus on providing a night life and inclusive restaurants or music/food scene.

Putting housing here could only limit both potential residents and business. Places like the Bull & Bear lost a lot of potential due to the neighboring residents. Let Downtown be a real DOWNTOWN and not a housing center.

This area should have a mix of housing and shops, with a plaza for socializing and listening to live music.

We have plenty of single family homes, so pretty much everything besides those should be built. I wouldnt build anything close to the ocean, especially considering the environmental hazard. Another reason being that none of us can afford to live that close to the ocean, and we dont mind considering how close we already are! More community outdoor areas in general, yes please!! Places to sit and hang out with friends that geared towards community events, live music, etc. Jacks Park is rarely used, why not allow it have a dual purpose for the community?! So much wasted space 90% of the year!
Better ADA access throughout downtown and additional public restrooms needed throughout downtown for the number of visitors and people there at all times. Adequate additional parking will be necessary if a lot of new residential properties are added. Mass parking garages in downtown are too tight inside - any new parking garages need to have adequate back-up distance & parking space size needs to full-size (compact spaces are too small for reality of vehicles here and more space needed to move between vehicles when getting in and out of parked cars).

Housing with multipurpose/use space - live work environment, public market with housing above.

As a student & worker in this area, I think it would be useful to add more mixed-use zoning, such as a redeveloped commercial building (having a business on the ground floor and a few housing units above). I especially think that there could be repurposing of office buildings to meet key housing needs considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on remote work / joint or co-working spaces. For those who work in person, many working professionals in need of affordable housing would be happy to live closer to their work and thus even better serve the economic development of the city of Monterey.

My opinion is that it makes sense to focus on density in the downtown area: no single family units but rather multifamily/person units of small size.

Parking would have to be limited and mitigated, perhaps with parking passes for residents in parking structures or lots.

It also seems logical to create mixed use buildings with business/retail/services on the bottom floor and apartments on the second and third floors.

Having more people living in the downtown area where businesses and services already exist, and where they can walk or bike rather than drive makes sense.

Mixed use with commercial below, and residential above would fit nice. Maybe some for Seniors or Vets I see many mid-rise apts and condominiums to house. This is a central location to all parts of the Monterey Peninsula making it a desired living location. The population downtown should be increased to support existing businesses and attract new business as well. There are many vacant properties downtown. Some of these could be made into combination housing/commercial properties. In addition, this central location is served by easily accessible transit. A vibrant downtown will be an added draw to out of town visitors.

Do not build housing over two stories high. This blocks sun and looks terrible. It also adds more parking and traffic issues to the area.
workforce housing, ADUs, parking strategies. Regular public transport, Bike lanes Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3212, Packet Page 3540 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-52 Community Survey Report
Downtown 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?...” Ideal area for small units. I support Sylverie plan to built above Calle Principal parking lot 5 stories. Not for rich people from Silicon Valley, but median income workers.

This is already a great area. It would be great to see more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly features added as well as density.

Again great area for Mixed housing and shops 4 story limits The infrastructure, restaurants, shops, food markets, as well as transport and access/egress are all pretty much there. It is primarily a question of increasing the residential density through the re use of existing structures and new construction.

I believe that the area immediately around Alvarado Street could support 4 - 5 story buildings, ASSUMING the buildings are mixed-use. We don’t want to lose commercial establishments (e.g., retail or food services) in that area. Beyond the Alvarado, Tyler, Calle Principal area, I believe that 2 - 3 story apartments are more appropriate and consistent with area properties.

If these apartments were to be built in the area they should take into account the average salary of Monterey residents so that actually residents would be able to take advantage of these properties.

We rented a house in this area on the other side of El Estero years ago. The area highlighted feels somewhat touristy still, though not as problematic as Lighthouse in terms of building, parking, etc. There is also the Middlebury campus. This area seems like a nice option for student housing or folks that prefer hopping on the bike trail to get around.

Keep trees in the plan please!
A residential retreat from the rising ocean should be combined with a seawall project to be started sooner rather than later. Higher density housing would benefit from even greater pedestrian-friendly planning, although as pointed out that is in pretty good shape already.

The amount of housing in this area should be minimal due to the parking issues, crowds, congestion, and limited infrastructure. All crosswalks should be illuminated with flashing lights.

Mixed-use commercial/residential would be good here: commercial on the bottom; residential on top. That could effectively expand the business district (bringing-in more money from visitors and making more money for the town in tax revenue) while also expanding housing opportunities. Clever parking strategies will also need to be considered here.

All 100% Affordable for priority CURRENT RESIDENTS & WORKERS IN THE CITY A pedestrianized or semi-pedestrianized one lane Alvarado Street would really help connect downtown better with the wharf/plaza. A one lane Alvarado St could even expand bike/pedestrian space without giving up parking.

More stormwater projects that make the city more permeable.

Make things more walkable. This includes greater ordinance and security enforcement. Invest in security cameras in main streets and commerce areas.

Consider Alvarado being a promenade.

Do things in addition to farmers market there.

Address top heavy staff making over 200k+
Address Monterey’s SPENDING problem, not increase taxes as already too high.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3213, Packet Page 3541 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-53
Downtown 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?...” Housing is best on Fremont & ADU’s. Maybe convert sports center to apartment building.

Parking must be thought of as most people drive and bus MST service is pathetic and takes way too long to get to places.

Better roads and road signs maintenance
I would generally like to see higher-density housing across Monterey and Pacific Grove, along with more closedto-vehicles areas (plazas, streets, etc). I would particularly like to see Alvarado Street closed for traffic for the 2 - 3 blocks closest to the waterfront. Let the restaurants setup tables at night, etc.

The underutilized buildings within the Downtown area need to be repurposed for housing or better uses. The current situation is not taking full advantage of the possibilities.

Very tight already.. more housing here is unnecessary
If new housing is to be built, we'll need strategies to manage parking in the neighborhood.

Concerns about flooding and investing money in an area that is high risk. What would mitigating factors be? I’d like to see a mix of housing and shops. But increased density increases traffic and parking issues. Please don’t let traffic get more clogged than it is.

No new housing should be built near Lake Estero due to Sea Level Rise and flooding dangers. Put higher density and mixed use housing at the higher elevations. Apartments and small condos above commercial would be best to offer living close to work so that cars are not needed and traffic will be helped.

New residential buildings should be mixed-use with stores and restaurants incorporated into the design.

Dedicated bike lanes should be incorporated into city street planning. Utilize native plant landscaping. Install round about intersections rather than stop lights, and where not feasible incorporate international crosswalks where all vehicle traffic stops for pedestrians.

Our downtown can be improved significantly by bringing in businesses that encourage foot traffic and add to a strong local character. Many of these already exist on Alvarado street, but we can, and should expand this area so that more of downtown has the same pedestrian, main street feel that Alvarado does. Additionally, we should consider pedestrianizing several streets downtown. While this would be initially disruptive to traffic patterns, it would encourage more walking and retail opportunities as well as opening up more space for outdoor dining and socializing.

Please build more housing! We are desperate for more housing! A mixed-use, walkable community that promotes affordable family housing with easy access to public transportation and to commercial and public services while protecting the neighborhood's aesthetic and historical resources.

Because of the historical resources downtown, please only allow one-story buildings. Taller buildings will detract from these historic resources. Also, parking is already at a premium on Alvarado Street. I don't believe that the parking garages have adequate parking to accomodate much new housing - and parking that is not adjacent to housing is inconvenient for residents.

Downtown is an exciting area with a lot to offer as far as restaurants, entertainment, and access to public transportation. Traffic does get backed up getting into town and ways to alleviate this should be looked at.

I am concerned about flooding and the tsunami zones for construction in this zone Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3214, Packet Page 3542 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-54 Community Survey Report
Downtown 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?...” close alvarado to cars - foot traffic only. increase sports center hours.

Maximum of 4 stories.

Parking is always a problem that needs to be addressed in downtown Monterey. This area is already walkable with many desirable amenities.

I have pretty much the same thoughts about downtown as I do Lighthouse. Let's maximize density, prioritize affordable units, and mixed-use buildings. Some parts of downtown are characterized by smaller buildings, so smaller multi-family buildings and ADUs behind existing buildings may be the best option on those blocks.

I'd love to see live-work apartments in downtown that are conducive to the needs of artist, musicians, and craftspeople. Most creative professional I know in town are renting an apartment and a separate studio space.

Redeveloped warehouse and commercial buildings provide an opportunity for this kind of creative workspace housing.

I don't want to see high-end luxury housing developments in Monterey. Pacific Grove and Carmel already provide that. We need places working people can live full-time.

More apartments above businesses. Very low income housing is the important thing.

This is a great neighborhood with very minimal mixed use currently, and maintaining that character might be good. A few more businesses could also be okay - this neighborhood is quieter businesses (doctor's offices, salons, etc.) and I think it would change the character to add many more.

More density housing in this neighborhood would be great, and there is probably only minimal need for additional parking. I thought that this neighborhood was within the area that Monterey anticipated may flood in the next 30+ years but I'm sure planners are looking into that responsibly...

More housing more housing. That does not mean more single family homes on small lots, there are more than enough of those in America, and they are the problem. Meanwhile, you need to make the whole area more bike friendly and e-bike friendly. Consider this when building, that there are spaces to safely store these. Consider this on the roads, allow people to use e-assist bikes to get around! Make it safe for bikers, of both kinds! Both are equally vulnerable to being killed by automobiles.

Water needed! A mix of housing and shops, possible a plaza. Trees would be nice.

No new development north of Del Monte. No removal of any of the small amounts of greenspace. More infill near public transit is the ideal situation. I like the idea of building on top of existing parking lots and adding underground parking at those sites.
would love to see if there's a way to convert all the homes that have been turned into dr. offices and other business back into housing and move offices up to Ryan ranch.

The area should maintain the mixture of shops, restaurants, gathering places, and residential areas. More residential areas are needed AND there needs to be something that keeps people from buying new homes up as investment properties and/or 2nd/3rd/4th homes. Parking should be built in as part of the property for residents of the property.

Encouraging reduced reliance on cars is important. Workforce housing where downtown employees can walk to work will help. Neighborhood has grocery store and pharmacy, which is good. Monterey needs more senior housing, please consider creating more low income senior housing downtown, where a car is not needed for those who no longer drive.

Keep as tourist and business area
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3215, Packet Page 3543 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-55
Downtown 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 area should have a mix of housing and shops, with a plaza for socializing and listening to live music. Housing should be six stories.

Add more apartments but also make sure there is parking for the tenants.

Downtown corridor offers food, transit, other supports for housing. Middlebury College should be asked to contribute $3/square a foot to housing development since their students take up housing for families and they currently do not contribute to the solution. Same for Presidio installations. Congressman Panetta can tack impact fees on a DoD authorization bill. It is not fair that our families cannot afford to housing while military personnel receive subsidies to live in housing stock.

Raise height limits. We already have high towers in this area. Build multi-family buildings from Pacific Street to Lake El Estero. Concentrate them along Taylor Street.

There's a lot of amenities in this area - shopping, parks, the sports center, etc. Adding affordable housing would augment the already dynamic neighborhood.

Ultimately a grocery in addition to Trader Joe's.

Too congested already. Too much traffic
This area should be a mix of housing and shops. Custom House Plaza should be enhanced with outdoor dining opportunities and live music. Street trees should be carefully maintained and continue to be lit with Edison lights.

Add some additional parking on the edges of the downtown area, that is still walkable to Alvarado and into Custom House Plaza and the Wharf.

Venice of Monterey. Local residential built to accommodate 100 years of sea level rise. Streets yield to canals. Del Monte Ave elevated to buffer storms and accommodate traffic, utilities, and recreation trail continuity. Del Monte bridge at El Estero. Housing engineered to accommodate sea level rise. No on-site parking, no eligibility for residential parking permits in future development. Overnight and weekend parking at remote locations, eg. MPC, existing city facilities, entrepreneurial parking venues. Water vessel parking to be designed on appropriate timescale.

Opening El Estero to small craft access will appeal to developers. Tiny home/bungalow development around El Estero high ground can create significant unit #’s. Runoff capture structures can provide water for flushing toilets and laundry.

This region seems to be already built out but might utilize with more housing above buildings with street level storefronts. However, parking must be considered as this area is already congested. Additionally, new (and existing) residential housing needs to be aware that the area thrives on activity such as music and special events.

The downtown area needs to have the streets analyzed for, parking, safe intersections, pedestrian and bike walkways and trees.

This area is quite nice as it is, but another park would be nice for people to bring their dogs and families to sit and enjoy the sun and fresh air. The only good park in the neighborhood is Friendly Plaza. smaller dwelling units would be helpful for those working in the downtown area Please use the downtown area as well as area 3 to build housing for seniors so they are in a walkable area for groceries, doctors, etc. Of course any housing in this
area should keep historical buildings and not distract from them. Also please build housing that is affordable to middle class seniors. Rents are getting out of
range for those on fixed incomes and not just for lower income seniors. Thank you.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3216, Packet Page 3544 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-56 Community Survey Report
Downtown 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?...” include additional parking
Parking will be an issue for any residential unit in this area.

Avoid over development of housing downtown to retain its charm and avoid traffic congestion. However limited additional housing would be OK.

It makes sense to have dense development and redevelopment downtown.

We’ll need parking for residents and space for businesses on the first floor. The city needs to work with the local business associations and come up with a streamline and business friendly process for new small businesses to open. The majority of small businesses in town feel that the city is not business friendly and make the process for opening businesses here in Monterey extremely difficult. We also need to make sure that the developments match the beauty of the area and don’t just choose the cheapest looking design. The aesthetics of the buildings need to match the area.

Block off Alvarado Street and make it a walking downtown.

Have parking off Calle Principale, Tyler and Washington Street Possibly trolleys in town
Build residences above the shops on Alvarado and Calle Principale Old Town Monterey (Pacific to High Streets/Madison to Scott) is a mess of unregulated (w/r style) apartments and ADUs.

It seems like more than 75% of the houses in Old Town are multiple dwellings.

It's a mess!
Tear down the Marriott hotel!!! It is an eye sore and does not fit in with the rest of the city. How this building was ever allowed is beyond me.

Improvements in things to do, like cafes, shops, and hang out spots. Keeping 'oldtown, small town' vibe. Parking as well will be a big thing due to there being a lot of traffic already.

This area should have residential housing, but there is no way this will be affordable at this location, so I believe this will only draw more of the wealthy from outside the peninsula. We need teachers and other workers to be able to live here.

Already to densely populated with parking issues.

Downtown is too dangerous. I would not feel safe living there. townhouses in the downtown area to bring more customers and guests to our quiet downtown. Hopefully this will spur on the redevelopment of restaurants and evening entertainment.

Increase walkability, with wider sidewalks and safer walk crossings. Consider closing Alvarado Street to throughtraffic. Allow redevelopment of commercial structures into housing and conversion from retail to housing opportunities.

Manage tourist & Trader Joes areas better - there is a high risk to pedestrians & other vehicles as they transit by bus station & Alvarado St
Have Marriott clean up property: valet parks cars on sidewalks (Calle Principal), plants overhang sidewalk (Del Monte), sights & smells are sickening (Franklin)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3217, Packet Page 3545 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-57
Downtown 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?...” I believe this area would benefit the most from apartments. It would revitalize the desire for more restaurants, night life and boutiques on Alvarado St. as the residents in this area would be within walking distance to those businesses.

Please consider only accepting designs that stay true to Monterey architecture and not big-box design like the Marriott. I believe one of the biggest focuses of added housing should be to retain the charm of our city.

Downtown already has a mix of housing and shops, which is as it should be - high density development reduces climate impacts. It is difficult to convert existing underutilized buildings into affordable housing but this is Buy Now, Save Later - residents in downtown can revitalize shops there, increase the sales tax base and provide stability during tourist off-season. Plan transpo infrastructure for the new residents. Consider extending the free trolley (make it electric, not biodiesel) to downtown for the year instead of sitting in a garage. Downtown is aging.

Statuary is dated. Buy now, save later Monterey - you have a lot of potential as a destination for more affluent remote workers to live and tourists to visit, but you need to up your game. Have a downtown improvement district to modernize with the objective of showing off Monterey as a sustainable, climate mitigating city. Maintain the public gardens, plant with native demonstration gardens instead of Home Depot plants, invest in updating the history walk and museums. Add walk/bike/public transportation infrastructure to make a self contained city celebrating the ocean and outdoor living. Yes it costs money but investment makes money in the long term.

I have seen the projected sea level rise maps (and I 'm skeptical about the severity/time line). If we are going to believe that sea level rise is going to be as rapid and sever as projected, what are we to do? This is a pivotal issue for housing among many other issues. I believe that a 100 year plan should include holding the line - which means whatever it takes to keep Del Monte Avenue where it is (perhaps on elevated land). With that preface, Downtown is more viable for residential development than parts of the City that are north of the tunnel. Downtown is a walkable area with easy access to shopping and Cannery Row/Lighthouse on foot or bike. Parking is a big challenge in this district especially for residents with cars. The Customhouse garages are almost 50 years old and are in need of replacement and enlargement and that provide an opportunity for housing to be integrated into them as well as a pedestrian bridge across Lighthouse/Del Monte.

Development should avoid the environmental hazard areas.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3218, Packet Page 3546 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-58 Community Survey Report

PACIFIC/MUNRAS/CASS AREA
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” A mix of housing types would be best in this area. It is still easy to walk to downtown and to transit and thus should be a focal area for additional units. Additional planning for traffic flow or moderation is needed given the congestion on Cass St.

Apartments above Commercial existing buildings on Cass Street.

Installation of commuter bike paths.

I just want to have the ability to own property near where I work one day. I worked really hard as a Marine and in graduate school after that, and am now an extremely rare case having been hired back to be a Korean language assistant professor at DLI as a civilian after being a DLI student myself around 10 years ago. And yet I have no hope of ever owning property in the area with a pay of about $83,000 a year. DLI Faculty are highly skilled, highly educated, extremely hard working professionals who do critically important work for this country and yet we by and large have to rent simply due to the location of the Presidio. And property managers can gouge as much rent as they want because they can rely on the federal government to increase our locality pay just enough to keep pace.

Some minor potential for more mixed use, but will not make a dent in 3,654 units! Convert some office space to low and very low affordable rental units Needs plaza, shops, public park
Will be a climate change/sea level rise impact area. Best to focus on on developing barriers to protect against the ocean.

Plaza, shops and park
Housing 2 stories or less
I'd like to see improvements to Don Dahvee Park. It seems under utilized.

I think this area would benefit from more public transit and increased walkability This is an area where I would like to see more high density house put in. There are already quite a few high density developments nearby on Glenwood Circle and additional larger developments would fit right in. Plus access to Don Dahvee Park would be quite nice for folks living in apartments that do not have yards.

Converting under-utilized or vacant properties to housing is a great idea. Easy access to downtown on foot or by bike; transit available on Fremont and Munras.

Rental costs need to be controlled for people who are not wealthy. Instead of capping the total amount … cap rent based on the amount per square foot, something like $2-3/square foot of living space. A basic one bedroom - like 9 x 10 ft, full kitchen + a ¾ bath unit but with a full bedroom smaller, start docking the costs? The basic bathroom would be ¾ shower, toilet NOT in the shower, sink. Kitchen = full size oven/stove, full size fridge, sink. If the unit has 2 stove top burners instead of a full oven + stove or a tiny refrigerator, decrease the price based on the missing amenities.

Something like a dishwasher could be a luxury charge like $5 extra per month for basic kitchen. Granite counter tops? Bathtub? Small amounts like $5 per “luxury” item that make the unit more than just the basic one bedroom one bath.

Additionally, rent increases should be based on actual improvements in a property, not just because a landlord can increase rent. Landlord remodels a kitchen, cool then CA’s 10% increase can be applied to the property – but with a cap of so many years.

As someone who has lived in the same unit for 8 years, my landlady suddenly started increasing rent by the full Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3219, Packet Page 3547 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-59
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” California determined 10% - BUT this unit has NOT HAD ANY improvements. My income does not increase 10% a year so balancing the cost of living because of this is stressful. Not to mention frustrating because nothing has been improved.

This area is relatively quiet and not as busy as other parts of Monterey. This is ideal for more housing and family housing.

I think there is an opportunity to update the gestalt one gets when driving by the various hotels/motels on Cass, Abrego, and Munras- to provide a feel of a community. Because it is centrally located between downtown and the mall, this could be a key area from individuals and families that have limited transportation options and could allow for more walking and biking. I think it is a good location for professional offices and encourage that those options stay in the mix.

Primary use as it is currently should be maintained.
more, better pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
Moving this area towards a more residential area is desirable as the current mix of primarily medical businesses and housing seems a difficult mix with higher traffic volumes with little continuity of housing that would foster more socialization.

I think because of the lower hazard risks and more “space” all types of dwellings should be considered. Again, affordable is key. There could be a mix depending on area but I think the need for more mansions isn’t necessary…or single family homes that cost millions. Affordable, affordable, affordable! Let’s make Monterey and example to follow.

Convert medical offices and stand alone SFH to higher density condos or apartments. Add generous amounts of landscaping and trees. Make curb appeal a priority.

I would like to see the north end of this district, closer to downtown, to add more dense housing such as apartments and duplexes. But the southern area does not have the commercial base or population to support much housing growth.

Yes to housing but not like what happened on Lighthouse. Let's keep the profile of the housing low and mixed and attractive to the Munras street users. This area is perfect for people to live in and work in Monterey and don't have a car. They can catch a bus or bike and walk to work.

I think this area would accommodate more low-rise and townhouse apartment complexes. This would allow biking and walking to shop for many and avoid more cars downtown. I think we could also improve bike lanes around town that connect to this area. We need to think about a "get-around-town" plan that decreases cars getting close to the shopping areas. The change for more bike and foot traffic won't happen unless we build in into the plan. Have we thought about the Blue Zone approach to city planning like Salinas has done? I consider this downtown. See comments there.

Many Residential Streets are used as short-cuts from Pacific to Munras. Some should be blocked off to maintain the quality of life For the residents. Particularly dangerous is the cut-through on Alameda Street. Don Dahvee, Cass, Alameda and Munras all converge at the Peters Gate sign and many accidents are just barely avoided.

Blocking off Alameda at the Peters Gate sign at Munras will make that 4 street convergence much safer.

This is a great area for multi story condos and town houses. There are way too many ugly concrete doctor office type buildings in this area. This area has the potential to be a really "hip" area due to the location, access to public transportation, and bike routes. Not to mention the View! I imagine multi level condos /apartments with underground parking and bike storage, with plazas and cafes. For example demolish 966 Cass street as it is very ugly, and seems creepy when I have to go in there. Please look at downtown Santa Barbara near the courthouse for Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3220, Packet Page 3548 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-60 Community Survey Report
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” inspiration. Maybe any historic cottages that aren't already too screwed up could be cafes or shops? This would be an ideal location for teachers and City workers. I tried to find something to rent or buy in this area when I moved here in the early 2000s, but there wasn't anything. It's sunny and you can walk everywhere. The doctors were in the cute old houses. This area is under utilized and has so much potential! I think that single family homes would be the only reasonable housing development for this area. Since there’s already a decent amount of offices here, it would be difficult to develop apartments/condominiums without there needing to be a large amount additional parking spaces needed.

This area could, on a limited basis have more housing developed. But , very limited as this is already a pretty densely built up area.

Please! Keep in mind that the majority of the new development of homes should be along the areas of Garden Road, Ryan Ranch and Fort Ord. The potential to create beautiful, desirable and well planned out neighborhoods with nature in mind is really the solution to the housing problem in Monterey and would fulfill the State's requirements.

I would like to see midrise apartments in this area with adequate parking available. Another stoplight to give access to the greenbelt with path development would be an asset. I want this area to be affordable to hospitality workers and those living on Social Security.

Replace single-purpose commercial spaces with mixed-use commercial/residential buildings. Convert or replace underutilized office buildings for more housing. Build more affordable single-family homes and duplexes/multiplexes.

Multi-story apts. on top of businesses, near the highway so tenants do not have to drive into town and add to traffic. Can walk to Del Monte Shopping center for necessities.

Higher density and many affordable units for Monterey area employees, especially low income. An example in the Hayward area would be relevant to explore. It has been so successful for low income that there is an expansion to include families.

Any new housing should be accompanied by green space, public park areas for families, adults & children.

Place a far greater emphasis on cleanliness and affordability.

Would need some better park space up here if denser housing is developed (which it should be), this is a great area with easy access to downtown and walk-able grocery stores. Luckily the north side of munras is perfect.

Increase density close to downtown with apartments and townhouses/multiplexes. Use ADU and single family homes further away to increase density
it is already such a dense area so if apartments are to be added they would need extra parking. Landscaping is always visually nice when adding housing. There are some very cute old homes in the area so building to match the cuteness of the existing brick homes and buildings would be nice. I would not want to see any high rises or big apartment buildings. Monterey is an adorable town so any new housing would need to be done tastefully so that Monterey does not look like any town USA. Converting some of the lesser occupied buildings and turning them into living spaces could be very attractive.

Mix of housing and shops.

We need more low income housing for those who work in the area as well as go to school I want the folks who work in the area to be able to live in the area.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3221, Packet Page 3549 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-61
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” Maintain and grow recreation areas and family access, bike paths, add playground This area to me should be primarily for commercial use such as medical services. Monterey residents should not have to all go to Ryan Ranch for this.

Enough is enough along this street area.

This area needs to be kept for medical offices.

This area is nicely developed so I invision only a few low rise apts/condos.

Wondering why the green belt along Munras, west of Del Monte Center, is not included in potential development.

Again, one could walk to Whole Foods, Trader Jose’s, even Elroy’s. Keep green areas for residents to enjoy and gather-x VERY important.

Where would you add it. Lots are built on already
+ widened sidewalks and bike lanes to encourage more foot traffic.

Where possible, adding higher density housing in this area, without going beyond 2 or 3 stories could help increase available housing while maintaining the quaint residential feel of much of this zone This area has some extremely expensive homes and hotels. For the folks that paid close to a million dollars or more to buy a home there, it's not reasonable to try and force "affordable" housing nearby. Also, if you could get rid of the panhandlers at the Jack in the Box entrance, that would be a big improvement.

As this is primarily a residential area of single family homes, it should stay that way.

I struggle to understand the city planning that went into this pocket of Monterey. It's random small houses that have been converted into medical offices? Why - when we so greatly need housing? I'm always confused when I'm over here. It seems very under-utilized and like it should have a better mix of high-density residential, small SFHs, restaurants and businesses with protected bike lanes to connect to Del Monte big shops. The mom-and-pop medical offices should be in proper high-density commercial spaces throughout downtown and this area. The neighboring Iris Greenbelt is a beautiful but very underutilized green space because there aren't people who live near it... just dated motels and the mall. The area is disjointed, and it can serve as a beautiful example of "flow" with more housing, and more pedestrian and cyclist-friendly paths, from downtown to Del Monte.

The land area given to the city of Marina and Seaside is larger than San Francisco! An area that is mostly fenced in to protect the assets of wealthy investors with outdated practices of suburban mess! Building endless coul d sacs that you get lost in and scared at the eerie silence of people distanced from everything, will only exacerbate the housing crisis for reasons I've said already! Nobody needs or wants that! You can make tight-knit pedestrian filled communities by grouping perhaps a city block into a micro region with vehicular movement only on the outside and shops, restaurants, boutiques etc on the inner area. Again build upwards not outward! Will need more parking if housing is built
I live in this area, and as I walk, it seems like there is plenty of potential for infill, using a variety of structures.

I do not think we need more single family homes in Monterey! I think we need to see how many ADUs we can build on land around existing single family dwellings in this area.

I think we need more staff that can come out to homeowners and work with them to figure out the best ADU configuration for the property. For too long any process for altering or building has been too long, too complicated, and UNDER staffed. If you wish to get to compliance, you will need to help residents, property owners--non-residential--get on board.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3222, Packet Page 3550 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-62 Community Survey Report
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” Easy access to Whole Foods, Del Monte Shopping center and near downtown make this a wonderful area for additional housing, complete with nice trees and sidewalks.

Improve all aspects of Active Transportation infrastructure, creating more protected and connected bike lane networks.

Y’all are gonna need to actually fix and maintain Cass Street then. It’s full of potholes now, I can’t imagine increased traffic on this tiny street….. parking is already a madhouse during business house. These homes will require dedicated parking on site.

This area would be a good place for more housing because its close to downtown but not right in it so it doesnt make traffic worse or parking worse the only thing is add buisnesses in this area to make it more a distinguished neighborhood if that makes sense
Tier 1 only
Neighborhood restaurants/coffee shops/stores....not all just clustered downtown. Increased bikeability on Pacific.

It would be great to see more mixed-use properties with commercial units on the street level and several levels of residential above. Please preserve our historic adobes.

It would be a mistake to replace TOT areas with housing which would require an election amendment, I would vote no.

Retail, offices, etc is where I focus
Move these medical office uses out of the downtown perimeter and out to Ryan Ranch.

Beautiful streets, more housing would increase customers for local business. Include parking in any plan. BTW, the median at Soledad and Munras really needs landscaping attention-some new plant material, chips? The Middlebury dorm is a health and safety hazard. Trash is picked up 3 times/night and weekly mid-night street cleaning create significant noise pollution for students. Streetlights and building lights are kept on and are not blocked out by the thin, sheer blinds provided by the school create uncomfortable light pollution for students.

Students often jaywalk on a busy two-way street, bike in the wrong direction to/from the dorm, and edge past Wild Plum customers. The building itself is not adequately built with thin walls, cheap paint that flakes, pillars in the middle of the room, insufficient soundproofing in common areas, sensitive motion lights with under-door light leakage, stairwell doors that shake the rooms near landings, and more. The kitchen areas don't even have handsoap! The division of bathrooms don't adjust for the predominantly female occupant / student body gender imbalance so there's often a wait or more of a mess. Middlebury is interested in a second dorm and I am extremely opposed.

Although there seems to be good opportunities for housing in the Pacific/Munras/Cass area, adding additional housing units, especially if co-located with commercial or office space, would require close attention to traffic considerations. This area is already very traffic-dense and quite challenging to travel in and around! Question 2 above asks for very general opinions about types of housing that I can't provide without details and specific locations. Munras approaching Alvarado has a very different quality than the far end of Pacific. I might support townhomes in one place and mid-rise apartments in another, but I wouldn't support them everywhere within the "opportunity area.' I'm reluctant to say yes or no to question 1 because it depends.

I will oppose any development if traffic problems aren't addressed. We have agencies that regulate development based on water availability, but nobody seems to care about gridlock. The people who profit from the development are not the people who can't get through town between 4 and 6 every afternoon. Improve the traffic flow and Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3223, Packet Page 3551 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-63
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” create practical transportation alternatives BEFORE packing in more people. Failing to provide adequate parking in order to force people out of their cars is not a strategy I support.

No vision. It's currently a mishmash of offices many in what look to have been apartments or homes in the past along with a small number of homes. Add some smaller low rise or town homes and then figure out how to create a pleasant walking route to downtown so residents would support businesses there.

More generally I think any new housing in areas near downtown only should be done if it creates walkable access to support a more vibrant downtown area year-round. Existing parking (eg at Trader Joe's or along Alvarado, Calle Principale) is already stressed.

I'd like to see Munras become more pedestrian-friendly. I understand that it is an important artery but it effectively acts like a freeway, dividing the proposed development area from the Del Monte Center and open spaces on the other side.
this area is already impacted by traffic and parking problems - particularly the North part (Munras/Abrego, Webster, Major Sherman, El Dorado). Additional housing, particularly multi-family units would make these problems worse. Also, please do not put multi-family units in single-family residential areas !!!!!!! Good walking distance to downtown, should be developed for low to middle income apartments in smaller buildings. Again, organize parking so that it is less dominant and consolidate needed areas for multiple addresses to use same parking area.

Mix of housing and professional offices
This area is very convenient for students, faculty and staff of schools such as the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. More affordable small, medium housing apartments and condominiums should be built here as the area is within walking distance to schools, restaurants and shops. It would also be convenient to have a park or plaza here for socializing and other community events. Thank you! Areas adjacent to Munras which has good ingress and egress due to wide streets and freeway access might be good for multifamily residential. Preservation of the green belt seems important.

Cass Street is already very impacted by small roadways. Maintaining the availability of and access to medical services that exist there seems important.

Providing traffic and safety issues can be resolved, single family on smaller lots or four plexes might be appropriate for the areas along Pacific street
Cass street is an area that has many medical offices and it is an area that is already impacted by tight streets with limited parking and real challenges for people driving in to visit or do business. Probably not a good idea to place new housing there.

Provided traffic and safety can be mitigated I could see homes on smaller lots and triplexes and fourplexes and lowrise apartments in areas along or adjacent to Munras. This area has a wide street with freeway on and off ramps for ingress and egress. On site parking seems very important. Maintaining the forested scenic areas seems important
Current single family residential areas might benefit from ADUs I'd love to see more housing in this area, and also some rezoning (for example, you have 787 Munras listed as commercial, but it is a dormitory for MIIS). While I'd love to see more affordable apartments built, I also think this area has a lot of prime space for school sponsored housing (e.g., apartment complexes owned by schools, rented to students). Students make up a large portion of the Monterey community, and there is not enough Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3224, Packet Page 3552 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-64 Community Survey Report
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” affordable housing. This area is a prime location near multiple campuses that would be great for residential development. At the same time, there would need to be restaurants, etc. left in place or added to support these new residences/members of the community.

I'd also like to see some incentives for building improvements put in place. For example, the Days Inn could use a bit of a face lift, but the surrounding buildings don't really inspire the need to actually do it because, while they look fine, they don't make the Days Inn look "bad" in comparison.

Something else I could see being useful would be more connections between the streets, like extending that street/path/whatever it is that gets halfway to Munras from Cass (toward the North of the area) and maybe putting in another one lower down to connect the two as well. This is a very walkable area, but sometimes the routes can be very indirect as a result of the street layout.

Ideally the residential character should be preserved - taller buildings should be placed closer to downtown.

Crosswalks, street trees, dog park, and some nice restaurants and shops.

Mixed use!
Having a park-like setting with areas to safely walk and use their bikes. The idea would be for people to walk or bike instead of driving around town. Students could live there. I see students using Pacific Street to bike to classes and fear for their safety. It would be good to have a bike path that's completely separate from any roads, yet open enough to prevent crime. Please hire a city planner/designer/developer who is known to be good at this.

This area already seems to have the infrastructure in place to support more housing but the new housing should be built to fit in with the existing character of the current buildings and neighborhood. Ideally parking should be on site, if possible, and the city will need to reevaluate how the increased traffic on Pacific St will impact the residents who already live on or near Pacific St. The stretch of Pacific, between Alameda and Via Arboles, already is concerning to me due to a significant uptick in the number of speeding vehicles that travel on Pacific St. daily; the city will need to address traffic calming measures on this stretch of Pacific St. if more housing is added to the downtown area and/or to the lower section of Pacific St.

In addition, with any new development, trees help to soften a harsh concrete landscape; preferably native trees and vegetation can be used to add a naturalistic element.

Allow more ADU's where feasible with existing homesites. There are a lot of hotels nearby this area and they're close to the mall, this area is less walkable due to the hill. But the greenbelt areas are great and it will be a nice place to live.

I would only support very limited housing units given the parking limitations and already congested traffic. A handful of apartments. I do not support trying to add over 3,000 new housing units in Monterey! In general, my suggestions are similar to the first two areas. In all these areas, Monterey does not have a high-rise image. It can be tweaked but not so it would loose it current tourist drawing looks. Since it would be hard to add additional beds to hotels, examine combining motels with an added story; same number of beds/rooms but different configuration. Many motels in the city need to be upgraded from 1950s construction. Again, I suggest they maintain a hint of the Spanish influence that goes with the history and look of Monterey.

This combining would allow more housing opportunities as well as PLANNED local supporting businesses. This includes walking and bike opportunities. By the way, examine the electric bike differences and plan on seeing increasing use.

There is more space to build here. I would ask that if you allow building you require underground parking so that parking problems don't seep into the neighborhoods already there. mix of housing and gardens [trees, walking paths, benches] woven between buildings and streets Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3225, Packet Page 3553 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-65
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” Mid-rise apartments and condominiums would be appropriate in the northernmost part of this district, while the other selected housing types may be most appropriate in points south along Cass Street and Pacific Street. The opportunity sites in the north part of this district should be prioritized for redevelopment, as they are closest to downtown and existing transit, recreation, and commercial amenities.

This neighborhood has good access to Munras street but very narrow residential streets. Anything more than duplexes would lead to an excessive amount of cars parked on these narrow streets and make them very difficult to navigate safely
Increase the number of town homes and decrease the number of hotel locations Yes and no. parking remains an issue as well as the homeless population across the street live music more
Under utilized space appears to exist here. Easy access to traffic arterials.

This area is well situated for higher density residential with mixed retail/commercial uses. Housing located in this area will have much better walking/biking/transit access to nearby attractions, jobs, and services. Housing built in other areas such as Ryan Ranch will be auto-dependent, causing much more congestion per new housing unit built.

This area already pretty good for biking walking though some improvements would be needed if more housing added such as blocking some residential street crossings to discourage traffic from driving through. Dwelling should have few parking allotments per unit to encourage walking/biking/car sharing. Also need good parking enforcement. The city should advertise these neighborhoods as for local workers willing to walk/bike and therefore as challenging for parking accomodations.

Specifically related to the area on Perry Lane behind the car wash (there's an empty lot), this area has a lot of housing potential and should be recognized as such. Commercial zoning here seems a missed opportunity to solve some of the housing challenges.

Affordable family housing
If new homes are built in this area, they should be dog friendly and have a small, fenced yard. Finding a rental in Monterey that allows dogs and has a yard is extremely difficult.

A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH MAX. 20 PERCENT FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING. IT HAS A LOT OF POTENTIAL ALONG THE MUNRAS CORREDOR BETWEEN THE DEL MONTE SHOPPING CENTER AND EL DORADO.

Another great possibility to house people who work in the area - so many office personnel and hospitality workers could fill this location. Getting people to live near work will have a positive impact on the environment and by reducing pollution and traffic jams.
this neighborhood is very business like so i think families would need to be quiet also the pricing would be high.

Smaller housing for sinlge persons or people that work close by and travel staff.

This is another area with limited parking. Also, when you create more apartments and those types of housing, it limits larger families from moving in, and people with pets.

There are some prime redevelopment parcels with willing owners. Casa at is a bit off the Main Street and can handle more density.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3226, Packet Page 3554 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-66 Community Survey Report
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” Open space. Parks. Only prefer development in this area that does not require cars and additional roads. Only add development to encourage walking.

Many building on Cass (pill hill) are no longer used for medical services and could be converted to higher capacity housing. It would be nice to keep the charm of the smaller buildings and houses off El Dorodo so ADUs or small single family homes may work better there. It would be a shame to lose the charm of the individual houses with larger condo/apartments. Those structures would be better closer to Fremont and the hotels.

Renovating existing building could quadruple the housing available. Keeping homes under 3 stories makes the neighborhood more homey. More bedrooms on smaller lots vs big buildings would suit the sloping area and be more neighborly. Parking lots that pay for themselves and have long term parking permits would provide areas.

Many places have NO street parking. To do that, need a variety of ways to get around that are inexpensive and easy. The question of water seems more important than parking! We have alot of younger people moving into the peninsula, I would like to see more pet friendly apartments with plenty of parking space.

Munras could potentially benefit from a bus/taxi/rideshare transit only lane. I would like to see better biking infrastructure either along Pacific or Munras (or adjacent park).

Secured Parking
Portions of this area are already heavily impacted by traffic due of the Del Monte center and numerous motels.

Also many single family homes are rentals with lots of people in each house. Residential streets are narrow and parking on these streets is common due to lack of sufficient on-site parking. Don’t make this worse by increasing density further!!
I see this area as being a transition from downtown to outskirts. So envision a little more high-density buildings (apts/condos) nearer to downtown and the townhomes, duplexes, low-rise apts on the outskirts.

This area is so close to downtown that it is a real shame that it goes dark in the evening. There is real potential for a walkaable/ bikeable city at all hours of the day.

Currently too many single family homes that are medical offices or similar when there are office parks vacant on 68/ Garden Rd.

This is my neighborhood. I've long been worried about the Munras corridor as many of the motels have slipped into decay and are poorly taken care of...borderline blight on some in-particular (like at the corner of Alameda and Munras- pretty disgusting actually). I'd assumed that they would have been higher targets for redevelopment.

I think in general, all of the development in this area should be at a smaller scale than other more urban parts of the City because of the relationship between Peters Gate and the more heavily travelled corridors. I would encourage the redevelopment of both Munras and Cass if done thoughtfully and at an appropriate scale. I also wonder if at some point the shopping mall might be reimagined into a mixed use facility (think Santana Row in San Jose). There is tremendous potential to reimagine that site...with retail and parking already in place! Build housing on city parking lot on Pacific (upper level).

Safe dedicated walking paths to downtown. Dedicated community space for gathering and gated park for kids to safely play.

Growing a community here is where I would want to be, being able to walk to gorcery stores and a bustling downtown is the dream. Give rise to mid-rise condominiums and utilize all this space.

More Apartments and a parking structure.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3227, Packet Page 3555 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-67
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” Plenty of single family homes already, let's add all of the rest! It seems apartments is the more likely option here, which I think is great. Making sure some sort of easy to navigate bike path would definitely be helpful here, these roads can be tight and a bit scary.

Something I have forgot to mention for both Lighthouse and Downtown - PARKING NEEDS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE. The city makes WAY TOO MUCH money off of residents getting tickets while at work or at home, or the parking garages. Its just ridiculous and greedy.

Better ADA access and parking needed if more residents in this vicinity plus all the existing medical office uses in this area.

I believe there could be repurposing of office buildings to meet key affordable housing needs considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and shift to remote work /co-working spaces, taking the form of mid-rise apartments. Where there are single family homes, I'd like see numerous ADUs as well as redevelopment into fourplexes that could accommodate families and groups of young people/roommates. In this way, the infill/density of this area could be increased and this would even help tourism in the sense that visitors staying in the nearby hotels/motels would get to see and interact with the amazing residents of this city.

This area again calls for density. It is close to businesses, downtown and services which is great. It makes sense to create small, affordable apartments or fourplexes, but not single family homes. ADU's should be encouraged for homes that already exist in these neighborhoods. As always, parking will be challenging if several more persons are added to each street, so parking passes for lots should be encouraged. Perhaps adding city owned bike rental/bike share stations would be wise to incorporate.

Mid rise would keep a small downtown feel and allow for new store fronts on the ground floor.

There are many medical professionals in this area which are convenient to residence instead of driving all the way to Ryan Ranch. If houses or duplexes are built, do not create taller than two stories. Three stories look terrible, block the sun, and once allowed, will slowly push all buildings up, which would be a mistake. Also, properties that have houses with character would be demolished and there should be architectural guidelines for various designs but not out of character of our lovely city.

Cass could develop mid-high rise. A lot of unused square footage there.

This doesn't feel like an "area" but more of a corridor between other areas. More pedestrian-friendly access would help a great deal.
low level build limited to one to two story hight.

Del Monte center is close so shops and restaurants not needed in. This area… No new housing/development. There is not enough parking currently.

As stated in my response to building in the Downtown area, I believe that buildings should be consistent with other existing (as well as current code/area plans). We clearly should NOT build buildings that will damage the view of or light to other homes. Hence, in all areas except below Munras (Alvarado/Abrego) I would support a mixed-use 4 - 5 story building. In all other areas, my choice would be ‘plex’ units (2, 3 or 4) or 2 story buildings in accordance with other architecture in the area.

I like the idea of hopping on Pacific to Hwy 1. Yet parking on Cass street would be challenging. This is mostly businesses and does feel like a "residential" area.

A good area to develop low cost housing close to town. Don't lose the usually affordable hotels in that area - a Monterey secret option to the expensive ones around town.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3228, Packet Page 3556 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-68 Community Survey Report
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” Would think greater, high-end commercial development of the area south of El Dorado St would transform the area from a slightly grotty hodge-podge confusing to tourists, to something that will raise property tax value and other tax income.

The City should not develop single family home neighborhoods with high density projects. The only development that should be allowed in single family home neighborhoods is single family homes and ADUs. We do not need a townhome/condo complex on a street with single family homes. This kind of development just destroys the character and aesthetics of a neighborhood no matter what the developer or government says.

This area has high potential for its ease-of-access. This is a great opportunity for first-time home-buyers if condos, townhouses, and maybe small single-family homes (on small lots) are built there. This area feels quiet and neighborhood-y, but it is easily walkable to both downtown and the mall, and it is close to the highway (easy access via both Munras and Fremont). Transitioning the upgradable buildings from 1 story to 2 stories would make a huge housing impact with minimal aesthetic impact. This neighborhood is a great untapped resource, and I would love to purchase a property there if I could.

Majority 100% affordable for CURRENT RESIDENTS & WORKERS IN THE CITY ESPECIALLY LOW INCOME & lower middle income
Protected bike line on Cass and South Munras Ave would be a great connection to Del Monte Shopping Center from downtown. More mixed use buildings.

Parking on lots not street
Traffic is already too busy and blocked here. Bike lanes won’t solve the infrastructure challenges here.

Lower expenses by capping retirement benefits and address City spending with exorbitantly paid staff.

Is the fire dept being upgraded?
What about installing cameras for greater public safety. Way too many mentally ill and transients here and other parts of town too.

In addition to environment, proactively seek investors and new business’ for new opportunities/places to go by so many-students/military/tourists included.

Special Survey team to look into old trees and maybe trimming old trees to avoid falling trees on houses and roads. Cutting down week trees and replacing with new trees seedlings.

Could be a nicer area but not sure how well it'll bode with the school right there and new housing.. not many poor families could afford it
The mall could be so much more than it is, especially if we have better public transportation to more central downtown areas. Please preserve the neighborhood character of the Cass and Pacific areas.

Since this area is already dense, it won't hurt to add even more houses. On all thses areas, traffic is a major concern. Already we have congestion on weekends and holidays.

New residential buildings should be mixed-use with stores and restaurants incorporated into the design.

Dedicated bike lanes should be incorporated into city street planning. Utilize native plant landscaping. Install roundabout intersections rather than stop lights, and where not feasible incorporate international crosswalks where all vehicle traffic stops for pedestrians. Plan for a community less reliant on vehicle transportation and conveyance.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3229, Packet Page 3557 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-69
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” I advocate building multi storied buildings along Cass Street north of El Dorado Street to have a combination of first and second floor office space/ upper floor residential apartment space. Perhaps a 3 story height limit. Again, adequate parking must be provided for all uses, possibly below ground of below first floor. I think the unique character of upper Cass Street(with former single family homes of distinctive architecture serving as professional offices) should be preserved if possible.There seems to be a fair amount of land back from the street to allow for some well placed taller buildings and more density without impacting the view quality of the neighborhood.

MUST HAVE ENOUGH PARKING for tenants and customers
This is such a beautiful area of Monterey that I'm sure many residents would love to live in if housing was more accessible. Multi-family units would allow many people to live close to downtown while still enjoying a more residential setting.

Please build more housing! We are desperate for more housing! A mixed-use, walkable community that promotes affordable family housing with easy access to public transportation and to commercial and public services
This could be a good area for added housing but please be cognizant of parking and traffic impacts to adjacent residences and buisnesses.

I'd like to see medical move back to this area and put housing out in Ryan Ranch. It is dangerous for older people to go all the way out to Ryan Ranch for medical services.

This is a pretty accessible are by car and a short distance to downtown. It would be good to keep the historical properties nicely separated and not squeezed between two apartment buildings (I forgot to mention this about the downtown area which is probably even a bigger concern)
needs better pedestrian infrastructure to get to the mall I think this area will need more sidewalks. Right now some areas are more walkable than others. New housing will create a need for parking strategies since the businesses that are already there are jockeying for parking now.

I want to see multi-family housing prioritized in this area. This is walking distance to downtown businesses and MIIS, so we have an opportunity to provide housing where people work and go to school.

This is also a potential area for live-work studio housing.

ADA sidewalks should be added to this area where they don't currently exist.

More very low income housing, especially rental.

Monterey has more than enough hotels, it would be great to rezone some of these as high-density housing.

This neighborhood currently would probably be somewhat boring to live in - it's clearly designed to be car-centric and is not great as a pedestrian. It would be a scary place to have a dog or cat get loose due to fast traffic and poor layout. Improvements of crosswalks, access, and general parking lot versus sidewalk layout could go a long way to making this a nicer neighborhood to live.

More housing. No more single family units. More safe bike access, both for traditional and e-assist bikes. Make it safe to bike and people will bike. Less cars on the road mean safer roads and less fossil fuels... it's not like Monterey get's buried in snow, it's the perfect place for bike life to flourish. And make it safe to bike out of town and to beaches north and south. If I had better/safer bike routes, I'd get rid of my car. I know I'm not the only one to sacrifice a bit of discomfort in the wet to help future generations flourish Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3230, Packet Page 3558 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-70 Community Survey Report
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” water needed! May require widening of streets and one or two stoplights.

This seems to be an exclusive sort of area. Try to site new homes near public transit, the Del Monte shopping center, or nearer to downtown.

Ensure that parking is adequate for #1 for residents and #2 for visitors in this order.

Maintain a lot of mixed use area. 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.

This area has many properties with good-sized lots suitable for ADUs, which are increasing in demand both by occupants and owners
Can we convert one of the motels to senior housing using existing water credits? What is their current occupancy rate? Can we encourage some of the motels to add a second floor to build in density? Walkability, especially crossing major roads, continues t o be important, given that the Del Monte Shopping Center is a major attraction to residents. Can workforce or senior housing be added to the shopping center? The Cass Street area is a major medical hub busy with appointments. Construction of new housing in this area would cause major disruption for medical offices/facilities/delivery of health care. Cass Street also is very narrow; exits from medical building parking lot flow onto Cass, creating traffic challenges. This street is not suited for additional development. Any development of housing should maintain the character of current neighborhoods.

Four stories in this area.

My vision for this area would be to see more housing and move all the doctors offices to Ryan Ranch area. Also consider building a new hospital in Ryan Ranch or on Del Rey Oak/Fort Ord borderline. CHOMP would make a wonderful retirement village.

Main concern is to maintain the low-rise horizon of Monterey - no in fill buildings to be higher than 2 maybe three stories. Second concern is for new residential buildings to be compatible with the historical look and feel of downtown Monterey. Try to hold on to the current mix of shops, wine bars, restaurants and services - avoiding attracting any larger chain stores. Recognize the current ability of old Monterey to be both a working town for local residents and an attractive location for visitors that support the infrastructure - important to maintain the balance.

There's so many medical offices over here. How about rezoning these areas to multiple dwelling areas. It's also easier to get to the highway from this area and away from sea level rise This is a highly sought after area due to its proximity to downtown activities. This mixed use area seems to grow more and more into a business region instead of developing housing. Affordable homes with small lots and/or ADUs could benefit more of our senior population who would benefit from easy access to physicians, stores, and government buildings.

I'd like to see the single family homes being used as offices be turned back into homes and the large office buildings become apartments and condos. I feel that adding more housing to this area would benefit the businesses and restaurants downtown and help to keep the area lively and fun. As it stands, its sad seeing that area, which obviously was built as a residential neighborhood be returned to residents. With the closure of so many of the schools last year, offering more housing options for families who now are at Monte Vista, but cannot afford to live in that area would be beneficial as well, as many are commuting from other parts of town.

If a motel on Munras were to become available, a small number of townhomes could be built on the site.

Otherwise, ADUs seem the best option for this area.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3231, Packet Page 3559 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-71
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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 has a good potential for housing. Lots of amenities are walkable here. need more housing that is away from coastline, but close enough to downtown Moderate housing development as it has good access to shops, transportation, leisure activities and coast. Major disadvantage is lack of parking.

Possibility of adding more housing at Del Monte Center as shopping malls are becoming less popular and more businesses may move out.

I like the idea of housing in this area because there are so many empty buildings that haven't rented in years.

Parking would need to be included so that the residents do not use all the available parking that is needed for businesses. I don't know if it is possible but as much green space as possible in this area so create areas with picnic tables and trees to enhance the beauty si it is not just buildings and cars.

This area is far enough from downtown and lighthouse to allow housing development without degrading the character of those areas. It also has room to accommodate increased traffic as long as parking is planned.

We’ll need parking for residents and space for businesses on the first floor of the mid rise apartments and the townhomes. The city needs to work with the local business associations and come up with a streamline and business friendly process for new small businesses to open. The majority of small businesses in town feel that the city is not business friendly and make the process for opening businesses here in Monterey extremely difficult. We also need to make sure that the developments match the beauty of the area and don’t just choose the cheapest looking design. The aesthetics of the buildings need to match the area.

What are all the transients going to do when you develop this area? Live downtown? Oh wait, they already do.

This is a mixed use area now with single family to elder care housing & commercial, dominated by health care. As long a new housing is required to have off street parking I think new housing is appropriate.

As more medical offices go to Ryan Ranch and alternative locations, Cass will need to be reimagined. A mix of townhouses and more senior living in this area would be beneficial.

Improve the streetscape around Cass Street to allow for wider sidewalks, including street trees and an attractive neighborhood appearance. Allow redevelopment of commercial properties into housing.

Parking is an issue all over the peninsula. This must be kept into consideration.

Maintain the overall status quo, which makes this area (Monte Regio) such a desirable place to live, recreate, and an overall safe and quiet area to enjoy life. In light of the recent storms, allowing for removal of old and weakened Monterey pines near residences would provide an additional level of safety to residents.

Clean up trees - they overhang on sidewalks so pedestrians must walk on street to avoid getting hit in head by branches
Underutilized & 'hidden' gem areas - get creative & stop running the City like you're in 1980 This area is feels very residential in spite of the office buildings. This seems like a perfect area of town to focus on adding residential space &/or converting some professional buildings into residential.

The last thing Monterey needs are more office spaces considering how many seem vacant now and the fact that more and more professionals are working remotely.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3232, Packet Page 3560 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-72 Community Survey Report
Pacific/Munras/Cass 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?...” I'm surprised that this area is under consideration. Much if not all of the currently open parcels are dedicated parkland and can't be developed. But what about the Old Capitol sight? That isn't in this district, but isn't it developable?
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3233, Packet Page 3561 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-73

DEL MONTE AREA
Del Monte 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?...” There is potential for housing in these commercial areas. I do not recommend building on the dune in the northeast corner of this region, it is unstable sand and is not a wise choice with very little land to develop.

This area is already overcrowded with single family homes on small lots and with low rise apartments and condominiums. There may be the possibility of replacing some old and worn down single family homes with low rise apartments within the density limits that already exist.

I just want to have the ability to own property near where I work one day. I worked really hard as a Marine and in graduate school after that, and am now an extremely rare case having been hired back to be a Korean language assistant professor at DLI as a civilian after being a DLI student myself around 10 years ago. And yet I have no hope of ever owning property in the area with a pay of about $83,000 a year. DLI Faculty are highly skilled, highly educated, extremely hard working professionals who do critically important work for this country and yet we by and large have to rent simply due to the location of the Presidio. And property managers can gouge as much rent as they want because they can rely on the federal government to increase our locality pay just enough to keep pace. housing with plaza and ball fields and pickleball courts and bocce ball courts Del Monte Ave is a main commercial and traffic artery. Any new development should be carefully considered NOT to interfere with its traffic concerns!
Climate impact area. Need to harden the coastline to protect from sea level rise.

There seem to be a number of unhoused folks in this area any plans should address this.

I would like to see more high density housing in this area. The areas between Palo Verde Ave and Casa Verde Ave on both sides of Del Monte Ave provide a lot of opportunity for increased housing. They also have good access to the rec trail, which is a good selling point. My only concern would be how this might impact the flow of traffic through the area because Del Monte is a major thoroughfare.

IF environmental hazards aren't an issue -- and sea level rise/flooding may be more of a factor than this plan seems to believe it is -- I'd like to see higher-density housing, mostly rentals and some owner-occupied townhomes. This area has great access to the bike path and to transit; also ready access to Hwy. 1 for folks commuting longer distances.

Rental costs need to be controlled for people who are not wealthy. Instead of capping the total amount … cap rent based on the amount per square foot, something like $2-3/square foot of living space. A basic one bedroom - like 9 x 10 ft, full kitchen + a ¾ bath unit but with a full bedroom smaller, start docking the costs? The basic bathroom would be ¾ shower, toilet NOT in the shower, sink. Kitchen = full size oven/stove, full size fridge, sink. If the unit has 2 stove top burners instead of a full oven + stove or a tiny refrigerator, decrease the price based on the missing amenities.

Something like a dishwasher could be a luxury charge like $5 extra per month for basic kitchen. Granite counter tops? Bathtub? Small amounts like $5 per “luxury” item that make the unit more than just the basic one bedroom one bath.

Additionally, rent increases should be based on actual improvements in a property, not just because a landlord can increase rent. Landlord remodels a kitchen, cool then CA’s 10% increase can be applied to the property – but with a cap of so many years.

As someone who has lived in the same unit for 8 years, my landlady suddenly started increasing rent by the full California determined 10% - BUT this unit has NOT HAD ANY improvements. My income does not increase 10% a year so balancing the cost of living because of this is stressful. Not to mention frustrating because nothing has been improved.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3234, Packet Page 3562 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-74 Community Survey Report
Del Monte 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?...” Mix of housing while ensuring there are activities (like the parks there) are available and some local markets (like the deli shop) and other options for food (grocery stores, variety priced restaurants) and shops. I envision this being a great place for mid-priced town homes and codos in addition to apartments.

The existing scale of the area should be maintained nothing over 3 stories. Commercial should front on Del Monte.

I feel that this area should be used for businesses and not for residential An elevated footbridge at English Ave & Del Monte Ave, rising over Del Monte Ave to the Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail for safe pedestrian crossing. I would also like to see more free and subsidized housing and services for the unhoused population.

I live in this area currently in a somewhat affordable apartment complex but I earn over 100,000 (family of 3)….and the apartment is 2b/1b with no laundry. This is unacceptable. Although there already are many apartment complexes, we need even more and better built and kept. Rent seems to stay pretty stable which is a relief for lower earning families. It is impossible to find a 3 bedroom that is truly affordable. This area already looks more working class and we need to expand on that. More green areas/parks would be nice but thankfully we already have some nice areas. The problem is that apartments have incredibly thin walls which affects quality of life. Maybe single family townhomes that are medium sized and affordable would be a nice addition. The small backyard homes/tiny homes would be a great option for smaller families! Add communal spaces to socialize, curb appeal and trees. Make the area prettier than current. Add businesses on ground floor if mixed use to draw in businesses.

I think that the south side of the street could sustain some more commercial development to support the surrounding industrial and residential base. But i would not want any more development around the coastal trail.

Again, with higher water tides coming it would be a poor choice to build housing here. Farther away from the bay and lake maybe. We might think thought of building a pedestrian bridge paralleling Del Monte Avenue for families, bikers and walkers. With higher tides along the bay that may be another way for folks to travel down this roadway.

Here, a pedestrian overpass could help people access the beach safely. More trees would be welcome. Could the city somehow incentivize business owners to plant trees on their lots? Perhaps by tearing out a 5 X 5 foot chunk of concrete on the lot, if requested to do so by the lot owner, and by also giving some sort of monetary incentive? Housing would be too close to the bay and lake elestero where we know waters will rise. would not be worth the investment to build here. But there might be a pedestrian and bike bridge built that would serve bikes and walkers along this busy corridor. Great for families with kids on bikes and more useful when the water level rises.

Considering this gateway to town has high potential it should be maximized.

I would be concerned about making this too high density as it is a crossroads for people moving around the peninsula.

I'd love to see new affordable housing in this area but a strategic plan to manage parking in the neighborhood. A beautiful scenic tree lined streets and gardens would be lovely! First of all I disagree with the way this map is drawn. The entire area from the highway to Del Monte should be included; as the HWY 1 is a physical and social natural division. This area has so much potential that has been squandered by the City and property owners. The location of the Del Monte School, now the Bay View Charter School brings a lot of traffic into this area from all over the County. If it was a neighborhood school, this would not be the case. Kids could walk. Very few kids walk to this school. I think the school property would be perfect for a nice condo/town home development. MPUSD should sell this. Such a perfect location and access to shopping, Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3235, Packet Page 3563 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-75
Del Monte 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?...” public transport, bike route on the rec trail etc. Also the warehouses along DeLa Vina are perfect locations for housing development. There is a nice park ( Ferrante) behind the NPS that gets very little use. The current situation of mixed commercial and housing is not well supported and is very frustrating for residents. Trucking and commercial vehicles and housing do not mix well. There needs to be a transition zone, which there is not. I live in this area and the weather and the sun , along with recreation opportunities are phenomenal. But this area is not well designed for mixed use. I doubt there was any significant city planning going on when this area evolved into a mixed use area. I think this area would be a very desirable area for more high density housing. But this needs to be well planned, and not random crappy projects like the one that was proposed for Encina. Let's get the small time uninspired developers out of the equation and do some quality planning in this area? PLEASE! I could see this area providing a lot of deferent residential development, with maybe a shopping center as a focal point. There could potentially a large increase in pedestrian traffic, so I could see improved crosswalks, and/or development to protect pedestrians.

I said yes to this neighborhood but it really should be a no. This neighborhood is already densely built out and is heavily impacted by traffic and parking. It's hard to imagine anyone living in this neighborhood thinking that more growth is good when there are so many other neighborhoods that are less crowded along with the potential growth along the Ryan Ranch, Fort Ord and Garden Road areas. However, the areas shown in black along Del Monte might be ok for limited apartment growth. But keep it simple and don't add a lot to the density.

It's not fair to throw a lot of new growth into already crowded neighborhoods when there is so much space available elsewhere. In fact, many, many, many Monterey neighborhoods that could absorb more growth with minimal impact are not even listed in this survey!!!!!! That's very disappointing. And completely unfair. Why is that so???
Heavy traffic area. Something that will mitigate the noise and congestion.

I see 3 story apartment buildings with green areas between buildings as being an attractive idea. Other dwellings would make this a large, varied community in which to live.

Since Del Monte Ave. is a major arterial, the thought of adding more housing away from the street would be necessary.

Perhaps community plazas, small, would be a nice addition. Since Del Monte is seen as a "drive through" street, offering smaller shps and restaurants could transform the entire area.

Build high-density housing of all types. Apartment buildings, multiplexes, etc. Clean up the run-down neighborhoods to make them more inviting for families.

Yes, please offer more housing for military personnel that work at NPS/DLI, so they are not taking housing from locals. The military have plenty of space to make high rise apts on federal land and that's what should be pursued.

Open all NPS gates at all times and lengthen the turn lane.

Crossing del monte is a nightmare as a pedestrian. Build a pedestrian bridge or two!! This would greatly improve coastal trail accessiblity.
given the risks associated with sea level rise on the access road to this area, I would avoid further development.

We should be able to provide housing for the area
I want the folks who work in the area to be able to live in the area.

Area is being taken over by traffic and homeless. Need to strengthen walkable paths, green space, and safe biking CLEAN-UP and enforce the appearances of properties and the traffic. Regulate signage and eliminate shoddy NEON!
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3236, Packet Page 3564 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-76 Community Survey Report
Del Monte 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?...” Too much traffic already. No place to park. Keep shoreline free from building.

Roads are already congested in this area! Too much traffic! There seems to be great potential for housing development. Parking could be a problem. Also substantial frequent reliable transportation is necessary though workers could use the rec trail to bike to work.

The run-down areas on the NON OCEAN side of Del Monte would benefit from medium rise developments. And this would provide more housing. But the OCEAN side of Del Monte should be TOTALLY opened up. They one time called it "window on the bay".

Obviously, kick out the businesses that don't contribute to ambiance. No cars, no tattoos, no schlock. Keep up the park area you've done a fabulous job with, now add outdoor miniature golf, cafes, small outdoor restaurants, charm! Let us enjoy another area looking at the ocean, sipping a tea or brew in a thatched hut or whatever. Come on, use your imagination, not some dictated decree that dates and deteriorates the area. You are too good to do that!
Opportunities for dog parks.

This area can only be improved with a little thoughtful development and design. Given its proximity to the beach, it could be very desirable location. Currently it’s not much to look at and could transform into a smart district, with fewer restrictions than faced by other districts in town that are scenic or historic This area is practically on the beach. First, it should be cleaned up and the homeless people need to be removed from this area. Get rid of the tents and garbage that people simply set up without any repercussions. Start by cleaning up what is there!
I support high-density housing here, but only if climate change doesn't turn this little piece into ocean. We definitely need to get rid of the "industrial light" auto shops that are complete eyesores in front of the Bay. I don't think that single-family homes should line this area of Monterey. I also don't agree with mid-rise homes that will further block bay views.

There may need to be a few more shops integrated into this area as housing is developed in it.

Is there ADU possibilities in this area? I am not as familiar with it, but know there are some single family homes.

This could an interesting hip industrial/living space.

Improve all aspects of Active Transportation infrastructure, creating more protected and connected bike lane networks. Remove parking requirements.

Adding housing here with a mix of local business's would be good but make the housing affordable don’t gentrify this neighborhood please
Mostly commercial, but needs housing
I'd like to see Monterey incorporate live-work spaces, similar to what Seaside is doing over in the west end area, down Contra Costa and Ortiz. Rental of business space in addition to rental of living space is out of reach for many small businesses, making Monterey unfriendly to those who wish to start, which many people have to have a second income now as rental and home prices have skyrocketed in the last few years.

This area needs some neighborhood stores/parks, and increased safe/pleasant walking and biking , and not just on the bike path.

I think you should encourage businesses to spruce up the facades of their buildings. Maybe they could all have a Spanish style look to them like businesses in Santa Barbara.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3237, Packet Page 3565 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-77
Del Monte 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?...” Please increase housing density by building mixed-use properties which have commercial units on the street level and residential units above. DO NOT BUILD ON SAND DUNES where the recreation trail goes over the dunes.

The dunes will shift back with sea level rise and it would not be prudent to build there.

Housing should be East of Park Avenue to stay out of the tsunami zone. Good location in the industrial area, but we will lose a lot of light industrial jobs, those jobs allow employees to afford housing, weigh numbers in decisions.

It would be great if there were some small restaurant, and coffee shops along the bike path here (like Dust Bowl, but more rustic, less commercial_). This is a beautiful area that feels abandoned when walking or riding bikes.

Smaller housing structures here would be a great help to the area, giving it more life and making locals feel safer.

I would like to see the trail rerouted to include the stop light (safety issue). This has been addressed without implementation. Parking and traffic are issues that need to be addressed.

Del Monte Ave is very congested now. I cannot imagine if higher density dwellings were created. Parking is an issue.

The type of housing that would be appropriate depends on what solutions are found to the already intolerable traffic passing through here every afternoon. More cars cannot be added to this artery.

Different sections of this area would likely be appropriate for different kinds of housing. Question 2 is too general for me to answer.

Traffic aside, this seems like a good place for housing. My only concern would be removing more businesses that do serve residents.

The Del Monte Corridor seems particularly well suited to replace "light industrial" uses with substantial residential stock.

I'm surprised that there aren't environmental hazards in this area, given its elevation. The location vis-a-vis recreation is good, but it could benefit from more pedestrian-friendly ways to access both the North Fremont and Downtown areas.

This is the gateway to Monterey. I'd like to see a few more tourist friendly business more like Dustbowl than the ugly rotor rooter and auto shop buildings in this area. Maybe combined with a small number of townhomes or two story apartments/condos.

In the face of climate change, I ABSOLUTELY believe the city must adhere to planning (homes and businesses) based on the sea level rise map/study/report the city paid to have done 1-2 yrs ago and COMPLETELY AVOID any future development (housing and/or commercial/business) in high liquefaction, tsunami and 5-10-20 year flood zones (in other areas of the city high fire hazard must be given equal consideration). As it is, the city is going to take budget hits in the not too distant future because we will have to pay to buy property from current landowners as sea level rises to cover their loss--as well as LOSE the property taxes of those homes/businesses.

Prudent planning to accommodate these facts are essential.

That being said as a general statement across the board, I do not support homes being built on the ocean side of Del Monte Ave (where Natale's Auto and open space east along the coastal trail near the Seaside border -- both listed as top tier choices). I do support single family homes in the DMBN on the currently open lots that have been awaiting water. Other than that, DMBN has a dense mix of a wide variety of single family homes (old and new), ADUs, multiple family homes, condominiums and apartments.

South of Del Monte I support mixed use -- apartments on top of current businesses and/or transforming vacant/abandoned structures into mixed use buildings and/or low-to-mid-rise apartments.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3238, Packet Page 3566 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-78 Community Survey Report
Del Monte 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?...” SUGGESTION: Other states I have lived in had a common, mandatory practice whereby the DEVELOPER MUST plan and pay for infrastructure (roads, bridges, sidewalks, etc) to accommodate vehicle/foot/other traffic increase and needs a result of the project/development.

This may be a good area for more housing since it is already zoned commercial and multi-family. Please do not allow multi-family units in R-1 areas !!
Utilize inactive areas for combination business/residential Keep multi-family out of r-1 zoning.

We need to have space for multipurpose construction that allows businesses to exist I would love to see more spaces for graduate students to be able to rent apartments or mother in law attachments that are nearby campus (which is in downtown monterey) and reasonable priced.

This would be my preferred location to live. However, keeping rent costs affordable would be the main concern.

There seems to be parking available, but I would hope for designated tenant parking options so as not to compete with locals and visitors going to the beach.

Many parcels could be more efficiently utilized. However this is the only area within Monterey zoned for the heaviest commercial/industrial use -- I think that use should be preserved.

I would love to have a big bookstore here, ideally next to a cat cafe'! Also -- more businesses that are open 24 hours or at least until midnight. It always feels like they "roll up the sidewalks" around here about 8 p.m., when I get off of work. A community garden could be a nice touch, as well. Finally -- these ADUs are terrible for renters -- please do not allow them, as much as possible!
Mixed use! More culture, less decay! More young people! SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THE TRAFFIC.

No building in any Hazard zone
On the west/north side of the neighborhood you have easy access to the ocean, this will be an attractive place to live. Easy to get to NPS, MPC, and downtown Monterey using trails.

This is a great area for transit oriented development. Traffic volume is so low at most times on Del Monte that it doesn't need two full lanes. It only gets backed up during peak commuting hours, but if you guys made one lane a dedicated bus lane then you could move a lot more people a lot more efficiently through this corridor. Then it would be easier to follow a Transit Oriented Development approach and build density near the stations for the BRT/dedicated bus line. If the line follows Del Monte all the way from Marina along the following route Del Monte > Hwy 1 > 2nd Ave >light fighter > jim moore > Monterey Rd > Del Monte > Transit Plaza > Light House > PG downtown with a dedicates bus lane you could move a huge amount of commuters on that line and justify building parking-lite new developments near stops on that route. For now dedicated the lane for whichever JAZZ line follows Del Monte would help a ton.

This area feels more commercial. Also, it's one of the main roads in/out of downtown Monterey and the peninsula.

Any new project should consider traffic impact.

Limited low rise apartments in some areas as long as parking is addressed. I do not support trying to add over 3,000 houses in Monterey!
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3239, Packet Page 3567 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-79
Del Monte 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 corridor sits with a lake at two ends. Each will influence the road and areas along Del Monte if there is sea water rise. The city will have to monitor but have plans roughly made to deal with any results. Most of the side areas are commercial and light industrial. These areas are not high focus but still important to any city.

The residential areas may accommodate some ADUs but they are smaller lots.

The city could look for grants to link traffic signals through Seaside to accommodate flow improvement.

Support housing on streets/neighborhood on underutilized lots off of Del Monte. Appreciate the open space and trees next to trail
I believe we need to keep this area free of growth. Any growth will block views to the ocean and Del Monte already backs up for an hour during rush hour. Why would you want to put more cars coming and going from there? The business area of Del Monte is a harsh change from the neighborhoods. Create walking cross paths, greenspace along the sidewalks, mini-plazas for stopping along the way. Design added housing so that it feels good to walk from one area to the next, from business to residential to schools to houses, thru mini parks etc along the way Prior to building housing along this corridor, the City should look for ways to make Del Monte Boulevard safer for pedestrians and cyclists. The proximity of this area to the beach and coastal trail make it well suited for future housing development.

New housing should also include plans for Level 2 electric vehicle charging stations . potential for increased density and rental units. we have lots of property to purchase but less rental. need lowmoderate income rentals. nature of road make everything here very difficult to access.

This area seems like one of the last available places for service industries to locate in the city.

If this type of housing is approved and constructed along Del Monte, additional transit investments make sense.

Bus rapid transit in this corridor could help alleviate traffic congestion.

If new homes are built in this area, they should be dog friendly and have a small, fenced yard. Finding a rental in Monterey that allows dogs and has a yard is extremely difficult.

My vision starts with the only natural way to deal with climate change is by growing trees, which over the years will store CO2. With that being said, I have a little nursery of trees, which was started back in 2014 with my first tree. With a palm tree seed, that was gathered from a palm tree on Palm avenue, seaside. What am I trying to say, it would be nice to live in a house with a front and back yard that will support a crop of trees. If you know of a place where I could donate trees, to be planted in terra firma. I have approximately 30 trees growing in a small space, 4 feet by 8 feet? Only the serious may reply back? Easy access to the highway and Rec Trail, easy place to put some taller 4 story complexes, many have parking built in already, seems a no brainer kind of location. Adding some green space areas with housing would be a nice addition to an industrial area.

This neighborhood is beautiful and families would benefit from being close to nature, more apartment complexes to put more housing.

This area has more space and parking may be difficult when there are events at the fairgrounds. However, there will be more space for larger families and those with pets. Also, it is important to build housing that people can own, not just properties that are rented out.

This is an area that can handle intensive density by building vertical.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3240, Packet Page 3568 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-80 Community Survey Report
Del Monte 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?...” Surround del Monte with more green space open space Parks pedestrian routes and bicycle access This area needs some services for housing to be more appealing. A small grocery store and a couple cafes would provide more community spaces and walkability. There is potential for mixed use if some of the commercial spaces can be converted to include housing on top. Parking is difficult here.

This lovely residential area needs help improving the older homes on large parcels into multi-family units.

Sidewalks should be larger and more walkable. It would be wonderful if parking could be inside a square shaped unit of 4-6 homes and not on the street. A mix of styles would add interest to this very fine area.

In the Villa Del Monte neighborhood and along Del Monte, there are many abandoned structures (across Casa Verde from BayView Academy are couple lots with thrashed buildings; a ‘church’, couple garage types). They are eyesores. Dilapidated structures full of weeds. The city should by these properties and build duplexes or whatever sq footage would allow WITH garages to keep vehicles off the streets.

There are industrial buildings behind the Fish House that could be rezoned to create housing/townhomes. Create an area outside of residential areas for these mechanic, auto body type businesses. This has already been done to create Windows on the Bay when commercial buildings were removed as their leases expired. That was 20 years ago + -
Also in VDM neighborhood behind Fish House are several houses that have been used for businesses (Millers Cleaning for one). Take the houses back. Rezone area to bring back families and have businesses move to other designated areas. Offer businesses incentives to relocate. Make it attractive for them to vacate. Offer to buy vacant lots.

Possible relocation for commercial enterprises where Talbott Ties used to be. Or by Ryan Ranch where some city departments are now.

With this emergency housing need (3,600) seems like the city could by the land sort of like eminent domain situations
With some creative architecture there is the possibility of many new houses, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes by restoring this area to residential instead of the lame idea of business taking such prime real estate. Right by rec trail, elementary school, restaurants, gymnastics, urgent care and the ever busy Starbucks!! Create, incentivize, build.

Would love to walk the area with anyone from city who is not familiar with Villa Del Monte neighborhood.

[email protected]
Secured Parking
Low rise commercial over residential.

Safe walking paths especially along the busy roads. Dedicated gated community space for children and pets to play.

More Housing and Condos. More parking options.

This area is great for apartments and townhomes, but I am a bit worried near Ramona. There is a lot of crime in that area, so I would rather it be a bit safer before building more housing there. Being close to the bike path is awesome too!
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3241, Packet Page 3569 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-81
Del Monte 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?...” PARKING NEEDS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE. The city makes WAY TOO MUCH money off of residents getting tickets while at work or at home, or the parking garages. Its just ridiculous and greedy.

This area is mostly warehouses and industrial buildings. A few years ago the city wanted to make it the ghetto to house all homeless shelters in one "under utilized" area so no one else would be bothered in their backyards. This area can house some apartments or townhouses, but will still be mainly industrial sandwiched between Freeway and Del Monte Blvd.

In addition to the current mix of commercial and industrial uses, I think it would be useful to add affordable housing for the workers that are employed in this area. I would want to retain the benefits of the auto & industrial businesses while also taking advantage of the great potential nearby (within walking distance) for families and people of all ages to enjoy the parks and beaches. Perhaps the affordable apartments could also be mixed use if it is a redeveloped office building (having a business on the ground floor and a few housing units above).

Being right on the main thoroughfare is positive in that it is centrally located but poor for parking unless it is built into the structure, such as an underground or basement level of an apartment building.

Tier 2 or 3 would be fine, but this area is already very dense.

A lot of tear down and potential in this area.

This is an ideal area to build high-density housing. It would be very helpful if there were pedestrian bridges over Del Monte which is basically an urban freeway and not conducive to safe access by families and the less-abled.

This area is well utilized now with necessary commercial business. Gas stations, auto repair shops, ware houses, and etc…..

Again, I believe we should be consistent with the current architecture of the neighborhoods. Parking must be adequate as there is no parking on DelMonte.

This area is already used by local businesses and does not need to be taken over with developments.

This is an interesting idea. I could see how this area might be appealing in terms of space, yet who would want to live in an area surrounded by highway? Also, Del Monte is turning into it's own problem with traffic, so merging on and off would be a project in itself.

Keep it the same
Do not mix high density housing with single family home neighborhoods. This kind of development degrades the character and aesthetics of a single family home neighborhood. Dense housing projects should only be developed on major corridors/streets.

This is another location with high potential. It has quick access (by car and/or foot) to downtown Monterey and to the Broadway district of Seaside. It also has easy highway access. The one detractor may be noise pollution due to proximity to major roads (Del Monte and Highway 1), but I would still consider purchasing a property in this neighborhood if I had the opportunity. This feels like a location well-suited to multi-family units (condos, townhomes, et cetera).

Same as previous answers
Much of the area is not great for housing, would need some beautification and careful planning.

Address all the road closures and power outages here. Update old & outdated infrastructure.

Homeless and camping needs stronger ordinances so plopped don’t litter and leave hazardous waste all over Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3242, Packet Page 3570 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-82 Community Survey Report
Del Monte 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?...” Monterey. Windows by the Bay & DT has real safety and security challenges. Need more foot and bike patrol and officers need to remember they serve all in Monterey—not just the unhoused.

The City can purchase traffic lights with cameras as many accidents here. Also need to update infrastructure of power, water, sewar pipes as places smell at times.

Special survey team allocated to chop down old trees and or trim trees to avoid trees falling on houses, cars roads or power lines. Replace old trees with planting new trees. Re- seal the roads as they are cracking.

There should be no new development on the north side of Del Monte Avenue as that is a very narrow area and no room for housing without destroying the Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trai, which is used by hundreds of people every day both for recreational purposes and for commuting to work and school.

You can't take out those trees. And by creating new housing here, you really kick the poor people out of Monterey.

Unacceptable
Empty businesses at del monte shopping center could be converted to apartment/condos, for employees, since water and parking is available.

As with all of these areas, major artery traffic is an important issue. Some of these streets are very small. Existing neighborhoods shouldn’t be disrupted.

In so many of the eight areas, major traffic arteries are already severely overtaxed. How are we going to add 3K units when we can’t handle the local and commuter traffic we already have? We need greatly enhanced public transportation, including but not limited to frequent, reliable, affordable buses.

ONSITE PARKING FOR 2 CARS PER UNIT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED ON ANY HOUSING PROJECT! BIGGEST ISSUE IN THIS AREA IS HORRIBLY INADEQUATE ONSITE PARKING FOR RESIDENTS.

This area of Del Monte will be a disaster zone within the next 20 years due to Sea Level Rise. No one should be sleeping in the area. It should only accommodate day time businesses with a chance to run from a Tsunami or storm flooding warning. The water will come in from the bay on both sides from El Estero and Roberts Lake areas. Sand dunes are very temporary with violent storms or Tsunamis. Look at the damage that happened this winter along Pacific Grove's coast.

Many of the homes in this area seem to be smaller one story residences. The area between of Casa Verde and Ramona supports several larger apartment buildings which seem to fit nicely into the neighborhood infrastructure. I support creating more of these types of apartment buildings. Adequate parking is of course a requirement.

Perhaps zoning to allow neighborhood convenience businesses (coffee shops, delis, restaurants) to encourage local foot traffic.

New residential buildings should be mixed-use with stores and restaurants incorporated into the design.

Dedicated bike lanes should be incorporated into city street planning. Utilize native plant landscaping. Install roundabout intersections rather than stop lights, and where not feasible incorporate international crosswalks where all vehicle traffic stops for pedestrians. Ensure there is adequate alternative transportation options for residents to reduce the need for personal vehicle conveyance.

Parking is a major issue and the multi use shops with housing above would have to be designed to keep the feel of area and schools/business.

Please build more housing! We desperately need more housing of all types and as quickly as possible! Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3243, Packet Page 3571 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-83
Del Monte 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?...” A mixed-use, walkable community that promotes affordable family housing with easy access to public transportation and to commercial and public services while protecting the neighborhood's aesthetic and historical resources.

This could be a good area for added housing provided that parking and traffic impacts are mitigated.

It would be nice to have high density housing in the area along Del Monte and between Delmonte and Hwy one.

There are already many resources for this area (restaurants, grocery, home improvement stores, coffee shops, public transportation). The only drawback that I can see is too many cars trying to access Del Monte in an area that already is backed up with cars coming off of Hwy 1. no viable areas
Fix the tot lot flooring. It's hazardous. Safety of children and families is of concern.

No more housing.

Better crossway on the corner of the path and casa verde / del monte. It's dangerous and not safe.

I have reservations about the areas on the ocean side of Del Monte due to concerns about climate change fueled rising ocean. This area needs more nearby amenities for the new residents as well as sidewalks.

There's not much in the way of "neighborhood character" to preserve along Del Monte, so it's the perfect place for new higher density housing. High density housing also helps off-set the cost of sound-proof windows and thicker walls to protect residents from traffic noise. This would provide walkable housing for NSP students and staff! To meet the needs of service members who range from young single adults to families with multiple children, providing a mix of studio to 3-bedroom units in new apartment buildings is recommended.

Secure bicycle parking should be required for all new housing developments along the recreation path. New ebikes can weigh over 70 pounds, so carrying them up stairs and through hallways is not ideal. It's not uncommon to see secure bicycle lockers or locked bicycle parking cages for apartment buildings in cities like Portland and Seatle.

More very low income housing is necessary. Built it everywhere. More apartments to rent.

I live near here and it's a shame that many of the apartments available in this neighborhood are vacant 80% of the year. If high-density housing is added here, controls should be considered to make sure that the units don't fill up with time shares. Check out the time shares in Moss Landing to see how developers are currently getting around laws which prohibit time shares.

I don't think that the little triangle which is currently a portion of the bike path would be worth developing, it would be better to maintain as public park. The rest of these areas would be great for some more housing.

This area needs a grocery and pharmacy. Nothing nearby making a car necessary. The parking on Surf Way can be very crowded on weekends, so parking permits or a separate parking area could be helpful.

This are has no real groceries or pharmacies, making it necessary to have a car to meet daily needs.

Keep Tier 1 area's as they are. Add additional lighting/markers for crossway at the beginning of Del Monte Beach.

Enforce parking restrictions for beach parking, limit parking to beach area not side streets.

In my view, this area should have a mix of housing and shops, with a plaza for socializing. Having access to parking within the housing complexes would help solve the problem of limited access to street parking. City Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3244, Packet Page 3572 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-84 Community Survey Report
Del Monte 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?...” planning should encourage walking, i.e. with walking sidewalks and crosswalks. Green areas are a must, i.es. street trees added wherever possible.
more housing! no more single family homes. more safe bike access, including for e-bikes!!!! a biker should be able to get around Monterey AND out to other areas of interest, Big Sur beaches and hiking trails etc, up to Santa Cruz.... e-bikes can replace cars in regions without extreme weather. That would be Monterey! A few more food/grocery options in this area might help. Since there's a school near there, protected bike lanes would always help.

Maintain View to the Bay and sight lines to ocean.

Maintain a lot of mixed use area. 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.

This neighborhood has the opportunity to be transformed by added housing. Walkable access to the beach and the rec trail are wonderful. Shopping is down the street a bit. Traffic here is fast and Del Monte Ave is wide and would be scary to cross as a pedestrian. Maybe a bridge could be built over it? Affordable workforce and senior housing are high priority.

Four stories in this area.

Del Monte needs more small businesses.

This corridor is prime for development; it's an industrial wasteland.

Too close to the bay and sea level rise
This area could be developed into a more substantial neighborhood with existing open land to help the regions citizens gain access to a variety of housing and small shops such as mini-marts that support healthy and fresh foods such as fruits and vegetables.

There will need to be a lot more crosswalks across Del Monte, and they will need to be at lights. preserve the shoreline especially in these areas that are so close to the water. a greenspace buffer is fine, but with careful consideration for pollution that may occur tourism along the shore. no additional housing in this area Would not support any new dwellings on the bay side of Del Monte Ave/the Rec Trail- that is a stretch of superintense traffic and impatient drivers, and crossing Del Monte is only for the young, strong and fleet (no joke)... new residential buildings on the south side, between Del Monte and Fremont, seems like a better bet. Too bad the existing public area - the sandwich shop on Casa Verde probably cannot be expanded/enhanced, for it is a great location and the food being sold is good- that place is not only worth saving but could be a sort of anchor in a nice little hang-out space for residents. Good luck! And- do not forget to include affordable housing! This area is far enough from downtown and lighthouse to allow housing development without degrading the character of those areas. It also has room to accommodate increased traffic as long as parking is planned.

We’ll need parking for residents and space for businesses on the first floor. The city needs to work with the local business associations and come up with a streamline and business friendly process for new small businesses to open. The majority of small businesses in town feel that the city is not business friendly and make the process for opening businesses here in Monterey extremely difficult. We also need to make sure that the developments match the beauty of the area and don’t just choose the cheapest looking design. The aesthetics of the buildings need to match the area.

Increased density, increased access to commercial areas along the Del Monte corridor, increased walkability Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3245, Packet Page 3573 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-85
Del Monte 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 Del Monte is densly populated. It was cut off from Monterey by Highway One years ago. The area, when Fort Ord was open, was an area that the City seemed to forget and allow activities like adult clubs and bars (kind of a dumping ground). The Monterey Fairgrounds was a draw to fill the hotels along this section of Fremont.

Monterey needs to rethink the Fairgrounds property and include it in the overall development mix for housing in Monterey. The area has great potential to provide housing for the City. The housing should be high density multifamily home ownership. The units should be include a blend of one and two bedroom homes, priced affordable.

The housing needs to simultaneously supported with conveniences and the convenances do not need to be located facing Fremont. The conveniences should be located in small onclaves and sized so they are not too big and can depend on Fremont vehicle traffic numbers for their business plan estimates.

Another traffic/parking issue. Will have to have safe ways to entering and exiting Del Monte during rush hour when it is already jam packed
I would like to see NO more building on the dunes. We will need to keep every existing business that it is possible to preserve. More attention to traffic congestion on Del Monte will be necessary.

The Del Monte corridor should not add more housing and traffic. It is already maxed out traffic-wise.

This area is already impacted with apartments and parking is scarce.

High traffic area - keep it clean & focus energy on traffic flow + parking; improve pedestrian access north to south Whatever is built here, it should be considered that Del Monte is a popular corridor that visitors take when driving into our city. Buildings should evoke the charm, warmth and rich history that is our city. Currently, it feels rundown and not all that well maintained.

I think the area north of Del Monte (where the auto repair shop is and the warehouses) could make a much more inviting entrance to our City. There are also opportunities in the blocks to the south of Del Monte. It would be good to have a grocery store in the area too since there are none near the area.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3246, Packet Page 3574 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-86 Community Survey Report

NORTH FREMONT AREA
North Fremont 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?...” The larger sites could have businesses and parking for those businesses on the ground floor with underground parking for the apartments above. The area needs more trees and landscaping to make the area feel more prosperous.

There are already a lot of apartments near North Fremont (such as near De La Vina). Building more mixed use housing with shops on the first floor may provide a more active vibe to the area (with less of a strip mall feel).

There is not a lot of green space so adding small pocket parks with high density housing would be beneficial.

Making sure there are bike lanes and sidewalks to connect this region to the bike path and downtown is important part of the planning to make alternative transit options viable.

Mixed use buildings with mid rise at the maximum height, the streets cape is wide enough to accommodate all housings options except SFR. Existing SFR can accommodate ADU's, Make greater bike lane connections to the protected bike path.

I just want to have the ability to own property near where I work one day. I worked really hard as a Marine and in graduate school after that, and am now an extremely rare case having been hired back to be a Korean language assistant professor at DLI as a civilian after being a DLI student myself around 10 years ago. And yet I have no hope of ever owning property in the area with a pay of about $83,000 a year. DLI Faculty are highly skilled, highly educated, extremely hard working professionals who do critically important work for this country and yet we by and large have to rent simply due to the location of the Presidio. And property managers can gouge as much rent as they want because they can rely on the federal government to increase our locality pay just enough to keep pace.

I've been going to work near the airport for more than 20 years and have watched the slow decay of the North Freemont corridor. I realize the area has a variety of problems that are hard to fix. North Freemont will probably always be a thoroughfare for car traffic since it's such a direct link between Rt. 1, Monterey, Seaside, and Del Rey Oaks. Banning left turns, as is done on Lighthouse, would be difficult so you can't completely remove the median.

However, North Freemont could be nicer by restricting the car traffic to the middle of the Avenue as much as possible and adding mixed-use mid-rise structures on either side of Freemont. Is there room to set new development back a bit from the traffic? Could a parking structure be built at the intersection of Airport and Freemont (where Eddy's used to be) to accommodate fairgrounds parking? Can the existing bike path in the center median of Freemont should be removed to allow more room for wider sidewalks, medians, trees, and parking on either side of Freemont? I realize a lot of money was spent on the path but very few people use it. I sometimes walk to work along Freemont but do not use the path because I don't want to wait at the light twice just to access and depart it. The sidewalk is also much more convenient for accessing businesses that are mid-block, such as walking to lunch at Mundo's. Many bicyclists feel the same because I encounter more of them sidewalk than I see on the path. Since you have multiple property owners along the route a full-scale redo of North Freemont is probably not coming soon. But, can the city change the zoning rules to force people to build? It saddens me to see North Freemont become so neglected. Why do I see abandoned buildings and vacant lots full of weeds when many of my colleagues are struggling or leaving town due to high rents and low vacancy rates? It doesn't have to be like this.

Who’s idea was that bike path in the middle of North Fremont? Not a smart idea for several reasons-please contact me if you’d like more input (413-230-9588). Were any bikers consulted beforehand about the bike path on N Fremont because none of us use it. Thanks
North Fremont is one of the main traffic arteries of Monterey (Business US 1), and developments overflow from the Villa Del Monte and Del Monte Grove Laguna Grande areas of Monterey. Any new development must be designed not to interfere with its transportation needs.

Need new strategies to manage parking here.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3247, Packet Page 3575 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-87
North Fremont 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?...” Mixed use would be good for this area
This stretch is underutilized. A mixed use of housing, shops, and outdoor space. Maybe also some improvements to Fremont street itself like trees.

This area would be a good place for housing, I think it would need to be more walkable and a strategy for increased traffic on Fremont would have to be carefully considered.

Fremont St is mainly a commercial corridor. It is fast-moving stroad which would be rather unpleasant to live on.

Housing units that are built off of Fremont St may be a good option, but I do not support building housing directly on Fremont St.

Currently this is a drive-through area with too much land area devoted to single-level parking lots, with few services for residents and more for visitors staying in motels or attending Fairgrounds events. I'd like to see more multi-story residential along Fremont, with ground-floor retail that would attract people in the neighborhood (coffee shops & cafes, small retail stores, small neighborhood market -- BiRite or Valnizza-size, not Safeway size).

There's great access for biking and to transit. Waive some parking requirements to reflect easy access to bike paths and transit. And consider an off-site neighborhood parking garage/garages as part of some development, to accommodate the cars both of residents and their visitors.

This area has plenty of housing options. We built a bike lane in the middle of Fremont that goes unused for the most part because there is no reason for people to visit that part of town.

I would love to see more festivals and music at the Fairgrounds along with more business. I would love to see that area of town start becoming like a mini Alvarado street or Broadway St.

I am a huge proponent of solutions for both Affordable Housing and the Homeless Population. Taller, multistructure buildings need to be a priority. Bus line access would be important, even if 2 - 3 transfers are needed.

I think new housing should have an open feel and care should be taken to ensure parking for at least two cars per household (not including curb parking) as this is more realistic than one. Street parking congestion can create safety issues and opportunities for vandalism. Green spaces should also be available for safe walking and leisurely activities. Pedestrian access and safety need to be considered including crossings with push button lights.

Rental costs need to be controlled for people who are not wealthy. Instead of capping the total amount … cap rent based on the amount per square foot, something like $2-3/square foot of living space. A basic one bedroom - like 9 x 10 ft, full kitchen + a ¾ bath unit but with a full bedroom smaller, start docking the costs? The basic bathroom would be ¾ shower, toilet NOT in the shower, sink. Kitchen = full size oven/stove, full size fridge, sink. If the unit has 2 stove top burners instead of a full oven + stove or a tiny refrigerator, decrease the price based on the missing amenities.

Something like a dishwasher could be a luxury charge like $5 extra per month for basic kitchen. Granite counter tops? Bathtub? Small amounts like $5 per “luxury” item that make the unit more than just the basic one bedroom one bath.

Additionally, rent increases should be based on actual improvements in a property, not just because a landlord can increase rent. Landlord remodels a kitchen, cool then CA’s 10% increase can be applied to the property – but with a cap of so many years.

As someone who has lived in the same unit for 8 years, my landlady suddenly started increasing rent by the full California determined 10% - BUT this unit has NOT HAD ANY improvements. My income does not increase 10% a year so balancing the cost of living because of this is stressful. Not to mention frustrating because nothing has been improved.

I would like to see more high density housing here to utilize the space with community and green spaces including more tree line streets. Mixed use housing spaces with some commercial options would be a great.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3248, Packet Page 3576 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-88 Community Survey Report
North Fremont 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?...” Nothing should be over 3 stories. Commercial should be on first floor facing North Fremont.

THis are should be used for commercial use.

Mixed use mid-rise apartments with commercial properties at street level facing Fremont. Low-rise apartments and condos on interior properties.

This area has some space but traffic on fremont needs to be considered. Again affordable housing is needed and this is an area that seems to have quite a bit of space. However, a lot is medical buildings and you can see trailers parked everywhere. Maybe a lot with tiny homes where people could also keep their trailers would be helpful. A few apartment buildings would also help. Less traffic in some of these areas but some one lane roads to consider for rush hours.

Revitalize North Fremont!
Clean-up of North Fremont; remove old structures around N Fremont & Airport Road; Develop a Fast Food location in this vacinity.

Reduce parking allocations to 1 car only. Subsidize transit or create incentives for single car Households. Do traffic calming measures, increase curb appeal, sidewalk conditions, lighting and trees. Make the area pretty to encourage residents to come visit. Look at City of Seaside Broadway/Obama Way in terns of curb appeal and pedestrian forward design. Add beauty to the area, seriously lacking in curb appeal.

The road itself is the biggest impediment to improving this area. The central bike alley needs to be removed, and have the protected lanes moved to the sides where cyclists can access the side roads and businesses without crossing traffic lanes. The entrance and exit of the bike alley is also super dangerous and the lead nowhere. The surrounding areas do not need big apartment buildings, but allowing residents to have ADUs and break their residences into multiplexes. the lots highlighted along the road should not be converted into housing, but should focus on commercial development.

This would be place for more housing, but with the higher rise complexes farther away from Fremont. Mix the use so that we do not create a "wall" of high-rise apartments and have small parks for families to use for the relaxation.

It should be attractive for Fremont Blvd traffic. Housing here would serve people without cars who can access the bus line and bike paths to get to work.

A pedestrian overpass on N. Fremont would make walking to Safeway safer for those living in this area. More trees are always welcome.

I think this area could be utilized with bigger accommodations for apartments and townhouses and four-plexes. this would be great to increase use of our bus lines and bike lanes. I think the development should include small park areas in the design where families can play and rest. We wouldn't want a "wall" of housing that neglects different heights for housing options some closer, some farther from Fremont and grass areas (Park areas) visible to Fremont Avenue traffic.

This area is currently such a disaster. The Fairgrounds neighborhood wants to limit commercial development along N. Fremont, but I disagree. This area should be commercial with buffers ( green belts, parks etc) to maintain quality of life in near by residential areas. There is already a lot of high density housing in this area without parking needs met, so that needs to be considered. Unless the City steps up and makes a bike route along Casa Verde to connect with the rec trail, people won't bike this part of town. I have tried. The "bike path to no where" needs to connect to CV. That is the natural traffic flow. The Laguna Grande extension will be too far out of the way for most commuters. But it will be great for tourism!
In a perfect world, the Fairgrounds would move out on the outskirts of town..and housing could be put in there.

The Navy golf course needs to go. It's not fair to our City for such a central and large piece of property to benefit Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3249, Packet Page 3577 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-89
North Fremont 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?...” such a small amount of people. Maybe the Fairgrounds could move there? The airport needs to expand towards Ryan Ranch, and give up any ideas to send traffic thru the Fair grounds area towards North Fremont. It's already too congested.

I emphasize with our City planners when it comes to figuring out the North Fremont area. It is really a screwed up area, and needs a completely new vision.

If housing is to be built, there has to be major improvements to parking. This area already has issues with street parking, so improvements to parking would have to be addressed.

This neighborhood is already built out and a portion of the potential use buts up to single family residential. I said a hard no as this neighborhood already has it's fair share of issues from the airport, fairgrounds and traffic jams.

Why do you want to continue to impact only certain neighborhoods of Monterey with the state's mandatory housing and completely keep out of the equation so many other neighborhoods in Monterey that are low density and could absorb some additional housing including apartments? This neighborhood who has shouldered a lot from the city should not even be on this list. That is not very equitable.

Since the City of Monterey is choosing to exclude a large majority of it's neighborhoods that could absorb a good portion of the new State's housing requirements I recommend that the majority of the housing requirements could and should be met by developing thoughtful, well planned new neighborhoods withing the ranges of Fort Ord, Garden Road and Ryan Ranch. Mass transit could be expanded and there would not be a need for plazas etc. as these neighborhoods could be built to be in tune with nature and be beautiful and quiet. This would be very desirable and would appeal to a variety of people and economic means.

Keeping dwellings away from the noise and traffic of Fremont is important. Clearly, young families with small children should not be safely housed next to this busy street; apartments, set back from Fremont with noise reduction built in could have potential. Dwellings placed facing away from the "main drag" could be possible.

Thoughtful planning for conveniences needed for those who dwell near N. Fremont could be very helpful.

Changing a largely commercial area into a life-giving living space could make it an attractive area for affordable housing as well as other dwellings.

Build more apartments. Reclaim wasteful commercial/office spaces to be converted to and/or replaced with housing.

There are so many areas that can have multiple level apts or hotel on top with parking underneath. Knock down unused or dilapedated buildings for large parking to support fairgrounds.

God knows we need more housing here to revitalize this area and make use of that bike path! Something absolutely needs to be done about how impossible it is to cross over Highway 1 on Fremont as a pedestrian. Mark Thomas has potential but is fairly unsafe for inexperienced cyclists/pedestrians.

We must minimize large-surface-area ground-level-only parking lots.

Need more mix of shops and housing
I want the folks who work in the area to be able to live in the area.

Enhance walkable and bike able places
Envision development with retail ground floor/office-commercial 2nd floor/residential 3-4 floors; public transportation currently exists although there may be gaps currently versus employment hubs locations now or future.

Need roundabouts to help with traffic congestion
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3250, Packet Page 3578 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-90 Community Survey Report
North Fremont 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?...” PITIFUL, just make things look nice in this Godforsaken corridor.

Already dense.

The fairgrounds should actually be moved to Salinas. It is the county seat and Salinas has room. Low and mid rise apt/condos would be a good fit here. The jazz festival and other music venues bring a lot of commerce into the area so the existing "horse arena" s/b kept or even better, rebuilt into a real concert hall.

Already crowded with apartments
The fairgrounds are kept clean. They obviously lack real interest or charm. More trees, small ones, benches, playlots, cafes would help.

Another area of town that would benefit from thoughtful development that increases housing stock and economic activity. Here again the restraints of historical preservation or trying to maintain a particular vibe are not a big factor in this part of town that is nearly charmless. Great opportunity to set a new style to reinvent this district fo4 the future. More housing, commercial property and for goodness sake, how about including trees and greener spaces
There are a lot of empty lots/ places that used to have businesses on North Fremont. These areas could be built up to be used as new shops and housing for whomever needs a place to live. Affordable housing. The area across from CVS is a huge lot....used to be Eddie's. Caruso's is empty. The land where Bay Pet Hospital was located is empty and the little (?) lot where Joe's Christmas trees is located...is empty Not sure we need more motels or grocery stores, but apartments with enough parking for tenants and guests would be nice. Is there some reason these places are not being used? Are the owners holding out for more money? Maybe a lid on the sale of the property?
Parking is an extemely necessary issue.

I don't see much extra space in this area. The bike path that goes down the middle of Fremont was a ridiculous waste of money. It's definitely a hazard for cars, bikes and people! Also, it needs to be cleaned up. There are so many run-down areas and panhandlers. Start by cleaning things up and getting rid of the hobos! For those areas not directly adjacent to single family homes, like the CVS Pharmacy location, mid-rise apartments would be reasonable, especially with retail space at the ground level. Some additional green space/park area should be factored into these areas. I would not recommend building a mid-rise apartments in areas next to single family home neighborhoods.

I currently live in this area (just off Casa Verde) in one of the many aging apartment complexes. The area feels more "run down" area in Monterey, which means more room for much-needed improvements for residents. It's also the most affordable area in our city of Monterey, which is becoming uncontrollably gentrified by investors and vacation homeowners. Fremont needs a lot of love, and we need that beautiful bike path to better connect to the greater area. I think that, on Fremont in particular, mid-rise apartments and condos would be a great addition. It could be businesses on the bottom and residences in the top levels. Make things walkable! The problem with this area is noise and air pollution given the airport. Fremont car traffic contributes to this. We deal with this now in our apartment. This means that we need to build sustainably-minded buildings with thick window glazing and ensure there's extra greenery to take in all that Co2. This area is very "renter" heavy, so it needs to be balanced with more opportunities for homeownership. Whenever an area is too renter- or owner-heavy, it creates inequity.

Whatever we do in any area of the city, please prioritize housing for community members, not investors or second-home dwellers. Please help us build inclusive, diverse sustainable communities across Monterey. I'm tearing up just thinking about how much I want this for my city.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3251, Packet Page 3579 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-91
North Fremont 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?...” Building in this area would allow those that are able to walk to many shops, restaurants.

And with the corridor bike lane as well as car lanes, easy in and out access for those who need to drive.

I think there may also be potential again for ADUs, as there are single family homes on both sides of Fremont.

Trees. Parking & businesses under apts. Decibel monitors w cameras for those loud vehicles! Parklets.

This area has residential neighborhoods that have already been degraded by many apartment complexes. To add more, would tip it to the "rental" community side leaving homeowners discouraged. Adequate parking is a current problem, so adding residences would mean adding parking to accommodate them. I would have checked low-rise apartments IF they were located on Fremont.

So many great opportunities here with easy access to CVS, Safeway, restaurants. It is a little tricky crossing Fremont, but the new road work has improved that.

Improve all aspects of Active Transportation infrastructure, creating more protected and connected bike lane networks. Fix(move to a better location) that useless protected bike lane in the center lane down Fremont.

Love this solution. This area would benefit from this!
There are too many motels along this corridor. I'm not sure I've ever seen a time when they were full, some have no cars, some have a few. I don't understand why the city is building yet another motel where the Caruso Italian restaurant/Casa Verde Inn used to be when we do not need more motels for temporary visitors but affordable housing for people who live and work here. Wrong decision. This corridor would be a good area for low to midrise apartments and townhomes, or even mixed use business with apartments on second and third floors, or even live-work studios/lofts for the small business owners who can't afford storefront rent in addition to housing. We definitely don't need more single family homes. There are no affordable places to live for single adults who don't make over 50K a year and don't have a significant other and do not wish to suddenly try to find a roommate after being able to afford to live alone for the past 20, but with skyrocketing rents and landlords only looking at making the most money, people are getting pushed out of Monterey.

Way more landscaping. Areas to hang outside safely without having to buy something. This area needs to be much better maintained, and made appealing for the many, many who already live there.

What about putting landscape on that bike trail that nobody uses? Please consider building mixed-use properties with commercial units on the bottom and residential levels above on Fremont.

The existing bike path fencing makes this area more of a freeway to Seaside than it was before. It is hard to cross to the other side of the street. Housing here would perhaps give the bike path more clients, especially if it would continue onto downtown somehow. This area would benefit from housing, both for the rental potential and the local businesses.

This entire area is now disconnected with the other boundaries of the City of Monterey and could be better served if it were ceded to the City of Seaside.

Housing and commercial development could turn this area into a lively district, especially if that development is pedestrian oriented. Commercial development should be geared to residents, not tourists.

However, we must improve traffic flow and create practical transportation alternatives before we pack in more people.

Not many of the lower- and mid-market motel properties seem to have been identified as potentially additive to our housing stock, even if lower density is required to accommodate the airport safety zone. It seems that the Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3252, Packet Page 3580 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-92 Community Survey Report
North Fremont 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?...” demands of the housing requirements for the Peninsula likely outweigh any obligation to continue to provide (somewhat) lower cost, low-density visitor lodging options in place of somewhat higher density housing.

I support housing units in this area where there are already structures and areas available for housing.

However, there is NO room for widening the main No Fremont--it's not even easy to make a right turn with the curbs that were put in. All said, more units in this small area mean more traffic, hence developers should be held to infrastructure needs, upgrades etc (including roads and ON SITE parking) to accommodate the density of people/vehicles/traffic for that development. (Such as in the case of the other developments that get passed -- like Casa Verde Inn hotel where the developer somehow managed to snag a single story 18 room hotel and got approved by the city for a 3 story 36 room hotel -- where/how is the water for THAT approved when single family lots that have been waiting in the same vicinity can't get a water credit for a sink!!?? -- and the developer got through the vehicle/parking loop by saying they would not need parking and would be using public transit?! ) WE all must be more vigilant and hold developers accountable for covering ALL aspects of a development impact on the surrounding area BEFORE they are approved. Especially in one with little room for more traffic, parking and already densely filled with many apartment complexes.

No vision. It's a strip mall, uninteresting busy corridor. Apartments seem the only realistic option.

It would be nice to have some community parks in this area, more green open space that is publicly accessible at all times, rather than just the Fairgrounds.

This area may be OK for additional housing, since part of it is zoned commercial. Please do not allow multi-family units in or adjacent to single-family residential areas!! Keep it greener! Utilize inactive buildings for combination business/residence Avoid r-1 zoned properties next to r-3+
North Fremont could benefit from an architectural renaissance,. That are of the City seems a little run down and doesn't seem to provide much incentive for people to visit or live there as it is. More multifamily units along North freemont would be a benefit to the area businesses and the vibrancy of the area and of the City.

The single family area next to North Fremont is adorable and hopefully will be maintained as such. The multifamily area on the other side of North Fremont has become a maize of multifamily buildings packing as many people into the smallest spaces possible. That's probably not good to replicate.

North Fremont seems a bit run down and like an area of the City with not a lot to do offering few reasons to visit.

The Fremont corridor seems as if it can use an architectural uplift and I believe that business in that are of the City would benefit from nicer, mixed use, multi-story buildings with residential. The architectural uplift bringing more residents could be a boon to the area and to the City. As it is now, many people are not drawn to that area. A mixed use architectural renaissance in that area could help create a more vibrant area of the City. There seems to be only a few sites indicated on the North Fremont map as having high development potential. My feeling about North Fremont is that it needs much more development than that.

The above presumes that parking and safety can be solved. I've heard it said that parking can be solved by placing parking structures within 1000 feet of a residential building. I don't believe this is true. Families with small or young children, people returning home from a long days work with bags of groceries and people both young and old with injuries and mobility issues for example will not easily use parking 1000 fee away from home. Other solutions need to be sought such as on site parking in addition to multiple transportation modalities with all age groups and physical abilities in mind.,
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3253, Packet Page 3581 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-93
North Fremont 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?...” Some of the motels have extraordinarily large parking lots that could be better utilized. Building height should not exceed 3 stories to preserve character.

I would love to have a big bookstore here, ideally next to a cat cafe'! Also -- more businesses that are open 24 hours or at least until midnight. It always feels like they "roll up the sidewalks" around here about 8 p.m., when I get off of work. A community garden could be a nice touch, as well. Finally -- these ADUs are terrible for renters -- please do not allow them, as much as possible!
It looks like a health risk and could invites law-suits to the city.

This is an easy place to commute from given the freeway access. People could live here and commute up to CSUMB, or into Monterey/Carmel via car. The bike lane on Fremont is confusing and I'm not sure it's properly linked to the trails or for people who would really use it (students mostly).

Again, another corridor that would be good for a road diet and dedicated bus lane to aid transt oriented development. Maybe the bike lanes along this route could be repurposed into some BRT stations I would support some additional apartment complexes in this area. It would need to include parking. I do not support trying to add over 3,000 new houses in Monterey.

Support mixed use
You have a lot of blight in this area along with many empty lots. I would like to see multiuse buildings in this area with a lot of green space.

Mixed use development would be appropriate in this area. Again, the city should look for ways to reimagine Fremont Street so that it is safer for pedestrians and cyclists. The protected bike lanes are a good start, but the automobile is still the priority in this area, and it shouldn't be.

This neighborhood does not have much walking appeal even though it has lots of businesses as Fremont is so busy and large. Mixed use commercial ground floor and residential above seems like a good idea. leave alone the single family home section where there are too many cars and is too dense already. in undeveloped lots add rental units
due to transit, maybe ADU and low rise apts especially with proximity to fairground that would really make it difficult to single family homes
Several of the opportunity sites in this could accommodate mixed use developments with 3-5 stories of housing on top of retail on the ground floor.

This area is a diamond in the rough. Housing with higher densities could help revitalize the area.

I'd like to see this area become safer for pedestrians. There are a mix of shops, restaurants, other businesses and houses already in this area, but it can be scary to cross the street. Whether it is people traveling too fast or unfamiliar with the roads/rules, it can feel unsafe. If we build more housing, we could have an issue with parking, or we could make it easy and safe to walk/bike so people would be more comfortable not having a personal vehicle.

Needs a focus on continued bike lane additions and support for pedestrian walkways and street crossings. Great potential for live/work/shop without getting in a car.

If new homes are built in this area, they should be dog friendly and have a small, fenced yard. Finding a rental in Monterey that allows dogs and has a yard is extremely difficult.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3254, Packet Page 3582 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-94 Community Survey Report
North Fremont 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?...” I'd like to see parking but also attention to walkability. I recommend we be good neighbors by not building more than 2 stories high. When we block out sunlight from existing properties, that decreases the quality of life for the adjoining properties. For the property on Fairgrounds Rd, we need to accommodate a drug store here. It will still be needed in this neighborhood.

Mix of housing and commercial, market, ped plazas.

This neighborhood is a mix, I think apartment complexes would do well, the incorporating of apartmenst more than 3 rooms
I believe there is room to expand Monterey by redevelopment in this area.

There is so much potential in this neighborhood. There have been vacant buildings and lots for so many years. The proximity to the fairgrounds, shopping, restaurants and highway 1 make it a great place to put high density housing. There is already a lot of high density housing by Dela Vina and Ramona so it makes sense to include more along Fremont. There is room for higher buildings without blocking view. The airport noise is a consideration but the amount of planes is pretty small. The walkway built in the middle on Fremont is strange and it's not clear it's intended use.

This area is like a wet cat. Bedraggled and smelling. What potential! The bike lane is an isolated sore spot that is not used much. The buildings are mostly old and ugly.

New housing should be affordable!!
The bike infrastructure here never made sense to me. As a bike rider, I prefer Fairground Road and Bruce Lane. As pedestrian, I never want to walk down Fremont as the sidewalks on some parts are practically non-existent.

We will need strategies to manage parking in the neighborhood Secured Parking
This area is already housing heavy - It would be nice to see it done better/ to the benefit of the residents. The bike lane down Fremont doesn't serve it's purpose. More/ better crosswalks would be more beneficial. Pedestrain overpasses? Speed bumps along the E/W streets like Ramona and Dela Vina to slow down speeding to / from Fremont. Redevelop the smaller hotel parcels into more housing and/ or build above these structures. Are there processes that could be sped up in the development process? The hotel project on the corner of Fremont and Casa Verde has been stalled for over a decade.

I think there should be solid focus on making this a pretty high density corridor. I also think this would be a good spot to put a few affordable housing projects. as part of the redevelopment of this whole corridor I think it would be important to make really solid pedestrian and bicycle connections to both the coast and downtown montereyin addition to Sand City where a lot of really interesting stuff is happening. If you can make those connections and build the housing, it will make this area feel more attractive to both residents and developers. There is already a good grocery store, but it would also be nice to maintain several restaurants and possibly something interesting and quirky like a food truck court- this way the neighborhood might become more of a "draw" much like Sand City is becoming. I also think there is a lot of potential for the fairgrounds to be modernized and reimagined as it feels like a very large and underutilized parcel that, if turned into more of a park like setting, could become a neat asset to people living on that side of town.

Add residential over commercial mid-rise buildings on Fremont. Finish bike path.

Mixed use.

There is a great opportunity to make North Fremont a much nicer place to live and shop than it is now. Along with housing there could be more trees, walking paths, and a more cohesive community rather than the ugly Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3255, Packet Page 3583 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-95
North Fremont 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?...” stretch around Fremont (and Fremont itself). Using the Broadway/Seaside beautification model would be a good visioning place to start.

There is already a lot of shopping, restaurants, etc., and good transportation (including bike path) here, so some urban planning could go into making it a really nice place to live.

Safe walkways along busy roads. Gated parks and community space for children and pets to play.

Make the hotels bigger so they can accommodate more events. Not nearly enough hotel space here.

This area isn't the safest, and honestly that bike path is absolutely a disaster. No one wants to ride their bike in the middle of such a busy road. I support housing being built pretty much anywhere we can, but in my opinion this would be the area to put the most affordable housing - the cheapest. Its really not a great area, and should be everyone's last resort. It would be great to actually have the option to look at nicer places, and not so great places.. that way people can actually prioritize what they want. Nowadays, you apply to anything and everything in the hopes that your name gets chosen out of the million applications.. and you don't get to even have a say if its somewhere you actually like or not. Having the option to downgrade is actually a good thing, and this would be that downgrade location.

PARKING NEEDS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE. The city makes WAY TOO MUCH money off of residents getting tickets while at work or at home, or the parking garages. Its just ridiculous and greedy.

This part of town needs more greenery (less concrete) and a central community park/play area/quad/meeting space for community gathering off the main road for farmers markets, craft fair, childrens park, etc. Currently, it feels extremely busy, commercial, vehicle-oriented, and like a concrete jungle. i would like to see some more low income housing in this area, possibly using existing motels. High rise 4 to 5 stories seems out of place with the existing profile. Can some of the fairgrounds land be used? How about Residential Pipeline lot, former bar on Fremont?
In addition to the current mix of uses, I think it would be useful to add affordable housing for working people in this area. I would want to take advantage of the opportunity to develop housing that accommodates diverse residents and helps alleviate gaps in avg income and rent prices between Seaside and Monterey. The affordable apartments would also generate more business in this area, and could even be developed with the commercial use on the ground floor and a few housing units above.

Given what a busy thoroughfare this area is, and with the mixed nature of the residential/commercial existing use, I would support infill housing on the scale of multiunit, multi level building. It is important that parking is mitigated by including it in any new building footprint, rather than allow the cars to sprawl down city streets.

This is also an area I would highly encourage mixed use building with businesses on the bottom floor and residential above.

Some larger apartment complexes would be ok or duplexes. In general Freemont needs to have the old 50's store fronts revitalized and bring some newer mixed use to this area. Some better restaurants and brew pubs would be nice. The remake of Downtown Seaside is even nicer than Freemont street.

Fremont is not a road for residential. This should be kept for businesses. Who wants to live on a crowded busy street no matter the setback. This is not a place for children, nor animals that can easily get hit. BAD IDEA TO BUILD on Fremont.

This area needs to be revitalized. There are too many vacant and depressed businesses. I see new housing as a catalyst that could lead to renewal. The housing should be higher density. Mixed retail residential housing would be best.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3256, Packet Page 3584 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-96 Community Survey Report
North Fremont 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?...” Good area to develop and shop. However the bike lane from cuts the entire area in half. What is happening with the old Gemini site and the empty veternarian car sales lots?? Tick-tock…… If the bike path that starts here connected to south Fremont, it would bring a large amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic which would open this sad corridor up from being very car-centric and low-rent to desirable.

Family-friendly businesses would do so much better if families could more easily get here and it wasn't basically a large off/on ramp for the highway. A pedestrian/bicycle bridge that connected this to the south would be amazing! On the west/ north side of Fremont no dense housing should be allowed. This area has to many apartment and existing condos, the density is to much already except for single family units.

This appears to be an area with more options due to the large commercial businesses in the area, such as Embassy Suites. I am NOT endorsing anything near that height, but believe that a mix of different types of housing can be added in this area. Again, we have traffic issues, and buildings could (if not properly sound-proofed) be unlivable.

Must make N Fremont more walking accessible, the multitude of driveway cuts, some abandoned but still there, make level walking dangerous. Especially the abundance of obstructions on the sidewalks. Abandoned buildings and vacant commercial need
The Streetscape plan implemented as a priority. Vacant or abandoned buildings need monthly fines, lazy landlords, refusing to lower rents need to sell or face stiff fines. This area has neeb stagnating for decades because of lack of city interest
I think a good model for this area is the section when you approach Lighthouse Ave coming out of Old Monterey's tunnel -- with nice shop fronts and apartments above. A new market (replacing Peninsula Market on Del Monte), or grocery store (Trader Joes) would be advantageous if additional housing here as the Safeway in this area is always packed. Connecting bike paths would also need to be a priority to maximize use of the current bike path in the median with other areas.

Do not mix high density housing with single family home neighborhoods. This kind of development degrades the character and aesthetics of a single family home neighborhood no matter what developers or City officials say.

Dense housing projects should only be developed on major corridors/streets.

This would be a good location for ground-level commercial with residential spaces on upper floors. This can be in the form of condos or apartments. Creative parking solutions would need to be considered.

Same as previous
Would be great to see development in this area with a character similar to Broadway in Seaside, but with more housing incorporated.

I just want to see the empty land used to build affordable housing with parking provided. There are way too many empty lots with weeds that could be put to use. I’d also like to see the bike trail completed in both directions, south and then west to the rec trail and northeast through Del Rey Oaks. I would love to see the community center opened again. Such a waste that it just sits there, when we could utilize it for neighborhood meetings and such. I’m hoping we can get quality commercial use too, not too many Big Joe’s Smoke Shop type places.

Again, kicking the poor people out of Monterey by building new housing here Airport noise is an issue. (Stop airport expansion!) Clean up the blight, abandoned buildings/lots. Make the area livable. Include park space and trees to beautify it.

Need more parking included in any new housing..

On site parking needs to allow for 2 parking spaces per unit. Many renters are couples with 2 cars, even in one Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3257, Packet Page 3585 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-97
North Fremont 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?...” bedroom units. I live in this area and any renters with 2 cars struggles to find parking on street for 2nd car after 3pm. And guests...well, it's nuts out there!
Build apartments and townhouses where public transit can be used instead of requiring cars to go everywhere.

More small grocery stores, shops and restaurants under housing for convenience creating walkable neighborhoods for new residents as well as existing residents behind the Fremont area. Love the plaza idea. trees on the street always help.

I think that apartment complexes will really help the housing issue. Median and lower income populations are more likely to be renters (at least for now) so apartments are more appropriate than town houses or condominiums in this area. Some light industrial space is necessary for businesses like auto repair.

It is important to have balanced use between business and residential in this area.

New residential buildings should be mixed-use with stores and restaurants incorporated into the design.

Dedicated bike lanes should be incorporated into city street planning. Utilize native plant landscaping. Install roundabout intersections rather than stop lights, and where not feasible incorporate international crosswalks where all vehicle traffic stops for pedestrians. Ensure there are adequate alternative transportation options for residents to reduce the need for personal vehicle conveyance.

As a resident of the North Freemont neighborhood, there is so much that can be done to improve. This neighborhood has so much potential due to its proximity to parks, public transit, and businesses. Housing is this area is mostly single family units, with some smaller apartment complexes. This drives the cost of living up. We would greatly benefit from multi-family units in this neighborhood which would increase available housing stock and reduce prices. Many of the "houses" in the neighborhood are secretly converted into multi-family rentals already, why not make it official? Additionally, while the biking lanes on North Freemont are amazing, why do they suddenly end at the N. Freemont / 218 intersection? This makes them only functionally useful for about a mile and it's dangerous to continue to bike beyond that. As this neighborhood grows, it's important to prioritize people and walkability and not cars. Building the community around public transit and non-car transportation (such as biking and walking) will reduce noise pollution, improve air-quality, and provide a better quality of life to residents.

Please build more housing! We need more housing of all types and we need it soon! North Fremont is full of pitiful little shacks and empty shacks on huge lots, as well as several vacant lots.

I would like all those shacks torn down and replaced by6-story apartment buildings with shops , restaurants and other services on the bottom, with underground parking. The bicycle path should be extended and actually go somewhere. In back of these buildings should be a green belt with play areas for children. Small van-type busses with frequent stops can shuttle people up and down Fremont St.

A mixed-use, walkable community that promotes affordable family housing with easy access to public transportation and to commercial and public services
This could be a good area for additional housing, provided traffic and parking impacts are managed.

This area would be very good for some high density housing as their are many resources (grocery stores, restaurants, entertainment) close by.
homeless encampments need to be dealt with rather than just moved. fremont bike path needs to connect to something for it to make sense -- connecting to the bike rec trail and possibly work with Seaside to have it extend through to La Salle
There are already a lot of shops there. With the right mix of housing and shops I can see this area rivaling Alvarado St., especially if a conference center was built in this area. When the Fairground has events there are parking issues. So, again, parking strategies will be needed
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3258, Packet Page 3586 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-98 Community Survey Report
North Fremont 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?...” I mostly see Fremont as a commercial zone, but we could maximize the potential for mixed-use developments here. Directly facing North Fremont, I think there should only be mixed-use developments. Off the main street, mid-rise apartments, condos, and townhouses make sense.

Another potential spot for live-work studios since it's already pretty loud over there.

ADUs should be allowed in the single-family housing blocks.

City of Monterey HAS TO work with the cities of Del Rey Oaks and Seaside on making bicycle infrastructure make sense on Fremont Ave. The "bicycle boulevard to nowhere" is not going to sell people on living over here.

And it doesn't help people safely get to school and work. Fremont currently isn't a nice place to walk around, so any housing developments should be coupled with sidewalk and street landscaping improvements.

This neighborhood is poorly planned with parking lots prioritized over pedestrian paths and if it is redeveloped, it would be a great opportunity to make it more walkable and more pleasant.

Water permits need! Businesses on the lower level and housing above.Traffic mitigation will be a problem. Don't think that the bike lane in the middle of the road accomplished much.

This part of town needs more greenery, trees, and vegetation. Another little pocket park or two int eh neighborhoods on both side of Fremont would be nice.

Hotel/motel, lodging and shop, office..

Maintain a lot of mixed use area. 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 force the bowling alley out or the cvs!
Affordable workforce and senior housing are essential. Good locations for them here. Supermarket and pharmacy within walking distance.

Four stories in this area. This area should have a mix of housing and shops, with a plaza for socializing and listening to live music.

This area would be best served for more new businesses.

Fremont Street offers transit, food, support for housing.

Another area that is perfect for multi-family housing. Too many motels - convert them to housing when possible, and make them taller.

This is a great area for housing. Esp with the bike lane just added. It seems this area is underutilized. But pretty up the street with more trees and planters. Maybe old fashionwd post street lights,.

This region could use more housing but not so dense as to cause angst and stress amongst its citizens. Additionally, small parks within housing region (with passcoded overnight access to eliminate unhoused camping) would allow for growth and enjoyment of the families living there.

Maybe if more people lived in this area, the very underutilized bike lane down the middle of North Fremont would be used more.

Off street parking should always be required.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3259, Packet Page 3587 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-99
North Fremont 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?...” Less street vagrants & houseless; parking structures in this area would be good, with free shuttles to downtown, fisherman's wharf & cannery row. These parking structures could also support the various events at the Fairgrounds.

Planting trees in this area would make it more welcoming and attractive.

This area is far enough from downtown and lighthouse to allow housing development without degrading the character of those areas. It also has room to accommodate increased traffic as long as parking is planned.

We’ll need parking for residents and space for businesses on the first floor. The city needs to work with the local business associations and come up with a streamline and business friendly process for new small businesses to open. The majority of small businesses in town feel that the city is not business friendly and make the process for opening businesses here in Monterey extremely difficult. We also need to make sure that the developments match the beauty of the area and don’t just choose the cheapest looking design. The aesthetics of the buildings need to match the area.

Any and all housing should be encouraged along this route, along with accessibility to multi use buildings containing food, restaurants, entertainment, and more.

A neglected area that could use a new vision of businesses on main road with housing behind, into neighborhood. townhouses and cleaner, new motels for the corridor. more parking for the fairgrounds.

Cede the entire area to Seaside. It is now called North Monterey with no real connection to the rest of the Monterey City. It is Seaside in character and location and serves that city with existing Fair Grounds commercial development and transient accommodations.

Again, parking needs to be taken into consideration.

This area is an embarrassment - rutted roads, run down store fronts, odd bike lane that isn't safe for pedestrians or bicyclists, ugly plants. It looks like a developing nation (I know because I live in them part of the year). Create a neighborhood / business group. Give the area an identity & act like it's part of the city your hired to manage or voted in to represent.

Improve quality of life for existing residents - add green space, better lighting, & clean up overhanging plants on residential sidewalks. Absentee landlords can participate without putting the burden (higher rents) on their tenants.

This area is in dire need of revitalization. It is the least desirable area to live or visit. There are several empty lots that have been sitting as such for years. It seems as if we are missing out on additional city revenue by leaving this corridor as seedy and shabby as it is. Our fairgrounds pulls visitors in but we need more to keep them here. I'd love to see this area develop up-and-coming restaurants, breweries and boutique hotels. The seedy motels have to go.

As for housing and any new construction, my vision would be to have architecturally interesting buildings that perhaps lean toward mid-century modern to honor the history of this part of town. No big-box, cookie cutter type of construction. Less concrete parking lots and more trees. North Fremont is lacking character due to the lack of vision of the previous generation when this area was developed commercially. Let's undo that damage and make this part of town just as charming as the rest.

This is one of the best areas in Monterey for additional residential development. Safeway is convenient, there's a bikeway, access to Hwy 1 is easy.

Need coffee shops and amenities for residents.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3260, Packet Page 3588 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-100 Community Survey Report

GARDEN ROAD/AIRPORT/HIGHWAY AREA
Garden Road/Airport/Highway 68 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?...” Avoid building on open space on the south side of hwy 68. Development of townhomes or low slung apartment buildings in the areas on the south side of Garden Rd are OK, so-so. If developed then making sure the bike, walking and transit options are available so those homes don't just add to traffic on 68.

There has to be a vision for this area that includes walking paths linking it to beach, downtown as well as gathering areas. Shops so people can take care of essentials and have a gathering area, outdoor area. Monterey needs to do a better job of offering activities that draw people to come together. We’ve lost that small town feeling; it’s like we’re all in service to tourists and don’t do anything to give locals gathering areas away from the wharf. Fewer kids, families só but we still need to build community.

Mixed use neighborhood retail, grocery, gas, convenient store, open space or park like setting Future growth should be supported by alternative modes of transportation, particularly a protected bike lane that connects Ryan Ranch though the 68 corridor.

I just want to have the ability to own property near where I work one day. I worked really hard as a Marine and in graduate school after that, and am now an extremely rare case having been hired back to be a Korean language assistant professor at DLI as a civilian after being a DLI student myself around 10 years ago. And yet I have no hope of ever owning property in the area with a pay of about $83,000 a year. DLI Faculty are highly skilled, highly educated, extremely hard working professionals who do critically important work for this country and yet we by and large have to rent simply due to the location of the Presidio. And property managers can gouge as much rent as they want because they can rely on the federal government to increase our locality pay just enough to keep pace. commercial due to noise from airplanes. No housing now
Probably all of the above could work. Adding shops would help.

This area along Mtry-Salinas Hwy (SR 68) especially Tarpy Flats has the best available vacant land for meeting most of the needs for space for 3,654 units of new housing of various price ranges. THIS WILL REQUIRE A CHANGE TO THE HIWAY 68 AREA PLAN BY VOTE OF THE PEOPLE OF MONTEREY! Do NOT recommend converting any more of the major commercial buildings along Garden Road (four have already been approved for conversion to residential uses).

The JOBS - HOUSING BALANCE do not need to be impacted any further with conversion of commercial buildings to residential uses!!!!
Similarly, Ryan Ranch should remain commercial and not converted to residential. ONE EXCEPTION: Cityowned property on former Fort Ord when water is available! High density housing in areas of unused office buildings Need to address traffic on 68.

This would be a great place to have additional housing, it's not very walkable and the proximity to the airport might not be as desirable.

This is a good area for higher density housing and housing of all kinds. There is a lot of underutilized land opposite office spaces. My only concern is how increased housing in this are may impact traffic on 68.

Another great area for high-density housing -- both rentals and owned homes. I'd lean toward higher densities, mix of apartments and townhomes; with some storefront retail to serve residents and give it more of a Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3261, Packet Page 3589 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-101
neighborhood feel. Cafes/coffee houses could also serve folks who work on Garden Road/at the airport. Great access for biking and transit.

Rental costs need to be controlled for people who are not wealthy. Instead of capping the total amount … cap rent based on the amount per square foot, something like $2-3/square foot of living space. A basic one bedroom - like 9 x 10 ft, full kitchen + a ¾ bath unit but with a full bedroom smaller, start docking the costs? The basic bathroom would be ¾ shower, toilet NOT in the shower, sink. Kitchen = full size oven/stove, full size fridge, sink. If the unit has 2 stove top burners instead of a full oven + stove or a tiny refrigerator, decrease the price based on the missing amenities.

Something like a dishwasher could be a luxury charge like $5 extra per month for basic kitchen. Granite counter tops? Bathtub? Small amounts like $5 per “luxury” item that make the unit more than just the basic one bedroom one bath.

Additionally, rent increases should be based on actual improvements in a property, not just because a landlord can increase rent. Landlord remodels a kitchen, cool then CA’s 10% increase can be applied to the property – but with a cap of so many years.

As someone who has lived in the same unit for 8 years, my landlady suddenly started increasing rent by the full California determined 10% - BUT this unit has NOT HAD ANY improvements. My income does not increase 10% a year so balancing the cost of living because of this is stressful. Not to mention frustrating because nothing has been improved.

This area is underutilized and needs more high density housing.

I am pretty neutral to any housing in this area, especially because I feel like there are limited drawbacks and I think there are not many community stakeholders. But the area is pretty sterile and isolating and it would take effort to provide a community feel if that was desired.

Bike lanes and buses for Monterey and salinas commuters. Buses are An excellent way to minimize traffic.

Affordable housing
This is an ideal area (excluding Garden Road which should remain commercial/office) for new housing but should maintain the scale of Monterey as it is now.

Traffic congestion is a problem in this area already, more housing would just exacerbate the issue. Perhaps a traffic circle at Jocelyn Canyon and HWY 68 would help some.

This area needs to go either one way or another. Development should coordinate with future plans for the airport and any expansion of commercial and private flights. The area lacks continuity with other residential areas, and public transportation needs to be considered
All types of housing could go here but it seems most buildings are fancy and medical. One lane road needs to be considered for traffic and the need for affordable housing for both small and extended working class families. No more
mansions that are unaffordable even for professionals like me with a PhD! This would be wonderful area for teachers lower income family neighborhood Dense housing
Convert derelict commercial buildings to condos or townhomes. No need for more commercial, focus on housing here only. Add paved sidewalks and bike paths for safer walking corridor to Fairgrounds /Fremont.

The garden road area is RIPE for residential development. Bigger apartment units can fill a lot of the defunct and unused lots. Along 68 could likely support single family with ADUs and townhomes and small multiplexes.

This is not a good place for apartments being too close to the airport noise. Instead I could see dedicating formalized a parking project for folks living out of their cars.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3262, Packet Page 3590 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-102 Community Survey Report
I would indeed like to see a crosswalk and street trees added on Garden Road. I'd like to see more street trees on nearby North Fremont, also. This area could also use a small park where office workers could eat their lunches.

Too close to the airport would not be a good place for housing. I would use this area for dog parks and maybe athletic courts for more outdoor activities. Perhaps though a formalized place overnight parking lot for those living out of their cars.

Beautiful tree lined streets along with a playground/ recreational area for the neighborhood. Please provide a great strategy to manage parking in the neighborhood to avoid unnecessary congestion in surrounding areas.

If housing is developed here, I think they’ll need to be improvements to transportation, and strategies put in place to allow the residents there easier access to Fremont, or Monterey.

This area has a lot of potential to not only meet the State's housing requirements but it could really provide the city with a great opportunity to create beautiful new neighborhoods that would appeal to a large variety of people and economic levels. A well planned grand master plan could create a beautiful housing area with walking paths and a variety of housing that has been designed to be blend in with nature. No plazas are necessary. Just lovely living spaces tucked in thoughtfully within the environment. California native trees and plants to be placed in the landscaping to not only blend with nature but to re-establish that environment that may change due to development.

Unless the city allows expansion of housing into more neighborhoods than that are listed in this survey this, Ryan Ranch and Fort Ord are the ONLY equitable solutions to solve the housing requirement without putting undue burden on already densely full and established neighborhoods that already have their own sets of problems. Please seek your solution within these 3 zones or open up other (not mentioned in the survey) neighborhoods to be fair and equitable.

This is a perfect area to expand housing and create new neighborhoods. Mass transit can be expanded easily into this area. Utilizing this land will take some of the burden off of the already denser neighborhoods (such as in North Monterey) that really do not have the capacity to support more housing without impacting the quality of life, adding more parking problems and general crowding and the multiple impacts that will effect so many people in so many different ways.

Turn this into a dense, walkable neighborhood full of all types of residential and mixed-use properties. There is so much potential here that's wasted on massive parking lots and underutilized office spaces.

Affordable multi-story housing with a few to be dedicated to employees that work in Monterey. Then they do not have to drive from Salinas or elsewhere that continues to clog up Hwy 68.

Higher density and many affordable units for Monterey area employees, especially low income. An example in the Hayward area would be relevant to explore. It has been so successful for low income that there is an expansion to include families.
-It's close to the airport and certain days each week, when any number of jets idle, the fumes smell on the opposite side of 68 from the airport. How can anyone live as close to the airport as Garden Road? -Also, what kind of business would be built? When the fair or the car show happens each year, the residences across 68 hear the trucks, chains, loading and unloading that goes on up on Garden Road. -Traffic is also usually full on 68 to safely access the driveways on 68. (The speed limit of 55 is too high) Don't just dump the high density housing next to the airport, but more housing can't hurt.

Avoid urban sprawl, do not develop on currently undeveloped land I want the folks who work in the area to be able to live in the area.

The water supply does not support additional housing/people, and Highway 68 is crowded enough without adding more drivers.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3263, Packet Page 3591 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-103
Maintain hiking areas and expand biking access for all communities to these areas. Allow for ADUs This area should be reserved for much needed light industry. So no housing here.

No ingress or egress for traffic.

There is much open space in this area, north of Upper Ragsdale, across from UPS & CSUMB. Good major infrastructure (roads).

Business area.

Will there be reliable public transportation for people living here? Otherwise traffic is an issue but there seems to ga room to grow.

This is the only part of town I feel a few large housing projects would be appropriate, limiting congestion in more densely populated areas. It still benefits from the quiet location and abundance of trees.

This is an area for businesses, not housing.

This area is seriously underutilized and would have little impact on surrounding residential areas. If residential development is created, neighborhood parks and green areas should be included. Additionally, some mix of retail should be included. The issue will of course be noise from the airport.

Too much noise and air pollution being this close to the airport. It should be reserved for commercial use only. No one deserves to live in a polluted area.
there seems to be lots of potential here for multiple unit dwellings.

Would there be a need for more frequent public transportation as this area is developed? Be sure and leave some green space, and perhaps a walking trail the length of Garden Road? Seems there might also be potential for some small shops in the area that cater to these residents not having to get in their vehicles to get into cars and drive to get the same items.

Residents would need green open space within this area as it's enclosed by major streets and traffic would increase.

Sidewalks and crosswalks, too.

Such a lovely area. Very quiet with office space and trees and lovely weather in Monterey. Also easy access in and out. Outstanding location for housing.

There is so much open land on Olmstead if leaving the airport and going across Highway 68 until you get to the homes that the city or county built years ago as low income housing. Why can't you build on all that open land near where you built the other housing? It seems like the city is trying to cram housing into the smallest lots possible rather than taking over the HUGE empty lots.

Would you live next to the airport?
Yuck, who thinks this is a good idea? Can you imagine the noise trying to live here? Between the airport and the highway, residents won’t be able to sleep. I’m concerned about the impact to the heavy rush hour traffic with this idea
If consideration for this area, any residential dwellings would need to be well sound-proofed for the noises emitted by the airport. Sidewalks and pedestrian safety should also be considered, and limits on commercial parking as to allow for a neighborhood feel for those who would live there. I also think there should be research into noise from the airport, and alter take-off and landing scenarios similar to rules in place in Orange County where the John Wayne airport is close to a residential neighborhood. I also think this could be a good area for mixed use and livework lofts for smaller business owners who can't afford storefront rent in addition to housing costs.

Seems like Garden Rd. Has room for housing units.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3264, Packet Page 3592 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-104 Community Survey Report
Absolutely increase housing density in this under-used area.

This would be a great place for some condos, townhomes, apartment buildings. Need to include plaza/parks areas for socializing as it is far from town. Bike paths...?
Develop housing to complement light industrial and office buildings. Expand public transportation to better serve the residential development. Commercial retail or mixed use is probably not a priority..

Assuming the traffic and water issues can be addressed, this area seems like it could provide significant housing development opportunities. Would the City of Monterey consider annexing some of the Monterey County land east of the airport along Highway 68?
I never like the idea of putting low income housing in a flight path so I'm a bit reluctant with my yes. However MRY is a lightly trafficked airport. Seems like a couple of ice communities/neighborhoods (one on either side of 68) could be supported. I don't typically travel 68 at busier times but suspect traffic would be an issue. A few more stoplights would be needed. I think messaging from the city is critical. Adding the required number of units will impose a negative congestion externality on all residents. This burden should be shared across all areas of the city.

The NIMBY mentality should be addressed/rejected by the Mayor and City Council members early in the communication process!
I'd be concerned about noise for residents.

Do not support housing in environmental hazard areas, like the high liquefaction zone indicated in this area.

In general, I do not support developing open space areas like the stretch indicated here along Garden road as a top tier zone. Much of why I and others came here is to have less density of people and if we plan smartly to keep the non-developed areas pristine and free of pavement, structures and people--the more we will keep what makes Monterey desirable and not become another "bay area" city. In just a few short years of living here, I see that we are already headed on that trajectory.

The other thing to keep in the forefront of planning is that Hwy 68 is already miserable to travel both directions at all times of the day/night. Even if it were widened and/or roundabouts eventually were put in, it is currently already so lacking in accommodating current traffic flow that I can't imagine what it would be like adding potentially thousands of livable units in this area.

SUGGESTION of something to implement if it's not already in place: Other states I have lived in had a common, mandatory practice whereby the DEVELOPER MUST plan and pay for infrastructure (roads, bridges, sidewalks, etc) to accommodate vehicle/foot/other traffic increase and needs a result of the project/development. They had to have the infrastructure built and in place AHEAD of the development, so no project would be built or move forward until the roads, etc were in place ahead of development!! This is a good area for additional housing but please do not allow multi-family units adjacent to existing lowdensity single-family residential.

This should remain as a business and industrial development area. You have already added too many housing structures and now we need business to support them.

Garden Road is wedged between the freeway and the airport. There are safety and noise concerns with those uses.

Garden Road seems more suitable for industrial uses than any other in the City of Monterey and Monterey needs some area of the City that will be income and tax generating to supply jobs for people and revenue for services. I do not support housing here as residential is not compatible with industrial activity and airports and freeways are not desirable residential neighbors but they are good industrial neighbors.

This area is/was prime commercial office space and it's disappointing to see businesses move away. I would prefer that this area continue to be used primarily for commercial offices/light industrial.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3265, Packet Page 3593 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-105
Health risk & subsequent law suits to the city.

Given all the business and the airport nearby it would be helpful to include some housing close by for some of the staff to live in.

More housing here with a direct bus line to/from airport to downtown through this area would be great.

Move fairgrounds and airport to Marina (old Fort Ord airport for the military) and build a community of mixed houses with activities for families. First availability of these houses should be for medical staff.

Traffic should be a major consideration. Hwy 68 is a main commuter corridor between Salinas and Monterey Peninsula. Traffic at the airport already gets backed up every M-F morning and evening.

I can see using the old office parks and gyms along Garden Road for new apartment buildings as long as there is available parking included. I don’t think more building along HWY 68 makes sense given the already bad traffic congestion. Another residential area would only make it worse.

This is a heavy commercial area that should not have residential mixed in. You are only going to get angry neighbors when the landscaping trucks leave at 6:30am. This area desperately needs sidewalks though! Good location for housing and mixed uses, except for airport. City should retain some commercial-business park sites
I don't think this should be the primary focus area for housing. garden road hwy 68 is our green space, leave it alone, garden road is fine as is and offers a change from urban density, also part of a watershed along hwy 68 and jacks peak more businesses
Mixing housing in with existing commercial uses would work in this area.

Is there an opportunity to develop a "town center"? This could be an area for workers to walk to have lunch and socialize. I have seen in other places, a cluster of restaurants with a central area to eat - fast casual but very good.

I think we should be focusing on areas that already have shops/businesses and could be a nice neighborhood to live in. In my opinion, right next to the airport should be the last option.

More crosswalks and a community park
Maximize the result by building up in multiple stories here, but the question is how much more traffic can this part of the highway handle? It is ideal for people who need to hop on the highway in any direction but handling the flow could be problematic without a lot of planning. Seems like a good opportunity to include park space for residents including a specific area for a dog park.

If new homes are built in this area, they should be dog friendly and have a small, fenced yard. Finding a rental in Monterey that allows dogs and has a yard is extremely difficult.

DOES NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO ADD LOW INCOME IN A COST EFFICIENT WAY.

This area is good for development adding a few more restaurants, and the area would make a good place for parks for children. This area would be good for several bigger homes to accomadate families.

This is a nice area, people may be dissuaded from there due to the airport noise.

Tarpy Flats and the property owned by the MPUSD are prime development parcels that should be annexed to the City and developed with high density housing. Both properties have excellent access via 68 and have utilities at their doorstep
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3266, Packet Page 3594 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-106 Community Survey Report
Develop with high priority on pedestrian and bicycle access and maintaining or adding open space surrounding residential areas
I hope the city won't remove trees and green space for development. This would make such a nice residential neighborhood if the airport wasn't there. If more residences are added, consider the walking traffic and safety.

Currently Garden Road is traveled at high speed and adding residences could result in accidents when people pull out if not planned well.

With the airport and industry close by, housing could be added that is more high density. However, that would need more planting along 68 for privacy and noise abatement as well as ways to get in and out of the area. On a special note: ADUs should be encouraged whenever it is not practical to add 2-3 more units to a property lot.

Secured Parking
This area is favorable for higher density homes and will only minimally impact single family homeowners. good public transit connections would be optimal as this location is not as walkable as some other areas of the city.

I support the development of Garden Road...I'm not sure I understand what would be developed on the other side of 68. It seems like a nice green buffer before entering Montery proper. If anything is developed there, it would be nice if it were clustered in such a way so as to avoid strong visibility from 68. I think the redevelopment of Garden Road, which is currently under way, is good case study in why we should be putting more thought into the redevelopment of an entire area like that. We should have thought about open space, what the proper mix of units is, walkability, transportation, and some semblance of architectural cohesion. It just feels like what's happening on Garden road is random, disorganized and poorly designed.

Convert underutilized commercial to residential. Midrise residential over commercial.

Safe walking paths along busy roads. Dedicated gated community space for children and pets to play. Lighted pathways within community for walking.

If no one is using the offices here anymore, make them big complexes and push the abandoned RVs outside of town. The RVs have killed any property value here for offices and companies.

Never expected this area, but I can see how its an option! I think most people would hate living here, because of how loud the planes are. I lived in the Oak Grove neighborhood and had to stop conversations when planes would go over, so I cant imagine how incredibly loud and mentally draining it would be to be that close to the airport.

Honestly, that's gotta be bad for people's mental health... especially during car week.

Preserve some green/park space here for any new residential uses, to ensure the treelined character of the area isn't lost.

This area has potential for development, but not much access to town except by car. Airport noise is an issue, I have lives with it on Caasnova and in Del Rey Oaks and it is annoying, but manageable.

As I currently live near this area, I'd like to more affordable housing added here. Despite the environmental limitations of the airport zone, I believe many people/commuters into Monterey would opt to live here if apartments were developed (repurposing often half empty office buildings).

I would support housing with density, even mid rise apartment buildings off Garden Road and concentrated in that area that is already developed, but would be wary of development further down highway 68 in the open space areas close to the highway. For areas off of Garden Road, higher level buildings would not obstruct a viewshed, parking could be mitigated with build in lots, and public transportation lines can be established to services the area. I would encourage the inclusion of grocery stores and other services in the neighborhood to cut down on short trips that would cause more traffic on 68, Canyon Del Rey and other areas.

Tiers 4 or 5 would be enough. This area is already so congested, with only 1 grocery store for the whole Fremont Del Rey Oaks acre
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3267, Packet Page 3595 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-107
No housing should be built on directly on Hwy 68. There is too much traffic already and not a place for children and animals. It's a thoroughfare! If anything, 68 should be kept undeveloped and used for widening decades from now when it's needed. NO HOUSING ON 68!
Given the proximity to the airport, I would see this as commercial rather than residential space. As the airport expands, this would be prime location for a business park, which would be a source of city revenue. Example: A new air air taxi company, Joby, has started in Marina. Why not expand to this area with its airport location, and room for a business headquarters?
Big opportunity for development of single family residences on larger lots East of Olmsted and south of Hwy 68.

Keeping this open space is a waste of resources that we can no longer afford.

Ideal area to build out. Would be nice to have an entire building with only studio and 1 bedroom apartment for single professionals who WORK IN MONTEREY.

Proximity to the airport and little services make this a bedroom community, but it would work for commuters.

High-density housing would work well here.

Good area for all types of housing since most construction there now is commercial….

It would seem that there would be plenty of space to accommodate parking for new developments, and since there is both space for new construction and existing structures which could be converted to housing (as is evidently already in the pipeline) it seems to me an area that would withstand a substantial increase in density. It is also already a pretty environment, although airport noise makes it somewhat less attractive for housing. (On the other hand, for anyone who has ever lived in a large city, virtually anywhere in the world, the amount of noise produced by our airport is quite tolerable). The addition of some shopping, perhaps a cafe or two, increased public transportation service, and bike lanes for commuters would be important.

I believe that this area is a potentially lucrative one as far as building a mix of buildings, perhaps a la East Garrison in Salinas. However, one must remain cognizant of the fact that part of the proposed top-tier locations sits below Tehama Golf Course and other ‘pricey’ neighborhoods, which will require careful management. Garden Road is not too bad, but Highway 68 is very heavily traveled so access and egress, as well as parking and evacuation procedures are critical in this design.

In making this commute with my son going to school off of Hwy 68, I'd have to say, great space, yet the limitations of 68 are too great to support additional traffic.

No changes
Do not mix high density housing with single family home neighborhoods. This kind of development degrades the character and aesthetics of a single family home neighborhood in spite of what developers and City officials say.

Dense housing projects should only be developed on major corridors/streets.

This area is relatively isolated with minimal foot and bicycle traffic. The sidewalks would need to be updated to accommodate a higher population living on and using Garden Road. That said, I run along Garden Road frequently and I agree that it is a great untapped resource. Its relatively narrow and isolated location feels like it is best suited to mid-rise condos and townhouses. The area feels more "grown up" and "quiet" than apartment-style living in the downtown area, and I think it could be an inviting location for first-time buyers who are looking for something small (again, like a condo or townhouse or duplex/triplex) to call their own.

Same
This is not a good place for housing until 68 is expanded.

Need power and infrastructure improvements.

Security and safety services are lacking here. We need better ordinances so one can not trespass and loiter.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3268, Packet Page 3596 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-108 Community Survey Report
In general, all housing areas should have green space and landscaping. Fore example, the photos proposed in this exercise show nice examples of landscaping with the single family homes on small lots and with the duplex example. The example of the townhomes is the least acceptable. I think all property types are fine. To me the most important issue is the green space associated with any property type. That is important for quality of life while living in these areas as well as the general cosmetic appeal of this beautiful area. Underground electrical utilities should also be considered with all new development moving forward.

As a rental resident in the area I personally would only consider living in a single family home. I do not like the noise that occurs with shared walls. It is also essential to have housing for people with pets. It is financially unfeasible for most working people to buy a home here. The rental market is sparse. It is even more difficult if a dog is part of your family. I pay twice as much in rent here as I did in Florida. My rental home here is very low quality. It is old and out-dated. Yet the properties are selling for 1.6 million. I am a healthcare professional with with a great salary. I can afford $4000/month. Yet, the housing available is very poor quality. I have family in the area and that is the ONLY reason that I stay here.

It is such a beautiful area. It is a shame that housing quality is not better. I do not think our vision for the area matters very much if people cannot afford to live here.

Thank you for the thoughtful investigation into the housing opportunities in Monterey.

Special survey team allocated to chop down old trees and or trim trees to avoid trees falling on houses, cars roads or power lines. Replace old trees with planting new trees. Re- seal the roads as they are cracking.

I live directly adjacent to the area described here, and we should develop the heck out of this place. We are on a transportation corridor, and there is plenty of land available. MPUSD just had to close a school in this area due to lack of enrollment. Bring more housing! Lots along the Hwy 68 corridor are larger - incentivize ADUs here (preapproved plans, etc.). Build the Garden Rd. Project, and look for more opportunities. The land adjacent to Olmstead Rd isn’t in your development boundary - I assume it must be county land. Can Monterey annex it? I can attest to the fact that this area is minutes from downtown, as well as Seaside via the highway or Marina via General Jim Moore - it’s a GREAT location for medium density housing with parks and preserved open spaces. A direct path to Jacks Peak? BUILD IT.

Look at better utilizing this area and increasing the density of developments. Also, look at how to better utilize MPUSD school property. Can that old Foothill Elementary school campus be used for housing? Fantastic, people love hearing the sound of planes in the morning afternoon and night on their weekends Again, empty office buildings should be converted to apartments for employees parks with playgrounds. bathrooms and green space, side walks Airport traffic makes this area unhealthy and unsafe for residences. Office buildings, yes.

Single family homes on small lots or condos only on the south side of 68 with access off Olmstead. Garden Road infill with apartments and townhomes hopefully for airport or local business employees to minimize commutes.

Perfect site for more workforce housing. Easy access to all-mode travel corridors in all directions, close to many major employers, already on major public transit routes, close to major grocery stores and other resident-serving businesses. Some sites may even be suitable for development as small neighborhood parks/greenspace. what's not to like?
New residential buildings should be mixed-use with stores and restaurants incorporated into the design.

Dedicated bike lanes should be incorporated into city street planning. Utilize native plant landscaping. Install roundabout intersections rather than stop lights, and where not feasible incorporate international crosswalks where all vehicle traffic stops for pedestrians. Ensure there are adequate alternative transportation options for residents to reduce the need for personal vehicle conveyance. Increase parking capacity of the airport. Ensure there are pathways to greenspaces nearby.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3269, Packet Page 3597 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-109
I prefer utilizing infrastructure and redevelopment opportunity in the already built areas of the city as opposed to sprawling out into the undeveloped land south of Highway 68.

Re purposing the large parcels along Garden Road would provide for a fair amount of residential living space.

Commercial and office space on ground floor , residential space on the upper floor (2 story max height) Not enough transit infrastructure to support. Would only increase traffic Please build more housing! We need more housing of all types. AND WE NEED IT NOW! A mixed-use, walkable community that promotes affordable family housing with easy access to public transportation and nearby shopping, commercial and public services This is a good area for development because traffic and parking impacts would be minimal.

Good area for many types of housing. Hwy 68 traffic and lack of close by resources (grocery, restaurants, entertainment) would be a concern.

I support building housing along Garden Road, but not along Highway 68.

I realize that the current mandates require that we identify and plan for future housing, but I do not do not truly support housing in this area as the traffic is already problematic, and I think some areas should be commercial and it seems that the proximity to the airport makes this a prime area for warehouses or parking yards for heavy equipment or fleets of vehicles.

This is a lower priority location for housing in my mind. It's not walkable to anywhere but the airport and the few businesses around. It's also LOUD. Noise and exhaust from airplane traffic could cause health problems and stress on residents, especially since this is place where we don't use A/C and windows are usually open.

Light-Industrial live-work studio spaces would be cool over here. I've heard people aren't allowed to live in the garage condos off 68 right now. That's dumb. Let the car enthusiasts live in their garage workshops. This would also be a good option for people with wood-working or metal-working businesses, or musicians who want to live where their practice space is. Some people need loud housing options. So why not provide that over the loud airport?
Of all the places people could pick to live in Monterey, this is probably the last place anyone would pick.

Building housing in this neighborhood would change the character of the area a lot. It's currently a business-park type vibe with very little character. The main road (HWY 68) has a very fast speed limit for a neighborhood and depending on the design of the neighborhood, substantially more crosswalks and possible reduced speed limit would be needed to develop the area. I don't know of many single family homes in the area which would make it a great opportunity for a big apartment/condo community. A better walking path/sidewalk would need to be built connecting to Fremont Street. I think existing rush hour traffic from nearby schools is already a major concern in this and nearby neighborhoods and substantial road work would be needed to improve this problem.

Traffic mitigation will be crucial.

This area should definitely include mixed use options, as there are no food/grocery options back there. All building and development should aim to retain the most trees and also add in a public park for the new residents of this area. Greenspaces are essential to well-being.

Noise mitigation will be important. Infrastructure to allow bike commuting both to downtown and Ryan Ranch would be useful.

Commercial office, business park, light industrial.

Maintain a lot of mixed use area. 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.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3270, Packet Page 3598 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-110 Community Survey Report
Unfortunately this is one of the best parking areas for commercial trucks and live-in vehicles, so even though it would be a great area for multi-unit housing, there would have to be plenty of parking within the developments themselves
Six stories with grocery store and other commercial amenities, bike/ped path, and better transit service.

This is a beautiful area and would be good to put more homes.

All residents need to share in the pain where development might be appropriate. There is considerable fire danger, no support services and lack of transportation resources in this corridor which would make residents dependent on car travel for basic necessities like grocery stores. For limited mobility populations like seniors, it might be a good location for senior housing if the development included groceries, sundries, outdoor space for seniors to live in dignity.

Great job identifying this area for housing. This is a good opportunity to create dense housing projects - it's away from neighborhoods to avoid NIMBY opposition.
business, hotel, restaurant. Near airport
Despite the distance from the downtown area (stores, government buildings, offices), this region shows great potential for housing provided that greenspaces are created in addition to ensuring that access to transportation is easy to utilize as well.

This would be a good area to expand for building housing.The only thing that might be disruptive is aircraft noise when they take off over NPS.

This area strikes me as more commercial/industrial. Residential units in this area would be isolated.

Green belt community park/recreational area, designated pedestrian crosswalk with flashing street lights on Garden, sidewalk connecting Garden to Mark Thomas Drive, elevated pedestal/bicycle bridge from Olmstead over highway 68.

I think it should continue to be used as is. There are businesses and medical office buildings there already. I don't think residential housing would fit in very well at all. I was under the impression that there was going to be a new hotel built on the site of the old gym. Not much action there over the past few years. traffic concerns on Hwy 68 must be addressed
I don't really want any new housing in the area. People are leaving California for states that tax less and are more business friendly. If we don't let people come here illegally, then we may not need more housing in California.

Any new housing will have to be very carefully considered: the highway 68 corridor is already dangerously overcrowded leading to everyday near misses and actual collisions. Before housing is added in the Garden Road section, a very careful plan for how to handle the additional traffic must be made. At the very minimum, roundabouts should be constructed at Jocelyn Canyon, Olmstead Road, and Canyon del Rey.

This area is far enough from downtown and lighthouse to allow housing development without degrading the character of those areas. It also has room to accommodate increased traffic as long as parking is planned. This area could use more development of small community hubs with shops, restaurants, and common areas to support the new residents.

We’ll need parking for residents and space for businesses on the first floor. The city needs to work with the local business associations and come up with a streamline and business friendly process for new small businesses to open. The majority of small businesses in town feel that the city is not business friendly and make the process for opening businesses here in Monterey extremely difficult. We also need to make sure that the developments match the beauty of the area and don’t just choose the cheapest looking design. The aesthetics of the buildings need to match the area.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3271, Packet Page 3599 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-111
All housing should be encouraged here, along with commercial/mixed-use areas to reduce vehicle trips.

Encourage corner markets and small convenience shops, along with entertainment options as this is more remote from the primary downtown and New Monterey areas.

Yes and No. I think putting housing on Garden Road is much better than on HWY 68. That area already has the building plots, infrastructure, etc. for building houses. The section on HWY 68 would mean putting in so many things to make it livable, like sewers, plumbing, wiring, etc.. Plus, that section HWY 68 is already so backed up during rush hour and having more housing units right off the highway would only make it more so. Also there will be a lot of pushback about taking out all of the trees and land that is currently open space. The land always, always floods during rains as it is down a hill. It is very pretty as open space right now instead of a bunch of houses.

Also there aren't very many amenities in the area. Anyone that lives there will have to have a car in order to get to any of the stores that are in Monterey or Seaside. I believe there are bus routes but none that are very frequent. It makes more sense to put the housing units somewhere that is closer to the things needed. Stores, schools, work, etc.

Not the most desirable with airport noise during the early morning or day. But could handle increases traffic & land available.

Highway 68 widened to 4 lanes from York south. Traffic circle Olmsted. Garden Road widened.

The majority of units in the city could be on Garden Road. Continue to develop the abandoned and overgrown properties.

This area would make the most sense to build. I suggest the type of housing that allows for more people would be the best, especially low-moderate income housing. Parking always should be taken into consideration.

Transitional area for high-volume tourists. Incentivize public transport with workplaces.

Garden Road - Ugh. Isn't that where the rundown motor homes sit? Improve walkability & encourage businesses to move to this area. It's underutilized & lacks an identity but it's a fabulous area with great parking! This seems like a great spot for housing. The office spaces that are here currently seem to be mostly vacant and those spaces could be much better utilized for housing. It's a beautiful part of our peninsula that seems to be underutilized.

Since this area is close to the airport, I would think that lower rise buildings will be mandated. Road access to this area is good though just as Ryan Ranch and former Ft. Ord.

Only place housing on Garden Road. Do not build along Highway 68.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3272, Packet Page 3600 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-112 Community Survey Report

RYAN RANCH AREA
Ryan Ranch 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?...” Ryan Ranch is the sort of development that requires people to drive which is not part of a low carbon/climatefriendly future. Hwy 68 is too busy to realistically safely be used for bike commuters. Adding housing in Ryan Ranch likely just adds to the traffic problem. The only possible option in my my mind is housing directly tied with workers at existing commercial properties within Ryan Ranch which would allow for walking or bike transit to within Ryan Ranch. Even so such residents would be driving for groceries, getting kids to school, etc.

Workforce housing for Ryan Ranch tenants.

I just want to have the ability to own property near where I work one day. I worked really hard as a Marine and in graduate school after that, and am now an extremely rare case having been hired back to be a Korean language assistant professor at DLI as a civilian after being a DLI student myself around 10 years ago. And yet I have no hope of ever owning property in the area with a pay of about $83,000 a year. DLI Faculty are highly skilled, highly educated, extremely hard working professionals who do critically important work for this country and yet we by and large have to rent simply due to the location of the Presidio. And property managers can gouge as much rent as they want because they can rely on the federal government to increase our locality pay just enough to keep pace. pickleball courts 8-10 for the community...mainly medical and commercial Sidewalks would be important
Need to develop shops and services on Ryan ranch to support new residents there.

This development should remain as is -- totally commercial. Mixed use is not appropriate -- no city services are nearby, or too far away!
High density housing
I think there is a lot of potential here. It doesn't have a lot of walkability, and it is important to consider how the increased traffic would affect access to the large number of medical facilities in Ryan Ranch.

This could be a good area for more high density housing. The Ryan Ranch area is dominated by office buildings.

Cookie-cutter high density housing developments in this area wouldn't change the character of the area much.

Rental costs need to be controlled for people who are not wealthy. Instead of capping the total amount … cap rent based on the amount per square foot, something like $2-3/square foot of living space. A basic one bedroom - like 9 x 10 ft, full kitchen + a ¾ bath unit but with a full bedroom smaller, start docking the costs? The basic bathroom would be ¾ shower, toilet NOT in the shower, sink. Kitchen = full size oven/stove, full size fridge, sink. If the unit has 2 stove top burners instead of a full oven + stove or a tiny refrigerator, decrease the price based on the missing amenities.

Something like a dishwasher could be a luxury charge like $5 extra per month for basic kitchen. Granite counter tops? Bathtub? Small amounts like $5 per “luxury” item that make the unit more than just the basic one bedroom one bath.

Additionally, rent increases should be based on actual improvements in a property, not just because a landlord can increase rent. Landlord remodels a kitchen, cool then CA’s 10% increase can be applied to the property – but with a cap of so many years.

As someone who has lived in the same unit for 8 years, my landlady suddenly started increasing rent by the full California determined 10% - BUT this unit has NOT HAD ANY improvements. My income does not increase 10% a year so balancing the cost of living because of this is stressful. Not to mention frustrating because nothing has been improved.

This area already has larger buildings and would be ideal for mid-rise buildings and bigger/taller housing.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3273, Packet Page 3601 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-113
Ryan Ranch 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 area already has larger buildings and would be ideal for mid-rise buildings and bigger/taller housing.

I would love to see single family homes, with town homes, ADUs and duplexes in the mix, with some community spaces like a community rec center or a park. It is such a beautiful area that is centrally located and could be a wonderful option for young families wanting to be in the area and not looking to be in a higher density downtown area.

Affordable housing. Bike lanes and regular buses for commuting to salinas.

This area should be maintained as is, Monterey needs an area where new business/industry which can create jobs can locate. This is the place.

See previous commenst
This area already looks so elitist…it’s beautiful but nothing looks affordable. Maybe some areas could be dedicated to lower income and another for medium income. It seems medium income families like mine are stuck in between with either no affordable rentals and don’t qualify for lower cost housing. This needs to be addressed! There seems to be so much potential for land development here with some space in between but I doubt any contractors would even consider this “middle class conundrum.” Add a Restaurant for those that work in are around RR
Add businesses below to serve workers and potential new residents if mixed use is built. Need restaurants, deli's, dry cleaning, convenience store/mini mart, small format grocery store, charging stations, etc. Add amenities like Stone Creek in Del Rey Oaks but in Ryan Ranch in Monterey.

A great area for higher density housing, as long as the immediate area also has a growth in commercial services. It is a relatively connected area so can support more housing without stressing the transit infrastructure, as long as more bus routes are added.

Yes to mixed housing for CSUMB students in mind. They might be close to the shopping center on 218 and 68. A nice park for them to exercise in would be perfect!
It seems to me there is great potential for small urban parks throughout this area. This would give a lunch destination to office workers who could use a walk and a bench where they could eat a sandwich. Preserving some green space in this underdeveloped are is a high priority.

Ryan Ranch might be a great place to develop for CSUMB student housing. This would include a shopping complex for groceries, drug store and pharmacy. Also, tennis courts, pickle ball courts and a dog park maybe. Not sure about the airport noise though, so that would be a factor to consider for any housing there.

There is is so much potential within these spaces. The solution for the State's housing requirements are in this area along with Fort Ord and Garden Road. This is the perfect opportunity for the city to create a beautiful, well planned neighborhood within the beautiful nature that Ryan Ranch still provides. Multiple types of housing that appeal to different people and economic levels that are tucked away within nature and have beautiful walking paths. No need for plazas and such here. Just nature. Re-landscape with only California native trees and plants and expand mass transit if necessary. So many people live in Monterey because of it's beautiful nature here. This is the neighborhood for that. It will be appreciated by so many people. This is your answer and I hope you plan it well with a Grand master plan for the area and stick to the nature theme. You will be proud of it.

This also is the answer so you do not drop a burden onto already heavily developed, densely populated, already established neighborhoods that will not absorb the state's requirements well without compromise. Do not waste this opportunity to do this well with the 3 remaining zones that are perfect for a beautiful, creative development.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3274, Packet Page 3602 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-114 Community Survey Report
Ryan Ranch 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?...” Add parks
LIke the Garden Road area this area is also ideal for expanding and creating new neighborhoods for the City of Monterey. This will also take the burden of expansion off of the more dense areas such as in North Monterey.

Expanding mass transit and creating housing and neighborhoods within this spacious area would be a major asset for Monterey as it is difficult to find new housing in Monterey as most neighborhoods have been long established and built. I don't think you need plazas and live music. It is a beautiful area located in the heart of beautiful quiet nature. Trees and any landscaping to be added should be California native trees and plants to blend in and contribute to any that have to be removed for development. And that would also continue with the beautiful aesthetic that nature provides in this area. This could be lovely. If well thought out, the City could expand into underutilized areas for the necessary State requirements without burdening it's already full neighborhoods and create a lovely, quiet, nature inspired and very desirable new neighborhood with housing for all types of income.

Ryan Ranch is another candidate for creating a lush, walkable neighborhood full of various residential and mixeduse properties. The vast plots of underutilized parking and office spaces are an ugly waste of land.

Please utilize the vast space here for multi-story apts or condos that have restaurant/grocery/pharmacy businesses on the first floor so tenants do not have to drive to get necessities.

Higher density and many affordable units for Monterey area employees, especially low income.

Traffic could be an issue, considering development in this area would be car dependent.

I want the folks who work in the area to be able to live in the area.

Ryan Ranch should also be reserved for light industry use. Monterey sorley needs good paying jobs! Thank God we have an area with lots of land and room for development. Go for it! Business area
People who work at sites in Ryan Ranch could walk to work but public transportation is needed to counter parking and traffic issues.

Would benefit from some services such as a small grocer Given its central geographical location, we could focus on incentives to build essential worker housing and provide affordable financing.

I wouldn’t consider housing in this area which is right under the airport flight path. Just asking for problems. I work there and definitely could not live peacefully with that level of noise This is an area for businesses.

This has strong potential for mid-rise apartments and townhomes and a mix of housing and retail. Additionally, green space such as trails or parks should be included.

I support housing here simply because it's so desperately needed in Monterey, but it's far from the city center where I want to be. I do not desire to live here, between the medical centers and airport with heavily trafficked 68.

If more housing is built, please create a recreation path for walkers/cyclists to connect to downtown. We need 68 to be less trafficky for everyone's wellbeing.

Add more public transit for residents in Ryan Ranch & Garden Rd.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3275, Packet Page 3603 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-115
Ryan Ranch 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?...” Putting homes near medical buildings makes sense as long as there are also other amenities- small market, coffee shop etc
Open green space would be needed for residents.

I was not aware of the soil issue, but this seems like a great area for development. The Ryan Ranch architecture for the medical offices, etc. all seem to be about 2-3 stories and many in fact look like apartments or condos from the outside. Housing embedded in the area could be seamless.

Improve all aspects of Active Transportation infrastructure, creating more protected and connected bike lane networks.

More housing right on Highway 68 - much rather new housing was built behind Ryan Ranch.

Mixed use properties with commercial on the first level and residential above would be helpful in this area. Ryan Ranch would benefit from more restaurants that people could enjoy before, between, and after doctor's appointments.

I think this is the up and coming area of Monterey. Beautiful, sunny, and close to everything, it’s a great option! I would even love to see homes with garages. Just no HOAs, please! They cost extra and make it hard to afford long term for working class teachers like me and my husband.

Any new housing in the area will improve it, whatever can be built should include plans for small restaurants, coffee shops parks, anything to make if more welcoming to homeowners.

Continue to develop larger medical facilities to allow independent doctors and dentists to move out of downtown converted older homes and into rental spaces at Ryan Ranch.

Ryan Ranch seems like an ideal location for developing considerable public-private partnerships for workforce housing!
Lots of space for a community with a more residential feel. Also has some road alternatives to 68. Build a small bedroom community with duplex and small single family. Maybe a few low rise apartment/ onto units as well. I'm thinking a mini version of something like Irvine, CA.

I think this is a good spot for new housing, but would need to have excellent public transit service and some retail amenities in the area to reduce the need for residents to drive everywhere.

Do not support developing open space, vacant land. Also do not support building near or in hazard areas (in this case high liquefaction zone).

ALL development going forward (homes/business/other) should be subject to a mandatory practice whereby the DEVELOPER of a project MUST plan and pay for infrastructure (roads, bridges, sidewalks, etc) to accommodate vehicle/foot/other traffic increase and needs a result of the project/development --- AND have the infrastructure built and in place AHEAD of the development, so no project can commence until the roads, etc., are in place ahead of development!!
Additionally, especially in areas near the rarity of open spaces in a city, such as this area near Ford Ord and Ryan Ranch, I STRONGLY feel if any development occurs, in addition to the infrastructure mandate suggested above, I believe open area parks/community gathering places/skate parks/playgrounds, etc should be incorporated into the design of whatever is developed in this area.

This is one of the best places to add housing, since it is commercially-zoned with ample parking.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3276, Packet Page 3604 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-116 Community Survey Report
Ryan Ranch 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?...” Perfect area to develop mixed usage and types of housing. Already have a good amount of business, but now they need housing.

Look at multiple story apts, this area has water rights Monterey needs industrial and research areas of the City to diversify revenue to maintain services. Ryan Ranch has been identified as an area with such potential. If we do wind up zoning that area for housing though, please designate Garden road as industrial without a residential overlay.

If large new buildings are necessary, Ryan Ranch would be the best location.

Health risk
2nd priority
Second priority
There are so many health professionals that work in this area that commute from Salinas - like nurses, admin assistants, etc, if you create closer affordable housing they might be attracted to moving closer to work.

I don't have as many specifics about this area, but it seems like it would be good to have a small circulator bus to connect with 68 often.

As someone who works in this area, we need more food options. Some of our employees only have 30 minute lunches, which means they do not have time to travel to get lunch. The small shopping center on Canyon Del Ray and HWY 68 does not have enough parking, or commercial food businesses to support any growth in the Ryan Ranch area. I think we should also be selective on which business can enter Monterey county to ensure it would be beneficial to our community.

A limited number of town homes or apartments here could be possible. I do not support adding over 3,000 new housing units to Monterey given our traffic, parking and water limitations.

HEAVY commercial area with building/changes happening every day. This is not a place for any residential build.

You do need to change the CC&R's so that more food service/restaurants can be built for the employees working in Ryan Ranch. The family that owns Monarch Village will not open or sell to anyone so that there is food service available out there.

Maintain open space with future developemnt
Housing here should be planned to create a cozy community of units among trees, grasses, open spaces, parks, walking and bike paths, plazas and community gathering spots. Don't just create density from open space.

Balance the open with some housing, but Balance is key for happy humans.

I don't think this is a suitable area for housing.

The airplane noise is terrible in this area.
leave creek area alone
Keep offices due to airport flight route--- more parking and better planned lots. I find myself going in circles trying to find a way out of the parking
more businesses
It would be good to mix housing in with the existing land uses in Ryan Ranch.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3277, Packet Page 3605 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-117
Ryan Ranch 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?...” If we develop housing in this location, it would also be nice to have some small shops/corner stores/things that make living in a neighborhood convenient.

Less appealing to me just because it is far from much other than office space, but for those who work there I guess it would make more sense, or those who just want to be further away from the center of things. Perfect spot for lots of planned parks and playgrounds.

If new homes are built in this area, they should be dog friendly and have a small, fenced yard. Finding a rental in Monterey that allows dogs and has a yard is extremely difficult.

I AM AGAINST A CONCENTRATION OF LOW INCOME HOUSING IN OUR CITY AND PROPOSE

INTEGRATION OF LOW INCOME INTO EXISTING BUSINESS AND/OR RESIDENTIAL AREAS NOT EXCEEDING A 20 PERCENT TRESHOLD.

I think this area can stay more business, the area does nedd more restaurants and places for the people taht work there. maybe nice restaurants for dinner aswell
Ryan Ranch is a business area, with medical facilities. I do not think this is an appropriate place to build housing.

It will further increase traffic on the 68 corridor.

For now Ryan Ranch is a semi industrial/ office area. This use seems to fit the area at this time.

Like to have a mix of housing and retail adjacent to Ryan ranch with an emphasis on easy pedestrian access and bicycle routes
This is office park area. I would hate to see more impact on the oak trees and local flora and fauna than has already been done. This doesn't seem like a good place for residential. No restaurants, no services, no community.

Putting housing about and/or integrated into business/commercial areas is my favorite way to add housing AND get rid of cars. Can easily add more green space and shops.

I would love to see underground parking options to free up space on the streets. Also, more retail spaces and open spaces to gather and socialize.

Mix of residential and shopping with public gathering places with adequate parking. Xeriscaped to save water.

Secured Parking
Why would anybody want to live in an ugly office park?
Prime location for in-fill housing development. Will need to add support (i.e. shopping, etc.) infrastructure to reduce traffic impacts.

Traffic is gonna start to suck out here.

This would be a great place to put housing particularly for people who work at Ryan Ranch.

Caveats:

1. There needs to be services here

2. There needs to be good public transportation and/or bike paths to move people around and get them to town

3. It's a great place for mixed housing -- can serve the medical community as well as the teachers, police etc. of Monterey

4. Parking and walking paths need to be put through the housing..

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3278, Packet Page 3606 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-118 Community Survey Report
Ryan Ranch 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?...” Gated communities with amenities on site such as laundry, gym, pool and parks for children and pets to play.

Lighted pathways for walking. Small market or gas station.

This area is a business park and should NOT have residential dwelling units. Traffic is already a huge problem on Wilson Road to York Rd to Highway 68
Ryan Ranch should be the business hub of town but there are so many complexes that have sat empty for decades.

If businesses aren't taking them, convert them to small plots or complexes that allow people to get on to 68 and wherever they need to go.

I love Ryan Ranch, this is a great location for so many different types of people too! Especially for people who prefer to feel more "outdoors" rather than in town, since they are closer to larger parks like Garland Ranch. I imagine this is also a great place if you have a dog (which is hugely important in this area!) A community park of some kind, and some nice nature trails would be really nice here.

PARKING NEEDS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE. The city makes WAY TOO MUCH money off of residents getting tickets while at work or at home, or the parking garages. Its just ridiculous and greedy.

If new housing is to be built, we'll need strategies to manage parking in the neighborhood." However the design, be sure to preserve parks and open space character of this oak-wooded area for any residential and community uses.

I'd like to see a grocery store built in this area. It would be supported by Ryan Ranch residents as well as residents of Del Rey Oaks and residents living near Hwy 68.

To me, this area is not living up to its industrial / commercial potential and in some ways its sort of isolated location is an opportunity to develop new planned communities here. Because it is not a very walkable area, I would opt to create some housing for a demographic that is middle-income and uses cars, drawing away some of these residents out of the central Monterey area where cars are not necessary to get around. I especially think that there could be redevelopment of office buildings as fourplexes or townhomes to meet key housing needs considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on remote work / joint or co-working spaces.

I understand why housing in Ryan Ranch is logical in some ways- it is already highly developed and would not involve the removal of open space. Commercial development there and some infrastructure exists, yet more would need to be added to service new residential neighborhoods. In other words, it does not make sense to add housing without grocery stores and other essential services so that you don't have thousands more cars spilling onto highway 68 at all times of the day. That road is already woefully crowded. If Ryan Ranch is targeted for housing, it should be done as villages, with parks, and trails that connect neighborhoods.

A mix of homes and business to serve the residents would work well to support the businesses out there. Retail stores to serve the residence would be required.

Lots of space at RR. Wave your magic wand and just do it.

Another great location for dense housing supporting short commutes to businesses.

With the end of the airport runway so close, I feel this should be the lowest priority, complaints will follow purchases…..

See my observations about the Garden Rd. area--the same comments apply to this area, although since there is even more space, I would advocate lower density new construction (low rise apartments and condominiums), in addition to any possible conversion of existing structures which would presumably be higher density. Given the increasing number of people being employed by the expanding Montage empire, perhaps they could be enticed to Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3279, Packet Page 3607 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-119
Ryan Ranch 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?...” use some of their resources to contribute to the development of new housing at a cost level which the vast majority of their employees could actually afford. Lack of affordable housing I know is a major problem for their staff, and makes recruiting and keeping staff at Montage increasingly difficult at all levels except for the very highest.

This is a highly-commercial area, with many doctors’ offices, as well as a CHOMP annex. It appears to have as boundaries both Canyon Del Rey and Highway 68, both of which are heavily traveled. Many of the doctors’ offices are privately-owned, akin to condos. Hence, I would expect pushback from this group.

This seems like a reasonable option for space, yet there is no real neighborhood experience. Perhaps housing for Ohana staffing?
Do not mix high density housing with single family home - low density - neighborhoods. This kind of development degrades the character and aesthetics of a single family home neighborhood in spite of what developers and City officials say. High density housing projects should only be developed on major corridors/streets.

I embrace this out-of-the-box idea. It's an interesting idea and it could easily work (especially for people who have to commute). I wonder how well mixed-use construction would work here... perhaps lunch spots and/or cafes that cater to the business crowd would be a successful pairing with 2nd and 3rd floor residential units. With the advent of work-from-home, there might be a lot of opportunity for existing property owners to keep their business tenants on the ground floor and convert upper levels to residential space. Given that Ryan Ranch is remarkably isolated for people without a car, housing here should cater to a quiet, home-body demographic.

Same
Special survey team allocated to chop down old trees and or trim trees to avoid trees falling on houses, cars roads or power lines. Replace old trees with planting new trees. Re- seal the roads as they are cracking. Have special allocations for excess cars owned by homeowners instead of parking on roads which is not a good site to see.

Sure do whatever you want here. Tehema will love it
parks with playgrounds, bathrooms, green space
A main concern of added density in Ryan Ranch is Hwy 68 traffic. But except for airport noise, it’s a good opportunity for housing.

I would want to see speed controls with added residences. Already, cars drive too fast. Speed calming, speed bumps/humps would be needed; current buildings include many medical offices, and drivers need consideration.

Night-time lighting would be needed. Consider a stoplight at the intersection of Upper and Lower Ragsdale near the FedEx complex.

Housing would be best as rentals or condos for medical professionals or others working in the Ryan Ranch area.

This would decrease traffic on Highway 68 and other arteries. I often see Ryan Ranch employees walking in the area on their lunch breaks. They might also enjoy walking to work. Ask CHOMP and Montage and the other businesses there what they need.

I was previously employed at Ryan Ranch, and still need to travel there at least once per week.

Current office park generates thousands of completely unnecessary vehicle trips everyday, because there are NO basic services for the thousands of people who work there -- no restaurants, no mini-mart/take-out food service, no dry cleaner, no ATM, etc etc. And to make it worse, there isn't even a walk/bike path to the commercial development at the Canyon Del Rey intersection! So every lunch hour, everyone has to get in their car......

If you really can't add housing because of the airport safety, at least solve these glaring planning mistakes! If there Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3280, Packet Page 3608 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-120 Community Survey Report
Ryan Ranch 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?...” were rental housing available in the area, a lot of employees would gladly give up their commutes, and maybe some services/retail would follow. If there can't be housing, put in a walk/bike path and a shuttle service (for the mobility limited). I'm sure the city of Del Rey Oaks would love the extra sales tax revenue that Monterey doesn't seem to be interested in.

New residential buildings should be mixed-use with stores and restaurants incorporated into the design.

Dedicated bike lanes should be incorporated into city street planning. Utilize native plant landscaping. Install roundabout intersections rather than stop lights, and where not feasible incorporate international crosswalks where all vehicle traffic stops for pedestrians. Ensure there are adequate alternative transportation options for residents to reduce the need for personal vehicle conveyance. IEnsure there are pathways to greenspaces nearby.

I think the area along Boundary road would provide for single family homes with optional ADU's. not enough public transit to support housing this far from city center.

Please allow for the building of more housing! We are in desperate need of more housing.

This area would be the perfect spot to provide workforce housing for those employed in the region, with accessible shopping and commercial spaces linked with pedestrian and biking pathways and convenient public transportation to other regions of the county.

This is an excellent area for additional housing. It would be good to also add a small market, gas station, restaurant, and other amenities for residents.

Seems like the perfect place for low density housing given the vibe of the area. Not many resources available without getting in a car.

I support housing on land that has already been developed and is under-utilized, but I don't support building properties that have not been developed. I also do not support any additional housing along the 68 corridor.

Noise and liquification risks are very concerning. Addressing those risks will increase housing construction costs.

Requiring only a small percentage of housing units in these high-risk zones to be affordable units may facilitate housing development without major corner cutting to keep costs down.

Multi-family and mixed-use housing would be most compatible with the official park type developments there now. The city will need to consider providing public park space, or requiring housing developments to incorporate outdoor spaces since there are no parks in this area. Improvements in sidewalks and bike lanes could encourage people who work in Ryan Ranch to live in the new developments. But serious considerations for transit connections and increased car traffic will need to be addressed before a lot of housing units are added.

This is another opportunity to live-work spaces, but no artists or craftsman would knowingly sign up to live in a liquefaction zone where their work could easily be destroyed in even a minor earthquake. I'd only recommend live-work studios on better soils.

In general I'm pro-high density housing but this neighborhood might be fine with single family homes, since it's already somewhat remote and has only vehicle access to businesses. I personally would not want to live in this area because it's extremely loud from the airport but I could see suburban families finding it pleasant.

Leave this area as zoned for industrial and business. Monterey needs the taxes generated here.

This is getting to be too far out of town. Any development is basically sprawl and residents will be driving everywhere.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3281, Packet Page 3609 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-121
Ryan Ranch 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?...” Having housing in this area should be designed to accommodate those that work in Ryan Ranch in order to cut down on commuting. But there will have to be other types of development such as a grocery store, hardware store or these residents will be commutating to those facilities. Can this be a self-contained community? so much space here, I understand the airport clearance but this area would be ideal is there a way to re-route airport probably not but this area seems ideal for housing Office park, light industrial. Reserve park space.

Maintain a lot of mixed use area. 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.

Six stories and grocery store, lunch/dinner options, and other commercial amenities. Better transit service.

With the workforce at Ryan Ranch, adding housing may make sense for employees as well as CSU Monterey Bay students. There would be an impact on Highway 68 which is congested many times during the day.

Ryan Ranch should remain as is but maybe add more professional offices to this area. I would like to see a new hospital build somewhere there as they would be close for all those doctors who have to travel between CHOMP & SVMH. If any housing were to be built in this area then I would suggest it be for visiting doctors. nurses, etc... for a reasonable amount. Maybe build a Ronald McDonald House in this area when we have a team of doctors who are the best and they draw patients to this area. What is stopping us from being the next Stanford? We do not need all of these office mega developments. CHOMP has enough property, too. Build dense multifamily housing. This area is close to major arteries and highways. business park
business park, so buildings that support business
Build lots of housing here. So much unused space and it's a great area for those commuting w easy access to 68 and hwy 1.

This area is for business/commercial/industrial. Air traffic noise would be a big concern. Anyone living in this area would be isolated from the rest of the residential community. additional traffic on hwy 68 must be addressed
This area should continue to be used as it is now. There is already construction of additional office parks, etc., going on in Ryan Ranch that will further impact the traffic on 68. Additional traffic in this area will only add to the nightmare that is Highway 68 in the mornings and evenings. I am concerned for the safety of the young drivers at York School who have to negotiate this traffic every day. Already, 68 needs roundabouts desperately, and that's without additional traffic from construction of residential buildings. Let's work on adding roundabouts at Jocelyn Canyon, Olmstead Rd., Canyon del Rey, San Benancio, and Los Laureles Grade.

This area is far enough from downtown and lighthouse to allow housing development without degrading the character of those areas. It also has room to accommodate increased traffic as long as parking is planned. This area could use more development of small community hubs with shops, restaurants, and common areas to support the new residents.

We’ll need parking for residents. We also need to make sure that the developments match the beauty of the area and don’t just choose the cheapest looking design. The aesthetics of the buildings need to match the area.

All housing should be encouraged here, in addition to multi-use buildings with commercial components, maintained open space areas, convenience stores, and corner markets with food options.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3282, Packet Page 3610 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-122 Community Survey Report
Ryan Ranch 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?...” Has become a medical area with Montague buildings & other commercial, but could have residential housing.

Would need a market?
A town house and small single-family home planned neighborhood as seen on Reservation Road in Marina.

Including parks, restaurants, food stores, gas station, transit center etc.

Continue to concentrate light industrial and medical business in the area. Provide low impact owned and rental housing for workers in that area. Improve bus transportation circulating in the area to connect to regional transportation hubs locally.

This area can support more traffic. CITY PLANNING - develop a 30-year plan that includes real neighborhoods with parks, shopping, schools, & other infrastructure to keep people local. Don't overdo it, though. Keep the green space & moderate for fire / drought risk.

Because of the avigation easement issue, I think that lower rise residential development in this area is appropriate.

Ryan Ranch as well as the adjacent Ft. Ord lands are more viable than other areas of the City because of access to and from the Peninsula. Both of these areas should have closer shopping especially for food. Safeway in DRO is the closest and requires getting in a car. If this area and Ft. Ord held a critical mass of residents, then shopping would be more viable.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3283, Packet Page 3611 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-123

FORT ORD AREA
Fort Ord 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 is open space that provides connectivity and additional habitat for animal and plant species, some of which are regionally rare. There is not great access to shops or work. I would put this area last for development and instead focus on greater density in developed areas of Monterey.

Build it so there’s a neighborhood center with some shops w/housing above and gathering places. Incorporate walking paths and parks. Don’t do traditional subdivisions where people drive into garages and don’t know their neighbors. Walking paths, parks. Make it dense, build up.

This would be a great opportunity to expand the Monterey community if well though out and done with intentionality. Transportation will have to be part of the planning (i.e., bike paths, MST route).

I just want to have the ability to own property near where I work one day. I worked really hard as a Marine and in graduate school after that, and am now an extremely rare case having been hired back to be a Korean language assistant professor at DLI as a civilian after being a DLI student myself around 10 years ago. And yet I have no hope of ever owning property in the area with a pay of about $83,000 a year. DLI Faculty are highly skilled, highly educated, extremely hard working professionals who do critically important work for this country and yet we by and large have to rent simply due to the location of the Presidio. And property managers can gouge as much rent as they want because they can rely on the federal government to increase our locality pay just enough to keep pace. single family homes with rec trails connecting with other community rec trails...community centers...plaza for community with community center with senior center to mix with early childhood center...pickleball courts...ball fields
Anything could work but sidewalk’s should be included.

Fort Ord is a gold mine of usable space. It’s entangled in a typical post military base use plan no doubt. This area could support a lot of residences and multi use. And it begs for improved public transportation. How about a light rail train?
This area needs to be considered with Ryan Ranch and Garden Road -- the area is in close proximity and currently lacks totally and city services and transportation connections! Needs public transit, plazas, basic amenities
Keep as open space since recreation and habitat protection are crucial in our area. The housing crisis is best addressed by in-fill, re-development, or reuse of areas that are already vacant or could be updated. Additionally, there are numerous protected plant and wildlife species that occupy this area or depend on it for breeding/foraging. Yes, a large chunk of interior Fort Ord is protected, but maintaining this border area as natural open space serves as an important buffer between the protected interior and developed perimeter.

If some level of development is on the horizon for this area, please make it a park or trail system that mutually benefits the community and sensitive natural resources. Plus it connects to Fort Ord National Monument, preserving the natural protection and landscape features. That approach follows precedent with our community's values.

I think this area would give a lot of people an opportunity to get more space (hopefully for less money).

Road system in/out of that zone will need to be improved/made safe for additional people living/commuting in that area. General Jim Moore and surrounding roads have become a freeway during commute hours and is already shows signs of overutilization.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3284, Packet Page 3612 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-124 Community Survey Report
Fort Ord 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?...” It's right next to Ryan Ranch, which is dominated by office buildings. This could be a good area for higher density housing. With the access to water credits, this area would be good for getting new housing developed quickly.

Good housing potential; accessible to bike routes and transit. Feels more like a residential neighborhood than a mixed use area.

Housing and shopping/grocery stores should be available along with improve infrastructure- traffic flow wtc Rental costs need to be controlled for people who are not wealthy. Instead of capping the total amount … cap rent based on the amount per square foot, something like $2-3/square foot of living space. A basic one bedroom - like 9 x 10 ft, full kitchen + a ¾ bath unit but with a full bedroom smaller, start docking the costs? The basic bathroom would be ¾ shower, toilet NOT in the shower, sink. Kitchen = full size oven/stove, full size fridge, sink. If the unit has 2 stove top burners instead of a full oven + stove or a tiny refrigerator, decrease the price based on the missing amenities.

Something like a dishwasher could be a luxury charge like $5 extra per month for basic kitchen. Granite counter tops? Bathtub? Small amounts like $5 per “luxury” item that make the unit more than just the basic one bedroom one bath.

Additionally, rent increases should be based on actual improvements in a property, not just because a landlord can increase rent. Landlord remodels a kitchen, cool then CA’s 10% increase can be applied to the property – but with a cap of so many years.

As someone who has lived in the same unit for 8 years, my landlady suddenly started increasing rent by the full California determined 10% - BUT this unit has NOT HAD ANY improvements. My income does not increase 10% a year so balancing the cost of living because of this is stressful. Not to mention frustrating because nothing has been improved.

I envision a well planned community that works with local environmental planning groups to ensure the oak land habitat is preserved where possible and environmental impacts are mitigated. I would love to see the housing grouped in spaces, surrounded by the open space. I think this could make the area very desirable as well.

Bike lanes and more buses for commuting to and from salinas. Road improvements to ease congestion Monterey needs areas where new job generators can locate. This area is too remote for housing without supporting services nearby.

This would seem to be natural for new residential areas. Airport noise, Laguna Seca traffic, public transportation, and access to stores need to be taken into consideration.

This area has so much potential for cute neighborhoods with smaller family homes and tiny homes! There is also space for apartment buildings which may tackle this “middle class” problem. What is important is affordability and not having only
military families be able to rent/buy in the area since there seems to be somewhat of a tendency to give them priority. The rest of us that don’t want to leave Monterey, but are going to be forced to leave, need a place too. As the only autism evaluator that is bicultural in this area, I can say with confidence we need to keep our professionals who aren’t rich in the area!! Affordability seems more a possibility in this area.

This area should be kept as is with respect to the nature already there.

Keep Fort Ord as open space. Add trails and parks. Concentrate growth on redevelopment, infill, or increased higher density to existing developed areas.

I would want to keep this area as nature only
Student housing.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3285, Packet Page 3613 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-125
Fort Ord 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?...” I prefer to keep Ft ord wild!!
An absolute yes for this area! This is the one! Of all of the areas in this survey you save the best for last!!! There is no need to even begin to burden the previously listed areas that are already developed. Adding a burden of more housing to those areas is borderline absurd when this could be the most beautiful new development of stunning homes surrounded by nature. This one along with Garden Road and Ryan Ranch are your solutions to the State's requirements for additional housing.

Imagine a brand new neighborhood with a variety of types of housing tucked into nature with beautiful walking paths and parks. Imagine continuing with only California native plants and trees to keep the beautiful nature going. This could be the BEST place to live in Monterey. Create a beautiful master plan with nature in mind and create multiple types of housing for various economic levels and expand mass transit to the outskirts of this beautiful neighborhood oasis of quiet and beautiful Monterey nature. THIS is why many people live here. Give this to them!!!!
This is untapped potential. People would love this and your requirements are met. Please try to see the big picture of this and not willy nilly add ridiculous burdens to the already full area. THIS if the future. People want nature.

People want new. People want quiet. People want low density. THIS IS YOUR SOLUTION. PLEASE.

Include parks/ recreation areas
Like the Garden Road and Ryan Ranch areas - this area is suitable for the expansion of housing that the State is requiring of the City. By developing into these areas you will be taking this burden off of the more densely populated areas that really cannot withstand more housing such as the neighborhoods in the North Fremont area.

This area, if well thought out, could sustain multiple types of housing with an expansion of mass transit. It also is quiet and beautiful with nature so take advantage of that and create a complimentary aesthetic in the designs and layouts. Keep it quiet and special - no need for a plaza etc. Not everything has to be city oriented. Many people live and move here because they love and crave nature and all it's beauty Let's create something beautiful that all could enjoy. Landscaping should be mandatory of California Native plants and trees to not only blend in with the nature that is there but to also mitigate any loss of like vegetation in the development process. This also could be a lovely, highly desirable neighborhood with a variety of housing and values in the homes to accommodate a variety of incomes.

Use this space to create a beautiful, walkable neighborhood full of residential, mixed-use, and park spaces.

Please expand all types of housing and open all avenues of commute.

This feels like the natural place to expand. But water is still a major concern as well as traffic issues. And limit or exclude vacation rentals. We need places for people to live!! Avoid urban sprawl, prioritize building housing in areas that are already developed I want the folks who work in the area to be able to live in the area.

Need to maintain this unique ecosystem of wildflowers and birds Any new housing in this area needs to also include green areas and walking paths for the residents to enjoy Fort Ord is a large area that can support all types of new housing. But again, efforts should be made to attract light industry to this area as jobs are much needed in the Monterey area.

Keep any development from blocking ocean view. Plenty of Land here. Go for it! Maintaining park and open space designation, wetland and riparian habitat, and landscape permeability for wildlife movement From Fort Ord National Monument across the 68 Highway Corridor. This wildlife corridor is Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3286, Packet Page 3614 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-126 Community Survey Report
Fort Ord 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?...” essential for maintaining landscape connectivity and supports plant and animal dispersal and genetic exchange between populations in Fort Ord National Monument, Jacks Peak, and the Santa Lucia Range. These properties also present some challenges to be developed for housing, including unavoidable impacts to rare and sensitive habitat. Some properties in this area, or potentially required improvements on adjacent lands, are subject to a triparty agreement between Del Rey Oaks, The City of Monterey, and Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District that limits allowable uses and improvements and highlights the importance of onsite stormwater retention for any future development. This area also has very low walkability and relatively low access to supportive services that healthy communities need, likely generating relatively high increases in VMT relative to other locations.

Area to expand. Spread them out. Present building are too close. Too congested! Lots of room but transportation is needed.

If the city can create its required housing units without spoiling this undeveloped land, it should. This is a resource that should be preserved for as long as possible. Maybe mid century when the sea level starts displacing Montereyans it would be worth reconsidering
It's my understanding that there isn't enough water in this area to support housing.

As this is green space, I'm not comfortable with developing it. It should be left as is.

Ft Ord National Monument gets over a million visitors a year, many entering thru gateways with no parking or restrooms. Cities should preserve the natural areas around the monument, and provide access with amenities.

Keep wild places wild
I prefer to protect this area for recreational usage and vegetation and wild animal protection. One of the reasons people love living here is that they enjoy time outdoors in nature. If we keep developing these large natural areas, we'll live to regret it.

I supported housing in all the other areas, but have concern about this area. Maybe I do not understand the area well enough, but my first impression is to keep Ford Ord as open space. I believe we need open space corridors connecting to all the other open space corridors for animal migration. Also, I think we would be adding to the already huge traffic issues along 68.

Leave as nature preserve. Clean up the munitions pollution and restore the land as a recreational space only.

Generally supportive of this idea but this does feel a bit like “let’s stick these people way out here away from the $$$”.

This area should be mixed use with plenty of off-street parking and shopping readily available. This will increase traffic on 68 and Jim Moore so that needs to be addressed - how do we get 68 to be 4 lanes wide anyway? Let's leave as much open space as possible, and not spread more into this area.

There’s so much room at Fort Ord. Good place for low income housing.

Fort Ord needs to be a park for recreation and open space.

I think this is one of the most exciting f areas for development, but the price of recently added properties is over a million. My husband and I are teachers who work in Watsonville and Salinas. Marina would be a great place for us to live and commute. However, we can’t afford living there, and HOAs do not work for us since we own two cars, which means one wouldn’t be garaged and most HOAs use a lottery system for street parking, which means it isn’t guaranteed. Speaking of, it would be a great asset to get some type of teacher assistance program for owning Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3287, Packet Page 3615 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-127
Fort Ord 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?...” homes. I know some exist, but they do t offer enough incentives. For us, the ideal situation would be to have a property with an ADU that we could rent out.

Don't like the idea of building on un-developed land. Re-purpose the existing housing first. Not familiar with this swathe of Fort Ord but if there are water credits, then this area is ripe, and probably can support some new homes.

Substantial housing, even if the water credits are potentially available, would result in greatly increased traffic along some of the main arteries of the Peninsula. Those would need to be addressed to make project here desirable. (It sounds like this area is not in or immediately adjacent to any former Fort Ord ammunition ranges or has already been cleared, right?)
Not sure but think this area should also be developed to help spread the burden of meeting the required number of units across the entire city.

Excellent public transit will be key here and some local retail amenities if feasible. I wouldn't be in favor of higher rise structures given the lack of tree cover and flat topography more generally.

If it's not already, I believe with ALL development going forward (homes/business/other), it should be a mandatory practice whereby the DEVELOPER of a project MUST plan and pay for infrastructure (roads, bridges, sidewalks, etc) to accommodate vehicle/foot/other traffic increase and needs a result of the project/development -- - AND have the infrastructure built and in place AHEAD of the development, so no project can commence until the roads, etc., are in place ahead of development!!
Additionally, especially in areas such as this beautiful open space in Ford Ord (which I prefer be kept without structures/development if possible), I STRONGLY feel if any development occurs, in addition to the infrastructure stated above, I believe open area parks/community gathering places/skate parks/etc should be incorporated into the design of the development.

This is a great place for additional housing because it is currently open space. But, please preserve ample area as open space. Also, it would be best if there were services available for residents - ie. grocery store, gas, maybe a small restaurant.

I don't have enough information to complete this question wisely. What is the environmental impact of developing this area? I love our wild areas and would prefer to keep as many of them intact as possible. Keep open spaces open. If this is already an impacted area and the water is available, the yes to development, but a fully planned out development with infrastructure to support both the residential and business side of things. probably the best opportunity for many units.

I would prefer to see industry and research at the former fort ord property. I'm aware housing is the most cost effective construction on that site, but long term but that may not be the best use for the long term fiscal health of the City. If the Fort Ord Property does become developed for housing, please designate the Garden Road area as Industrial without a residential overlay. Monterey needs some area of the City for income and revenue generation If large new buildings are necessary, Ft. Ord would be the best place (along with Ryan Ranch).

This would be a good place for new housing developments. But it NEEDS TO HAVE HARD METALS REMOVED. It also needs to have a new plan FOR THE TRAFFIC!! First priority
First priority
Top priority
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3288, Packet Page 3616 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-128 Community Survey Report
Fort Ord 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?...” Since this is the far south side of Ft Ord, further from CSUMB and the Reservation Road housing area - this is a distinctly different zone. Like the Ryan Ranch and Airport zones, you could develop a nice community integrated into the nature of the area, with the hills and trees nearby, this could be a great place for kids.

Housing should be priority over new business.

Limited new homes could be built here. It should be limited due to the current congestion of traffic on HWY 68. I do not support adding 3,000 new houses in Monterey.

Great place to build additional housing! Would love to see community living, mix of housing and restaurants.

Support development in area as long as not visible from Highway 68 and sensitive resources are protected.

While we need additional housing, we also need open spaces. Creating higher density housing in already developed areas is a far better solution than continuing to cover open spaces with new developments. Fort Ord should be left undeveloped.

Housing in this area should be thoughtfully placed, and a street grid should be developed to better integrate this area with Ryan Ranch, Highway 68, Highway 218, and General Jim Moore Boulevard.

Too much airplane noise in this area for housing.
open space nature preserve wildlife corridor
more restaurants and businsess
Development in this area would be primarily auto orientated. Street and road improvements would be needed to better connect South Boundary Road to General Jim Moore. Connecting the FORTAG trail to Del Rey Oaks and Seaside for safe and comfortable bicycle and walking connections should be mandatory if this area is developed.

I believe there are better areas in Ft Ord that can be redeveloped for housing that have better access to shopping etc. This area along Boundry road is a bit isolated and may be better left as open space, though single family homes are needed and could go here. Boundry road needs a good shoulder for bike lanes or even better would be a separate parallel bike commuter lane linking N side of Ryan Ranch to General Jim blvd.

This area could use more restaurants in support of the workers. Seems a missed opportunity.

I'd like to see how this piece would interface with the plans that Seaside has for development in the Ord.

Most underutilized potential ever, start building now. Focus should also be on maintaining a balance with open space, field sports opportunities, playgrounds. Great potential for families. Build smaller homes with 3 bedrooms in addition to the larger 5 bed places.

If new homes are built in this area, they should be dog friendly and have a small, fenced yard. Finding a rental in Monterey that allows dogs and has a yard is extremely difficult.

This area should have a mix of housing and shops: working force affordable housing needs to be looked at thoughtfully. with a plaza for socializing, green spaces, listening to live music, and events.” - A community cafe style library hub- to encourage people to come out, and utilize that space, not just for signing out books, etc. Elderly can drop by and have a conversation with a high schooler for example. Built a library of the future, serving the needs of the community and the generation ones ahead. - We'll need strategies to manage parking in the neighborhood." - EV car ( Solar panel) charging stations are both added to residential housing and commercial structures. - Maximize the land space available, by going for more structures that will utilize the land to its maximum, respecting the Environmental hazards and such. Meaning, if in a lot a Mid rise 4-5 story complex can be built, this Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3289, Packet Page 3617 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-129
Fort Ord 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?...” should take precedence over building a 2-3 story on the same land. - Built with a strong future anticipating the needs of current and future generations - Grocery stores, pahramcy.

This area has great potential for growth in housing. I would like to see homes to accomodate extended families, house of 4-6bedrooms. to accomodate elder parents in homes.

This is an area with land that can sustain larger or multigenerational families or those people with pets. However, it will increase traffic congestion on Imjin Road.

Maintain beautiful open spaces and wildlife habitat. encourage walking paths bike paths and green space.

No services, no restaurants and it would destroy open space. Let's not take out more oak trees and natural habitat.

This is not a good place for residential development. It's office park central.

This area creates an entire new neighborhood. Focus on green buildings, mix of housing, entertainments and businesses to create a place that does not need cars.
more homes access to wokr and cheaper housing would be nice More affordable housing!!
Residential community comprised of high density multi family structures and SFR with common areas similar to East Garrison but more affordable.

Secured Access And Parking
I prefer to keep Fort Ord Wild
Seems this is a "necessary" expansion option. Do projects like this require cooperation with neighboring towns? With the projected sea level rise/ storm flooding it seems building inland would be best option. Are these projects being built with future technologies in mind? Solar panels/ building batteries for the inevitable PG&E failures? Rain capture? Mixed use here with small cafe/ convenient store options.

I don't think this is a good area for housing...it's not really close to anything. Maybe assisted living or skilled nursing? It's close to the CHOMP buildings at Ryan Ranch which could be convenient for eldercare facilities and residents that aren't necessarily "coming and going" much.

Great opportunity for adding housing. Will need to add support (i.e. shopping, etc.) infrastructure to minimize traffic impacts.

This would be a great spot for transient use.

This would be a great place to add housing, with a couple of caveats:

1. There needs to be services nearby

2. Transportation options for the residents

3. There needs to be a mix of housing options so it doesn't turn into a "project" or ghetto Dedicated community spaces for children and pets to gather and play. Well lit Walkways for safe walking. Retail and grocery stores, and businesses that cater to teens such as a photo studio, arcade, bowling alley or mini golf etc type place, restaurants, gas station, skate park, community parks for picnics (like toro park) play structures for climbing as well as water play areas for children to use in the hotter months.

Leave it open for public use as hiking/biking trails
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3290, Packet Page 3618 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-130 Community Survey Report
Fort Ord 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?...” Build anything and everything here. Keep in mind, this is WeatherTech Raceway Laguna Seca's main entrance on race weekends as NIMBYs have killed off using 68 as an entrance. Any housing here should include a traffic plan with lights or roundabouts to keep things moving.

Great for huge apartment buildings, would be a great area to have a larger outdoor community space as well.

Maybe even a dog park and pool! I dont know the area too well, but 68 can get quite traffic-y, so making sure there are plenty of roads to get in/out of this complex during those times will be key to not creating chaos. Easy access to public transit too!
PARKING NEEDS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE. The city makes WAY TOO MUCH money off of residents getting tickets while at work or at home, or the parking garages. Its just ridiculous and greedy.

Attempt to retain as much pine-forested canopy as possible with any planned developments and open-space for residential/park/recreation use here.

This area has good potential for development as a neighborhood with mixed housing types and if water is available for 240 homes, it should be developed.

This is a very small strip of land, and with congestion on Canyon Del Rey we will need better traffic control It would be a mistake not to seize the opportunity to develop eco-conscious dense affordable housing in this vacant area with so much potential to meet our key housing needs. I believe to make this area well-developed would require the 240 units to be a variety of types of housing from apartments to duplexes, and even permanent transitional housing for those making the journey away from being unhoused. I'd also like to see a community resource center with a park that could bring together the diverse future residents and emphasize/require sustainable practices in this community (composting, recycling etc...) When new housing is built, it will be important to have strategies to connect these folks to reliable public transportation to access the commercial / other centers in Seaside/Sand City as well as to central Monterey.

It absolutely makes sense to add housing in Fort Ord, given the location, water and proximity to open space.

However, I would be vehemently opposed to single family homes there or anywhere in Monterey. We need to create density which means aparmtne complexes or fourplexes, townhomes and shared spaces. I would support very small single units that were designed in village clusters to encourage more communal neighborhoods, cultural exchange and shared spaces like gardens, parks and gathering spaces. Again, we need to also build grocery stores and other essential services into these neighborhoods to reduce the need for car travel between Monterey/Seaside/Marina and reduce traffic.

Low density housing would be suitable. Otherwise, too much traffic is created. We have soooo much traffic now, more housing will exacerbate traffic issues.

This area should become the new, new Monterey given all of its space and potential. This area should support the greatest number of families given the large number of schools in the area and access to shopping in Seaside and Monterey. It should support higher density owner occupied housing such as single family home and town homes.

Another bedroom community. Traffic is already bad here, but it makes sense to add more housing here. Especially if there was a connector to the safe parts of Fort Ord.

All forms of housing should be used here. Extreme sound proofing to mitigate airport noise would be necessary……
To me, this area provides the most flexibility as there are no current projects in the area. I believe we could put a mix of housing to 5 stories maximum. I suspect that there will be pushback from Pasadera residents if the buildings are too tall as their houses were sold on the basis of views. As well, building height should be limited as planes landing at the airport tend to begin their descents quite a ways out from the airport. Oftentimes, at Ryan Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3291, Packet Page 3619 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-131
Fort Ord 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?...” Ranch, one can read the plane’s identifiers just by looking up. Both this area, as well as Ryan Ranch, would experience lots of noise
This would be a bit sad to see, though it has good access.

Whatever is built, I would prefer it to be QUALITY with an ecofriendly vision. It is heartbreaking to see these massive neighborhoods going up (Shea, East Garrison, etc.) with little regard to sustainability (solar, efficient, etc.).

The era of McMansions is over with growing concerns for climate change. Minimizing the number of apartment complexes is also preferred.

Lastly, would love to see ADU's supported in all neighborhoods as this creates more housing opportunities.

Would very much like to see great chunks of the former Fort Ord remain relatively wild. East Garrison, for instance, is too clearly an indicator that these housing projects are neither well-planned nor securely funded.

Do not mix high density housing with single family home neighborhoods. This kind of development degrades the character and aesthetics of an established single family home neighborhood in spite of what developers and City officials say. High density housing projects should only be developed on major corridors/streets.

The City of Monterey should be pushing back against the State - the governor and the legislature - for mandating these ridiculous housing requirements on a coastal city, such as Monterey, with the water and fire issues we deal with in our community. Monterey should follow Huntington Beach's lead and sue the State to regain local control of planning decisions. Any housing development that Monterey approves should fit the existing neighborhoods.

Monterey should not allow high density projects in single family home neighborhoods. Monterey is a very special place. It is a first class tourist destination for good reason. Let's keep it that way.

I have very mixed feelings about this. On one hand, if I look at this land development as an extension of Del Rey Oaks (even though Del Rey Oaks is an entirely different municipality), then I can accept it. If I look at this land development as an encroachment into the open-land that I adore and that makes me love living here, then I hate it. That said, water credits are water credits, we don't have many parcels so ready for development on the peninsula, and technically it isn't National Monument land. It's in the perpetually-sunny section of town, and it is peaceful (all good things). Objectively, this is a good location for people with cars who want standalone homes, duplexes/triplexes, and/or townhomes. If I had the opportunity to purchase property there, I would strongly consider it and just accept the fact that we can't protect every inch of open land (we can only do our best). I STRONGLY suggest building housing with a variety of square-footages, styles, and price-points here. If we're going to develop land from scratch, then mix-in some 2-bedroom townhomes or duplexes with the 4-bedroom freestanding homes. I YEARN for a 2-bedroom, 1-2 bathroom property on the peninsula. They are great for single adults, small families, and seniors... and you can fit many of them in a small footprint... likely making it easier to meet our required housing targets.

Same
Build the housing here.

Need better access from 218 and 68 for cars.

Grocery store needed here.

Create something that will bring lots of tax revenue for the City here.

Special survey team allocated to chop down old trees and or trim trees to avoid trees falling on houses, cars roads or power lines. Replace old trees with planting new trees. Re- seal the roads as they are cracking. Have special allocations for excess cars owned by homeowners instead of parking on roads which is not a good site to see.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3292, Packet Page 3620 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-132 Community Survey Report
Fort Ord 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?...” Roads to be swept and cleaned thoroughly. If cars are not parked on road side it will be much easier for road cleaning
Whatever you want to do here
Simple, one bedroom apartment buildings should be built for low income employees ( homeless ) with frequent bus service available.

Monterey as well as the city of Salinas should invest in a fleet of small electric buses that should run every hour, giving incentives for employees to use them. And run big buses only when an established demand is there. It’s embarrassing for a city to watch these almost empty buses lumbering on lighthouse, day in day out. grocery store, parks with playgrounds, bathrooms green space The intersection with Hwy 68 where Laguna Seca golf course and York Rd all meet is a MESS now - so backed up at rush-hour that cars can’t enter Hwy 68. The Fort Ord area is a prime area for housing, especially an apartment building, but please take the heavy traffic on 68 into consideration.

Also, public transportation needed.

Mixed developments with apartments, small lot single family and townhomes, for purchase or rent with "club" type amenities for the community and open space in the hazard zone. Single family large homes are not the way of the future.

Am I correct in seeing only a sliver of available land? If so, that doesn't seem right as there are acres and acres of Ft. Ord land. Please don't build luxury single family homes like what's been done already. Those houses has almost zero set back or back yard and they sell for $800,000K + Dedicated bike lanes should be incorporated into city street planning. Utilize native plant landscaping. Install roundabout intersections rather than stop lights, and where not feasible incorporate international crosswalks where all vehicle traffic stops for pedestrians. Ensure there are adequate alternative transportation options for residents to reduce the need for personal vehicle conveyance. Ensure there are pathways to greenspaces nearby. probably the best spot but needs more public transit to/from city center - a Jazz D line that goes from CSUMB to Monterey Transit center?
Please allow for more housing! We are in desperate need of more housing! A mixed-use, walkable community that promotes affordable family housing with easy access to public transportation and to shopping, commercial and public services. I believe Fort Ord and Garden Road corridor affords the best opportunities without impacting the city's historic resources.

A mixed-use, walkable community that promotes affordable family housing with easy access to public transportation, with development to include shopping opportunities This is the best place for new housing, provided that some amenities could be added, ie grocery store, gas station, restaurant, etc.

Most types of housing would work in this area. Public transportation and more infrastructure (grocery stores, restaurants, personal care, etc) should be brought in.

Definitely needs a mix of housing, shops, and community areas as it is pretty much a blank slate now.

This seems like a great place for new medium density housing. Single family and 2-4 unit multifamily buildings are very compatible within the same block. Allowing for a mix of housing types on each of the lots will prevent a cookie-cutter look like the other Ft. Ord housing developments. Providing small private yards for new houses Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3293, Packet Page 3621 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-133
Fort Ord 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?...” would be a big selling point to buyers and renters. Since this area is more isolated than other parts of Monterey, it would likely appeal to people who spend more time at home and want a quieter community.

Development of this area will need to consider adding public parks, ADA compliant sidewalks, bicycle routes, and transit connections...which means getting Del Rey Oaks to play along. Seriously, no more bike boulevards to nowhere - it's a waste of money. Increased traffic on 68 also needs to be considered. If there's hundreds of units of new housing added around the airport and Ft. Ord, making 68 a 4-lane highway from CA-1 to York Rd would likely be needed.

I didn't see my neighborhood, New Monterey, in this survey. I would like to add that free-standing ADUs and dividing existing 1 and 2 family houses into more units should be prioritized in New Monterey. Right now, the lack of available water credits is preventing homeowners from being able to provide more affordable rental units on their property. And when people build units without credits, and the city finds out, they are fined and we lose a housing unit. There needs to be a pathway to making existing non-compliant ADUs compliant without removing the unit. Making it possible for new water credits to be granted for ADUs and subdividing buildings is the fastest and easiest way to create more affordable housing in Monterey. It would also make homeownership more affordable as homeowners could generate rental income for their ADUs. Monterey needs to focus on the lowhanging fruit first when it comes to creating more housing.

Additionally, we don't need any more hotels in Monterey. There is plenty of hotel redevelopment opportunities in the area. Water credits need to be prioritized for housing for FULL-TIME RESIDENTS. New housing shouldn't be luxury units. We have enough of those already.

This would be a weird place to build housing because it's completely disconnected from the nearby neighborhoods and people drive extremely fast on Boundary Road and treat it like an extension of the highway. I also was under the impression Ford Ord property could not be developed due to toxic groundwater, but maybe this small area is not affected. Similar to Ryan Ranch, I would not want to live here because it's disconnected from the rest of Monterey and situated along what I consider an unsafe road, however, it might make for a decent suburban style development.

Should be the main area of focus for now. Still need water! This area should be retained as parkland, but more amenities like parking, trails, and benches should be added in.

It's too far away from services and any non-car based transport is hampered by the dangers of biking or walking along Hwy 218. This can be a mitigation bank for the other developments in the city that will undoubtedly cause some take of trees or habitat.

This area will have the same problems as Ryan Ranch - the need to have supporting businesses - groceries, hardware etc.
another area with a lot of potential. Need to have AFFORDABLE homes built and preferably rental housing so apartments or triplexes.

Plan and build to include adequate on street parking in addition to garage and driveway spaces. Dedicate park space for playgrounds not just to walk a dog.

Maintain a lot of mixed use area with green and community gathering space . 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.

Again, affordable workforce and senior housing are most in need. A development with a community garden and outdoor spaces to congregate, and a walking loop would contribute to the health and well being of residents.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3294, Packet Page 3622 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-134 Community Survey Report
Fort Ord 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?...” Six stories. Grocery store and other commercial amenities. Better transit service.

Fort Ord goes for miles and has the room to build hundreds of new homes of all types. YES! Of all the places on the peninsula I would start here.

Ask CSU Monterey Bay to pay a development fee since their students would benefit from affordable housing in the area. Also, would like to see a 1,000+ units of senior housing -- high rises with care and support built in that allows seniors to live in dignity.

Another great area for housing. I'll buy here if you build before I die. Nice and sunny. Just add some commercial/retail space and parks and it could be paradise.

It seems as though four-door it would be an ideal spot to have accessory living. But it would need several amenities for it to be viable, i.e. shopping center, gas stations, grocery stores, etc..

A mix of housing and access to shopping and transportation via the Dunes.

We need a mix of low income, student housing(apt's), townhouses and small lot single family dwellings. A good example is East Garrison. Ample parking is a must do. Local amenities like food shopping and housing/family support stores(i.e.: hardware stores, etc.)
May not be the most desirable area to live due to aircraft noises from the airport approach.

More affordable housing, denser housing
Mix of housing for all age groups and family size, grocery stores, schools, walking trails, central park for picnics, enough roads to help with flow of traffic, HOAs for each neighborhood to help keep the standards of the neighborhoods up to par. A neighborhood swimming pool and club house for neighbors to gather.

I'd love to see other parts of Fort Ord developed for housing, but this area would have the same negative impact on highway 68 and 218 traffic as construction in Ryan Ranch would have.

This area is far enough from downtown and lighthouse to allow housing development without degrading the character of those areas. It also has room to accommodate increased traffic as long as parking is planned. This area could use more development of small community hubs with shops, restaurants, and common areas to support the new residents.

We’ll need parking for residents. We also need to make sure that the developments match the beauty of the area and don’t just choose the cheapest looking design. The aesthetics of the buildings need to match the area.

This is an excellent area to become a bedroom community. I envision the Fort Ord area to become a hub for small and medium scale industry. The retail businesses that spring up will make this zone a lively place to work, live and play.

All housing should be encouraged here, in addition to multi-use buildings with commercial components, maintained open space areas, convenience stores, and corner markets with food options.

Again a similar issue with the HWY 68 section. There will need to be a lot of infrastructure put in. Amenities as well. If anything is built there, hopefully it isn't huge, multiple-story buildings. There would also have to be consideration of the natural land around it. It would be such a shame to just bulldoze it all for cookie cutter homes that don't add anything to the landscape. Which I know isn't the main concern but it should be taken into account!
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3295, Packet Page 3623 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-135
Fort Ord 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?...” Another area with possibilities, but with airport traffic noise, but where else is there any opportunities ? Could handle traffic. Has good existing roads into Monterey & Del Ray Oaks shopping areas. Might be the best area for adding housing to Monterey.
create planned neighborhood with townhouses and single family units on small lots with own stores.

Having open space with trails for hiking, biking, running and walking are very important to me. Fort Ord should remain open and more trails with access to those activities should be considered.

Maximum density housing development in smaller multi family rental and owned homes developed with the amenities of small communities with walkable services within the community. Plan a public transportation hub in the new community.

Keep it open - provide better parking & infrastructure, especially to reduce pedestrian & traffic accidents / deaths.

I'll start by saying that I have been supporting environmental causes for over 50 years and I've served on the board of directors of this area's leading land stewardship organization which is dedicated to the inclusive, diverse, equitable access to natural preserved open spaces. With that preface, this area of the former Ft Ord is sadlya very viable location for development of new housing. I say this because of access to roads and lack of impacts on existing residents. I think that such a development could be created in such a way that it is modern & low carbon footprint. It should also contain some conveniences such as grocery so that it would reduce trips.

Lets put lots of housing here.

In-Person Outreach and Submitted Comments
Maximize urban core density - 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 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3296, Packet Page 3624 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-136 Community Survey Report
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
Bike – rec – path I’d like the no motorized vehicles regulation enforced We need a way for everyone to have a chance to get affordable housing. Larger apartments could help house families. Another issue is parking, and it would help to have more Modify light Fix at junction of Pacific El Dorado and Martin. Light too sensitive to cross traffic. Sometimes more than you are impending flow
Convert unused commercial property to residential
Pacific/Munras/Cass should have a mix of shops and housing with a plaza for socializing and listening to live music
Build affordable apartments where they tore down 1940’s Fort Ord barricks Allow additional ADU units to be built on single-family home properties in Oak Grove neighborhoods If more housing, traffic considerations need to take place If new housing is built, we need strategies to manage parking in neighborhood I’d like to see a crosswalk and street trees added here Expand (make bigger) the Monterey Library. Gov. Newsom just gave millions to some libraries.

Safe bike routes along Fremont to More Thomas for example Safe pedestrian and bike paths. More connectivity for those who bike, walk More affordable Section 8 housing
Focus more on small housing units (apartments) than full-size houses. Also, infrastructure and the upholding of culture (historical landmarks, art) should take precedent over housing.

I would not build on new land. Build up Seaside along main boulevards (go up to 4 or 5 stories). Save open land! Don’t put houses near an existing airport. You will get noise complaints endlessly.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3297, Packet Page 3625 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-137
Bike path in the middle of the road on North Fremont is a fail. We would have been better secured with a sidewalk uplift similar to Broadway in Seaside.

I think there should be a toy store at the mall
Monterey Train. In work again
A tiny permaculture community for sustainable and affordable living Housing creates infrastructure concerns. Where do the pipes go? Good use of land here (Ryan ranch)
Do not build on more open land
A better question is how dense do you want new housing to be. Affordable? Stop gentrification. We need affordable housing for everyone.

We need to think of the homeless too. It’s a big issue here. Housing and mental health We should make affordable, multi-use zoning a common thing here. Monterey has abandoned housing and walkable neighborhoods.

Please create housing that would be available for teachers. We have a shortage of teachers due to no affordable housing.

Don’t change the character of Downtown Monterey!!
Try not to harm plants or animals homes. They have feelings too! Do not build on more open land along Highway 68 or Fort Ord boundary. Protect open land! Agreed x 2! Agreed x 4!
You cannot add houses near an airport. People will complain about the noise all the time. See Santa Monica Airport.

Affordable housing should be close to public transit. So maybe public transit should be expanded as well. Agreed Command higher rents and sales prices??? My daughter and I are leaving Monday. Born and raised here and we cannot afford it
What type of pipeline?
…Toxic Waste, mostly toxic waste though
I just submitted the 10 minute housing survey, but I forgot to say that I feel Monterey needs a lot more public art displayed. We just returned from a trip to Oaxaca, Mexico, and were very impressed with the abundant murals ,statues, posters, giant puppets, music, etc. Many workshops were available, especially to youth, to develop their skills in various fields. The vibrant streets of Oaxaca were a real inspiration! REQUIRED TO BUILD 3,.654 HOUSING UNITS IN THE CITY OF MONTEREY.

NECESSARY WATER FOR THESE UNITS IS THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE.

MONTEREY IS A VERY UNIQUE COMMUNITY. NOT THE NORMAL CITY FOUND IN MANY PARTS OF AMERICA. A HIGH PRICED CITY.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: BUILD UNITS AT TWO SITES ON GARDEN ROAD. THE OLD RACQUETBALL LOCATION AND THE OLD TRIDENT PROPERTY.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3298, Packet Page 3626 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
B-138 Community Survey Report

CHALLENGE MAYBE GETTING APPROVAL FOR THE FAA
ALL THE 25t000 ACERS IN FT. ORD. SOME STRUCTURES AND ALREADY BUILT BUT WOULD NEED REMODELING. HAVE THE STATE PAY FOR THE WORK.

TELL THE STATE AUTHORITIES TO TAKE A HIKE AND EXPLAIN TO THEM MONTEREY HAS NO LAND AVAILABLE.

HAVE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS LOBBY THE DECISION MAKERS IN SACRAMENTO Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3299, Packet Page 3627 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update
Community Survey Report B-139

LIBRARY BOARDS
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3300, Packet Page 3628 Monterey City Council / Planning Commission
Joint Study Session
June 20, 2023
Monterey 2031
Community Survey Results
& Preliminary Sites
Inventory
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3301, Packet Page 3629 Meeting Objectives
• Present preliminary sites inventory and key strategies • Summarize community outreach and input that informed
strategies
• Provide an overview of requirements for sites inventory • Received feedback with a view to refining for inclusion in the Public Review Draft Housing Element
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3302, Packet Page 3630 Presentation Outline

1. Housing Element Background

2. Site Identification and Community Input

3. Housing Potential by Opportunity Area

4. Additional Housing Potential

5. Summary of RHNA Capacity

6. Discussion

7. Next Steps
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3303, Packet Page 3631

HOUSING ELEMENT

BACKGROUND
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3304, Packet Page 3632 Housing Element Key
Components
● Inventory of available sites for housing
● Projection of realistic capacity
● Assessment of housing needs,
constraints, and “fair housing” issues
● Action Plan of implementing programs
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3305, Packet Page 3633 Monterey’s 6th Cycle RHNA
Table A-43: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 Income Group % of County AMI
Number of Units
Allocated
Percent of Total
Allocation
Very Low 0-50% 1,177 32.2%
Low >50-80% 769 21.0%
Moderate >80-120% 462 12.6%
Above Moderate 120%+ 1,246 34.1%
Total 3,654 100.0%
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3306, Packet Page 3634 Requirements for Housing Inventory
and Site Suitability
● City is required to zone for sufficient capacity to meet RHNA ● Special requirements for lower income RHNA sites
○ Site size parameters (0.5 to 10 acres)
○ Absence of environmental constraints
○ Proximity to transit
○ Availability of infrastructure and utilities
○ Must affirmatively further fair housing
● Past performance to demonstrate viability
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3307, Packet Page 3635 Realistic
Capacity
Projections
● 55 dwelling units per acre
(du/ac) in Alvarado
District
● 29 du/ac for non-vacant
sites along commercial
corridors
● 16 du/ac in the
Pacific/Munras/Cass
area, based on average
density of existing
housing in area
Site Area: 1.74 acre
Project Density: 27 du/ac
3089 De Forest Rd, Marina
Site Area: 1.44 acre
Project Density: 40.33 du/ac
3125 De Forest Rd, Marina
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3308, Packet Page 3636

SITE IDENTIFICATION
AND

COMMUNITY INPUT
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3309, Packet Page 3637 Opportunity Site/Area Identification
Vacant Sites
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3310, Packet Page 3638 Opportunity Site/Area Identification
Underutilized Parcels
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3311, Packet Page 3639 Opportunity Site/Area Identification
Environmental Hazards
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3312, Packet Page 3640 Opportunity Site/Area Identification
Pipeline Projects
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3313, Packet Page 3641 Opportunity Site/Area Identification
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3314, Packet Page 3642 Online Survey Recap
• Objective: collect community input on how and where to accommodate new housing
• Available from March 1, 2023 to April 30, 2023
• Offered “5-minute” and “10 or more minute” versions
• Over 1,050 community members responded
• 907 online responses, 120 people at pop-up events, 42 paper comments Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3315, Packet Page 3643 Demographics of Respondents
“What Is your age?”
“What gender do you identify as?”
“Do you _____ in Monterey? Check all that
apply.”
“How long have you lived/worked in Monterey?”
“What neighborhood do you live/work/
go to school in?”
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3316, Packet Page 3644 Survey Results
Opportunity Area
Average
Housing
Units
Ranking Points
Average
Percent of the
Maximum Units
Allocated
Rankings Points
Percent Support
for New Housing
Rankings of All
Respondents Points
Total
Cumulative
Score
Area 8. Fort Ord 1953.73 8 88.81% 8 63.70% 4 20
Area 5: North Fremont 241.2 4 73.09% 5 68.46% 7 16
Area 7: Ryan Ranch 587.46 6 83.92% 7 63.03% 3 16
Area 6: Garden Road
/Airport/Highway 68 1045.23 7 83.62% 6 61.86% 2 15
Area 2: Downtown 297.79 5 59.56% 2 68.41% 6 13
Area 1: Lighthouse 181.66 3 55.90% 1 74.28% 8 12
Area 3: Pacific/Munras/Cass 121.88 1 65.88% 3 68.39% 5 9 Area 4: Del Monte 159.74 2 69.45% 4 61.26% 1 7
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3317, Packet Page 3645

HOUSING POTENTIAL

BY OPPORTUNITY
AREAS
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3318, Packet Page 3646 Area 1: Downtown
Key strategies include:
● Revise zoning regulations to permit building
heights up to 5 stories in Alvarado District
● Revise City policy to incorporate a clear statement
that 100 percent residential projects are permitted
throughout the downtown area, except on/adjacent
to Alvarado Street
● Use municipal share parking agreements to
support development feasibility
Very Low, Low,
and Moderate
Above Moderate Total Capacity
202 245 447
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3319, Packet Page 3647 Area 2: North Fremont
Very Low, Low,
and Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total Capacity
198 110 308
Key strategies include:
● Revise zoning regulations to permit up to 45
du/ac on all properties fronting Fremont Street
● Revise City policy to incorporate statement that
100 percent residential projects are permitted
along the eastern segment of the North Fremont
corridor
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3320, Packet Page 3648 Area 3: Garden Road/
Airport/ Highway 68
● Increase the max permitted density in the
Multifamily Overlay District from 30 to
50 du/ac
● Revise the Multifamily Overlay District
regulations to remove the requirement for
covered parking spaces
Very Low, Low,
and Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total Capacity
415 0 415
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3321, Packet Page 3649 Area 4: Lighthouse
● Revise City policy to permit 100 percent
residential projects on Lighthouse Avenue
● Offer municipal shared parking
agreements to projects that propose at
least 20 new housing units within 1,000
feet of a City-owned parking lot outside
the coastal zone
Very Low,
Low, and
Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total
Capacity
96 285 381
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3322, Packet Page 3650 Area 5: Pacific/
Munras/Cass
● Smaller-scale apartments,
condominiums, fourplexes,
triplexes, duplexes with building
heights and styles that reflect
the existing character
Very Low, Low,
and Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total Capacity
0 137 137
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3323, Packet Page 3651 Area 6: Del Monte
● Apartments, condominiums,
and townhomes on
underutilized sites
● Clusters of underutilized
sites present opportunity
Very Low,
Low, and
Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total
Capacity
126 0 126
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3324, Packet Page 3652 Area 7: Fort Ord/
Ryan Ranch
● Preparation of a specific plan to
establish a clear vision for the areas
and to:
● Guide future development and
conservation
● Quantify infrastructure needs
● Identify financing mechanisms
Very Low,
Low, and
Moderate
Above
Moderate
Total
Capacity
480 1,920 2,400
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3325, Packet Page 3653

ADDITIONAL HOUSING

POTENTIAL
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3326, Packet Page 3654 Vacant Land
● 113 vacant
Low Density Residential
(zoned R-E and R-1)
● 20 vacant
Medium Density Residential
(zoned R-2 and R-3)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3327, Packet Page 3655 Other Key Sites
● Courthouse site
1200 Aguajito
130 VL/L/Moderate units at 29
du/ac
● School district site
South of Hwy 68
300 VL/L/Moderate units
● 590 Perry Lane
50 Above Moderate units
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3328, Packet Page 3656 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
● On average since 2018,
the City has issued
construction permits for
11 ADUs each year
● Projecting this trend
forward over 2023-2031,
88 ADUs are forecast
Recent ADU Approvals
Year ADU Building
Permits Issued
2018 7
2019 7
2020 13
2021 9
2022 19
Total 55
Annual Average 11
Projected 8-Year Development 88
Source: City of Monterey, Annual Progress Reports, 2018-2022 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3329, Packet Page 3657

SUMMARY OF RHNA

CAPACITY
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3330, Packet Page 3658 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3331, Packet Page 3659 Summary of RHNA Capacity
Income Category Very Low, Low, and Moderate Above Moderate Opportunity Area Vacant Non-vacant Vacant Non-vacant Subtotal Downtown 0 202 245 447
North Fremont 0 198 24 86 308
Garden Road 0 415 0 0 415
Lighthouse 0 96 12 273 381
Pacific/Munras/Cass 0 0 0 137 137
Del Monte 0 126 0 0 126
Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch 480 1,920 2,400
Vacant Low Density Residential 113 113
Vacant High Density Residential 33 33
ADUs 88 88
Pipeline projects 65 323 388
County Courthouse Site 130 130
50-acre MCSD Site 300 300
590 Perry Lane Site 50 50
Elk's Lodge Site 94
Subtotal 98 2,129 472 2,711 5,316
Total by RHNA Category 2,227 3,183 5,410
Inclusionary Requirement (20%) 188
Adjusted Total RHNA 2,415 2,995 5,410
RHNA 2,408 1,246 3,654
Buffer 7 1,749 1,498

0.29% 140.37%
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3332, Packet Page 3660

DISCUSSION
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3333, Packet Page 3661 Discussion

1. Are the sites and strategies proposed appropriate to include in the Draft Housing Element?

2. Are there other sites that should be added?

3. Should the City develop programs to incentivize and facilitate ADU production beyond the annual rate of 11 ADUs per year that has been seen since 2018?

4. Should the City require a higher percentage of units at Fort Ord that are affordable?
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3334, Packet Page 3662 Summary of Comments from June 13
Community Comments
• Supportive of new strategies an approaches
• Support for a mixed use village/"complete community" at Fort Ord • Desire for more ministerial review subject to objective standards • Encouraged City to reach out to commercial property owners • Developer expressed concern for increasing inclusionary requirements
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3335, Packet Page 3663 Summary of Comments from June 13
Planning Commission Comments
• Overall, PC expressed support for sites and key strategies • Interested in programs to incentivize ADU/JADU development • Interest in a City density bonus ordinance
• Emphasized the need to consider and address potential impacts to historic resources
• Suggested several potential additional sites to add if owners are interested: La Mesa Village; Del Monte Shopping Center; Heritage Harbor Office Complex
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3336, Packet Page 3664 Del Monte Shopping Center La Mesa Village
Heritage Harbor Office Complex
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3337, Packet Page 3665

NEXT STEPS
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3338, Packet Page 3666 Next Steps
• Joint Commission-Council meeting .…………………..…... June 20, 2023 • City Council meeting ...………………………………........... June 28, 2023 • Public Review Draft Housing Element released...................July 14, 2023 • Open House .………….………….…………................. Early August 2023 • Joint Commission-Council meeting ….……................… August 15, 2023 • Send to HCD, 90-day review begins………................… August 21, 2023 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3339, Packet Page 3667

BACK UP
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3340, Packet Page 3668 Maximum Income Level
Household Size Extremely Low Very Low Low Median Moderate 1 Person $25,300 $42,150 $67,450 $70,300 $85,350
2 Persons $28,900 $48,200 $77,100 $80,300 $96,400
3 Persons $32,500 $54,200 $86,750 $90,350 $108,450
4 Persons $36,100 $60,200 $96,350 $100,400 $120,500
5 Persons $39,000 $65,050 $104,100 $108,450 $130,150
6 Persons $41,900 $69,850 $111,800 $116,450 $139,800
7 Persons $45,420 $74,650 $119,500 $124,500 $149,400
8 Persons $50,560 $79,500 $127,200 $132,550 $159,050
Source: HUD Income Limits 2023
HUD Income Levels by Household Size (2023)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3341, Packet Page 3669 Affordability
Matrix
Household Size AMI Limits Affordable Payment
Housing Costs Maximum
Affordable Price Utilities Taxes &
Insurance
Renter Owner Renter Owner Owner Renter Owner
Extremely-Low-Income (<30% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $25,300 $633 $633 $247 $247 $221 $386 $30,403 2 Person (1 Bedroom) $28,900 $723 $723 $265 $265 $253 $458 $37,720 3 Person (2 Bedroom) $32,500 $813 $813 $319 $319 $284 $494 $38,703 4 Person (3 Bedroom) $36,100 $903 $903 $405 $405 $316 $498 $33,539 5 Person (4 Bedroom) $39,000 $975 $975 $477 $477 $341 $498 $28,958 Very-Low-Income (31%-50% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $42,150 $1,054 $1,054 $247 $247 $369 $807 $80,804 2 Person (1 Bedroom) $48,200 $1,205 $1,205 $265 $265 $422 $940 $95,544 3 Person (2 Bedroom) $54,200 $1,355 $1,355 $319 $319 $474 $1,036 $103,721 4 Person (3 Bedroom) $60,200 $1,505 $1,505 $405 $405 $527 $1,100 $105,750 5 Person (4 Bedroom) $65,050 $1,626 $1,626 $477 $477 $569 $1,149 $107,026 Low-Income (51%-80% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $67,450 $1,686 $1,686 $247 $247 $590 $1,440 $156,704 2 Person (1 Bedroom) $77,100 $1,928 $1,928 $265 $265 $675 $1,663 $182,142 3 Person (2 Bedroom) $86,750 $2,169 $2,169 $319 $319 $759 $1,850 $201,248 4 Person (3 Bedroom) $96,350 $2,409 $2,409 $405 $405 $843 $2,004 $214,159 5 Person (4 Bedroom) $104,100 $2,603 $2,603 $477 $477 $911 $2,126 $224,012 Moderate-Income (81%-120% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $85,350 $2,134 $2,489 $247 $247 $871 $1,887 $253,009 2 Person (1 Bedroom) $96,400 $2,410 $2,812 $265 $265 $984 $2,145 $288,231 3 Person (2 Bedroom) $108,450 $2,711 $3,163 $319 $319 $1,107 $2,393 $320,471 4 Person (3 Bedroom) $120,500 $3,013 $3,515 $405 $405 $1,230 $2,608 $346,747 5 Person (4 Bedroom) $130,150 $3,254 $3,796 $477 $477 $1,329 $2,777 $367,059 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3342, Packet Page 3670 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
AÔ
A»
A§
A§
AÔ A§
AÔ
A§
1 2
4 1
2 4
5 5
3 3
3 3
3 1
4 2
2 5
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
Old Capitol
Site
Monterey
City Hall
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Ab rego St
Cam Agua jito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Scen 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

0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles

Environmental Constraints
100 Year Coastal Flood Zone
100 Year Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Zone
High Liquefaction Susceptibility
High Landslide Susceptibility
Sea Level Rise - Tidal Inundation Zone
Sea Level Rise - Erosion Hazard
Airport Safety Zones (1-5)
Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Very High (LRA)
Very High (SRA)
High (SRA)
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
Hazards
and
Constraints
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3343, Packet Page 3671 Multifamily Residential Overlay District
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3344, Packet Page 3672 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3345, Packet Page 3673

MEMORANDUM

To: Christy Sabdo, Associate Planner, City of Monterey
From: Andrew Hill and Karen Chavez, Dyett & Bhatia
Re: Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Housing Element Date: September 7, 2023
Dear Christy:

This memo presents an overview and summary of comments received during the public review period for the Draft Housing Element. Based on input received, the memo also includes recommendations for potential revisions for consideration of the Planning Commission and City Council before the document is sent to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for their 90-day review.

Release of Draft Housing Element
The Draft Housing Element was available for public review between August 2 and September 4, 2023. On August 7, 2023 a Community Open House was held at the Monterey Conference Center. The Open House meeting was an opportunity for community members to learn about strategies to meet projected housing needs and share feedback on the proposed Draft Housing Element. The meeting also served as the scoping meeting for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and community members were invited to provide input on potential environmental impacts and strategies to reduce or avoid them. A wide variety of outreach was provided for the Community Open House, including: a postcard mailer sent to every Monterey residence, posts on the City's website monterey.org as well as the City's engagement portal, HaveYourSayMonterey.org/Monterey2031, and included in the City Focus newsletter and several weekly email campaigns. The City also sent a news release to media, business and neighborhood associations, announced in the newscast by the Spanish-language media company Entravision-Univision 67, and posted on social media several times preceding the event, as well as post-event [i.e., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter (X, the new name of this social media company), and Next Door]. The Monterey Herald, the Monterey County Weekly, and the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce reported on the event. The open house was added to the Monterey County Weekly Digital Calendar. In total, over 80 community members attended the Open House and 77 comment letters were received. Additionally, the City conducted outreach to major employers and the faith-based community during the public comment period.

Summary of Public Comments
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 summary of key themes from the community input received is provided below and a full Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3346, Packet Page 3674

MEMORANDUM

record of all input is provided in Appendix A, including all comment letter received and a report summarizing open house comments.

Requests for Sites to Be Added to the Inventory
Several property owners submitted comment letters or made requests via phone or email to have their properties added to the housing element inventory, including owners of sites downtown, and on North Fremont Street, Lighthouse Avenue, and Garden Road. All property owners whose sites were included in the draft inventory, whether vacant or nonvacant, received a formal notification from the City. Additionally, a letter was sent to all property owners with non-vacant sites on the inventory to survey interest in housing development. A full 95 percent of non-vacant owners who responded to the survey expressed interest in developing housing on their sites.

Key Themes
• Housing at Fort Ord. By far the topic that drew the most comments was housing at Fort Ord. Of the 77 comment letters received, 59 addressed this topic and many participants at the open house meeting also provided feedback on housing at Fort Ord. Notably, a letter from LandWatch expressed concern for the environmental effects of development on the former military base, including the potential for impacts to sensitive biological species, groundwater overdraft, and vehicle miles travelled. The LandWatch letter contends that housing development at Fort Ord is not necessary to achieve RHNA and encourages increasing infill in central parts of Monterey. A total of 56 of the 59 comment letters that referenced housing at Fort Ord were form letters that repeated the assertions made in the LandWatch letter. By contrast, community members who provided comments at the open house meeting expressed strong support for housing at Fort Ord, especially as part of a mixed-use village on the property as envisioned in Program 1-H Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan of the Draft Housing Element. Open House attendees noted that housing at Fort Ord would help create affordable options for people employed at nearby Ryan Ranch, including nurses, medical workers, and administrative staff. Attendees also supported the mixeduse village concept as it would provide restaurants and services close to work for employees at Ryan Ranch, who currently need to drive off-site for lunch during workdays. Mirroring community input collected as part of the communitywide survey this past Spring, options were divided on the topic of housing at Fort Ord.
• Housing Affordability. Many commenters expressed concern for the high cost of housing in the community and the long waiting list for affordable rental units. Comments of this nature were received both in comment letters and in person at the Open House. To address this issue, commenters expressed support for programs in the Draft Housing Element that seek to facilitate housing construction and promote infill development, affordable ADU/JADU construction, home-sharing and tenant matching, and other innovations that increase the range of housing choices available in the community. Several Open House attendees and several other commenters asked about getting on a list to be notified as new housing becomes available, indicating that a service to connect property managers and prospective tenants such as that envisioned by United Way would be well received. • Rental Assistance. Several commenters, including some who attended the Open House and some who submitted letters, expressed support for the Program 4-B, Rental Assistance Pilot Program and encouraged the City to expand it further. Notably, senior renters on a fixed budget expressed anxiety about the continued rise in rents and their ability to keep up with rent increase in the future.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3347, Packet Page 3675

MEMORANDUM

• Expanding Permit Streamlining. Program 1-D Permit Streamlining Pilot Project in the Draft Housing Element proposes a pilot project to fast-track infill housing development in core areas of the city identified for high density housing when adequate water supply becomes available. Several commenters suggested that this program could be expanded to cover a wider geographic area than currently proposed and proposed that the ordinance could identify criteria that mirror those identified in State law for streamlining pursuant to Senate Bill 35 (SB35).
• Employee Housing and the Business Community. Three letters suggested that additional provisions could be added to the Draft Housing Element to promote the production of housing by the business community, such as an “employer sponsored housing" program. Such a program would involve a Zoning Code amendment to provide ministerial review of employer sponsored housing projects subject to objective standards. A letter from CHOMP/Montage requested something similar and City staff has begun a dialog with this major regional employer to understand which sites they may be interested in pursuing and whether an overlay could be a strategy for facilitating the type of housing they envision providing.
• Parking Requirements. A few commenters suggested that further reductions in parking requirements over and above those proposed in Program 2-E Revise Parking Programs of the Draft Housing Element could be incorporated to provide additional support for development feasibility, particularly in proximity to transit routes. Specifically, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) recommended that Program 2-E be amended to reduce parking requirements for projects developed within ¾ mile of transit routes with service frequency every hour during commute hours. On the other hand, other commenters emphasized the need to ensure adequate parking will be provided as new housing is built, particularly in infill areas and established neighborhoods. Two commenters also suggested that parking reductions could be granted to residential projects that provide bicycle infrastructure on-site. • Fire Safe Construction. Some commenters emphasized the need for fire safe construction in new development, including the use of fire-resistant materials and preventative site and building design techniques.
• Form Based Code. One commenter suggested developing a form-based code, which is a zoning mechanism involving standards that focus on the look of the building and how it interacts with its surroundings, rather than standards for use and density. The commenter suggested that this focus can help allay community concerns and facilitate construction of projects aligned with community expectations.

Unique Comments
• One commenter suggested increasing building height limits beyond those currently proposed in the Draft Housing Element in areas such as Alvarado, Lighthouse, North Fremont while also implementing companion policies that control average block heights to help ensure a cohesive design across properties in a given area.
• MBEP suggested that the City consider a sliding scale for the inclusionary requirement (Program 2-I) rather than a fixed requirement of 10 percent Moderate and 10 percent Low Income in projects of six units or more. The sliding scale or similar mechanism could provide more flexibility and help with the development feasibility for smaller projects.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3348, Packet Page 3676

MEMORANDUM

• MBEP also recommended that the local density bonus (Program 3-C Local Density Bonus) be applied to parcels of all sizes, not just small sites, scaling it inversely to parcel size to offer more density for smaller projects.
• MBEP noted that Program 1-I Highway 68 Area Plan Update could be amended to also specifically include coordination with County on infrastructure to serve 50-acre MPUSD site.

Recommendations
• Based on expressions of property owner interest and community feedback received during the comment period, staff recommends adding the following sites to the Housing Element Inventory in Appendix A of the Draft Housing Element, showing them on Map 3-14, and reflecting the realistic capacity for housing in the projections included in Chapter 3:
o Add 1045 Cass Street (APN 001-671-003-000) as a pipeline project, assuming a total of 12 MFR units, with 10 Above Moderate, 1 Moderate, and 1 Low Income unit. The project proponent intends to submit a development application to the City in the coming weeks. o Add 465 Tyler Street (APN 001692014000) as a housing opportunity site, assuming this 0.16-acre site develops with 9 units, consistent with realistic capacity projections for other sites in the Alvarado District Downtown.
o Add 2370 North Fremont St (APN 013161028000), In-Shape Fitness as a housing opportunity site. Capacity calculations for this site assume that the existing business and surface parking lot fronting Casanova Avenue remain, and that redevelopment happens only on the underutilized promotion of the site fronting North Fremont. Accordingly, the revised inventory projects 45 units at densities deemed affordable for lower income households. • Based on community comments and employer interest received to date, staff recommends adding a new program to Chapter 4 of the Draft Housing Element to conduct outreach to major employers in the city to gauge interest in employee sponsored housing and develop an overlay or comparable zoning mechanism to facilitate development of employee housing on properties they own, subject to objective standards.

Employer Sponsored Housing. The availability and cost of housing is a significant impediment to hiring and retention of employees for Monterey businesses. The Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) has expressed interest in potentially building employee housing on property they own and other local businesses may also be interested. Therefore, the City will conduct outreach to major employers in the city to gauge interest in employee sponsored housing and discuss potential zoning mechanisms that could facilitate housing development for interested employers. If appropriate, the City will develop an overlay or comparable zoning mechanism to facilitate development of employee housing on properties they own, subject to objective standards.

Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: (a) complete outreach in Q4 2023; (b) if appropriate, adopt an Employer Sponsored Housing Overlay and related objective standards by the end of Q3 2026 Objective: Increase housing options for those employed in the City of Monterey Funding: General Fund
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3349, Packet Page 3677

MEMORANDUM

• Staff recommends amending Program 1-I to also specifically include coordination with County on infrastructure to serve 50-acre MPUSD site, given that the County is planning to accommodate their RHNA in nearby Tarpey Flats.

Highway 68 Area Plan Update. MPUSD owns a vacant 50-acre parcel on relatively flat land, east of Tarpey Flats and south of Highway 68 and the Monterey Regional Airport. The Highway 68 Area Plan envisions a mix of up to 300 low and moderate income housing units on this property if MPUSD declares the property surplus, and the Plan provides policy direction and design guidelines that could serve as a starting point for planning of the site and surroundings. Through this program, the City will update the Highway 68 Area Plan to facilitate development of mixed income housing along with access and infrastructure improvements on the site. The Highway 68 Area Plan Update should identify portions the site for low-medium density housing, high density housing, and open space preservation, including creation of a parcel or parcels no greater than 10-acres in size for development at densities deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households; incorporate regulatory or process incentives to facilitate on-site provision of housing for households with limited financial resources; establish a basis for the City, and MPUSD, and Monterey County to jointly pursue an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to help fund the cost of infrastructure to support development of the site.

Responsibility: Community Development Department
Timeframe: (a) identify funding sources and release RFP by end of 2026; (b) bring draft specific plan to City Council for adoption in Q3 2031
Objective: 640 new housing units, including 145 homes affordable to moderate income households and 145 homes affordable to lower income households
Funding: General Fund and grant funding
• The Draft Housing Element includes programs proposing a local density bonus (Program 3-C), parking reductions (Program 2-E), and a permit streamlining pilot project (Program 1-D). Community comment have suggested some creative ideas for going above and beyond what is envisioned in these draft programs. In view of available staff resources and the tight timeline for implementing the robust program of actions already included in Chapter 4 (Housing Action Plan), staff does not recommend including these additional strategies at this time. However, these strategies could be considered in for the next Housing Element Update.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3350, Packet Page 3678 Monterey City Council / Planning Commission
Joint Study Session
September 19, 2023
MONTEREY 2031
Draft 2023-31
Housing Element
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3351, Packet Page 3679 RHNA & Regional Commute Patterns
Source: U.S. Census, On The Map. https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3352, Packet Page 3680 Regional RHNA Context
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3353, Packet Page 3681 Regional RHNA Context 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
ÔA
»A
A§
A§
ÔA A§
ÔA
A§
1 2
4 1
2 4
5 5
3 3
3 3
3 1
4 2
2 5 Naval
Postgraduate
School
US Navy
La Mesa Village
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey 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
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
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
Figure 2-2: Environmental Hazards
Data Source: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, Recommended by CALFIRE, 2007; Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, Adopted by CAL FIRE, 2007; National Flood Hazard Layer, FEMA 2017; Liquefaction Data, County of Monterey, 2014; Landslide Layer, County of Monterey, 2018; : Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2019; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Housing Element\Fig 2-2 Environmental Hazards.mxd Environmental Constraints
100 Year Coastal Flood Zone
100 Year Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Zone
High Liquefaction Susceptibility
High Landslide Susceptibility
Sea Level Rise - Tidal Inundation Zone
Sea Level Rise - Erosion Hazard
Airport Safety Zones (1-5)
Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Very High (LRA)
Very High (SRA)
High (SRA)
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
µ
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3354, Packet Page 3682 Regional RHNA Context
Source: AMBAG, Final 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan.

Salinas
Unincorporated
Monterey
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3355, Packet Page 3683 Why Consider New Housing?
● State Law Compliance
● 20% of Student Population Qualifies as Homeless
● Large Employment Centers – Ryan Ranch, Downtown,
Cannery Row, Garden Road and Lighthouse Avenue
● Not Sustainable
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3356, Packet Page 3684 Process and Timeline
Issue/Opportunity
Identification
Alternatives
Exploration
Draft Plan
Preparation
Adoption &
Finalization

SEPT FEB
2022 2023 2024

MAR JUN JUL OCT NOV FEB
Technical
Background
Report
Decision-maker
meetings
HCD Review
Draft Housing
Element Draft Preferred Plan
and Key Strategies
Interactive
Online Survey
Draft Land
Use/Safety
Elements
Community
Meeting
Public Review
Draft Housing
Element
Revised
Housing
Element
Adoption
Hearings
Final
General Plan Decision-maker
meetings
Kick Off
Community Liste
ning Sessions
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3357, Packet Page 3685 Meeting Objectives

1. Present Draft 2023-31 Housing Element

2. Summarize Community Input

3. Receive Direction on Revisions Prior to
Submittal to HCD
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3358, Packet Page 3686

1. HOUSING ELEMENT

OVERVIEW
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3359, Packet Page 3687 Housing Element Organization
Volume 1 Volume 2: Technical Appendices

1. Introduction

2. Community Profile

3. Adequate Sites for Housing

4. Housing Action Plan

1. Sites Inventory

2. Housing Needs Assessment

3. Constraints Analysis

4. Fair Housing Assessment

5. Fifth Cycle Accomplishments

6. Supporting Information for
Housing Projections

7. Outreach Materials
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3360, Packet Page 3688 Monterey’s 6th Cycle RHNA
Table A-43: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 Income Group % of County AMI
Number of Units
Allocated
Percent of Total
Allocation
Very Low
$42,150 - $79,500 0-50% 1,177 32.2%
Low
$67,450 - $127,200 >50-80% 769 21.0%
Moderate
$83,350 - $159,050 >80-120% 462 12.6%
Above Moderate
< $83,350 - $159,050 120%+ 1,246 34.1%
Total 3,654 100.0%
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3361, Packet Page 3689 Chapter 3: Adequate Sites for Housing
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3362, Packet Page 3690 Hazards and Constraints 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
ÔA
»A
A§
A§
ÔA A§
ÔA
A§
1 2
4 1
2 4
5 5
3 3
3 3
3 1
4 2
2 5 Naval
Postgraduate
School
US Navy
La Mesa Village
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
Presidio of
Monterey 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
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
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
Figure 2-2: Environmental Hazards
Data Source: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, Recommended by CALFIRE, 2007; Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, Adopted by CAL FIRE, 2007; National Flood Hazard Layer, FEMA 2017; Liquefaction Data, County of Monterey, 2014; Landslide Layer, County of Monterey, 2018; : Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2019; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. 0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Housing Element\Fig 2-2 Environmental Hazards.mxd Environmental Constraints
100 Year Coastal Flood Zone
100 Year Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Zone
High Liquefaction Susceptibility
High Landslide Susceptibility
Sea Level Rise - Tidal Inundation Zone
Sea Level Rise - Erosion Hazard
Airport Safety Zones (1-5)
Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Very High (LRA)
Very High (SRA)
High (SRA)
City of Monterey
Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Park
Water
Fairgrounds
µ
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3363, Packet Page 3691 Capacity Projections
By Area
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3364, Packet Page 3692 Requirements for Housing Inventory
and Site Suitability
● City is required to zone for sufficient capacity to meet RHNA ● Special requirements for lower income RHNA sites
○ Site size parameters (0.5 to 10 acres)
○ Absence of environmental constraints
○ Proximity to transit
○ Availability of infrastructure and utilities
○ Must affirmatively further fair housing
● Past performance to demonstrate viability
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3365, Packet Page 3693 Realistic Capacity Projections
3089 De Forest Rd, Marina
3125 De Forest Rd, Marina
• 55 dwelling units per
acre (du/ac) in Alvarado
District
• 29 - 42 du/ac for nonvacant sites along
commercial corridors
• 16 - 29 du/ac in the
Pacific/Munras/Cass
area, based on average
density of existing
housing in area
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3366, Packet Page 3694 Summary of RHNA Capacity
Income Category Very Low, Low, and Moderate Above Moderate Opportunity Area Vacant Non-vacant Vacant Non-vacant Subtotal Downtown 0 216 241 457
North Fremont 0 218 24 86 328
Garden Road 0 356 0 0 356
Lighthouse 0 31 11 254 296
Pacific/Munras/Cass 0 38 0 92 130
Del Monte 0 126 0 0 126
Vacant Low Density Residential 111 111
Vacant High Density Residential 33 33
ADUs 120 120
Educational Workforce Overlay 100 100
Pipeline projects 108 383 491
County Courthouse Site 130 130
50-acre MCSD Site 290 350 640
590 Perry Lane Site 50 50
Elk's Lodge Site 94 94
Del Monte Shopping Center 150 150
Heritage Harbor Office Complex 90 90
Subtotal 431 1,939 879 2,553 5,802
Total by RHNA Category 2,370 3,432 5,802
Inclusionary Requirement (20%) 244
Adjusted Total RHNA 2,614 3,188 5,802
RHNA 2,408 1,246 3,654
Buffer 206 1,942 1,498

8.56% 155.84%
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3367, Packet Page 3695 RHNA Capacity Without Fort Ord
Income Category Very Low, Low, and
Moderate Above Moderate
Opportunity Area Vacant Non-vacant Vacant Non-vacant Subtotal Downtown 0 216 241 457
North Fremont 0 218 24 86 328
Garden Road 0 356 0 0 356
Lighthouse 0 31 11 254 296
Pacific/Munras/Cass 0 38 0 92 130
Del Monte 0 126 0 0 126
Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch
Vacant Low Density Residential 111 111
Vacant High Density Residential 33 33
ADUs 120 120
Educational Workforce Overlay 100 100
Pipeline projects 108 383 491
County Courthouse Site 130 130
50-acre MCSD Site 290 350 640
590 Perry Lane Site 50 50
Elk's Lodge Site 94 94
Del Monte Shopping Center 150 150
Heritage Harbor Office Complex 90 90
Subtotal 431 1,519 879 873 3,702
Total by RHNA Category 1,950 1,752 3,702
Inclusionary Requirement (20%) 244
Adjusted Total RHNA 2,194 1,508 3,702
RHNA 2,408 1,246 3,654
Buffer -214 262 1,498
-8.88% 21.01%
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3368, Packet Page 3696 Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan - Goals

1. Increase housing supply and facilitate production of at least 3,654 new homes by 2031

2. Remove or reduce barriers to housing production in Monterey and address the regulatory, process, and market factors that limit and adversely affect affordability.

3. Provide for fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons, regardless of protected characteristics such as age, sex, family status, race, creed, color, or national origin, etc.

4. Take action to prevent homelessness and address the needs of unhoused people

5. 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

6. Monitor the effectiveness of housing programs to ensure that they respond to housing needs
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3369, Packet Page 3697 Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan -
Implementation
Robust suite
of 42
programs to
be
implemented
over 8-years
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3370, Packet Page 3698 Goal 1: Facilitate production at least 3,654 new
homes by 2031
Supported by 7 policies and 10 programs
Key Implementing Actions:
• Education Workforce Housing
Overlay
• Congregational Overlay
• Permit Streamlining Pilot Project
• Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific
Plan
• Highway 68 Area Plan Update
• Specific Plan Updates
• Multi-family Residential Overlay
Amendments
• Surplus Municipal Parking
Facilities
• SB 9 Housing Ordinance
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3371, Packet Page 3699 Goal 2: Reduce barriers to housing production
Supported by 6 policies and 11 programs
Key Implementing Actions:
• Revise Parking Requirements
• Permit Thresholds for MultiFamily Projects
• ARC Review
• Update Density Bonus
Ordinance
• Prepare Local Coastal Program
• Water Distribution Policy
• Addressing Water
Supply Constraints
• Expand Online Transparency
• Inclusionary Zoning
• By-Right Rezoning Sites from
Prior HEs
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3372, Packet Page 3700 Goal 3: Fair and equal housing opportunities
for all person
Supported by 5 policies and 7 programs
Key Implementing Actions:
• Home Sharing and Tenant Matching
• Affirmative Marketing of Affordable Housing Opportunities • Zoning Incentives for Deed Restricted ADUs/JADUs
• Housing for ELI Households and Persons with Special Needs • Local Density Bonus
• Legal Services and Fair Housing Education
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3373, Packet Page 3701 Goal 4: Prevent homelessness and
address the needs of unhoused people
Supported by 6 policies and 7 programs
Key Implementing Actions:
• Multi-Disciplinary Outreach Team
• Rental Assistance Pilot Program
• Expand Residential Uses to include Residential Care Facilities and Homeless Shelters
• Eliminate Use-Permit Requirements for Supportive and
Transitional Housing
• Recognize Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Units as a Housing Type Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3374, Packet Page 3702 Goal 5: Promote sustainability and energy
efficiency in residential development
Supported by 3 policies and 3 programs
Key Implementing Actions:
• Energy Efficient Design
• Green Building Incentives
• Sustainable Design
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3375, Packet Page 3703 Goal 6: Monitor the effectiveness of
housing programs
Supported by 3 policies and 4 programs
Key Implementing Actions:
• Adequate Sites Available to Meet RHNA
• Annual Review
• ADU/JADU Monitoring
• Development and Replacement Unit
Requirements
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3376, Packet Page 3704

2. SUMMARY OF

COMMUNITY INPUT
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3377, Packet Page 3705 Community Open House
• Public comment period: August 2 - September 4
• August 7th at Monterey Convention Center
• Open House Format
• Over 80 community members attended
• Also served as EIR Scoping Meeting
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3378, Packet Page 3706 Property Owner Outreach
• Notification sent to all owners with sites on Draft Inventory • Survey of non-vacant commercial site owners
• Follow up meetings with interested property owners, including MPUSD, Aquarium, Montage, and Del Monte Center, others
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3379, Packet Page 3707 Written Comments
• 77 comment letters received, included in Attachment A • Categorized by Agency, Organization, Individual with Hyperlinked index • Overall, letters expressed support for a lot of the Draft Housing Element, including focus on infill and strategies to expand housing choice
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3380, Packet Page 3708 Summary of Key Themes
Requests
for Sites
to be
Added
Recurring
Themes
Unique
Ideas
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3381, Packet Page 3709 Sites to be Added
• 1045 Cass Street (APN 001-671-003-000)
• 465 Tyler Street (APN 001692014000)
• 2370 North Fremont St (APN 013161028000)
1045 Cass Street 465 Tyler Street 2370 North Fremont St Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3382, Packet Page 3710 Housing at Fort Ord
• Housing at Fort Ord drew the most comments - 59 of 77 letters, plus open house comments
• LandWatch contends that housing at Fort Ord is not necessary and expressed concern for impacts to sensitive biological species, groundwater overdraft, VMT
• 56 of 59 letters on the topic were form letters mirroring LandWatch comments
• By contrast, open house attendees expressed support for housing, particularly the mixed use village concept (Program 1-A) • As with the community survey, opinion divided
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3383, Packet Page 3711 Fort Ord Feasibility
• One parcel in northern part is subject to deed restrictions regarding Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC)
• Regulatory reimbursement and remediation is required on this site and Boundary Road. Timeline = 60 months
• Southern parcels can potentially be developed within the planning period • City is investigating current status of settlement agreement with MCWD regarding water supply
Recommendation: Re-focus Program 1-A on the portion of Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch that can feasibly be developed within the 8-year planning period and recalculate housing projections for the area
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3384, Packet Page 3712 Housing at Fort Ord
Northern parcel
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3385, Packet Page 3713 Parking Requirements
• City recently reduced parking requirements Downtown and in North Fremont Specific Plan Area
• Through Program 2-E, the City will reduce parking standards within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop per State law and reviewing parking standards • Through Program 1-C, the City will offer shared parking agreements to help with development feasibility
• Some commenters suggested the City go further in reducing parking requirements
• Other commenters emphasized the need for adequate parking to accommodate new development
Recommendation: Assess the effectiveness of proposed programs and consider reductions in the future if warranted
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3386, Packet Page 3714 Permit Streamlining
• Through Program 1-D, City will implement a permit streamlining pilot project in Downtown and Pacific/Munras/Cass areas to:
• Allow housing by right subject to objective standards (except for historic properties)
• Establish expedited permit procedures
• Implement for a 3-year period
• Some community members suggested the program should apply to a wider geographic area and offer additional incentives
Recommendation: Assess the effectiveness of proposed programs and consider reductions in the future if warranted
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3387, Packet Page 3715 Employer Sponsored Housing
• Some commenters suggested adding a program similar to the Educational Workforce Housing Overly (Program 1-E)
for employers
• Staff has had conversations with CHOMP, Aquarium, and Del Monte Center to assess interest and discuss specifics Recommendation: Continue conversations with a view to
creating a zoning overlay to facilitate housing production for interested employers
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3388, Packet Page 3716 Other Recurring Themes
• Rental Assistance for Seniors - some commenters
suggested the City could expand Program 4-B Rental
Assistance Pilot Program which offers subsidies for at-risk, low-income renters
• Fire Safe construction - some commenters emphasized
need for materials and techniques to limit risk from wildfire.

To be addressed in the Safety Element
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3389, Packet Page 3717 Unique Ideas
• Form Based Code suggested as a mechanism to facilitate projects aligned with community expectations
• MBEP suggested adding a mechanism to provide flexibility in meeting inclusionary requirements, such as in lieu payments for small projects or sliding scale
• Program 3-C Local Density Bonus for small sites and family sized units.

MBEP suggested expanding for parcels of all sizes
• Allow increased height limits with controls (ex: average block heights) Recommendation: Assess the effectiveness of proposed programs and consider reductions in the future given staff capacity to implement in the next 8 years
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3390, Packet Page 3718

3. RECOMMENDED

REFINEMENTS
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3391, Packet Page 3719 Fort Ord Projections
• Focus Specific Plan on 109-acre area that excludes
1 northern parcel
• Recalculate capacity for the area: 1,660 new units total • As City is property owner, offer incentives to ensure that at least 220 of the new units are for Moderate and
220 are for Low RHNA
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3392, Packet Page 3720 Sites Added and Removed
• Add 3 sites based on property owner and community
suggestions:
• 1045 Cass Street (APN 001-671-003-000
• 465 Tyler Street (APN 001692014000)
• 2370 North Fremont St (APN 013161028000)
• Remove Heritage Harbor site
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3393, Packet Page 3721 Revised Housing Sites Map
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3394, Packet Page 3722 Moderate Income Capacity Projections
• RHNA allocation includes 462 units for Moderate Income households (80-120% AMI)
• High cost of housing means even small market rate units still out of reach • Inclusionary Ordinance requires 20% affordability, of which 10% must be for Moderate income households, which generates some capacity • As City is property owner at Ford Ord, revise Program 1-A to offer additional incentives for low and moderate beyond inclusionary requirements • Based on consultation with HCD, modify Program 3-C to offer additional local density bonus for projects that provide additional Moderate Income units Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3395, Packet Page 3723 Revised RHNA Capacity
Income Category Very Low and Low Moderate Above Moderate Opportunity Area Vacant Non-vacant Vacant Non-vacant Subtotal Downtown 0 219 259 478
North Fremont 0 263 24 86 373
Garden Road 0 515 0 0 515
Lighthouse 0 31 11 254 296
Pacific/Munras/Cass 0 38 0 92 130
Del Monte 0 126 0 0 126
Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch 220 220 1,220 1,660
Vacant Low Density Residential 111 111
Vacant High Density Residential 33 33
ADUs @ 15/year 72 36 12 120
Educational Workforce Overlay 100 100
Pipeline projects 109 1 393 503
County Courthouse Site 130 130
50-acre MCSD Site 64 64 512 640
590 Perry Lane Site 50 50
Elk's Lodge Site 94 94
Del Monte Shopping Center 150 150
Heritage Harbor Office Complex
Local Density Bonus 93
Subtotal 206 1,808 1,051 2,123 5,509
Total by RHNA Category 2,014 414 3,174 5,602
Lower Income Inclusionary Requirement (10%) 93
Moderate Income Inclusionary Requirement
(10%) 93
Adjusted Total RHNA 2,107 506 3,174 5,787
RHNA 1,946 462 1,246 3,654
Buffer 161 44 1,928 1,498

8.25% 9.57% 154.74%
Table 3-4 Summary of RHNA Capacity
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3396, Packet Page 3724 RHNA without Fort Ord
Income Category Very Low and Low Moderate Above Moderate Opportunity Area Vacant Non-vacant Vacant Non-vacant Subtotal Downtown 0 219 259 478
North Fremont 0 263 24 86 373
Garden Road 0 515 0 0 515
Lighthouse 0 31 11 254 296
Pacific/Munras/Cass 0 38 0 92 130
Del Monte 0 126 0 0 126
Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch
Vacant Low Density Residential 111 111
Vacant High Density Residential 33 33
ADUs @ 15/year 72 36 12 120
Educational Workforce Overlay 100 100
Pipeline projects 109 1 393 503
County Courthouse Site 130 130
50-acre MCSD Site 64 64 512 640
590 Perry Lane Site 50 50
Elk's Lodge Site 94 94
Del Monte Shopping Center 150 150
Local Density Bonus 93
Subtotal 206 1,588 1,051 903 3,849
Total by RHNA Category 1,794 194 1,954 3,942
Lower Income Inclusionary
Requirement (10%) 93
Moderate Income Inclusionary
Requirement (10%) 93
Adjusted Total RHNA 1,887 286 1,954 4,127
RHNA 1,946 462 1,246 3,654
Buffer -59 -176 708 1,498
-3.05% -38.05% 56.82%
Table 3-4 Summary of RHNA Capacity
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3397, Packet Page 3725 Fair Housing Appendix Clarification
• Analysis contained in Appendix D of Public Review
Draft
• Refined to clarify some details and references to
sources
• Added a matrix of AFFH issues and programs from
Chapter 4 that address them
• Added an analysis of how buildout of the inventory
would improve fair access to housing
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3398, Packet Page 3726 Other Recommended Refinements
• Edit wording of Program 1-I to state County should
also be an agency involved in infrastructure financing
for 50-acre MPUSD site
• Add a new program to adopt an ordinance prohibiting
storage facilities in I-R District (esp. Garden Road) to protect housing sites
• Apply Educational Workforce Housing Overlay to
private schools within City limits
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3399, Packet Page 3727

NEXT STEPS
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3400, Packet Page 3728 Next Steps
• Joint Commission-Council meeting ….……................ September 19, 2023 • Send to HCD, 90-day review begins………................ September 25, 2023 • Public Review of Draft Land Use, Safety Elements.... Fall 2023 • Public Review of Draft EIR………............................... Fall 2023 • HCD 90-Day Review Complete................................... End December 2023 • Planning Commission Hearing………......................... 1st Quarter 2024 • City Council Hearing………......................................... 1st Quarter 2024 • Statutory 120-Day Grace Period.................................. April 15, 2024 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3401, Packet Page 3729

BACK UP
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3402, Packet Page 3730 Maximum Income Level
Household Size Extremely Low Very Low Low Median Moderate 1 Person $25,300 $42,150 $67,450 $70,300 $85,350
2 Persons $28,900 $48,200 $77,100 $80,300 $96,400
3 Persons $32,500 $54,200 $86,750 $90,350 $108,450
4 Persons $36,100 $60,200 $96,350 $100,400 $120,500
5 Persons $39,000 $65,050 $104,100 $108,450 $130,150
6 Persons $41,900 $69,850 $111,800 $116,450 $139,800
7 Persons $45,420 $74,650 $119,500 $124,500 $149,400
8 Persons $50,560 $79,500 $127,200 $132,550 $159,050
Source: HUD Income Limits 2023
HUD Income Levels by Household Size (2023)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3403, Packet Page 3731 Affordability
Matrix
Household Size AMI Limits Affordable Payment
Housing Costs Maximum
Affordable Price Utilities Taxes &
Insurance
Renter Owner Renter Owner Owner Renter Owner
Extremely-Low-Income (<30% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $25,300 $633 $633 $247 $247 $221 $386 $30,403 2 Person (1 Bedroom) $28,900 $723 $723 $265 $265 $253 $458 $37,720 3 Person (2 Bedroom) $32,500 $813 $813 $319 $319 $284 $494 $38,703 4 Person (3 Bedroom) $36,100 $903 $903 $405 $405 $316 $498 $33,539 5 Person (4 Bedroom) $39,000 $975 $975 $477 $477 $341 $498 $28,958 Very-Low-Income (31%-50% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $42,150 $1,054 $1,054 $247 $247 $369 $807 $80,804 2 Person (1 Bedroom) $48,200 $1,205 $1,205 $265 $265 $422 $940 $95,544 3 Person (2 Bedroom) $54,200 $1,355 $1,355 $319 $319 $474 $1,036 $103,721 4 Person (3 Bedroom) $60,200 $1,505 $1,505 $405 $405 $527 $1,100 $105,750 5 Person (4 Bedroom) $65,050 $1,626 $1,626 $477 $477 $569 $1,149 $107,026 Low-Income (51%-80% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $67,450 $1,686 $1,686 $247 $247 $590 $1,440 $156,704 2 Person (1 Bedroom) $77,100 $1,928 $1,928 $265 $265 $675 $1,663 $182,142 3 Person (2 Bedroom) $86,750 $2,169 $2,169 $319 $319 $759 $1,850 $201,248 4 Person (3 Bedroom) $96,350 $2,409 $2,409 $405 $405 $843 $2,004 $214,159 5 Person (4 Bedroom) $104,100 $2,603 $2,603 $477 $477 $911 $2,126 $224,012 Moderate-Income (81%-120% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $85,350 $2,134 $2,489 $247 $247 $871 $1,887 $253,009 2 Person (1 Bedroom) $96,400 $2,410 $2,812 $265 $265 $984 $2,145 $288,231 3 Person (2 Bedroom) $108,450 $2,711 $3,163 $319 $319 $1,107 $2,393 $320,471 4 Person (3 Bedroom) $120,500 $3,013 $3,515 $405 $405 $1,230 $2,608 $346,747 5 Person (4 Bedroom) $130,150 $3,254 $3,796 $477 $477 $1,329 $2,777 $367,059 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3404, Packet Page 3732 Capacity Projections – Downtown
Total Units = 478
• Very Low and Low = 219
• Above Moderate = 259
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3405, Packet Page 3733 Capacity Projections – N Fremont
Total Units = 373
• Very Low and Low = 263
• Above Moderate = 110
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3406, Packet Page 3734 Capacity Projections – Lighthouse
Sites
Total Units = 296
• Very Low and Low = 31
• Above Moderate = 265
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3407, Packet Page 3735 Capacity Projections – Garden Road
Total Units = 515
• Very Low and Low =
515
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3408, Packet Page 3736 Capacity Projections – Pacific/Munras/Cass
Total Units = 130
• Very Low and Low = 38
• Above Moderate = 92
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3409, Packet Page 3737 Capacity Projections – Del Monte Avenue
Total Units = 126
• Very Low and Low =
126
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3410, Packet Page 3738 Capacity Projections - Ryan Ranch/Fort Ord
Total Units = 1,660
• Very Low and Low = 220
• Moderate = 220
• Above Moderate = 1,220
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3411, Packet Page 3739 Regional RHNA Context
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3412, Packet Page 3740 December 15, 2023
Christy Sabdo
[email protected]
City of Monterey
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
RE: 2023-31 Housing Element Revised
Draft Volume 1 December 8, 2023
Dear Ms. Sabdo:

Monterey-Salinas Transit District (MST) provides public transportation to the City of Monterey and operates a transit hub at the Monterey Transit Plaza. MST has reviewed the City of Monterey’s 2023-2031 Revised Draft Housing Element (Volume 1 December 8, 2023) and would like to make the following comments for your consideration:

Housing Action Plan
MST is in support of Policy 1.2, under Goal 1, and recommends editing the policy to include pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Access to safe active modes of transportation is imperative for residents as they promote health, environmental sustainability, and an enhanced quality of life. Suggested edits for Policy 1.2 are shown below (in red):

Policy 1.2 Promote infill development in adopted Specific Plan areas where high density residential development can be accommodated in locations with good pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and proximity to employment, shopping, transit, recreation, and other services.

MST is also leading a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Planning Study as a part of the planned SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit project. The study will identify land use policies and first-/last mile transportation strategies in five study areas, including areas of Monterey, to support development opportunities, increase transit ridership potential, and reduce vehicle-miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. MST recommends that City staff use the TOD Study as a resource to assess potential for TOD in the City of Monterey. Please visit MST’s website to access and learn more about the TOD Planning Study:
https://mst.org/about-mst/planning-development/
As the City’s Housing Element moves forward, we ask that the City of Monterey continue to collaborate with MST to ensure that public transportation is available to existing and future housing developments. If you have any questions about the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or at (831) 264-9288.

Sincerely,
Emma Patel
Planning Manager
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3413, Packet Page 3741

APPENDIX
H

SITE TEST FITS
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3414, Packet Page 3742 City of Monterey – Housing Element Update 2023-31 Appendix H: Site Test Fits H-2
Table of Contents
Overview of Site Test Fits............................................................................................. H-1 Applicable Zoning Standards........................................................................................ H-3 Downtown Test Fits ...................................................................................................... H-4 Lighthouse Test Fits ...................................................................................................... H-8 Pacific/Munras/Cass Test Fits ..................................................................................... H-10 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3415, Packet Page 3743 Overview of Site Test Fits

PURPOSE
A series of design test fits was prepared to confirm that the densities assumed in the sites inventory can be achieved with the proposed development standards or to identify any revisions needed to facilitate buildout of the inventory within the planning period. is Appendix incorporates the test fit materials and summarizes the findings of the exercise.

APPROACH
Representative sites within each of the Downtown, Lighthouse, and Pacific/Munras/Cass opportunity areas were selected and development prototypes were created to test the standards that would apply to proposed projects. Table H-1 summarizes the applicable zoning standards. Consistent with State law and Program 2- E, City standards would not impose a minimum parking requirement for residential or mixed use development located within 0.5 miles of a corridor with transit service every 15 minutes or less. is means that there would be no minimum parking requirement in all of the Downtown and Lighthouse areas and much of the Pacific/Munras/Cass area; however, this analysis has conservatively assumed that parking would nonetheless be constructed, as shown in Table H-1.

For each of the sites selected, the standards were tested on mixed use and/or 100 percent residential projects.

Site design first considered actual lot dimensions and access to adjacent streets, and planned ground floor parking accordingly. Next, the area required per unit was calculated and an illustrative unit mix was developed. Site specific calculations and an illustrative massing model were then created for each site.

FINDINGS
A summary of the results is presented below, with detailed tables and massing models shown on the following pages.

Downtown
e majority of downtown sites included on the inventory are located within the Alvarado District, where current zoning regulations permit up to 100 dwelling units per acre and buildings of up to 4 stories. Two sets of calculations and massing models are presented: one for projects up to four stories and another with maximum building heights raised to five stories, as called for in Program 1-C of the Action Plan. e test fits use the standards for density, height, lot coverage, and setbacks specified in the Downtown Specific Plan, which controls zoning for the area (see Table H-1). e Downtown Specific Plan does not establish a minimum FAR for non-residential uses; the test fits assume ground floor retail with a typical commercial depth at 50 feet.

With building heights of up to four stories, the results show that densities of 100 du/ac can be achieved on two of the three sites selected even with a mixed use project and ground floor parking. On the smallest of the three sites, up to 97 du/ac can be achieved. Based on the results of the test fits, Program 1-C was incorporated into the Action Plan under which the City will amend the Downtown Specific Plan to increase maximum building heights in the Alvarado District to five stories in order to facilitate buildout of the Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3416, Packet Page 3744 City of Monterey – Housing Element Update 2023-31 Appendix H: Site Test Fits H-2
inventory. e test fits show that at five stories, densities of at least 100 du/ac can be achieved on all sites, even in a mixed use format with ground floor parking. erefore, the proposed standards will permit the densities assumed in the inventory for downtown sites.

Lighthouse
ree representative sites of different sizes and dimensions were selected, and the standards established in the Lighthouse Avenue Specific Plan were tested on both mixed use and 100 percent residential projects.

Current standards applicable in the area permit building heights of up to three stories and densities of up to 30 du/ac and the inventory assumes buildout consistent with these standards. e specific plan does not establish a maximum lot coverage standard or a minimum FAR for non-residential uses in mixed use projects. e calculations show actual lot coverage, based on assumed unit size and site access. Sites with access from two streets can accommodate ground floor parking more easily, allowing for a higher ground floor lot coverage/lower building heights. e test fits assume ground floor retail with a typical commercial depth at 50 feet.
e results indicate that the maximum permitted density can be achieved in both mixed use and 100 percent residential projects with current standards. e maximum number of units permitted on the smallest site - 611 Lighthouse - would be 4.2 units and rounding up to 5 is not permitted under current standards. erefore, the density that can be achieved on this site in view of size, dimensions, and access is 29 du/ac.

As noted above, the test fits assume that ground floor parking will be provided, although proposed City standards would not require that parking be provided given proximity to a high-quality transit corridor.

Overall, the site test fits demonstrate that the densities assumed in the inventory can be achieved with the standards proposed.

Pacific/Munras/Cass
Commercial zoning applicable to the Pacific/Munras/Cass area currently permits residential development at up to 30 du/ac; however, given its proximity to Downtown Monterey and expressions of owner interest in redevelopment with housing, the Multifamily Residential Overlay will be applied to the area through Program 1-B, permitting up to 60 du/ac. Recognizing the smaller parcel size and existing mixed use context in the Pacific/Munras/Cass area, Program 1-B calls for the creation of appropriate objective development standards (including standards for side setbacks, building heights etc) to integrate higher density housing in the area and ensure the projected yield of new units can be achieved. Site test fits for this area used the commercial zoning standards currently applicable to the area as a starting point to help identify amendments needed to accommodate development at 60 du/ac. e results indicate that building heights of up to four stories would be required and that side setbacks would need to be reduced. As shown in the illustrative massing models, while a side setback of 10 feet would permit development at 60 du/ac on some sites, on narrower sites, side setbacks would need to be reduced to 5 feet in order to achieve 60 du/ac. Additionally, while not strictly necessary to achieve 60 du/ac reduced front setback requirements would facilitate development and moderate the need for taller buildings. e maximum lot coverage standard of 50 percent in the current commercial zoning is not a constraint on achieving 60 du/ac, although it could also be adjusted to moderate building heights. e City Code does not establish a minimum FAR for non-residential uses in a mixed use development.

Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3417, Packet Page 3745 Zoning Standards: PC-LH (Lighthouse specific Plan)
Max Residential Density
(current/proposed) 100 du/ac
Max Residential Density
(current/proposed) 30 du/ac
Max Residential Density
(current/proposed)
30 du/ac
60du/ac
Parking (res) 0/unit Parking (res) 0/unit Parking (res) 0/unit Parking (comm) 0 Parking (comm) 0 Parking (comm) 0
Front Setback (ft) 0 Front Setback (ft) 0 Front Setback (ft) 20 Side Setback (ft) 0 Side Setback (ft) 0 Side Setback (ft) 5 ft, or two-and three-story
buildings 10 ft.

Corner Side: 20% of width, min.
10 ft. max. 15 ft.

Rear Setback (ft) 0 Rear Setback (ft) 0 Rear Setback (ft) 10 Max. Lot Coverage (%) N/A Max. Lot Coverage (%) N/A Max. Lot Coverage (%) 50% Maximum FAR (%) N/A Maximum FAR (%) N/A Maximum FAR (%) N/A Max Height
(current/proposed)
4 stories
5 stories
Max Height
(current/proposed) 3 stories
Max Height
(current/proposed)
3 stories
4 stories
Assumptions:

Unit Size - Studio 450 Unit Size - Studio 450 Unit Size - Studio 450 Unit Size - 1 Bedroom 750 Unit Size - 1 Bedroom 750 Unit Size - 1 Bedroom 750 Unit Size - 2 Bedroom 1100 Unit Size - 2 Bedroom 1100 Unit Size - 2 Bedroom 1100 Internal circulation etc. (load
factor for net to gross
conversion) 15% of Floor Plate
Internal circulation etc. (load
factor for net to gross
conversion) 15% of Floor Plate
Internal circulation etc. (load
factor for net to gross
conversion) 15% of Floor Plate
Commercial Depth 50 ft Commercial Depth 50 ft Commercial Depth 50 ft Commerical Height 15 ft Commerical Height 15 ft Commerical Height 15 ft Residential Height 10 ft Residential Height 10 ft Residential Height 10 ft Space Required per Parking Spot
(sqft) 350
Space Required per Parking Spot
(sqft) 350
Space Required per Parking Spot
(sqft) 350
Table H-1: Zoning Standards
Downtown
Assumptions:

Zoning Standards: PC-D (Downtown Specific Plan)
(Entire downtown opportunity area is within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor)
Zoning Standards: C0
(Test fit sites are within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop or highquality transit corridor) Assumptions:

Lighthouse Pacific/Munras/Cass
(Entire lighthouse opportunity area is within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor)
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3418, Packet Page 3746 Table H-2: Downtown Test Fits - 4 Stories
438 Calle Principal 442 Adams St 468 Washington St
Lot Area (sqft) 21607.45 16146.16 5857.77
Lot Area (acre) 0.50 0.37 0.13
Lot Dimensions (ft) 176 x 123 140 x 115 62 x 94
Building Dimensions (ft) 176 x 123 140 x 115 62 x 94
Lot Coverage 100% 100% 100%
Max Units (@100du/ac) 49.6 37.1 13.4
Rounded up 50 37 13
Commercial (sqft) 3110 4245 2120
Total Floor Area - Gross (sqft) 49700 37365 14220
Total Floor Area - Net (sqft) 42245 31760 12087
First Floor 4 (studio) + 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 4 (1-bed) 0 Second Floor 3 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) + 3 (2-bed) 1 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) Third Floor 5 (studio) + 6 (1-bed) + 7 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) + 3 (2-bed) 1 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) Fourth Floor 5 (studio) + 6 (1-bed) + 7 (2-bed) 6 (studio) + 5 (1-bed) + 4 (2-bed) 2 (1-bed) + 3 (2-bed) Total 17 (studio) + 16 (1-bed) + 17 (2-bed) 12 (studio) + 15 (1-bed) + 10 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 8 (1-bed) + 3 (2-bed) Parking (sqft) 33337.69 27941.28 10708.24
17 (studio) + 75 (1- and 2-bed)
+ 3 (commercial)
8 (studio) + 62 (1- and 2-bed)
+ 4 (commercial)
2 (studio) + 21 (1- and 2-bed)
+ 2 (commercial)
95 74 25
Total Parking Spots
(@ 350 sqft per spot) 95 75 28
Total Units 50 37 13
Density 101 100 97
Parking Required
Unit Mix
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3419, Packet Page 3747 Table H-2: Downtown Test Fits - 4 Stories
438 Calle Principal 442 Adams St 468 Washington St
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3420, Packet Page 3748 Table H-3: Downtown Test Fits - 5 stories
438 Calle Principal 442 Adams St 468 Washington St
Lot Area (sqft) 21607.45 16146.16 5857.77
Lot Area (acre) 0.50 0.37 0.13
Lot Dimensions (ft) 176 x 123 140 x 115 62 x 94
Building Dimensions (ft) 176 x 123 140 x 115 62 x 94
Lot Coverage 100% 100% 100%
Max Units (@100du/ac) 49.6 37.1 13.4
Rounded up 50 37 13
Commercial (sqft) 3110 4245 2120
Residential Total Floor Area -
Gross (sqft) 56660 45130 20080
Residential Total Floor Area -
Net (sqft) 48161 38361 17068
First Floor 4 (studio) + 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 4 (1-bed) 0 Second Floor 3 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) + 3 (2-bed) 1 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) Third Floor 3 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) + 3 (2-bed) 1 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) Fourth Floor 5 (studio) + 6 (1-bed) + 7 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) + 3 (2-bed) 2 (1-bed) + 3 (2-bed) Fifth Floor 5 (studio) + 6 (1-bed) + 7 (2-bed) 6 (studio) + 5 (1-bed) + 4 (2-bed) 2 (1-bed) + 3 (2-bed) Total 20 (studio) + 19 (1-bed) + 19 (2-bed) 14 (studio) + 18 (1-bed) + 13 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 10 (1-bed) + 6 (2-bed) Parking (sqft) 57826.83 35325.24 12800
20 (studio) + 86 (1- and 2-bed)
+ 3 (commercial)
14 (studio) + 66 (1- and 2-bed)
+ 4 (commercial)
2 (studio) + 33 (1- and 2-bed)
+ 2 (commercial)
109 84 37
Total Parking Spots
(@ 350 sqft per spot) 123 96 37
Total Units 58 45 16
Density 117 121 119
Unit Mix
Parking Required
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3421, Packet Page 3749 Table H-3: Downtown Test Fits - 5 stories
438 Calle Principal 442 Adams St 468 Washington St
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3422, Packet Page 3750 Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use Residential 611 Lighthouse Ave 611 Lighthouse Ave 296 Lighthouse Ave 296 Lighthouse Ave 774 Lighthouse Ave 774 Lighthouse Ave 1066006000 1066006000 1035013000 1035013000 1072003000 1072003000 Zoning PC-LH PC-LH PC-LH PC-LH PC-LH PC-LH
Max Units (@30du/ac) 4 4 8 8 8 8
Lot Area (sqft) 6,098.40 6,098.40 10,890.00 10,890.00 10,890.00 10,890.00 Lot Area (acre) 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Lot Dimensions (ft) 50 x 120 50 x 120 100 x 110 100 x 110 50 x 220 50 x 220 Building Dimensions (ft) 36 x 84 31 x 77
97 x 96
(L shaped building, 40 ft depth)
95 x 93
(L shaped building, 40 ft depth) 50 x 150 50 x 98
Lot Coverage 50.4% 39.8% 53.1% 53.8% 69.1% 44.6%
Commercial (sqft) 1800.00 0.00 3300.00 0 2500.00 0
Total Floor Area - Gross
(sqft) 6175.00 4774.00 11800.00 8720.00 11400.00 8500.00 Total Floor Area - Net
(sqft) 5248.75 4057.90 10030.00 7412.00 9690.00 7225.00 First Floor 1 (2-bed) 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) 2 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 2 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) 1 (studio) + 2 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) 1 (studio) + 2 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) Second Floor 1 (studio) + 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 2 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) 2 (2-bed) 1 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) 1 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) Total 1 (studio) + 1 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) 2 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 2 (1-bed) + 4 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 2 (1-bed) + 4 (2-bed) 1 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) + 4 (2-bed) 1 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) + 4 (2-bed) Total Units 4 4 8 8 8 8
Density 29 29 32 32 32 32
Parking Required 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parking Provided 7 4 14 7 14 7
Height 25ft 20ft 25ft 20ft 25ft 20ft
Unit Mix
Table H-4: Lighthouse Test Fits
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3423, Packet Page 3751 Site Aerial
3D - Residential
3D - Mixed-Use
Table H-4: Lighthouse Test Fits
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3424, Packet Page 3752 Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use Residential Mixed Use Residential 266 Eldorado St 266 Eldorado St 1030 Cass St 1030 Cass St 142 Carmelito Ave 142 Carmelito Ave 182 Eldorado St 182 Eldorado St 1591041000 1591041000 1603037000 1603037000 1672031000 1672031000 1681002000 1681002000 Inventory Numbers 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2
Zoning CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
Max Units (@60du/ac) 7.4 7.4 8.5 8.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 7.5
Rounded up No rounding allowed No rounding allowed 9 9 7 7 8 8 Lot Area (sqft) 5,397.44 5,397.44 6168.28 6168.28 4706.08 4706.08 5413.68 5413.68 Lot Area (acre) 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 Lot Dimensions (ft) 50 x 110 50 x 110 64 x 100 64 x 100 39 x 112 39 x 112 55 x 100 55 x 100 Building Dimensions (ft) 27.5 x 80 27.5 x 80 42 x 68 43.5 x 67.5 - 29 x 66.5 35 x 69 35 x 69 Lot Coverage 36.9% 36.9% 45.3% 47.5% - 41.5% 40.3% 40.3% Commercial (sqft) 650.00 0.00 1800.00 1173.00 0.00
Residential Total Floor Area
- Gross (sqft) 7220.00 7220.00 9710.00 7500.00 8418.00 8420.00 Residential Total Floor Area
- Net (sqft) 6137.00 6137.00 8253.50 6375.00 7155.30 7157.00 First Floor 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) 1 (studio) - 1 (studio) + 1 (1-bed) 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) - 1 (1-bed) Second Floor 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) 1 (studio) + 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) 2 (2-bed) - 2 (studio) + 1 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 1 (2-bed) Third Floor 2 (studio) + 1 (1-bed) 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) 1 (studio) + 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) 4 (studio) + 1 (1-bed) - 2 (studio) + 1 (2-bed) 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) Fourth Floor - 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) 1 (studio) + 2 (1-bed) - - 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) 1 (1-bed) + 1 (2-bed) Total 2 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) 1 (studio) + 2 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) 3 (studio) + 4 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) 5 (studio) + 2 (1-bed) + 2 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 1 (1-bed) 4 (studio) + 1 (1-bed) + 3 (2-bed) 2 (studio) + 3 (1-bed) + 3 (2-bed) Total Units 7 7 9 9 3 8 8
Density 56 56 64 64 28 64 64
Parking Required 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parking Provided 8 7 9 9 3 8 8
Height 45ft 40ft 45ft 30ft 12ft 45ft 40ft
Table H-5: Pacific/Munras/Cass Test Fits - 60du/ac
Unit Mix
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3425, Packet Page 3753 Aerial
3D - Mixed-Use
3D - Residential
Under Current zoning we cannot reach 60 du/ac as the setbaks make the building too narrow to be livable 142 Carmelito Ave
We can reach 60 du/ac if the side setbacks are reduced to 5ft for buildings over 1 story Table H-5: Pacific/Munras/Cass Test Fits - 60du/ac
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3426, Packet Page 3754 3 Land Use Element
e physical development pattern of a city profoundly influences quality of life for its residents. A balanced mix of residential, commercial, and employment-oriented land uses together with open space is the foundation of a sustainable community, reducing time spent commuting or running errands, making it easier to get around without a car, and minimizing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. e Land Use Element provides a comprehensive framework to guide development and conservation in Monterey over time, establishing land use classifications, development intensity standards, and a range of goals and policies that will guide decision-making for the next 10 to 20 years.

Existing Land Use and Development Pattern
Located between the California coastline and the Santa
Lucia Mountains, the City of Monterey encompasses a
total area of approximately 8.67 square miles and 3.5
square miles of water within the Monterey Bay. e natural setting defines the boundaries of the community, and the physical form of the city is characterized by a combination of natural features, historic architecture, and urban development. Map 3 shows the distribution
of existing land use in the city, and Chart 1 summarizes land area by existing use within the city.

Commercial and office uses account for about 9 percent
of all land within the City limit, concentrated largely in the historic downtown core and along key corridors in
the northern part of the city, including Lighthouse Avenue, Munras Avenue, Abrego Street, and North Fremont Street. Adjacent to these commercial/office areas are
multifamily residential uses, which account for 6 percent land within the city, transitioning to single-family neighborhoods, which account for 19 percent. In the southern part of the city, the Ryan Ranch Office Park and the Garden Road area feature an array of office and employment uses, while the Del Monte Shopping Center is a major regional retail center. Public and institutional uses, including hospitals, schools, religious facilities, and government offices account for the largest share, at 24 percent of all land within the City limit. Reflecting the role of the military in shaping the development of the community from Spanish colonial times through the 20th Century, military installations account for 16 percent of all land use within the City limit today, including approximately 128 acres on the site of the former Fort Ord military base, which was decommissioned and closed in 1994. Parks and open space accounts for 16 percent, while only 7 percent is vacant. Although not located within the City limit, the Monterey Regional Airport borders the city on three sides, occupying 496 acres.

Chart 1: Existing Land Use in Monterey
19%
6%
9%
1%
24%
16%
7%
17%
Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential
Commercial Industrial
Public/Institutional Parks and Open Space
Vacant Right of Way /Utilities
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3427, Packet Page 3755 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
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier
Field
Larkin School Park
Veterans
Memorial Park Huckleberry
Hill Nature
Preserve
Don Dahvee Park
Iris
Canyon
Park
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
State Beach
Fisherman's
Flat Greenbelt
El Estero
Park
Old Capitol Site
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaji to
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA
Monterey
Research NSA Monterey Pines Lab Golf Course
Monterey
City Hall
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Land Use Element\Map 3 Existing Land Use Map.mxd Single Family Residential
Multi Family Residential
Office
Commercial
Industrial
Public/Institutional
Parks and Open Space
Utilities
Vacant
City of Monterey
Water
Map 3: Existing Land Use
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023. µ
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3428, Packet Page 3756 City of Monterey General Plan
3-3
Economy, Housing and Development Potential
An even balance of jobs and housing available in a community typically means shorter commute times for workers, reduced traffic congestion and pollution, and improved quality of life. In 2022, Monterey had 22,246 jobs and 12,373 homes for a jobs-housing ratio of 1.80, which indicates the need for more housing to meet the needs of the local workforce. Over decades, a shortage of water supply has constrained housing production and resulted in high rents and sales prices, so a particular emphasis on reasonably priced housing that is affordable for those who work in Monterey is needed.

With relatively little vacant land available, underused commercial and industrial properties within the City limit present opportunities for redevelopment. Underutilized properties are those where the value of the land is worth more than the buildings and structures on it, giving the owner an incentive to redevelop with new uses that command higher rents or sale prices. For example, a large surface parking lot with more spaces than are needed to serve the businesses at a shopping center could be considered underutilized and could be redeveloped with other uses to serve community needs, such as housing that in turn would provide more customers for the stores and restaurants on the site. City-owned properties may also present opportunities, particularly when located adjacent to employment areas and activity centers.

Areas where vacant, underutilized, and City-owned properties are clustered present the best opportunities for redevelopment, as they are locations that can accommodate significant physical change.