Within Monterey, areas with the most potential to accommodate new development over the next 20 years are shown in Map 4. Some of these areas have specific plans and zoning regulations that have already been approved by the City Council to guide their evolution, while others will require thoughtful, community-based planning efforts to develop a shared vision and a set of actions to realize it. Overall, development under the General Plan could result in up to approximately 1,995 new jobs, 5,800 new homes and 10,125 new residents by 20311 As a result, the jobs-housing ratio would improve to 1.24.
Vision and Framework
e General Plan envisions the creation of a series of distinctive, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods within the City limit, each with a vibrant mix of housing, shops, services, jobs, and amenities and a public realm that promotes walking, bicycling, and use of public transit. Shown on Map 5, the mixed use neighborhoods are the areas of Downtown/East Downtown, Cannery Row/Lighthouse Avenue, North Fremont Street, and Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch. Beyond these areas, there are also opportunities to integrate housing into commercial districts to better support the vitality of existing businesses, and to pursue the redevelopment of several large, publicly owned sites. 1 Population projections assume an average household size of 2.13 persons for the City of Monterey, consistent with 2022 U.S. Census estimates.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3429, Packet Page 3757 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
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Research
NSA Monterey Pines Lab
Golf Course
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Lighthouse
Downtown
Pacific/Munras/Cass
Del Monte
North Fremont
Fort Ord
Ryan Ranch
Garden
Road/Airport
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Land Use Element\Map 4 Opportunity Areas.mxd Opportunity Areas
Potential Opportunity Sites
Vacant Sites
Underutilized Sites
City of Monterey
Parks and Recreation
Water
Map 4: Opportunity Areas
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022. µ
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3430, Packet Page 3758 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
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
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Research
NSA Monterey Pines Lab
Golf Course
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Land Use Element\Map 5 Mixed Use Neighborhoods.mxd Mixed Use Neighborhoods
City of Monterey
Military Facilities
Water
Map 5: Mixed Use Neighborhoods
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 3431, Packet Page 3759 Land Use Element
3-6
Other parts of the city are not anticipated to change significantly in character, land use, or development intensity over the next 20 years. ese areas include the community's rich network of parks and open space, its educational institutions, and its military installations. Notably, in 2024 the Big Sur Land Trust acquired an 84-acre property within the Highway 68 Plan area for the purpose of preserving and protecting the natural and scenic resources it contains.In residential neighborhoods, development of accessory dwelling units and some limited infill housing is envisioned, but the basic scale and character will endure.
e General Plan Land Use Diagram and land use classifications provide a framework for realizing this community vision. e Land Use Diagram (Map 6) designates the proposed location, distribution, and extent of activities that may take place throughout the city. Land use classifications— shown as color/graphic patterns on the diagram—allow for a range of activities within each classification. e diagram is a graphic representation of policies contained in the General Plan; it is to be used and interpreted in conjunction with the text and other figures contained in the General Plan. Land use classifications are presented below. e Zoning Ordinance provides greater detail on specific uses permitted within each classification.
Land Use Classifications
RESIDENTIAL
Very Low Density Residential (R-VLD). e Very Low Density Residential category allows for residential development at less than two dwellings per acre. It provides for single-family housing and accessory dwelling units on large lots in areas with scenic and natural resources where the preservation of those resources is a central goal.
Low Density Residential (R-LD). e Low Density Residential category allows for residential development at two to eight dwellings per acre. is designation applies in established residential neighborhoods and is intended to provide for the continuation of detached single-family residences of varying sizes and accessory dwelling units.
Medium Density Residential (R-MD). e Medium Density Residential category allows for residential development up to thirty dwellings per acre. e intent of this designation is to provide for a mix of attached, detached, and/or mixed residential uses with a range of densities and housing types, including duplexes, condominiums, and apartments.
MIXED USE
Commercial (C). e Commercial category designates areas for a wide range of commercial uses, including retail, office, service, and visitor-oriented commercial uses. Sites with this designation may be developed with a standalone commercial use, two or more commercial uses, or mixed use.
Allowable non-residential floor area ratio is between 0.25 and 3.0 FAR. On smaller parcels, additional FAR may be permitted to achieve the desired vision for the area. Residential uses are also permitted in a standalone or mixed use format at up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Mixed use projects must meet both residential and non-residential intensity standards.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3432, Packet Page 3760 A§
A»
AÔ
A§
AÔ
A§
A§
AÔ
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton Park Hilltop Park
And Center
Via
Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
Quarry
Park
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 icDr
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA
Monterey
Research
NSA Monterey Pines Lab
Golf Course
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
Monterey
City Hall
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Land Use Element\Map 6 General Plan Land Use.mxd Residential
Very Low Density Residential (R-VLD)
Low Density Residential (R-LD)
Medium Density Residential (R-MD)
Mixed Use
Commercial (C)
Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN)
Employment (E)
Visitor Accomodation Facility (VAF)
Other
Public/Institutional (P-I)
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS)
Highway 68 Area Plan
Overlays
Airport Compatibility Overlay (AC-O)
Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O)
City of Monterey
Water
Map 6: General Plan 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 3433, Packet Page 3761 Land Use Element
3-8
Mixed Use Neighborhood (MUN). e Mixed Use Neighborhood category is intended to promote pedestrian-oriented places that layer compatible land uses, public amenities, and attractions together at various scales and intensities. It allows for multiple functions within the same building or adjacent to one another in the same general vicinity to foster a mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity. A full range of residential, retail, employment, entertainment, cultural, public, and personal service uses is permitted. Allowable non-residential floor area ratio is up to 2.0 FAR. On smaller parcels, additional FAR may be permitted to achieve the desired vision for the area. e maximum permitted residential density is 30 dwelling units per acre; however, higher density projects are allowed in certain areas and under certain conditions as defined in the zoning ordinance, specific plans, or area plans. Mixed use projects must meet both residential and non-residential intensity standards.
Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF). is category provides for a range of short-term lodging facilities to accommodate visitors to Monterey, including hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, inns, hostels, and other similar facilities. Accessory uses typically associated with commercial lodging, such as retail shops, restaurants, beauty and barber shops, and facilities for conferences and meetings, are also permitted. Allowable non-residential floor area ratio is between 0.25 and 3.0 FAR. On smaller parcels, additional FAR may be permitted to achieve the desired vision for the area. Vacation timeshare rentals and residential uses are not permitted.
Employment (E). e Employment category provides for business parks, office, and light industrial uses in the vicinity of the Monterey Regional Airport. It features a mix of lot sizes to accommodate small businesses as well as larger campus-style uses. Permitted uses include administrative and professional offices, light manufacturing, and research and development. Secondary and accessory uses such as restaurants, cafes, printers, and office supply stores to serve the needs of employees and businesses are encouraged. Allowable non-residential floor area ratio is up to 0.8 FAR. Employment areas can also support multifamily housing to serve the local workforce.
OTHER
Public/Institutional (P-I). is category applies to all publicly-owned facilities and those private facilities operated to serve the general public except for parks and recreation facilities. Included in this category are: public schools, military facilities, the airport, cemetery, large public parking facilities, hospitals, museums, conference center, and some publicly-owned historic buildings.
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS). is category applies to all parks and recreation facilities such as neighborhood, community, and county parks; community centers; and greenbelt and other open space areas.
Highway 68 Area Plan. Development and resource conservation in this nearly 5,000-acre area south of Highway 68 at the southeastern gateway to the city is governed by the voter-approved Highway 68 Area Plan, which guides individual plans and proposals.
OVERLAYS
Multifamily Residential Overlay (MFR-O). e Multifamily Residential Overlay is intended to increase opportunities for a range of housing types to meet the needs of the local workforce and Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3434, Packet Page 3762 City of Monterey General Plan
3-9
address a shortage of supply. Multifamily housing of two or more units, such as duplexes, townhomes, apartments, and condominiums, is permitted on sites within the MFR-O at densities of up to 60 dwelling units per acre.
Airport Compatibility Overlay (AC-O). e Airport Compatibility Overlay applies to properties in Airport Safety Zones 1 through 6 as identified in the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in order to support ongoing airport operations and ensure public safety. e purpose of the overlay is to resolve conflicts with respect to permitted development types and intensities on properties in the vicinity of the Monterey Regional Airport that have resulted from adoption of the ALUCP in 2019. Existing uses are permitted to continue on sites within the AC-O, and new development and expansion of existing uses shall only be permitted where the compatibility criteria or the infill exemption criteria of the ALUCP can be met. Development in the AC-O with the potential to conflict with the ALUCP’s land use compatibility policies and criteria must be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for compatibility review.
Goal a. Establish a compact, sustainable land use and development pattern with boundaries defined by the Santa Lucia Mountains and the Monterey Bay.
Policy a.1. Foster an integrated mix of employment, housing, educational, visitor-oriented, entertainment, recreational and open space uses throughout the city to support a complete community.
Policy a.2. Balance levels of employment and housing within the community to reduce commute times, improve air quality, and provide more opportunities for those who work in Monterey to live locally.
Policy a.3. Promote a range of residential densities throughout the community to encourage a mix of housing types in varying price ranges and rental rates.
Policy a.4. Focus new development primarily in commercial districts and mixed use neighborhoods so as to support the vitality of existing businesses, optimize the use of utility infrastructure, and reduce vehicle trip frequency, length, and associated emissions.
Policy a.5. Work with the County, the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD), and interested property owners to integrate new housing onto key sites south of Highway 1, including the 50-acre property owned by MPUSD, and sites along the south side of Garden Road.
Policy a.6. Use development agreements, impact fees, benefits districts, and other mechanisms to ensure the provision of adequate infrastructure to serve new development.
Policy a.7. Preserve the scale and character of existing residential neighborhoods while allowing and encouraging appropriate infill development.
Policy a.8. Reinforce the visual, pedestrian, and bicycle connection between City neighborhoods and the Bay so that residents have exceptional non-automobile access to the Bay.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3435, Packet Page 3763 Land Use Element
3-10
Please see also the Safety Element for policies related to flooding, including Policy a.15 regarding annual review of areas covered by the plan that are subject to flooding identified by floodplain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources.
MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOODS
e General Plan outlines strategies for greater integration of uses in the mixed use neighborhoods shown on Map 5 and a better balance between employment and residential uses, with more areas designated for mixed use development rather than single use. Fostering a mix of complementary land uses within an area has helped to generate vibrant, successful districts in communities throughout California and across the nation. Mixed use can involve multiple uses in the same building – for example, retail shops at ground level with apartments above – or it can involve two or more compatible uses in separate buildings on the same property. Mixed use can also be achieved with a mix of uses located within site distance of one another along a corridor. e key is that a range of options for living, working, doing business, and enjoying leisure time are located in proximity to one another in a way that reduces the need for parking and driving while increasing opportunities for people to interact.
Goal b. Create and nurture a series of distinctive, walkable, mixed use neighborhoods in Monterey.
Policy b.1. Develop and implement specific plans and zoning to guide development in the mixed use neighborhoods, recognizing that each mixed use neighborhood is unique and requires tailored development and design standards, multi-modal improvements, and infrastructure financing strategies.
Policy b.2. Promote context-sensitive design within mixed use neighborhoods, based on objective standards for height, bulk, scale, landscaping, parking, setbacks, streetscapes, alleys and other aspects of development.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3436, Packet Page 3764 City of Monterey General Plan
3-11
Policy b.3. Use development standards to ensure
smooth transitions for areas that border
one another so that neighborhoods and
districts maintain their unique qualities
while being compatible with one another.
Policy b.4. Promote the retention of the character of
existing historic structures and urban design elements that define the built environment of the city's older neighborhoods.
Policy b.5. Create an attractive, safe environment for
bicycles and pedestrians that promotes
"micro-mobility" and connectivity to and
within the mixed use neighborhoods.
Policy b.6. Encourage site designs that create an active street frontage and screen parking from the frontages of major thoroughfares.
Policy b.7. Integrate public art and community gathering spaces such as multi-purpose plazas, green spaces, paseos, and parklets into mixed use neighborhoods.
Compatibility with Military and Airport
Operations
Local land use and zoning also needs to account for the presence of military installations and the Monterey Regional Airport in and adjacent to the community (see Map 7). Planning is needed to reduce land use conflicts, promote compatibility, and ensure public safety.
Serving over 400,000 passengers per year, Monterey Regional Airport plays an important role in the regional transportation system and economy of the Monterey Peninsula. e Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) was developed to ensure the safety and welfare of residents, businesses, and airport users while supporting the continued operation of the Monterey Regional Airport. e ALUCP establishes seven airport safety zones that cover almost all land within the City of Monterey. ese Safety zones restrict the development of land uses that could pose particular hazards to flight or the public in the event of an aircra accident. e ALUCP provides exemptions for infill development and within designated urban areas.2 Development within the Airport Influence Area with the potential to conflict with the ALUCP’s land use compatibility policies and criteria must be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for compatibility review. 2 Urban areas where exemptions apply are identified on Exhibit 4C of the 2019 ALUCP and generally correspond to the Downtown, Lighthouse, and North Fremont opportunity areas.
Micro-mobility refers to a range of
small, lightweight vehicles used by
individuals to travel short distances,
typically at speeds below 15 miles
per hour. This can include bicycles,
e-bikes, electric scooters, electric
skateboards, shared bicycle fleets,
and electric pedal assisted bicycles.
In an urban setting, micro-mobility
solutions can be a quick and convenient way to get around, while also reducing congestion and pollution.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3437, Packet Page 3765 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
US Coast
Guard
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
US Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey NSA
Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
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 7 Military and Airport Facilities.mxd Military Facilities
City of Monterey
Parks and Recreation
Water
Map 7: Military and Airport Facilities
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 3438, Packet Page 3766 City of Monterey General Plan
3-13
e military presence in Monterey dates back to the Spanish colonial period, and through the 20th Century the community supported several major active military installations, including the United States Army Garrison Presidio of Monterey, which served as an infantry replacement training center during World War II, and Fort Ord, which played a role in various military operations and training activities during the Cold War. Today, military training operations continue at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) on the Presidio site and Naval Support Activity (NSA) Monterey, which is home to the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), an academic institution focused on offering educational opportunities relevant to the Navy’s interests and the Department of Defense. e US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), one of the largest scientific institutions within the US government specializing in marine meteorology, and the Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Ocean Center, are also located at NSA Monterey within the City limit. e U.S. Coast Guard Station, located in the northwestern part of the city along the shoreline of the Monterey Bay, is involved primarily in maritime law enforcement and search-and-rescue operations along California's Central Coastline.
Since 1994, the City of Monterey has pioneered a model of community-military partnerships that reduce costs and strengthen the military's connection with the local community. rough such partnerships, the military contracts with the City for maintenance and public works functions that deliver cost savings for the federal government, and the military leases land and recreational facilities to the City for community use. e U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation offers an array of grants for projects that support the readiness and resiliency of military installations and defense communities across the country. ese grants can help fund future community-military collaborations in Monterey.
Goal c. Minimize airport safety hazards and promote compatibility with airport and military operations.
Policy c.1. Require that new development be consistent with the safety zone land use and noise compatibility criteria established in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Monterey Regional Airport. However, proposed developments that are not consistent with the ALUCP standards shall be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency review as provided by law.
Policy c.2. Refer all projects that may present airspace obstruction issues as identified in the ALUCP or may impede approach/departure visibility within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area to the ALUC for consistency review prior to issuing local development permits.
Policy c.3. Minimize the potential for development in the Airport Influence Area, as identified in the ALUCP, to adversely affect aircra operations by reducing the potential for bird strikes, electromagnetic interference, glare, and other hazards to flight.
Policy c.4. Require real estate disclosures for projects within the Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area, consistent with State law. Disclosures should notify the prospective purchasers of the potential annoyances or inconveniences associated with airport operations.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3439, Packet Page 3767 Land Use Element
3-14
Policy c.5. Create an application checklist identifying required information for development projects proposed within 1,000 feet of a military installation and notify the United States Armed Forces of any proposed land use or zoning changes within 1,000 feet of a military installation prior to project approval.
Policy c.6. Continue to explore strategic partnerships that benefit the City, the community, and military installations in Monterey by providing for shared use of facilities and cost savings.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3440, Packet Page 3768 4 Circulation Element
Vision
Monterey will be a City where alternative forms of transportation are attractive, and the use of an automobile is a choice, not a necessity. e transportation system will be safe for all users and support the local economy while maintaining the historic character of the City.
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE
Goal a. A transportation network that is complemented by land uses that are easily accessible by walking, bicycling, or utilizing transit.
Policy a.1. Continue to apply land-use planning tools and strategies that support the City's circulation goals and direct growth to areas best served by alternative modes of transportation.
Policy a.2. Continue to use land-use policies to concentrate development within walking distance of the transit system.
Policy a.3. Encourage transit/pedestrian-oriented (TOD/POD) designs in mixed-use neighborhoods.
Policy a.4. Update the parking and transportation fund, which is used to fund transportation improvement projects and non-infrastructure programs as outlined in the City’s multimodal plan.
Policy a.5. Encourage mixed-use development to maximize the shared use of on-site parking spaces.
Policy a.6. Incorporate uses such as retail, office, or residential into the design of public parking structures.
Policy a.7. Do not support non-aviation uses within the Monterey Peninsula Airport District that create unnecessary traffic impacts in adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Policy a.8. Respect the character and type of surrounding land uses through the design and use of streets.
Policy a.9. Limit direct access from private property to State highways.
Policy a.10. Require proposed developments to provide ADA improvements, sidewalks or pedestrian connections, bicycle facilities, or transit facilities which would provide active transportation access to the development.
Policy a.11. Consider the compatibility of proposed land use developments with the establishment of future rail service into the City of Monterey.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3441, Packet Page 3769 Circulation Element
4-2
e Circulation Element describes the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports. Correlated with the Land Use Element, the City of Monterey’s transportation network includes over 222 lane miles of roadway. e majority of the lane miles serve as access for local access to residences, of note are the City’s “major thoroughfares.'' Major thoroughfares are roadways which carry through traffic and provide a network connecting to the state highway system. e City’s major thoroughfares complement the Transportation Agency for Monterey County’s Congestion Management Plan identified routes as listed:
• Foam Street, from Lighthouse Avenue to City Limit
• Lighthouse Avenue, from Washington Street to City Limit • Del Monte Avenue, from Washington Street to City Limit • Fremont Street, from Camino Aguajito to Abrego Street • North Fremont Street, from City Limit to Highway 68 (Monterey-Salinas Highway) • Munras Avenue/Abrego Street, from Fremont Street to Via Zaragoza, from Fremont Street to Via Zaragoza
e Monterey Regional Airport terminal is located outside of the City of Monterey boundaries. e airport is most frequently used for domestic travel and on occasion for military aircra landings. e City of Monterey operates and manages a harbor and marina in Monterey Bay. e U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) operates a home port out of the Monterey harbor at the Breakwater USCG Pier.
STREET SYSTEM
Goal b. A safe and well-maintained roadway system that efficiently moves people and goods across all modes of transportation.
Policy b.1. Create and maintain a roadway system of “Complete Streets” that is safe and easy to use for all modes of transportation.
Policy b.2. Consider the needs of buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians when planning all road improvements.
Policy b.3. Prioritize infrastructure projects which optimize the existing street network before investing in costly roadway and parking expansion projects.
Policy b.4. Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian mobility improvements over vehicle convenience.
Policy b.5. Implement the City’s multimodal plan to integrate and implement the circulation element policies and update as needed.
Policy b.6. Establish a list of guidelines and considerations for Complete Streets in the City’s multimodal plan, maximizing safety through design.
Policy b.7. Encourage the implementation of transportation projects that optimize the traffic operations along the arterial street network.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3442, Packet Page 3770 City of Monterey General Plan
4-3
Policy b.8. Minimize the amount of signage used to avoid driver confusion and sign clutter, and instead utilize good design principles and required signage.
Policy b.9. rough-traffic movement along other principal arterials takes precedence over access to adjacent land uses and traffic access from side streets.
Policy b.10. Maintain capacity on minor arterial streets to carry traffic along the fringe of and around residential neighborhoods.
Policy b.11. Discourage through-traffic on local streets through residential neighborhoods with the use of neighborhood traffic calming plans.
Policy b.12. Encourage implementation of the adopted City Traffic Calming Program (TCP) through neighborhood traffic calming plans.
Policy b.13. Continue to maintain streets using the City’s Pavement Management System (PMS).
Policy b.14. Support capacity operational improvements on State highways such as roundabouts on Monterey-Salinas Highway (Highway 68) to address regional traffic congestion.
Policy b.15. When feasible, coordinate road maintenance, reconstruction, and resurfacing projects with infrastructure, utility, and telecommunication projects to minimize project costs and disruption to motorists and nearby properties.
BICYCLE
Goal c. A safe, reliable, connected and integrated bicycle transportation network that encourages bicycling as a primary mode of transportation for residents, employees and visitors.
Policy c.1. Design bicycle facilities that take into account users of all abilities and ages.
Policy c.2. Increased bicycle connectivity between neighborhoods and major city and regional destinations.
Policy c.3. Maintain designated bicycle routes as attractive and safe transportation facilities to provide viable alternatives to automobile travel.
Policy c.4. Prioritize connections to the Monterey Peninsula Recreational Trail (MPRT) as a primary route for active transportation.
Policy c.5. Identify commuter routes, which provide more direct bicycle connections for residents and visitors.
Policy c.6. Establish and maintain a current list of bicycle improvement projects in the City’s multimodal plan to create a connected bicycle transportation network.
Policy c.7. Enhance public awareness of bicycling laws and the proper use of bikeways through enforcement, bicycle safety programs, and bikeway design.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3443, Packet Page 3771 Circulation Element
4-4
Policy c.8. Support implementation of regional active transportation networks, such as the Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway (FORTAG) and Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail (MBSST), which connect pedestrians and bicyclists from Monterey to the greater Monterey Bay Area.
Policy c.9. Require development projects to provide on-site facilities such as bicycle parking, storage and showers, provide connections to existing and future planned facilities, dedicate land to expand existing facilities or provide new facilities such as sidewalks/multi-use paths and/or bicycle lanes, or contribute to the cost of improvements. Ensure that projects are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrians connections.
PEDESTRIAN
Goal d. A safe, accessible, connected and integrated pedestrian transportation network that encourages walking as a primary mode of transportation for residents, employees and visitors.
Policy d.1. Design pedestrian facilities that take into account users of all abilities and ages.
Policy d.2. Design intersections to improve pedestrian safety and mobility.
Policy d.3. Increase pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods and major city and regional destinations.
Policy d.4. Establish and maintain a current list of pedestrian improvement projects in the City’s multimodal plan to create a continuous pedestrian network throughout the City.
Policy d.5. Establish Crosswalk Guidelines which provide standards for the strategic placement of pedestrian crossings throughout the City in the City’s multimodal plan, as well as the basis for relocating and eliminating crosswalks.
Policy d.6. Continue to identify and prioritize projects which would improve accessibility for all pedestrians, such as ADA ramps, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk widenings or any other transportation infrastructure improvement that could improve accessibility.
Policy d.7. Require that development projects provide internal pedestrian connections and linkages to adjacent public streets, neighborhoods and community facilities. Ensure that projects are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrians connections.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3444, Packet Page 3772 City of Monterey General Plan
4-5
TRANSIT
Goal e. An integrated multi-modal transportation network that supports and encourages transit use, including Bus, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and Rail.
Policy e.1. Promote the use of transit service as an attractive alternative for residents, employees, and visitors.
Policy e.2. Encourage use of the MST Trolley service to connect visitors between Downtown Monterey and Cannery Row.
Policy e.3. Coordinate with Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) on changes to the local transit service.
Policy e.4. Install transit priority system, where feasible, in collaboration with MST.
Policy e.5. Collaborate with MST and area jurisdictions to improve access to transit.
Policy e.6. Collaborate with MST to provide attractive amenities at transit stops in the City.
Policy e.7. Protect the potential for future rail transportation by supporting the efforts of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) to provide additional passenger rail service.
Policy e.8. Require development projects to enhance access to transit. Ensure that projects are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrian connections.
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED (VMT)
Goal f. A transportation network which supports the reduction of transportation related greenhouse gas emissions through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled.
Policy f.1. Apply vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric to measure transportation environmental impacts for CEQA, in accordance with SB 743.
Policy f.2. Apply VMT thresholds of significance for proposed developments, land use plans, transportation projects, and any other plans or development projects in the Move Monterey Multimodal Plan.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3445, Packet Page 3773 Circulation Element
4-6
PARKING
Goal g. Parking that efficiently utilizes existing facilities and encourages a reduction in auto travel.
Policy g.1. Adopt parking programs that maximize occupancy of public parking spaces by employees and/or visitors to minimize parking impacts in adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Policy g.2. Implement a demand-based pricing structure for public parking.
Policy g.3. Establish appropriate time limits for parking in commercial business districts to support local businesses and encourage use of the MST Trolley.
Policy g.4. Improve utilization of existing parking and create new parking opportunities, such as shared parking, through partnerships and cooperation in order to meet parking needs with fewer total spaces.
Policy g.5. Consider pedestrian safety and mobility, when designing pedestrian ways through parking lots to enable pedestrians to reach their destinations in a safe manner.
Policy g.6. Maintain the supply of existing visitor recreational vehicle parking supply, on the Waterfront, Depot, Marina and Breakwater parking lots.
Policy g.7. Establish and maintain the residential permit parking program.
Policy g.8. Incorporate bicycle parking in parking lots and garages for both public and private development.
Policy g.9. Promote a “Park Once” system that encourages visitors to park once and walk, bike or use transit to travel in Monterey.
Policy g.10. Partner with the schools and universities to reduce the parking impact on residential parking supply.
Policy g.11. When incorporating directional and variable message signs (VMS) redirect visitor traffic to the Downtown Parking garages and encourage the use of the MST Trolley when Cannery Row Parking is at capacity.
VISION ZERO
Goal h. – A transportation network supported by projects and programs that work towards zero collisions involving serious or fatal injuries.
Policy h.1. Prioritize safety over congestion.
Policy h.2. Prioritize transportation improvements that enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Policy h.3. Prioritize transportation projects at locations which have been identified as high collision intersections/segments.
Policy h.4. Minimize and/or eliminate mid-block median openings and direct driveway access for individual properties along other principal and minor arterial streets.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3446, Packet Page 3774 City of Monterey General Plan
4-7
Policy h.5. Monitor collision rates and trends to identify transportation safety improvements.
Policy h.6. Incorporate the five E’s of safety (Education, Engineering, Enforcement, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technology) when addressing safety concerns.
Policy h.7. Identify grant funding opportunities for engineering projects, emergency response, enforcement and safety programs.
Policy h.8. Collaborate with Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD), Monterey Fire Department (MFD) and Monterey Police Department (MPD) on education and enforcement programs, including promoting “Safe Routes to School” Programs.
ENVIRONMENT, EQUITY, & ECONOMY
Goal i. A transportation network that incorporates environmental stewardship, equitable access and economic vitality.
Environment
Transportation Adaptation
Transportation Resiliency
Equity
Equitable access
Economy
Tourism Traffic
Goods Movement
Policy i.1. Promote and maintain the Wayfinding Sign Program, to efficiently move traffic.
Policy i.2. Preserve natural and historic resources and maintain scenic views when siting and developing new roads.
Policy i.3. Consider sea level rise when planning future transportation infrastructure improvements.
Policy i.4. Identify and adapt transportation infrastructure vulnerable to natural disasters, climate change, or extreme weather events.
Policy i.5. Improve the security and resiliency of the transportation system.
Policy i.6. Maintain the major entrances to the city as scenic, landscaped corridors.
Policy i.7. Preserve landscaped greenbelt areas along the borders of scenic highways.
Policy i.8. Minimize traffic impacts in residential neighborhoods by routing trucks and through-traffic onto highways and arterial streets.
Policy i.9. Implement and maintain a truck route system.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3447, Packet Page 3775 Circulation Element
4-8
Table 1: Truck Routes
Street Name Segment Truck Parking
Abrego St Munras Ave/ El Dorado St to Pearl St/Washington St Yes Aguajito Rd Fremont St to Mark Thomas Dr/Highway 1 NB Off Ramp No Camino El Estero Del Monte Ave to Franklin St Yes
David Ave Wave St to Devisadero St (West City Limit) No Del Monte Ave Pacific St to East City Limit Yes
English Ave Del Monte Ave to Highway 1 NB Off Ramp No
Figueroa St Franklin St to Commercial Wharf II Yes
Foam St Lighthouse Ave to David Ave Yes
Franklin St Pacific St to Camino El Estero Yes
Fremont St Abrego St to Highway 1 Ramps/Aguajito Rd Yes Hannon Ave Del Monte Ave to Highway 1 SB On Ramp Yes
Lighthouse Ave Washington/Del Monte Ave to North City Limit No Munras Ave El Dorado St/Abrego St to Highway 1 SB Ramps Yes North Fremont St Highway 1 to East City Limit Yes
Olmsted Dr Monterey/Salinas Highway (SR68) to Monterey Peninsula Airport Entrance
No
Pacific St Lighthouse Ave to Franklin St Yes
Soledad Dr Munras Ave to Highway 1 NB Entrance Ramp No
Tyler St Lighthouse Ave to Franklin St Yes
Washington St Pearl St/Abrego St to Del Monte Ave Yes
Notes: Truck parking is permitted only in legal spaces and where parking is not prohibited.
Policy i.10. Direct traffic leaving Cannery Row to use David Avenue and Holman Highway 68 to access Highway 1.
Policy i.11. Collaborate with neighboring cities, County of Monterey, TAMC, MST, Airport District and Caltrans on developing operational improvements that address regional traffic congestion.
Policy i.12. Collaborate with event coordinators for major special events, such as festivals, sports events and conventions, to implement strategies to reduce event related congestion, such as shuttle service and limited on-site parking.
Policy i.13. Collaborate with tourism and hospitality industry to inform visitors on access and circulation in the City via websites, mobile applications, and social media.
Policy i.14. Continue to work closely with the military installations on circulation, mobility, Transportation Demand Management (TDM), and gate access.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3448, Packet Page 3776 City of Monterey General Plan
4-9
Policy i.15. Promote social justice and equity by prioritizing projects that increase mobility options to disadvantaged communities within the City and the region.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Goal j. A transportation network that is more efficient through the use of demand management and intelligent transportation technology.
Policy j.1. Utilize transportation system management effectively to optimize the existing street network.
Policy j.2. Reduce existing demand before considering roadway expansion or parking expansion.
Transportation Demand Management
Policy j.3. Encourage the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to address vehicle congestion and parking demand by implementing strategies such as: telecommuting, travel mode changes, reducing trips taken, re-routing trips, and re-timing when trips are taken.
Policy j.4. Establish a list of recommended programs and strategies for implementing TDM in the City’s multimodal plan to address vehicle congestion, vehicle miles travelled mitigation and parking demand.
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Policy j.5. Encourage the use of directional and variable message signs (VMS) to direct visitor traffic efficiently and enhance visitor experience.
Policy j.6. Support the implementation and maintenance of a Citywide traffic signal adaptive system.
Policy j.7. Support the implementation of fiber communication to interconnect the traffic signal network to a traffic signal management system.
Policy j.8. Maintain traffic signal management system to ensure continued operations.
Emergency Management Systems
Policy j.9. Protect emergency evacuation routes.
Policy j.10. Maintain capacity on principal arterials to support emergency evacuation.
Policy j.11. Maintain signal preemption capability for Emergency Vehicles, whenever feasible.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3449, Packet Page 3777 Circulation Element
4-10
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Goal k. An air transportation system that is integrated with a multimodal surface transportation system that efficiently moves people and goods while maximizing positive economic impacts
Policy k.1. Work with the Airport District and hospitality industry to provide direct and affordable connections between the Monterey Peninsula Airport and their destinations, through car/ride-share, transportation network companies (TNC), hotel shuttle, or other means.
Policy k.2. Direct vehicular traffic generated by airport land uses to highways and away from residential neighborhoods.
Policy k.3. Work with the Airport District to implement alternatives to the use of Airport Road as an access road for non-aviation uses on the Airport grounds.
Policy k.4. Support efforts by the Airport District to provide affordable shuttle service to the Monterey Peninsula Airport.
Policy k.5. Support improvements and operational changes at the airport that promote safety and noise reduction.
Policy k.6. Actively work with the Airport District to maintain air service curfews.
Policy k.7. Plan for a multimodal facility in central Monterey that supports and encourages the use of airport shuttles, regional transit, and local transit.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3450, Packet Page 3778 7 Safety Element
e natural beauty of the forested hills and the California coastline in and around Monterey helps define the character of the community, but it also holds potential for natural hazards that pose risk to human health and property, including earthquakes, landslides, flooding, wildfire, and wind-related hazards. ese risks are compounded by the warming of the climate, which is projected to bring increased rainfall intensity, hotter average daily temperatures, and more extreme weather events. Urban development in the area has also brought the potential for human-made disasters. is chapter identifies natural and human-made hazards in Monterey as well as measures to promote public safety and effective emergency response and recovery. Airport hazards are addressed in the Land Use Element.
Natural and Humanmade Hazards
Most of the planning area is located within the wildland urban interface, where human development transitions to undeveloped wildlands and where risk of catastrophic wildfire is greater. Upland areas in the south and southwest of the city are classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), based on the presence of vegetation that is highly flammable and extremely dry during the summer months. Monterey is also located in a seismically active region and much of the community is susceptible to ground shaking in the event of fault rupture. Other related seismic and geologic hazards include the potential for landslides in steep terrain and liquefaction, a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. ere are areas of high liquefaction risk along the course of creeks that drain from the hills to Monterey Bay, and there is an area of high landslide susceptibility in the hills near Fisherman’s Flats Greenbelt. Low lying areas of Downtown and locations along Del Monte Avenue are subject to flooding, coastal inundation, and tsunamis. Coastal erosion is common along much of the Monterey coastline, which could increase with sea level rise. Maps 11 through 16 characterize the risk of natural hazards in the planning area.
e City is party to the Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), a regional effort that articulates a plan for reducing and/or eliminating risk from natural and humanmade hazards. e MJHMP includes a local annex1 assessing risks associated with earthquake, wildfire, flooding, drought, landslide, insect infestation, extreme weather, severe wind, hazardous materials accidents, terrorist attack, and other hazards specific to Monterey, and it identifies mitigation goals, objectives, and projects to reduce those risks. e MJHMP and the City of Monterey local annex are incorporated by reference into the Safety Element of the General Plan. e Monterey City Code also incorporates development standards and hazard risk mitigation protocols that 1 Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Volume 2, Annex H – City of Monterey Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3451, Packet Page 3779 Safety Element
7-2
address natural and humanmade hazards in the community. Safety Element policies provide a framework to guide City planning and decision-making related to natural and humanmade hazards.
Monterey County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) The MJHMP contains detailed hazard profiles for all areas of the county, addressing a range of natural and human-made hazards, including wildfire, tsunami, drought, earthquake, flooding, hazardous materials incident, public health hazards, and other hazards. For each potential hazard, the profiles describe primary and secondary effect, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences, and the likelihood of future occurrences. An assessment of impacts to vulnerable populations, property, critical facilities, and infrastructure and the effects of climate change is also included.
Goal a. Protect life and property from natural and humanmade hazards.
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
Policy a.1. Require that new development be sited and designed to minimize risks from seismic events, including fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides.
Policy a.2. For new development within seismic and geologic hazard zones, including existing landslide areas, areas of high and moderate risk of landslide (Map 14) and liquefaction (Map 15) risk as well as areas within 660 feet of an identified fault in the late or latest quaternary category (Map 12), require that project proponents submit geotechnical investigation reports prepared by qualified professionals and demonstration that the project conforms to all mitigation measures recommended by the reports prior to City approval.
Policy a.3. Require that buildings intended for human occupancy and critical facilities be set back a safe distance (as determined by a qualified geologist) from surface traces of active and potentially active faults. Potentially active faults should be treated the same as active faults until detailed geotechnical data is submitted demonstrating to the City’s satisfaction that a fault is not active.
Policy a.4. Ensure that structures intended for human occupancy are designed and constructed to retain their structural integrity when subjected to seismic activity, in accordance with the California Building Code.
Policy a.5. Establish a program to inventory and evaluate earthquake hazards in existing buildings, especially buildings with unreinforced masonry (URME) and explore measures to encourage building owners to upgrade and retrofit structures to render them seismically safe.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3452, Packet Page 3780 Þ
Þ
Þ
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
!
!
!
!
!
!
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
C
C
C
C
C
n{
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
v®
F
F
F
F
F
F
P
P
\ !(
T
A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Middlebury
Institute of
International
Studies
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte Monterey Beach
Harbor
Jacks
Ballpark
Oak Newton Park
Via
Paraiso
Park
Ryan Ranch
Community Park
San Carlos
Beach Park
Soldier
Field
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
Laguna Grande
Regional Park
Montecito
Park
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguajito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc e n icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Del Monte Ave
NSA Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
US Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Fire Station
#14
Fire Station #12
Scholze Park
Center
El Estero
Park Center
Fire Station
#13
casanova Oak Knoll
Park Center
Fire Station
#16
(Nightime Location)
Fire Station
#16
(Daytime Location)
Monterey
County
Sheriff
Monterey
Sports
Center Monterey
City Hall
Monterey
Public
Library
Fire
Station Monterey #11 Police Department
Hilltop
Park
Center
US Coast
Guard
Station
Monterey
Transit
Plaza
Community Hospital
of Monterey Peninsula
Monterey
Peninsula
Community College
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Local Responsibility Area (LRA)
Very High
State Responsibility Area (SRA)
Very High
High
Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
F Fire Station
P Police Station
C Community Centers
n{ Library
v® Hospital
GF Medical Facilities/Urgent Care
S Public Schools
S Private Schools
S College
\ City Hall
Other Government Services
!(
T Transit Center
Military Facilities
Utility Infrastructure
Þ Electric Distribution Station
" Pump Station
! Water Storage Tank
City of Monterey
Parks and Recreation
Water
Map 11: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Critical Facilities/Infrastructure µ
Data Source: Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, CAL FIRE, September 2023 (Effective April 1, 2024); Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, Recommended by CALFIRE, 2007; City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3453, Packet Page 3781 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
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
La Mesa
Village
US Coast
Guard
Station
NSA Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault Zone, Monterey Bay Section (Navy Fault) Chupines Fault Zon e, Chupines Fault, Del Rey Oaks Section Chupines Fault Zone, Seaside
Fault, Del Rey Oaks Section
Chupines Fault Zone, Ord Terrace Fault, Del Rey Oaks Sect Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault Zone, Seaside-M
onterey Section (Navy Fault)
Monterey Bay-Tula rcitos Fault Zone, Se a side-Mon terey Section (Sylva n Thrust) Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault Zone, Seaside-Monterey
Section (Hatton Canyon Fa
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Latest Quaternary (<15,000 years)
Late Quaternary (< 130,000 years)
Undifferentiated Quaternary (< 1.6 million years)
City of Monterey
Military Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Water
Map 12: Fault Zones
µ
Data Source: Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States, USGS, Revised 2018; City of Monterey, 2022; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3454, Packet Page 3782 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
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguajito
Casa Verde Way N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
NSA Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Monterey
City Hall
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Seismic Shaking
Shaking Intensity
Very Strong Shaking (VII)
Severe Shaking (VIII)
City of Monterey
Water
Map 13: Seismic Ground Shaking
µ
Data Source: Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment, US Geological Survey, updated 2018; Monterey County GIS, 2023; City of Monterey, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3455, Packet Page 3783 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Carmel
By-The-Sea
Sand
City Seaside
Pacific Grove
Del Rey Oaks
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaji to
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
US Coast
Guard
Station
NSA Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
1000
700
400
800
700
100
4 0 0
900
900
400
900
700
900
400
4 00
800
800
10 0
900
400
400
800
100
600
900
30 0
600
400
7 00
100
600
300
900
500
400
600
800
500
400
700
4 00
400
400
800
400
700
400
900
600
500
300
800
700
400
400
700
500
10 0
50 0
400
1000
800
600
200
300
500
500
700
700
400
900
700
300
4 00
800
800
700
4 00
800
600
700
400
500
7 00
300
300
400
600
500
100
200
600
500
200
400
300
100
300
500
600
100
200
100
200
300
400
100
100
200
200
300
400
600
200
100
200
200
200
200
300
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Landslide Susceptibility
High
Moderate
Low
100 Feet Contour
10 Feet Contour
City of Monterey
Water
Map 14: Landslides Hazard
µ
Data Source: Landslide Layer, County of Monterey, 2018; ; Digital Elevation Model (DEM), USGS, 2022; City of Monterey, 2023;
Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.
* Contours are derived from the Digital Elevation Model for Monterey available at USGS and are approximate.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3456, Packet Page 3784 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
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguaji to
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
US Coast
Guard
Station
NSA Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Safety Element\Map 15 Liquefaction Susceptibility.mxd Liquefaction Susceptibility
High
Moderate
Low
Variable
City of Monterey
Water
Map 15: Liquefaction Susceptibility
µ
Data Source: Liquefaction Data, County of Monterey, 2018; City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3457, Packet Page 3785 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
US Coast
Guard
Station
NSA Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
J:\GISData\584 Monterey GP\GIS\Projects\Safety Element\Map 16 Flood Hazard Areas and Tsunami Evacuation Zone.mxd Tsunami Evacuation Zone
Floodway
100 Year Coastal Flood
100 Year Flood
500 Year Flood
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard
City of Monterey
Water
Map 16: Flood Hazard Areas and Tsunami Evacuation Zone
A§
AÔ
M o n t e r e y
B a y Sand
City
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
A
Fairground Rd
brego St
Cam Aguaji to
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Mark Thomas Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Lighthouse Ave
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Del Monte Ave
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Presidio of
Monterey
US Coast
Guard
Station
NSA Monterey
Beachfront
A§
ÔA
M o n t e r e y
B a y
DelMonteAve
Sand
City
Del Monte
Beach
Monterey
Harbor
W Franklin St Tyler St
Prescott Ave
A
Fairground Rd
brego St
Cam Aguajito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Lighthouse Ave
Munras Ave
Pacific St
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
US Coast
Guard
Station
NSA Monterey
Beachfront
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
µ
Data Source: City of Monterey Final Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability Analyses, Existing Conditions and Issues Report, 2016; National Flood Hazard Layer, FEMA 2017; City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.
Existing Tidal Inundation and Coastal Erosion
Not to Scale Not to Scale
Existing
City of Monterey
Coastal Zone Boundary
Existing
2030 (8.8")
2060 (28.3")
2100 (62.6")
City of Monterey
Coastal Zone Boundary
Projected Tidal Inundation and Coastal Erosion
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3458, Packet Page 3786 City of Monterey General Plan
7-9
Policy a.6. Continue to regulate development on hillsides where average slope is greater than 15 percent.
Policy a.7. When creating new lots of record sloped areas of 25 percent or greater shall not count towards the minimum lot size.
Policy a.8. Prohibit new development on existing lots of record where average slope is 25 percent or greater. Minimal encroachment into 25 percent or greater slope may be permitted by the Planning Commission subject to a use permit if it is designed and located to minimize impacts to adjoining property and public right-of-way that could occur due to inadequate grading and drainage control, visual appearance, and removal of trees and vegetation. To permit such encroachment, the Planning Commission must find that the amount and location of 25 percent or greater slope area so severely restricts the development potential of the lot that prohibiting development on 25 percent or greater slope deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other similar properties or is such a minor encroachment that an exception to this prohibition is warranted.
Policy a.9. Minimize grading in hillside areas and require erosion prevention by revegetation or other acceptable methods.
Policy a.10. Permit grading operations only in areas scheduled for immediate construction or paving.
Policy a.11. In order to maximize soil and slope stability and erosion prevention, minimize excavation, grading, cutting, or filling during construction; require erosion prevention as a strategy in the planning and design of grading operations; and avoid or minimize removal of ground cover, vegetation, and canopies.
Policy a.12. Require an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) or a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by local, regional or state regulations.
Policy a.13. Require engineering geology or slope stabilization reports when the excavation and/or grading planned have the potential for slope instability or potential to create unstable slope or soil conditions.
Flooding Hazards
Policy a.14. Design, construct, and maintain street and storm drain flood control systems to accommodate storm flows, employing "green infrastructure" techniques as feasible and appropriate.
Policy a.15. Review all development applications for areas within a 100-year flood hazard zone for consistency with FEMA National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards to mitigate flood hazard potentials.
Policy a.16. Require applicable development projects to employ low impact development (LID) design strategies that minimize drainage concentration, minimize impervious coverage, utilize pervious paving materials, and overall utilize best management practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff and minimize increases in downstream runoff and/or impacts resulting from new development.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3459, Packet Page 3787 Safety Element
7-10
Policy a.17. rough compliance with existing environmental regulations and associated development agreements, require applicable new development and re-development to incorporate storm drainage and water quality improvements into their design plans for construction and to protect downstream watershed processes.
Policy a.18. Periodically review the risk of increased flooding hazards due to climate change and develop strategies to adapt to changing flood hazard conditions, including those related to monitoring, emergency preparedness, vegetation management, and development policies, and ensure that the City’s hazard information is up-to-date regarding climate trends.
Policy a.19. Consider and mitigate the potential hazards from storm waves, tsunami, high tidal conditions and flooding for projects along the bay shoreline.
Policy a.20. As the need is identified, work with creekside property owners to reduce and mitigate flood hazards.
Wildfire Hazards
Wildfire Protection
The Monterey Fire Department (MFD) provides a complete range of fire protection, prevention, and educational services in the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove, Carmel-by-the-Sea), and Sand City, as well as to the Naval Postgraduate School, La Mesa Village, and the Monterey Regional Airport. Other agencies with responsibility for wildland fire prevention and protection services in the planning area include: the Monterey County Regional Fire District; the Presidio of Monterey Fire Department; the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Monterey Ranger District; and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).
MFD has prepared a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) that outlines local priorities for wildfire risk mitigation and provides a roadmap of actions for a community to address the wildfire threat. The CWPP provides a comprehensive list of local, state, and federal agencies with responsibility for fire protection.
Policy a.21. Work to prevent wildland fire and to protect lives, property, and watersheds from fire dangers.
Policy a.22. Jointly with State, County, local and other agencies, inform property owners of wildfire risks and measures to reduce those risks, including by:
• Maintaining and making publicly available an up-to-date map of high and very high fire hazard areas consistent with CAL FIRE designations; and • Disseminating information on fire weather watches and fire risks via the City's website and encouraging all Monterey residents to engage in risk reduction and fire preparedness activities.
Policy a.23. Maintain regulations and standards designed to achieve the greatest practical level of built-in fire protection to confine fires, including requirements for compliance with applicable provisions of the California Building Code, the California Fire Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3460, Packet Page 3788 City of Monterey General Plan
7-11
Code, Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations, and California Government Code sections 51175 and 51189 related to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Policy a.24. Avoid, where feasible, locating new development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). If avoidance is not feasible, condition such new development on implementation of measures to reduce risks associated with that development.
Policy a.25. Require new development in Very High FHSZs to prepare a Fire Protection Plan that minimizes risks by:
• Assessing site-specific characteristics such as topography, slope, vegetation type, wind patterns etc.;
• Siting and designing development to avoid hazardous locations (e.g. through fire breaks) to the extent feasible;
• Incorporating fuel modification and brush clearance techniques in accordance with applicable fire safety requirements and carried out in a manner which reduces impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat to the maximum feasible extent;
• Using appropriate fire-safe building materials and design features, consistent with the adopted City Code and Fire and Building Code standards to ensure the minimum amount of required fuel modification;
• Using fire-retardant, native plant species in landscaping; and • Complying with established standards and specifications for fuel modification, defensible space, access, and water facilities.
Policy a.26. Require that all new development located in a Very High FHSZs or a State Responsibility Area (SRA) be served by adequate infrastructure, including safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible street signs, and water supplies for fire suppression.
Policy a.27. Require new development in Very High FHSZs to enter into a long-term maintenance agreement for vegetation management in defensible space, fuel breaks, and roadside fuel reduction.
Policy a.28. Continue to require proactive weed abatement and, brush thinning, and removal services on new and existing development in Very High FHSZs in order to curb potential fire hazards, per Title 14, CCR, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3, Article 3.
Policy a.29. To facilitate the orderly evacuation of residential areas within the Very High FHSZs, maintain minimum standards for roadway design, maintenance, and vegetation management.
Policy a.30. Cooperate with the CAL FIRE and Monterey County Regional Fire District to ensure that all portions of the Planning Area are served and accessible within an effective response time and to address regional wildfire threats.
Policy a.31. Coordinate with the California-American Water Company and the Marina Coast Water District to ensure that those agencies plan for an adequate and sustainable Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3461, Packet Page 3789 Safety Element
7-12
water supply to meet fire suppression needs within the planning area over the long term.
Policy a.32. Work with responsible agencies and nongovernmental organizations to plan for post-fire recovery in a manner that reduces further losses or damages from future fires.
Policy a.33. Adopt and implement the Community Wildfire Protection Plan to guide the restoration and maintenance of landscapes, promote fire-adapted communities, and strengthen response to wildfire. Pursue funding to facilitate structural retrofits, roadway improvements, and abatement of vegetative hazards.
Wind Hazards
Policy a.34. Monitor issues related to damage from windstorms and undertake precautionary measures as needed, such as tree trimming.
Policy a.35. Within Very High FHSZs, set new schools, housing, and care facilities a minimum of 100 feet back from high voltage power lines or substations.
Humanmade Hazards
Policy a.36. Continue to require remediation of hazardous material releases from previous land uses as part of any redevelopment activities.
Policy a.37. Regulate development on sites with known contamination of soil or groundwater to ensure that construction workers, future occupants, adjacent residents, and the environment are adequately protected from hazards associated with contamination.
Policy a.38. Consistent with State regulations, require proper storage and disposal of hazardous materials to reduce the likelihood of leakage, explosions, or fire, and to properly contain potential spills from leaving the site.
As required under State law, the Safety Element addresses peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards. Please see Land Use Element Goal c. and related policies regarding military readiness and military installations.
Emergency Management
With the potential for natural and humanmade hazards in the planning area, it is critical that the City plan proactively to ensure the safety of residents in times of disaster. is involves ensuring that all parts of the city are accessible for both evacuation and emergency access, including areas of new development and areas of the city with fewer access points. e City recognizes the importance of emergency preparedness through the design and implementation of its Emergency Operations and Local Hazard Mitigation plans. ese plans are based on the functions and principles of the Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3462, Packet Page 3790 City of Monterey General Plan
7-13
Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS). Map 17 shows emergency evacuation routes throughout the city. Primary emergency access and evacuation routes include State Routes, 1, 68, and 218 as well as major thoroughfares within the city, such as Lighthouse Avenue, Pacific Street, Del Monte Avenue, Fremont Street, Mark omas Drive, and Aguajito Road. All evacuation routes face potential disruption from a flood, earthquake, or wildfire event, which may block roadways or damage the roadway surface. In the event of widespread disruption to local evacuation routes, remaining evacuation routes may become congested, slowing down evacuation of the community or specific neighborhoods. is issue may be compounded since evacuation routes for Monterey also serve as evacuation routes for neighboring communities, and so potential disruptions may have regional effects.
An analysis of existing development patterns and roadway connectivity completed with the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) soware indicates that some residential areas of the city have constrained emergency access. ese evacuation-constrained properties are all located in at least one hazard-prone area and may have access to only one emergency evacuation route, which can significantly impede the swi and orderly movement of residents to safer locations and can lead to congestion, delayed emergency response times, and heightened risk to life and property. As shown on Map 18, in the event of a wildfire in the southern part of the planning area, evacuation-constrained areas include of Skyline Forest, Monterey Vista, portions of the Skyline, Monterey Vista, Aguajito Oaks, Deer Flats, Fisherman Flats, Alta Mesa, and Old Town neighborhoods. In the event of flooding or tsunami, evacuation-constrained areas include portions of the Del Monte Grove/Laguna Grande, Del Monte Beach, Villa Del Mar, Casanova/Oak Knoll, Oak Grove, Old Town, and New Monterey neighborhoods.
Areas at greatest risk from fault rupture, flooding, and wildfire are generally concentrated in the western and southern portions of the city, as shown on Maps 19A and B. Under emergency evacuation scenarios involving one or more of these events, the distance from these areas to the nearest evacuation gateway is longest and in consideration of access to vehicles, network constraints, and traffic signal timing, these neighborhoods are most vulnerable. An evacuation route capacity analysis that modeled a multi-hazard scenario with buildout of the General Plan in 2031 concluded that, on a systemwide basis, roadways in the planning area would have adequate capacity for an evacuation; however, traffic volumes could surpass capacity at the approaches to certain highway interchanges. Evacuation times can be improved and evacuation capacity optimized with the implementation of technological and design strategies. Above all, ensuring that community members are prepared for emergency evacuation events and understand what to do is of critical importance.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3463, Packet Page 3791 v®
F
F
F
F
F
F
P
P
A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey
Beachfront
Community Hospital
of Monterey Peninsula
Monterey
City Hall
Monterey
Police Department
Monterey
County
Sheriff
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
Aguajito
Casa Verde Way N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
¬«2
¬«2
¬«2
¬«3
¬«1
¬«4
¬«1
Fire
Station
#11
Fire Station
#12
Fire Station
#13
Fire Station
#16
(Daytime Location)
Fire Station
#14
Fire Station
#16
(Nightime Location)
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Evacuation Routes*
Access to Evacuation Routes
F Fire Station
P Police Station
v® Hospital
City of Monterey
Military Facilities
Parks and Recreation
Water
Map 17: Emergency Evacuation Routes
µ
* Evacuation Plan 1: Highway 1 Northbound
Evacuation Plan 2: Highway 68 Eastbound (Garden Road or Aguajito Road access to Hwy 68)
Evacuation Plan 3: Highway 1 Southbound to Carmel Valley Road Evacuation Plan 4: Highway 1 Southbound to Cambria
Data Source: City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3464, Packet Page 3792 A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§ ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey
Beachfront
Monterey
County
Sheriff
Deer
Flats
Deer
Flats
Deer
Flats
Villa
Del
Monte
Casanova
Oak Knoll
Old Town
Monterey
Vista
Monterey
Vista
Monterey
Vista
Skyline
Skyline
Skyline
Skyline
Monterey
Vista
New
Monterey
Monterey
Vista
Monterey
Vista
Del Monte
Grove
Laguna
Grande
Skyline
Old
Town
Old
Town
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
Prescott Ave
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguajito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
David Ave
A§
E Franklin St
Tyler St
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
Aguajito
Oaks
Alta Mesa
Casanova
Oak Knoll
Deer
Flats
Del Monte
Beach
Del Monte
Grove
Laguna
Grande
Downtown
Fishermans
Flats
Glenwood
Monterey
Vista
New
Monterey
Oak
Grove
Old Town
Ryan
Ranch
Skyline
Villa
Del Monte
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
Evacuation Routes
Constrained Parcel Groups
City of Monterey
Parks and Recreation
Military Facilities
Water
Map 18: Evacuation Constrained Parcels
µ
Data Source: Kimley-Horn, 2023; City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3465, Packet Page 3793 kj
A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
A§
A§
ÔA
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Monterey
Regional
Airport
Gateway
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
Fairground Rd
Ragsdale D r
Abrego St
Cam
Aguajito
Casa Verde Way
N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
El Dorado St
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Lighthouse Ave
Aguajito Rd
Munras Ave
Pacific St
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Prescott Ave
David Ave
Cam el Es tero
E Franklin St
NSA Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
Monterey
City Hall
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
kj Gateway
Evacuation Routes
Distance to Gateway
< 3
3 - 5 miles
5 - 6 miles
6 - 7 miles
> 7 miles
City of Monterey
Water
Figure 19A: Risk Assessment for Scenario Involving Evacuation to the Southeast µ
Data Source: Kimley-Horn, 2023; City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3466, Packet Page 3794 kj
A§
»A
ÔA
A§
ÔA
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
Ragsdale D r
Casa Verde Way N Fremont St
Montecito Ave
Garden Rd
Mark Thomas Dr
Upper Ragsdale Dr
Fremont St
Glenwood Cir
Sc en icD r
Aguajito Rd
Mar Vista
Del Monte Ave
S Boundary Rd
SkylineDr
Cam el Es tero
Tyler St
Abrego St
Munras Ave
El Dorado St
Pacific St
David Ave
Lighthouse Ave
Prescott Ave
E Franklin St Cam
Aguajito
Fairground Rd
A§
Gateway
NSA Monterey
Beachfront
NSA Monterey
La Mesa
Village
NSA Monterey Pines
Golf Course
NSA
Monterey
Research
Lab
NSA Monterey
Naval
Postgraduate
School
U.S. Army
Garrison
Presidio of
Monterey
Monterey
City Hall
0 ¼ ½ 1
Miles
kj Gateway
Evacuation Routes
Distance to Gateway
< 3 miles
3 - 4 miles
4 - 5 miles
5 - 6 miles
> 6 miles
City of Monterey
Water
Figure 19B: Risk Assessment for Scenario Involving Evacuation to the Northeast µ
Data Source: Kimley-Horn, 2023; City of Monterey, 2023; Monterey County GIS, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3467, Packet Page 3795 Safety Element
7-18
Goal b. Provide effective emergency response to disasters and emergencies.
Policy b.1. Use the adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Emergency Operations Plan to guide actions and investments for emergency preparedness and response.
Policy b.2. Maintain area-wide mutual aid agreements and communication links with partner agencies and other participating jurisdictions.
Policy b.3. Maintain and periodically update the Emergency Operations Plan to effectively prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of natural or human caused disasters that require the planned, coordinated response of multiple agencies or jurisdictions.
Policy b.4. Partner with Caltrans and neighboring jurisdictions on measures to protect critical evacuation routes such as Highway 1 and Highway 68 and to develop contingency plans for operations when these and other roads are inoperable due to flooding or wildfire.
Policy b.5. Coordinate with Caltrans to identify and implement measures to temporarily increase capacity at highway ramps during emergency evacuation events. Measures may include optimizing adaptive signal systems, placing traffic cones to accommodate a higher volume of evacuating vehicles, providing real-time traffic safety and guidance information via changeable message sign (CMS) boards, and other strategies.
Policy b.6. Install clear and comprehensive signage and wayfinding to facilitate smoother traffic flow and direct residents and visitors effectively to evacuation routes.
Policy b.7. Study the feasibility of deploying dynamic message signs, roadway sensors, and other Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) tools to disseminate real-time traffic conditions, alternative routes, and delays to drivers, enhancing situational awareness and decision-making.
Policy b.8. Ensure road surfaces on City-designated evacuation routes can withstand extreme weather conditions and are maintained to accommodate increased traffic during evacuations.
Policy b.9. Require new residential subdivisions to have at least two ingress and egress routes that account for existing and proposed traffic evacuation volumes at buildout.
Policy b.10. Explore secondary means of ingress and egress in areas with existing evacuation constraints, as shown in Map 18, Evacuation Constrained Residential Parcels.
Policy b.11. Provide information on and build community awareness of major evacuation routes and notification systems used for emergency alerts to residents and businesses in Monterey.
Policy b.12. Use the countywide alert and early warning system to notify residents by phone, text, or email of extreme weather conditions and/or the need to evacuate in the event of emergency. e system should also be used to broadcast the location of Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3468, Packet Page 3796 City of Monterey General Plan
7-19
evacuation centers, particularly for residents of vulnerable areas and neighborhoods with constrained emergency access.
Policy b.13. Develop an evacuation assistance program, in coordination with Monterey-Salinas Transit/ADA paratransit (RIDES) to help those with limited mobility or lack of access to a vehicle evacuate safely.
Community Resilience to Hazards and Climate
Change
Climate change refers to long-term shis in weather patterns, including temperature and precipitation. Over the course of the Earth’s history, climate shis have occurred naturally, but since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas. Burning fossil fuels generates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that act like a blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping the sun’s heat and raising temperatures. As climate change progresses, it will continue to increase the frequency and severity of flooding, droughts, wildfires, and extreme heat events, that will both individually and collectively have increasing impacts on vulnerable populations, critical services, and infrastructure in Monterey. While comprehensive, coordinated actions to reduce GHG emissions can help mitigate the extent of these impacts over the long term, additional actions must be taken to address the people, places, and infrastructure most at risk and to leverage other opportunities to effectively build community resilience to natural hazards and the effects of climate change.
e City's Climate Action Plan incorporates strategies to reduce GHG emissions, including strategies to bolster energy efficiency, reduce tailpipe emissions, and increase reliance on renewable energy sources. e local annex of the MJHMP identifies a prioritized list of actions to mitigate climate risks, based on an assessment of climate vulnerabilities that describes local hazards, their extent, magnitude/severity, previous occurrences, and the likelihood of future occurrences. Safety Element policies focus on additional long-term actions to strengthen the resilience of community infrastructure to natural hazards and the effects of climate change, while at the same time identifying a robust framework of actions to increase public awareness and build community response capacity.
Goal c. Build community resilience to natural disasters and the effects of climate change.
Resilient Infrastructure
Policy c.1. Consider climate impacts, risk, and uncertainty in designing and evaluating capital improvement projects and adjust infrastructure design standards and project locations to address asset- and site-specific vulnerabilities.
Policy c.2. Explore opportunities to increase the resiliency of City-owned facilities and infrastructure to severe weather events and support homeowners and business owners in increasing the resilience of their buildings and properties, through retrofits, weatherization, managed retreat, and other improvements.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3469, Packet Page 3797 Safety Element
7-20
Policy c.3. Locate new critical facilities, such as hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, police stations, emergency command centers, and other emergency service facilities and utilities so as to minimize exposure to flooding, seismic, geologic, wildfire, and other hazards.
Policy c.4. Continue to plan for the continuity of operations for critical facilities following a disaster to help prevent interruption of emergency response related to life, property, and environment preservation. Evaluate options for ensuring emergency power at critical facilities, including microgrids, solar capture and storage, distributed energy, and backup generators. Consider the ability to reduce utility costs and carbon emissions in the assessment.
Policy c.5. Partner with utility providers, regional agencies, and neighboring jurisdictions to assess the vulnerability of energy infrastructure and identify improvements that increase resilience of local energy infrastructure.
Policy c.6. Require new development to underground utility lines wherever feasible and continue to coordinate with electricity and telecommunications providers to underground existing overhead lines throughout the city, prioritizing high voltage transmission lines and areas within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Community Preparedness
Policy c.7. Promote community awareness and understanding of threat hazards, disaster response, and steps that can be taken to reduce personal risk by:
• Disseminating information in multiple languages and formats to reach all segments of the community; • Providing emergency preparedness and emergency alert information through social media, traditional media, community fairs, and direct information to neighborhood associations, residents, service clubs, and other organizations; and
• Conducting educational seminars or evacuation practice events to enhance preparedness and response.
Policy c.8. Train City staff in emergency preparedness and response by maintaining updated emergency plans, conducting regular emergency and disaster preparedness exercises, testing operational and emergency plans, and coordinating efforts with the County of Monterey’s Emergency Management Department.
Policy c.9. Identify a network of resilience hubs, such as the library, community centers, and other City facilities throughout Monterey, to serve as central points for gathering, sharing information, and accessing resources in the event of a natural or humanmade disaster. Resilience hubs should be situated away from areas at risk of hazard impacts to the extent possible, located in easily accessible locations, and equipped with backup power supplies.
Policy c.10. Create neighborhood-level resilience plans to improve initial emergency response, subsequent recovery, and ongoing self-sufficiency throughout the city.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3470, Packet Page 3798 City of Monterey General Plan
7-21
Policy c.11. Expand the Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) program to address community and neighborhood preparedness for climate impacts. Pilot implementation of the updated program in areas with populations most vulnerable to climate impacts.
Policy c.12. Coordinate with Monterey-Salinas Transit to identify alternative routes and stops if normal route infrastructure is damaged or closed due to severe weather.
Public Safety Services
Responsive public safety services are integral to maintaining and strengthening quality of life in Monterey. Law enforcement and fire protection services rooted in community-based approaches help to ensure that neighborhoods remain safe, engaged, and ready to respond in the event of an emergency. It is critical that we make wise investments in public facilities and safety to provide for our community’s existing and future needs.
Goal d. Provide responsive police and fire services that support a safe and secure environment for people and property.
Policy d.1. Provide responsive, efficient, and effective police services that promote a high level of public safety.
Policy d.2. Provide fire prevention and emergency response services that minimize fire risks and protect life and property, including fire prevention, fire-related law enforcement, and public education and information programs.
Policy d.3. Locate and maintain police and fire equipment, facilities, and staffing at locations and levels that allow for effective service delivery.
Policy d.4. Require that new development contribute funds to ensure the provision of adequate police and fire services.
Policy d.5. Explore and as appropriate incorporate new technologies and innovations that enhance the efficient, cost-effective delivery of public safety services.
Policy d.6. Maintain mutual aid agreements and communication links with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE), the Monterey County Regional Fire District, and other fire protection agencies that allow for supplemental aid from other police and fire personnel in the event of emergencies.
Policy d.7. Work with the California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) and the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) to ensure adequate water pressure for fire-fighting and require that water systems serving new development be designed to meet fire flow requirements.
Policy d.8. Promote fire safety and prevention programs citywide, particularly for high occupancy uses.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3471, Packet Page 3799 Safety Element
7-22
Policy d.9. Develop a fire and life safety building inspection program or other mechanism for auditing fire hazards in older buildings that may not meet current fire safety standards, particularly in the Downtown commercial core. Explore options for promoting the retrofit of older buildings with sprinkler systems.
Policy d.10. Monitor the pace and location of development in Monterey and coordinate the timing of fire station construction or expansion to the rise of service demand in surrounding areas.
Policy d.11. Continue to engage the Police and Fire Departments in the development review process to ensure that projects are designed and operated in a manner that minimizes the potential for criminal activity and fire hazards and maximizes the potential for responsive police and fire services.
Policy d.12. Apply Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles in the design of new development and encourage the provision of adequate public lighting and site lines into residential areas; windows overlooking streets or parking lots; and paths to increase pedestrian activity within private development projects and public facilities in order to enhance public safety and reduce calls for service.
Policy d.13. Employ community-based policing strategies and encourage the establishment of neighborhood watch programs in partnerships with community groups.
Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3472, Packet Page 3800 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY №011/24
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2023080034) FOR THE MONTEREY 2031 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE; ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ADOPT THE HOUSING ELEMENT, LAND USE ELEMENT, CIRCULATION
ELEMENT AND SAFETY ELEMENT
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code section 2-4.01, the Planning Commission is empowered to implement the general plan and administer the City’s zoning ordinance and recommend revisions to the City Council as may be desirable; WHEREAS, City Code section 26-2 provides that the Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing before approving the General Plan or any part, element, or amendment thereof. The approval shall be by resolution of the Commission carried by the affirmative votes of not less than a majority of its total members;
WHEREAS, State law requires California cities to prepare and adopt a General Plan to guide future development of the City, including at least seven elements that address land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, safety and noise. State law requires cities to keep general plans current through regular updates;
WHEREAS, State law requires the City to update its Housing Element at least once every eight years to ensure that plans continue to accommodate for future housing demand. (Government Code section 65580 et seq.);
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2023-31 Housing Element is 3,654 housing units, including 1,177 units for very low-income households, 769 units for low-income households, 462 units for moderate-income households, and 1,246 units for above moderate-income households;
WHEREAS, the City prepared and submitted a draft 2023-2031 Housing Element update to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review; WHEREAS, HCD has reviewed the draft Housing Element updated and has provided comments and feedback by letter on December 22, 2023 and June 26, 2024; WHEREAS, Staff have worked with HCD regarding revisions to the draft Housing Element with the goal of achieving a HCD finding of substantial compliance and certification of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element;
WHEREAS, City Staff revised the draft Housing Element to include additional information and data based on HCD’s comments to staff about the draft Housing Element; WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 65351, the City has facilitated public participation in the Housing Element amendment process through multiple public Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3473, Packet Page 3801 workshops and hearings which provided opportunities for the involvement of residents, members of the public, public agencies, public utilities, and community groups.
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element has been updated to ensure consistency with the Housing Element and the 2019 Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; WHEREAS, the Safety Element has been updated to incorporate new data on natural hazards and climate change, along with actions to strengthen community resilience and emergency evacuation capacity;
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element has been updated to promote an integrated multimodal transportation system that meets the needs of all users of streets and to update the metric to Vehicle Miles Traveled in compliance with SB743, which took effect July 1, 2020; WHEREAS, a certified Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update was prepared to disclose potential effects of the project, measures to mitigate those effects, and an analysis of alternatives to the project; WHEREAS, on August 2, 2023, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (State Clearinghouse #2023080034) and the City solicited input on the scope and content of the EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082. The NOP was circulated for 30 days from August 2, 2023 to September 4, 2023.
Sixteen NOP comments were received at a scoping meeting conducted by the Planning Commission on August 7, 2023;
WHEREAS, consistent with Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was prepared that provides a programmatic analysis of the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the goals, policies, and actions and the projected buildout of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (Proposed Plan). The Draft EIR evaluates potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the Plan. The Program EIR examines the potential effects resulting from implementing designated land uses and policies in the Proposed Plan. The impact assessment evaluates the Proposed Plan as a whole and identifies the broad, regional effects that may occur with its implementation. As a programmatic document, this EIR does not assess project-specific impacts that may result from developments pursuant to the Proposed Plan. To the extent that any future development project made possible by the Proposed Plan may have individual, site-specific impacts not addressed in this program EIR, such projects would be subject to separate, projectlevel environmental review, as required by State law; WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15126.2(a)(c) requires an Environmental Impact Report to identify and focus on any significant environmental effects of the proposed General Plan update, including effects that cannot be avoided if the General Plan update is implemented;
WHEREAS, based on the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, the City has determined that the proposed General Plan update would result in the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with agricultural resources, air quality, energy, greenhouse gases, climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire; Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3474, Packet Page 3802 WHEREAS, based on the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, the City has determined that the proposed General Plan update could result in impacts that are less than significant associated with: biological resources; cultural, historic and tribal cultural resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; public services; and wildfire. Mitigation Measures to address these impacts were incorporated into the Draft EIR. The EIR includes the following: Draft EIR, Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP);
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2024, the City published a Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR and filed these notices with OPR under State Clearinghouse No. 2023080034. The DEIR was released for public review for a 45-day public comment period from February 9, 2024 to March 25, 2024. The City requested consultation with and comments on the DEIR from all applicable parties in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15086. Following the procedures under CEQA Guidelines 15087 and 15105, the NOA and DEIR was released for public review on February 9, 2024 for a 45-day comment period from February 9, 2024 to March 25, 2024. Seventy-one (71) comment letters, containing over 500 unique comments, were received on the Draft EIR; WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to the comments received during the comment period and included these responses in the Final EIR. The Final EIR was made available for public review at least 10 days prior to today’s public hearing on July 5, 2024; WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR on July 5, 2024;
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of State law have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the project have been adequately evaluated; WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the project, which are incorporated herein by this reference;
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the project are identified in the EIR, set forth in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and
WHEREAS, the irreversible impacts of the project are identified in the EIR, and are set forth in Attachment 1 to the July 16, 2024 agenda report; and WHEREAS, the findings of fact are set forth in Attachment 2 to the July 16, 2024 agenda report; and
WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR that are necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the project to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as set forth in Attachment 2 to the to the July 16, 2024 agenda report; and
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3475, Packet Page 3803 WHEREAS, projects consistent with the Proposed Plan and the findings of this EIR may also be eligible for streamlined environmental review as permitted under CEQA. This EIR represents the City’s best effort to evaluate the implementation and buildout of the Proposed Plan through its horizon year of 2031. While it is anticipated that conditions may change, the assumptions used are the best available at the time of preparation and reflect existing knowledge of patterns of development;
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City of Monterey Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard;
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the project; WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Proposed Plan under Public Resource Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above Recitals are true and correct, are adopted, and have served, together with the supporting documents, as the basis for the findings and approvals set forth in this Resolution and the Planning Commission recommends the City Council certify the EIR, adopts the MMRP, and adopts the environmental findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update, and adopts the Sixth Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031), Land Use Element, Safety Element, and Circulation Element based on the following Findings:
1. The Planning Commission determines that each of the recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, set forth as Attachment 1 to the July 16, 2024 agenda report and incorporated herein by reference, which it has been reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The Planning Commission declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3476, Packet Page 3804 recirculation. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.
3. The Planning Commission recommends adopting the CEQA “Findings of Fact” set forth in Attachment 2 to the July 16, 2024 agenda report and incorporated herein by reference, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
4. The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Attachment 2 to the July 16, 2024 agenda report and incorporated herein by reference, for the project as supported by substantial evidence in the record pursuant to CEQA Section 15093.
5. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the MMRP and make implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP a condition of approval of the project. (Attachment 2 to July 16, 2024 agenda report) In the event of inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and MMRP, the MMRP shall control.
6. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are in the custody of the City Clerk, City of Monterey, and are located at 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, California 93940. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2).
7. The Proposed Monterey 2031 General Plan Update is a document, set forth in Attachment 3 to the July 16, 2024 agenda report and incorporated by reference herein, to be adopted by the City Council that serves the following objectives:
a. Address Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Ensure capacity for the development of new housing to meet the RHNA of 3,654 housing units at all income levels for the 2023-2031 planning period.
b. Provide a Variety of Housing Opportunities. Provide a variety of housing opportunities proportionally by income to accommodate the needs of people who currently live, work, and go to school in Monterey, such as elderly residents, large families, students, teachers, and service and hospitality workers.
c. Provide Equal Housing Opportunities. Provide for fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons, regardless of protected characteristics, including but not limited to, age, ancestry, sex, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, religion, disability, family status, race, creed, color, or national origin.
d. Address Affordable Housing Needs. Continue existing and develop new programs and policies to meet the projected affordable housing needs of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households. e. Address the Housing Needs of Special Need Groups. Continue existing and develop new programs and policies to meet the projected housing needs of persons living with disabilities, unhoused people, elderly residents, students, and other special needs households in the community.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3477, Packet Page 3805 f. Remove Potential Constraints to Housing. Evaluate potential constraints to housing development and encourage new housing in locations supported by existing or planned infrastructure, while maintaining existing neighborhood character. Develop programs to help remove or reduce barriers to the development of housing for all income levels.
g. Maintain Existing Housing. Maintain the existing housing stock to assure high quality maintenance, safety, and habitability of existing housing resources.
h. Provide Adequate Housing Sites. Identify appropriate housing sites within specified areas that have the potential to accommodate or are proximate to transportation, shopping and schools, and the accompanying zoning required to accommodate housing development.
i. Support a Vibrant Local Economy. Support the vitality of local businesses, the health of the local economy, and the quality of life in the community with an improved balance of jobs and housing to help ensure that those who work in Monterey can afford to live in the community and to reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with commute traffic to and from the city.
j. Promote Sustainability and Energy Efficiency. 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.
k. Address Risks from Natural Hazards. Incorporate strategies to minimize loss and damage due to geologic, wildfire, flooding, and other potential hazards.
l. Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Address airportrelated hazards, compatibility zones, and airport noise contours and ensure consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan intended to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents, business, and airport users.
8. The Housing Element substantially complies with State Housing Element Law, as provided in Government Code section 65580 et seq. and contains all provisions required by State Housing Element Law.
9. Based on substantial evidence in the record, the existing uses on the non-vacant sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and therefore do not constitute an impediment to planned residential development on the site during the planning period.
10. The Land Use Element substantially complies with State Law, as provided in Government Code Gov. Code section 65302(a).
The Land Use Element Map 6 designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land and natural resources and the Element’s Land Use Classification Section includes a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3478, Packet Page 3806 The Land Use Element page 3-10 references the Safety Element that identifies areas subject to flooding as well as other hazards.
The Land Use Element does not designate any land for timber production.
11. There are three military installations within the City of Monterey’s jurisdiction – U.S. Army, Navy and Coast Guard. As required by law, the City consulted with the military installations as part of its General Plan amendment process. The Land Use Element considers the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and operating and training areas in the Land Use Element Compatibility with Military and Airport Operations Section.
12. The Circulation Element substantially complies with State Law, as provided in Government Code section 65302(b) et seq. Specifically, the Element Policies a.11, b.5, b.6, c.6, d.4, d.5, f.2, j.4, and k.7 describe:
(1) the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan; and
(2) multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
13. The Safety Element substantially complies with Government Code section 65302(g). The Safety Element identifies and protects the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence; liquefaction; and other seismic hazards, flooding; wildland and urban fires (Maps 11-16). The safety element includes mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It also addresses evacuation routes (Map 17), military installations (Page 7-12 references the Land Use Element), peakload water supply requirements (Page 7- 12 and Program a.31), and minimum road widths and clearances around structures (Page 7-12 and Program a.29), as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards.
14. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City of Monterey Planning Commission declares that it would have adopted this Resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of it, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions might be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3479, Packet Page 3807
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 16th day of July 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Planning Commission Chair
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3480, Packet Page 3808 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
CERTIFYING THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2023080034) FOR THE MONTEREY 2031 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, AN UPDATE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031), LAND USE ELEMENT, SAFETY
ELEMENT, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT
WHEREAS, State law requires California cities to prepare and adopt a General Plan to guide future development of the City, including at least seven elements that address land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, safety, and noise. State law requires cities to keep general plans current through regular updates;
WHEREAS, the Proposed Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (“Proposed Plan”) (Project under CEQA) is a targeted update to the City’s 2005 General Plan, specifically the Housing, Safety, Land Use, and Circulation Elements, and would guide future land use decisions in the City of Monterey, providing a long-term vision for the city and, through its policies and implementing actions, would indicate how that vision may be achieved over the life of the document. It would be the primary policy document guiding growth and development within the City of Monterey through the planning horizon year of 2031. Together with the Zoning Ordinance and related sections of the City Code, the Proposed Plan would serve as the basis for planningrelated decisions made by City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council; WHEREAS, State law requires the City to update its Housing Element at least once every eight years to ensure that plans continue to accommodate for future housing demand. (Government Code section 65580 et seq.);
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2023, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments adopted the 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation, Methodology, and Regional Housing Needs Determinations. Monterey’s RHNA allocation for the 2023-31 planning period has been determined by AMBAG to be 3,654 housing units, including 1,177 units for very low-income households, 769 units for low-income households, 462 units for moderate-income households, and 1,246 units for above moderate-income households;
WHEREAS, the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element for the 2023-2031 8-year planning period has been prepared to respond to current and near-term future housing needs in the City of Monterey, and it provides a framework for the community’s longer-term approach to addressing its housing needs. The Housing Element contains goals, updated information, and strategic directions (policies and implementing actions) that the City is committed to undertaking. A key component of the Housing Element is the inventory of sites available for housing, presented in a table showing the location, size and zoning applicable to each site together with a projection of the number of housing units that could realistically be accommodated on the parcel in view of past trends and local conditions. By law, the Housing Element also includes an assessment of local housing needs, potential constraints to housing production, and fair housing issues. In view of that assessment, the Housing Element includes a program of actions to address identified needs, constraints, and fair housing issues;
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3481, Packet Page 3809 WHEREAS, the City, prepared and submitted a draft 2023-2031 Housing Element update to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review; WHEREAS, HCD has reviewed the draft Housing Element updated and has provided comments and feedback by letter on December 22, 2023 and June 26, 2024; WHEREAS, Staff have worked with HCD regarding revisions to the draft Housing Element with the goal of achieving a HCD finding of substantial compliance and certification of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element;
WHEREAS, City Staff revised the draft Housing Element to include additional information and data based on HCD’s comments to staff about the draft Housing Element; WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 65351, the City has facilitated public participation in the Housing Element amendment process through multiple public workshops and hearings which provided opportunities for the involvement of residents, members of the public, public agencies, public utilities, and community groups.
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element has been updated to ensure consistency with the Housing Element and the 2019 Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; WHEREAS, the Safety Element has been updated to incorporate new data on natural hazards and climate change, along with actions to strengthen community resilience and emergency evacuation capacity;
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element has been updated to promote an integrated multimodal transportation system that meets the needs of all users of streets and to update the metric to Vehicle Miles Traveled in compliance with SB743, which took effect July 1, 2020.
WHEREAS, the City, acting as the lead agency, prepared a certified Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update to disclose potential effects of the project, measures to mitigate those effects, and an analysis of alternatives to the project;
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2023, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (State Clearinghouse #2023080034) and the City solicited input on the scope and content of the EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082. The NOP was circulated for 30-days from August 2, 2023 to September 4, 2023.
Sixteen NOP comments were received at a scoping meeting conducted by the Planning Commission was held on August 7, 2023.
WHEREAS, consistent with Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was prepared that provides a programmatic analysis of the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the goals, policies, and actions and the projected buildout of the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (Proposed Plan). The Draft EIR evaluates potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the Plan. The Program EIR examines the potential effects resulting from implementing designated land uses and policies in the Proposed Plan. The impact assessment Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3482, Packet Page 3810 evaluates the Proposed Plan as a whole and identifies the broad, regional effects that may occur with its implementation. As a programmatic document, this EIR does not assess project-specific impacts that may result from developments pursuant to the Proposed Plan. To the extent that any future development project made possible by the Proposed Plan may have individual, site-specific impacts not addressed in this program EIR, such projects would be subject to separate, projectlevel environmental review, as required by State law; WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15126.2(a)(c) requires an Environmental Impact Report to identify and focus on any significant environmental effects of the proposed General Plan update, including effects that cannot be avoided if the General Plan update is implemented;
WHEREAS, based on the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, the City has determined that the proposed General Plan update would result in the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with agricultural resources, air quality, energy, greenhouse gases, climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire; WHEREAS, based on the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, the City has determined that the proposed General Plan update could result in impacts that are less than significant associated with: biological resources; cultural, historic and tribal cultural resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; public services; and wildfire. Mitigation Measures to address these impacts were incorporated into the Draft EIR. The EIR includes the following: Draft EIR, Final EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP);
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2024, the City published a Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR and filed these notices with OPR under State Clearinghouse No. 2023080034. The DEIR was released for public review for a 45-day public comment period from February 9, 2024 - March 25, 2024. The City requested consultation with and comments on the DEIR from all applicable parties in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15086. Following the procedures under CEQA Guidelines 15087 and 15105, the NOA and DEIR was released for public review on February 9, 2024 for a 45-day comment period from February 9, 2024 to March 25, 2024. Seventy-one (71) comment letters, containing over 500 unique comments, were received on the Draft EIR; WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to the comments received during the comment period and included these responses in the Final EIR. The Final EIR includes a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR, copies of written comments, written responses to comments regarding the environmental review, and errata with minor text changes made to the Draft EIR as a result of comments. The Final EIR was made available for public review at least 10 days prior to today’s public hearing, or on July 5, 2024; WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR on July 5, 2024;
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3483, Packet Page 3811 sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Proposed Plan project have been adequately evaluated;
WHEREAS, the EIR analyzes a range of feasible alternatives to address whether these effects can be reduced to a level of less than significant. The DEIR considered three alternatives that could potentially avoid or substantially reduce significant impacts: a No Project Alternative, A Relocated Housing Growth Alternative, and An Increased Workforce Housing Alternative. Overall, the Proposed Plan was found to have a similar impact profile to the Relocated Housing Growth Alternative and the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative; however, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative because it avoids the Proposed Plan’s significant and unavoidable impact pertaining to agricultural resources and reduces the severity of significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality. However, the Increased Workforce Housing Alternative would not meet all the project objectives. Notably, it would not result in certification of the Housing Element by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) because it relies on capacity projections that cannot be borne out by recent development trends in the City and the Monterey Peninsula and because it would assume redevelopment of non-vacant sites that do not meet the criteria established in State law;
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the project are identified in the EIR; WHEREAS, the irreversible impacts of the project are identified in the EIR; WHEREAS, the findings of fact are set forth in a separate resolution and will be voted on immediately after certification of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR that are necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the project to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are set forth in a separate resolution and will be voted on immediately after certification of this EIR along with the findings of fact;
WHEREAS, projects consistent with the Proposed Plan and the findings of this EIR may also be eligible for streamlined environmental review as permitted under CEQA. This EIR represents the City’s best effort to evaluate the implementation and buildout of the Proposed Plan through its horizon year of 2031. While it is anticipated that conditions may change, the assumptions used are the best available at the time of preparation and reflect existing knowledge of patterns of development;
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City of Monterey Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR, at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard;
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended the that the City Council certify the Final EIR, adopt the MMRP, and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations;
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3484, Packet Page 3812 WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, took public testimony;
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for the purposes of making decisions on the merits of the project; WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Proposed Plan under Public Resource Code Section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct, are adopted, and have served, together with the supporting documents, as the basis for the findings and approvals set forth herein and the City Council certifies the EIR for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update, including the Sixth Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031), Land Use Element, Safety Element, and Circulation based on the following Findings:
1. The City Council determines that each of the recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council makes findings with the understanding that all the information in this Resolution is intended as a summary of the full administrative record supporting the EIR.
2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has been reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.
3. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are in the custody of the City Clerk, City of Monterey, and are located at 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, California 93940. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
4. The City Council directs City staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Monterey County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the certification of the EIR.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3485, Packet Page 3813
5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution or the Exhibits incorporated therein is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of it, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions might be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 16th day of July 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3486, Packet Page 3814 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION AND MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE MONTEREY 2031 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT (2023- 2031), LAND USE ELEMENT, SAFETY ELEMENT, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT WHEREAS, the Proposed 2031 General Plan Update (Proposed Plan) (Project under CEQA) is a targeted update to the City’s 2005 General Plan, specifically the Housing, Safety, Land Use, and Circulation Elements, and would guide future land use decisions in the City of Monterey, providing a long-term vision for the city and, through its policies and implementing actions, would indicate how that vision may be achieved over the life of the document. It would be the primary policy document guiding growth and development within the City of Monterey through the planning horizon year of 2031. Together with the Zoning Ordinance and related sections of the City Code, the Proposed Plan would serve as the basis for planning-related decisions made by City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council; WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City Council certified a Program EIR for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update of the Housing, Land Use, Safety, Circulation Elements (SCH#2023080034), incorporated herein by reference, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15126.2(a)(c) requires an Environmental Impact Report to identify and focus on any significant environmental effects of the proposed General Plan update, including effects that cannot be avoided if the General Plan update is implemented;
WHEREAS, based on the analysis contained in the EIR, the City has determined that the Proposed Project would result in the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with agricultural resources, air quality, energy, greenhouse gases, climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire; WHEREAS, based on the analysis contained in the EIR, the City has determined that the Proposed Project could result in impacts that are less than significant associated with: biological resources; cultural, historic and tribal cultural resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; public services; and wildfire. Mitigation Measures to address these impacts were incorporated into the EIR.
WHEREAS, this Resolution with the findings and statement of overriding considerations as well as the mitigation monitoring or reporting program are separate from the final EIR. The law requires that these findings be adopted once the final EIR has been certified by the lead agency (the City). CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 discusses the required findings for significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The findings and substantial evidence in support of the findings are set forth in Exhibit A:
WHEREAS, the City has prepared certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written evidence Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3487, Packet Page 3815 presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Proposed Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference;
WHEREAS, for significant impacts that are identified in the EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the City has stated the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. Where applicable, this statement of overriding considerations is supported by substantial evidence in the record as described in Exhibit A; WHEREAS, the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, describes the procedures that will be used to implement the mitigation measures adopted in connection with the approval of the Proposed Plan and the methods of monitoring such actions. A monitoring program is necessary only for impacts which would be significant if not mitigated;
WHEREAS, environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in the (MMRP); WHEREAS, environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are described in the MMRP; WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of mitigation measures are described in the MMRP;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above Recitals are true and correct, are adopted, and have served, together with the supporting documents, as the basis for the findings and approvals set forth below and the City Council adopts the environmental findings of fact, statement of overriding considerations, and MMRP for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update, including the Housing Element (2023-2031), Land Use Element, Safety Element, and Circulation Element based on the following Findings and Conditions of Approval:
1. The City Council determines that each of the recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. The City Council hereby finds that it has certified the EIR, which is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
3. The City Council adopts the CEQA “Findings of Fact” pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
4. The City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project as supported by substantial evidence in the record pursuant to CEQA Section 15093.
6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council adopts the MMRP, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. In the Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3488, Packet Page 3816 event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.
7. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are in the custody of the City Clerk, City of Monterey, and are located at 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, California 93940. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
8. The findings and the statement of overriding considerations have been prepared in advance of approval of the Proposed Plan. No findings need be adopted if the project is denied (Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 210).
9.Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution or the Exhibits incorporated therein is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of it, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions might be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 16th day of July 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3489, Packet Page 3817 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE SIXTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031), LAND USE ELEMENT, SAFETY ELEMENT, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT (“MONTEREY 2031 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE”)
WHEREAS, State law requires California cities to prepare and adopt a General Plan to guide future development of the City, including at least seven elements that address land use, circulation, housing, opens space, conservation, safety and noise. State law requires cities to keep general plans current through regular updates;
WHEREAS, the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (Plan) is a targeted update to the City’s 2005 General Plan, specifically the Housing, Safety, Land Use, and Circulation Elements, and would guide future land use decisions in the City of Monterey, providing a long-term vision for the city and, through its policies and implementing actions, would indicate how that vision may be achieved over the life of the document. It would be the primary policy document guiding growth and development within the City of Monterey through the planning horizon year of 2031. Together with the Zoning Ordinance and related sections of the City Code, the Plan would serve as the basis for planning-related decisions made by City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council;
WHEREAS, State law requires the City to update its Housing Element at least once every eight years to ensure that plans continue to accommodate for future housing demand. (Government Code section 65580 et seq.);
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2023, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments adopted the 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation, Methodology, and Regional Housing Needs Determinations. Monterey’s RHNA allocation for the 2023-31 planning period has been determined by AMBAG to be 3,654 housing units, including 1,177 units for very low-income households, 769 units for low-income households, 462 units for moderate-income households, and 1,246 units for above moderate-income households;
WHEREAS, the City, prepared and submitted a draft 2023-2031 Housing Element update to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review; WHEREAS, HCD has reviewed the draft Housing Element updated and has provided comments and feedback by letter on December 22, 2023 and June 26, 2024; WHEREAS, Staff have worked with HCD regarding revisions to the draft Housing Element with the goal of achieving a HCD finding of substantial compliance and certification of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element;
WHEREAS, City Staff revised the draft Housing Element to include additional information and data based on HCD’s comments to staff about the draft Housing Element; WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 65351, the City has facilitated public participation in the Housing Element amendment process through multiple public Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3490, Packet Page 3818 workshops and hearings which provided opportunities for the involvement of residents, members of the public, public agencies, public utilities, and community groups.
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City, acting as the lead agency, certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update to disclose potential effects of the project, measures to mitigate those effects, and an analysis of alternatives to the project;
WHEREAS, California Government Code § 65583 mandates that the Housing Element consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. According to State law (California Government Code § 65580-65589), the Housing Element must:
Provide goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs to preserve, improve and develop housing;
Identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community;
Identify adequate sites that will be zoned and available within the Housing Element planning period — between 2023 and 2031 — to meet the City’s share of regional housing needs at all income levels; and
Be submitted to HCD to review and certify that the Housing Element complies with State law;
WHEREAS, the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element for the 2023-2031 8-year planning period has been prepared in compliance with State law to respond to current and near-term future housing needs in the City of Monterey and it provides a framework for the community’s longerterm approach to addressing its housing needs. The Housing Element contains goals, updated information, and strategic directions (policies and implementing actions) that the City is committed to undertaking. A key component of the Housing Element is the inventory of sites available for housing, presented in a table showing the location, size and zoning applicable to each site together with a projection of the number of housing units that could realistically be accommodated on the parcel in view of past trends and local conditions. By law, the Housing Element also includes an assessment of local housing needs, potential constraints to housing production, and fair housing issues. In view of that assessment, the Housing Element includes a program of actions to address identified needs, constraints, and fair housing issues; WHEREAS, the Housing Element must be adopted to comply with State law, accommodate the RNHA, affirmatively further fair housing, and facilitate and encourage a variety of housing types for all income levels, including multifamily housing (CA Government Code § 65583.2 and 65583(c));
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element has been updated to ensure consistency with the Housing Element and the 2019 Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Additionally, as required by State law, as required under State law, the Land Use Element was circulated to military installations in Monterey for comment. A letter from the Naval Support Activity Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3491, Packet Page 3819 (NSA) Monterey is included in the packet and the changes recommended regarding nomenclature have been incorporated;
WHEREAS, the Safety Element has been updated to incorporate new data on natural hazards and climate change, along with actions to strengthen community resilience and emergency evacuation capacity;
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element has been updated to promote an integrated multimodal transportation system that meets the needs of all users of streets and to update the metric to Vehicle Miles Traveled in compliance with SB743, which took effect July 1, 2020; WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing, reviewed the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update, including the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements, and made recommendations to the City Council on the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update and EIR; and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly and property noticed public hearing, reviewed and considered the Housing Element and all pertinent maps, documents, and exhibits, including HCD’s findings, the City’s response to HCD’s findings, at agenda report, the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and all attachments, and oral and written public comments; and determined that the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update is consistent with State law;
WHEREAS, the findings and the statement of overriding considerations were prepared in advance of approval of the Plan and are incorporated by reference herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update of the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements are hereby adopted by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
2. The Monterey 2031 General Plan Update has been analyzed according to the California Environmental Quality Act and an Environmental Impact Report was certified by the City of Monterey on July 16, 2024.
FINDINGS
3. The Plan is the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (Plan or Project) and fully replaces the City’s 2005 Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3492, Packet Page 3820 The Plan referred to in these findings is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A.
4. The Proposed Plan is a document to be adopted by the City Council that serves the following objectives:
a. Address Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Ensure capacity for the development of new housing to meet the RHNA of 3,654 housing units at all income levels for the 2023-2031 planning period.
b. Provide a Variety of Housing Opportunities. Provide a variety of housing opportunities proportionally by income to accommodate the needs of people who currently live, work, and go to school in Monterey, such as elderly residents, large families, students, teachers, and service and hospitality workers.
c. Provide Equal Housing Opportunities. Provide for fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons, regardless of protected characteristics, including but not limited to, age, ancestry, sex, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, religion, disability, family status, race, creed, color, or national origin.
d. Address Affordable Housing Needs. Continue existing and develop new programs and policies to meet the projected affordable housing needs of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households. e. Address the Housing Needs of Special Need Groups. Continue existing and develop new programs and policies to meet the projected housing needs of persons living with disabilities, unhoused people, elderly residents, students, and other special needs households in the community. f. Remove Potential Constraints to Housing. Evaluate potential constraints to housing development and encourage new housing in locations supported by existing or planned infrastructure, while maintaining existing neighborhood character. Develop programs to help remove or reduce barriers to the development of housing for all income levels.
g. Maintain Existing Housing. Maintain the existing housing stock to assure high quality maintenance, safety, and habitability of existing housing resources.
h. Provide Adequate Housing Sites. Identify appropriate housing sites within specified areas that have the potential to accommodate or are proximate to transportation, shopping and schools, and the accompanying zoning required to accommodate housing development.
i. Support a Vibrant Local Economy. Support the vitality of local businesses, the health of the local economy, and the quality of life in the community with an improved balance of jobs and housing to help ensure that those who work in Monterey can afford to live in the community and to reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with commute traffic to and from the city.
j. Promote Sustainability and Energy Efficiency. 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.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3493, Packet Page 3821 k. Address Risks from Natural Hazards. Incorporate strategies to minimize loss and damage due to geologic, wildfire, flooding, and other potential hazards.
l. Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Address airportrelated hazards, compatibility zones, and airport noise contours and ensure consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan intended to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents, businesses, and airport users.
5. The Housing Element substantially complies with State Housing Element Law, as provided in CA Government Code § 65580 et seq. and contains all provisions required by State Housing Element Law.
6. Based on substantial evidence in the record, the existing uses on the non-vacant sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and therefore do not constitute an impediment to planned residential development on the site during the planning period.
7. The City Manager shall transmit the adopted Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for review pursuant to Government Code Section 655585(g). The City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney is further directed and authorized to make all non-substantive changes to the Housing Element to make it internally consistent or to address any nonsubstantive changes or amendment requested by the Department to achieve certification.
8. The Land Use Element substantially complies with State Law, as provided in CA Government Code Gov. Code § 65302.
The Land Use Element Map 6 designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land and natural resources and the Element’s Land Use Classification Section includes a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan.
The Land Use Element Page 3-10 references the Safety Element that identifies areas subject to flooding as well as other hazards.
The Land Use Element does not designate any land for timber production;
9. The City of Monterey contains three military installations within its jurisdiction – U.S.
Army, Navy, and Coast Guard. As required by law, the City consulted with the military installations as part of its General Plan amendment process. The Land Use Element considers the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and operating and training areas in the Land Use Element Compatibility with Military and Airport Operations Section.
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3494, Packet Page 3822
10. The Circulation Element substantially complies with State Law, as provided in CA Government Code § 65302(b) et seq.. Specifically, the Element Policies a.11, b.5, b.6, c.6, d.4, d.5, f.2, j.4, and k.7 describes:
(1) the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan; and
(2) multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
11. The Safety Element substantially complies with Government Code 65302(g). The Element identifies and protects the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence; liquefaction; and other seismic hazards, flooding; wildland and urban fires (Maps 11-16). The safety element includes mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It also addresses evacuation routes (Map 17), military installations (Page 7-12 references the Land Use Element), peakload water supply requirements (Page 7-12 and Program a.31), and minimum road widths and clearances around structures (Page 7-12 and Program a.29), as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards.
12. The 2005 Housing Element, Land Use Element, Safety Element, and Circulation Element are hereby repealed and shall have no further force and effect on project applications filed after the date of adoption of this resolution.
13. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution or the Exhibits incorporated therein is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of it, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions might be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 16th day of July 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3495, Packet Page 3823 Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3496, Packet Page 3824 ATTACHMENT 8 Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3497, Packet Page 3825 April 26, 2024
Christy Sabdo
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 April 17, 2024) 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/ Appendix D: Assessment of Assessment of Fair Housing
MST recommends the following edits (in red) pertaining to the specific pages within Appendix D:
• Page D-49. It is possible to go as far as Watsonville Gilroy to the north and Paso Robles to the south. • Page D-49. Additionally, there is a route through Carmel and to Salinas with stops in other nearby cities such as Sand City, Marina, Castroville, Moss Landing, Las Lomas, and Pajaro. In total there are seven bus lines.
• Page D-52. MST operates ten eleven routes within the city, including Routes Jazz A and Jazz B that operate at 15-minute combined headways as shown on Figure D-1.
MST now offers service to Gilroy (Line 59 Salinas – Gilroy) with two morning trips and two trips in the afternoon/evening. Passengers can connect to other services provided by Caltrain, VTA, and County Express Hollister using MST’s Line 59. MST also operates the DRO Shuttle (Del Rey Oaks – Monterey), which is not shown in Figure D-1. The DRO Shuttle allows passengers to travel between Del Rey Oaks and Monterey with ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3498, Packet Page 3826 limited service on weekdays. Four morning and two evening trips are available for passengers. Please visit MST’s website for more information regarding existing routes and schedules:
https://mst.org/maps-schedules/overview/
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
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3499, Packet Page 3827 LandWatch comments on City of Monterey April 2024 Revised Draft Housing Element Michael DeLapa <[email protected]>
Mon 4/29/2024 3:09 PM
To:[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc:Mehmood, Sohab@HCD <[email protected]>;Blackwell, Clare@HCD <[email protected]>;Kimberly Cole <[email protected]>;City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>;Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;Oncall Planning <[email protected]>
1 attachments (251 KB)
LW to HCD re Monterey April 2024 Revised Draft.pdf;
Dear Ms. Lee and Mssrs. Errichetto and McDougall:
I write on behalf of LandWatch Monterey County (“LandWatch”) in connection with the April 2024 Revised Draft Housing Element for the City of Monterey. LandWatch applauds the City for its revisions to the site inventory, made in response to HCD’s December 22, 2023 letter. These revisions will create many more opportunities for dense infill housing, especially affordable housing, in the already urbanized core of the City. LandWatch supports a focus on affordable infill housing on the Monterey Peninsula to improve the jobs/housing balance, to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions, and to avoid greenfield sprawl development, especially in the former Fort Ord.
We write to make three critical points. First, Fort Ord housing development is not needed to meet the City’s RHNA site inventory. Second, counting Fort Ord sites toward lower income RHNA violates HCD guidance and is bad planning. Third, Fort Ord remains ineligible for RHNA compliance because of the lack of water supply.
We have repeatedly advised City staff of these points and are hopeful that decision makers will approve the so-called “Relocated Housing Growth Alternative” that is evaluated in the environmental impact report for the Housing Element. This alternative would not develop housing on Fort Ord and would instead increase infill densities.
We ask that HCD advise the City that it should not and may not rely on Fort sites to meet its RHNA goals for the reasons explained in our attached letter.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Regards,
Michael
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Please subscribe to the LandWatch newsletter, "like" us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. ________________________
4/30/24, 9:10 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3500, Packet Page 3828 Michael D. DeLapa
Executive Director
[email protected]
650.291.4991 m
Subscribe • Facebook • Twitter
Remember LandWatch in your will
4/30/24, 9:10 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3501, Packet Page 3829 April 29, 2024
Paul McDougall
Mao Lee
Anthony Errichetto
Division of Housing Policy Development
Department of Housing & Community Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 550
Sacramento, CA 95833
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Re: City of Monterey April 2024 Revised Draft Housing Element Dear Ms. Lee and Mssrs. Errichetto and McDougall:
I write on behalf of LandWatch Monterey County (“LandWatch”) in connection with the April 2024 Revised Draft Housing Element for the City of Monterey. LandWatch applauds the City for its revisions to the site inventory, made in response to HCD’s December 22, 2023 letter. These revisions will create many more opportunities for dense infill housing, especially affordable housing, in the already urbanized core of the City. LandWatch supports a focus on affordable infill housing on the Monterey Peninsula to improve the jobs/housing balance, to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions, and to avoid greenfield sprawl development, especially in the former Fort Ord.
We write to make three critical points. First, Fort Ord housing development is not needed to meet the City’s RHNA site inventory. Second, counting Fort Ord sites toward lower income RHNA violates HCD guidance and is bad planning. Third, Fort Ord remains ineligible for RHNA compliance because of the lack of water supply.
We have repeatedly advised City staff of these points and are hopeful that decision makers will approve the so-called “Relocated Housing Growth Alternative” that is evaluated in the environmental impact report for the Housing Element. This alternative would not develop housing on Fort Ord and would instead increase infill densities.
We ask that HCD advise the City that it should not and may not rely on Fort sites to meet its RHNA goals.
1. Fort Ord development is not needed to meet the City’s RHNA.
The revisions to the site inventory made in the April 2024 Revised Draft Housing Element demonstrate that the Fort Ord units are not needed to meet the City’s RHNA. Table 3-4, P.O. Box 1876, Salinas, CA 93902-1876 | 831-759-2824 | www.landwatch.org | [email protected] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3502, Packet Page 3830 summarizing the various sites, demonstrates that the City can meet its RHNA targets in each income category with an ample buffer without counting any units from Fort Ord.1
2. Counting Fort Ord sites toward lower income units violates HCD guidance.
The April 2024 Revised Draft Housing Element counts 100 units of lower income housing in Fort Ord based on the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance.2 HCD’s guidance bars reliance on inclusionary housing ordinance buildout projections in a site inventory:
The analysis of “appropriate zoning” should not include residential buildout projections resulting from the implementation of a jurisdiction’s inclusionary program or potential increase in density due to a density bonus, because these tools are not a substitute for addressing whether the underlining (base) zoning densities are appropriate to accommodate the RHNA for lower income households. Additionally, inclusionary housing ordinances applied to rental housing must include options for the developer to meet the inclusionary requirements other than exclusively requiring building affordable units on site. While an inclusionary requirement may be a development criterion, it is not a substitute for zoning.3 Furthermore, it is bad planning to make provision of lower income housing contingent on provision of subsidies from market rate housing projects, which may never be built. This uncertainty is increased by the availability of alternative means of compliance with an inclusionary housing ordinance, such as payment of in lieu fees.
3. There is no water supply for City of Monterey housing on Fort Ord.
In our September 21, 2023 letter to Mr. Errichetto, we explained that HCD should advise local jurisdictions not to rely on sites in the former Fort Ord due to the lack of the required “mandatory program or plan . . . to secure sufficient water . . . to support housing development.”4 We made the following points about the City of Monterey’s reliance on Fort Ord. ● The 65 AFY groundwater supply allocation from Marina Coast Water District for the City of Monterey would support only 250 housing units, not the 2,100 units then proposed. 4 Gov. Code, § 65583.2(b)(5)(B).
3 HCD, Site Inventory Guidebook, May 2020, p. 3-14, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final0610202
0.pdf.
2 City of Monterey, April 2024 Revised Draft Housing Element, p. 3-22, available at https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031.
1 City of Monterey, April 2024 Revised Draft Housing Element, Table 3-4, available at https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3503, Packet Page 3831 ● MCWD is bound by its settlement agreement with Keep Fort Ord Wild and LandWatch not to provide groundwater supplies for more than 6,160 new residential units. That 6,160-unit cap has already been reached with previously approved projects. Thus, none of Monterey’s small groundwater allocation can be used for housing.
● There is no non-groundwater supply or mandatory program or plan in place to provide an alternative to groundwater supplies, as required by Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(5)(B).5
Despite this, the City’s December 2023 Revised Draft Housing Element and its draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) continued to rely on Fort Ord, albeit for only 1,660 units. And, incredibly, the draft EIR admits there is no water supply:
MCWD does not currently have a plan or funding in place to reactivate the pilot seawater desalination plant or procure additional supply from Phase 2 of the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project. No other feasible sources of additional water supply have been identified. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.”6 LandWatch’s comments on the draft EIR reiterated in detail that there is no planned water supply for Fort Ord housing, based on an exhaustive review of the applicable water supply planning documents including MCWD’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan.7 HCD’s December 22, 2023 letter to the City pointed out that public comments have noted the lack of water supply for Fort Ord development and asked the City to provide “the most current information” about water supply availability. The most current substantive and documented information is the draft EIR’s admission that no feasible sources of water have been identified and LandWatch’s detailed comments on the draft EIR explaining why there is in fact no planned or funded water supply.
However, the City has now solicited and forwarded to HCD a one-page letter from MCWD stating that MCWD will include the City’s needs in its future supply planning. The MCWD letter also states that it is considering various water supply projects. However, none of these projects are funded or committed. The MCWD letter does not demonstrate that there is a “mandatory program or plan” for the water supply needed for housing in Fort Ord. Accordingly, we ask HCD to advise the City that 7 LandWatch to Christy Sabdo, City of Monterey, March 21, 2024, available at https://landwatch.org/pages-new/monterey-peninsula/Monterey/032124-LWComments-Monterey2031GPUDE IR.pdf
6 City of Monterey, Monterey 2031 General Plan Update Draft EIR, February 9, 2024, pp. 3.14-28 to
3.14-29, available at https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031. 5 LandWatch to Anthony Errichetto, HCD, Sept. 21, 2023, available at https://landwatch.org/pages-new/policy/housing/092123-LWComments-Fort-Ord-Site-Inventories.pdf
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3504, Packet Page 3832 the Fort Ord sites do not meet the infrastructure availability requirements of the Housing Element Law.
In sum, the Fort Ord sites are not needed to meet any of the City’s RHNA income categories. They should not be counted for lower income units. And they should not be counted at all due to the lack of a committed water supply.
As such, we ask that HCD advise the City that it should not and may not rely on Fort sites to meet its RHNA goals.
Sincerely,
Michael Delapa
Executive Director
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3505, Packet Page 3833 April 26, 2024
City of Monterey Planning Division,
580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940
Monterey, CA 93940
Subject: Revised Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element (SUPPORT) Dear Mayor, City Councilmembers, and City Staff,
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) would like to take this opportunity to state that MBEP continues to support the City of Monterey's 6th Cycle Housing Element Draft overall. However, upon careful review of the Revised 6th Cycle Housing Element Draft, a majority of the recommendations outlined in the previous letter submitted in September of 2023 were not explicitly implemented. MBEP stands by its previous recommendations which are proven ways to help increase the feasibility of achieving the City’s RHNA goals.
MBEP looks forward to our continued partnership and the city to incorporate the recommendations previously suggested. Please reach out to MBEP’s Director of Housing and Community Development, Matt Huerta at [email protected] with any questions or requests for technical assistance.
Sincerely,
Tahra Goraya, MA, MPA
President & CEO
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3506, Packet Page 3834 September 4, 2023
Colton Hall and Community Development Department
580 and 570 Pacific St
Monterey, CA 93940
Subject: City of Monterey Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Dear Mayor Williamson, City Councilmembers, and Director Cole, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) supports recommendations for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Draft made available to the public on August 2nd, 2023. The City of Monterey’s Draft Housing Element incorporates policies in alignment with recommendations from our white paper, Practical Housing Policy: Increasing Supply and Affordability; which spans the following five policies:
● Streamline permitting and reduce discretionary reviews:
● Increase allowable densities
● Reform impact fees
● Increase funding sources for affordable housing
● Optimize Inclusionary Housing Ordinances
Specific comments and recommendations for the programs included in the Housing Element are below.
Opportunity Areas – Map 3-14
MBEP supports designation of the opportunity areas outlined on Map 3-14.
Identifying priority areas for infill development is critical for guiding resource allocation for developers and city staff alike.
Recommendations:
● Ensure streamlining incentives (by-right/ministerial approval, CEQA exemption, objective guideline evaluation) are available in all opportunity areas in exchange for inclusion of affordable units. See recommendations for Program 1-D.
● Implement form-based code or a building envelope-based design regime that allows for greater building heights, decreased setbacks, greater F.A.R., and as a result, higher density than strictly following zoning designations would allow.
● Implement impact fee reductions and deferrals for infill housing ● Reduce parking requirements for projects developed within ¾ mile of transit routes with service frequency every hour during commute hours
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3507, Packet Page 3835 Programs 1-B: Multi-family Residential Overlay amendments; 1-C: Specific Plan Updates; and 1-D:Permit Streamlining Pilot Project
MBEP supports streamlined permitting and higher density housing in areas of Monterey with high concentration of jobs, transit access, and other critical Fair Housing resources. ● Amendments to increase density limits in the Multi-Family Residential Overlay (1-B) and Specific Plan areas (1-C) increase feasibility for housing that is relatively affordable by design or deed-restricted. Reducing parking requirements and increasing height limits adds to feasibility and net affordability.
● Creating the Permit Streamlining Pilot area program (1-D), Educational Workforce Housing Overlay, and Congregational Overlay represents a significant step in enabling by-right housing development and drastically reducing the time, cost, and risk associated with the permitting process. MBEP strongly supports the delegation of design review to City staff.
Recommendations:
● Extend the 3-year sunset on the Permit Streamlining Program (1-D) until the City meets its RHNA goals for VLI, LI, and moderate income affordable housing. ● Devise a set of criteria by which the Permit Streamlining program can be applied to any qualifying parcel in the City of Monterey, including all parcels inside of the designated Opportunity Areas (Map 3-14.) Conditions that would support higher density multifamily housing may exist outside of those areas and could mirror those of Senate Bill-35 (Wiener, 2017), AB-2011 (Wicks, 2022), SB-423 (Wiener, 2023), or factors including:
○ Environmental Safety: The area should either be outside of any sensitive environmental zones, including those related to flood or sea-level rise, wetlands, or fire risk – or – a set of mitigation measures and engineering solutions to be met to earn ministerial approval. ○ Infrastructure Readiness: The area must possess or have a viable plan and funding to access necessary dry and wet infrastructure to support a density of up to 60 dwelling units per acre.
○ Zoning Compatibility: The parcel should already be zoned to allow housing development as a permitted or conditional use and adjoin existing urban use parcels on at least 75% of its perimeter (see SB-423 parcel qualifying conditions.) ○ Transit Proximity: The area should be within 0.5 miles of a transit route that offers service intervals less than 60 minutes during weekday commute hours. As occupancy in the area increases and transit service increases proportionately, decrease the threshold for eligibility gradually to 15 minutes or fewer.
● Programs 1-E: Education Workforce Housing Overlay and 1-F: Congregational Overlay MBEP supports both of these overlay programs and the objective development standards that will enable by-right development of housing on associated sites.
Recommendation: Increase the density limit allowed by right in the Educational Workforce Housing Overlay from 30 du/acre to 60 du/acre in order to better avail of MPUSD-owned sites.
Alternatively, apply a form-based code that uses building envelopes and objective development and design guidelines to determine final unit counts so that the final density is based on efficient use of space.
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3508, Packet Page 3836 ● Program 1-G: Surplus Municipal Parking facilities
MBEP supports the designation of Surplus Municipal Parking Facilities for the purpose of lower income housing development.
● Program 1-H: Fort Ord/Ryan Ranch Specific Plan
MBEP supports the stated objective of the Fort Ord and Ryan Ranch Specific Plans: “to foster the creation of a mixed-use village on a portion of the site to provide housing, jobs, schools, shops, services and recreation for future residents while also preserving carefully selected areas of natural open space and habitat.”
○ Recommendation: Ensure that development of the area includes adequate public transit service to provide a viable local and inter-city option for commutes to nearby job centers and resource areas.
● 1-I: Highway 68 area Plan Update
MBEP supports the simultaneous goals of development and open-space preservation on the 50-acre, MPUSD-owned parcel identified for low and moderate income housing units.
Recommendation: Given that the identified site adjoins a parcel identified by the County of Monterey for its 6th Cycle RHNA, MBEP recommends collaborating with County staff for considerations related to infrastructure buildout, developer identification, and buildout of parcels.
Ensure coherence of zoning, use patterns, and natural resource preservation across jurisdictional lines.
● 2-A: By-Right Rezoning Sites from Prior Inventories:
MBEP supports the by-right development of housing on sites from previous two sites inventories totaling 1,177 units to very low income households and 769 for low-income households. ● Program 2-C: ARC Review
MBEP strongly supports the revision to City code limiting ARC review to objective standards.
Recommendation: Apply the same model to Planning Commission review of housing projects that include affordable housing.
● 2-D: Revise adopted Plans with Objective Standards
MBEP strongly supports the establishment of objective standards for the specific planned areas of the City of Monterey.
● 2-E: Revise Parking Requirements
MBEP strongly supports reducing the minimum parking requirements to one space per unit for all units located within one half mile of public transportation, reduction for peak demand in mixed-use development, and broad consideration of parking requirement constraints to development for future code modifications.
Recommendation: Allow for deeper reduction of parking requirements where shared parking options are available on existing, underutilized city lots which are not already identified for redevelopment.
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3509, Packet Page 3837 ● 2-I: Inclusionary Zoning
MBEP supports the aims of the inclusionary zoning requirements to increase the stock of affordable housing.
Recommendation: Undertake a study of the financial feasibility of the current 20% inclusionary requirement, including the potential for a codified 10% moderate/10% lower income stipulation and other proportions. Many factors affect the feasibility of inclusionary requirements; these can include location, market factors such as labor costs and the cost of borrowing, and the scale of development. Typically, greater scale and density allows for greater flexibility in inclusionary proportions and depth of affordability. MBEP recommends examining the workability of a sliding scale for inclusionary affordable housing, where requirements and concessions from the city increase with the scale of the development.
● 2-J: Water Distribution Policy and 2:K: Addressing Water Supply Constraints MBEP supports the development of a methodology for allocating existing and emergent water credits for projects that include affordable housing until the State Water Resources Control Board lifts the cease-and-desist order for adding new water meters. Ensuring that the City and water management district prioritize available credits is a good faith acknowledgement of the deep need.
● 3-A: Legal Services and Fair Housing Education
MBEP supports expanding educational efforts for fair housing practices among both tenants and landlords. The City should take all possible measures to mitigate illegal and discriminatory practices.
● 3-C: Local Density bonus
MBEP supports the local density bonus program for smaller parcels to facilitate at least 300 units affordable to lower income households, including at least 75 rental units with 2 or 3 bedrooms.
Recommendation: Extend the density bonus to parcels of all sizes, scaling it inversely to parcel size. Incentivizing the production of 2 and 3 bedroom units even for larger parcels will benefit the housing stock for working families and households.
● 3-F: Affirmative Marketing of Affordable Housing Opportunities MBEP strongly supports the affirmative marketing of available sites for affordable housing development, active pursuit of public funding sources, and provision of technical assistance for affordable housing fund applications.
Recommendation: Ensure that marketing efforts become an opt-in accessible program to developers with a history of developing mixed income housing, including for-profit developers who opt into notifications.
● 3-G: Zoning Incentives for Deed Restricted ADUs/JADUs MBEP strongly supports offering incentives for creation of ADUs and JADUs for lower income households through increases to allowable lot coverage and FAR, complementing SB-9 and SB-10 provisions.
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3510, Packet Page 3838 ● 4-B Rental Assistance Pilot Program
MBEP strongly supports implementation of a rental assistance program independent from Housing Authority vouchers.
Recommendation: Implement the broadest rental assistance program possible with the funds available. Undertake a study to determine the relative economic impact of offering broader, shallower subsidy vs. narrow, deeper subsidy. Based on annual results, evaluate whether to increase funding to the program (when fiscally possible) in order to increase impact in the manner identified as most effective.
Overall, MBEP strongly supports the forward-thinking approach of the City’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element. Please reach out to MBEP Director of Housing and Community Development, Gabriel Sanders at [email protected] with questions or requests for technical assistance.
Sincerely,
Tahra Goraya, MA, MPA
President & CEO
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3511, Packet Page 3839 From: Anthony Davi Sr
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2024 4:08 PM
To: Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject: General Plan Update Comments
You don't often get email fro� Learn wh\f this is im12ortant To: Mayor, Council Persons, City Manager, Planning Departments and Others.
I believe it's important for the General Plan Update to include a future economic growth element in order to meets the future financial needs of the City of Monterey. Operational cost not going down.
City operational cost have dramatically increased over the past few years and will continue. Since one of our primary sources of revenue is, hotel transit tax, I believe that an Economic Element should be included in this update.
The concern is with respects to hotel revenue and that there are numerous new hotels either planned or under construction in our neighboring communities.
These new rooms present a strong probability that these new rooms will result in a reduction of the hotel transit tax revenues to the City of Monterey. Future visitor to the Peninsula will find these new modern rooms more attractive.
Additional, concerns is that the transit occupancy tax is paying the debt for the recent Conference Center updating and needs to be preserved.
I suggest that the City revise the hotel moratorium and allow for additional hotel rooms to be constructed in the downtown core districts, increase building heights, all in order to neutralizing the negative impacting on the hotel revenues by these new competing hotel rooms in the neighboring communities.
Housing:
Why doesn't the Peninsula have adequate affordable housing? Will the State mandated 20%affordavle housing requirement create more housing or is it an https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADE1ZDM30DlkLTU1MGYtNGM1NC1hZTdiLTA50TE5MGQ5Y2ZIZQBGAAAAAAAG%2BMCojiwxTI... 1/3 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3512, Packet Page 3840 obstacle .
1. No water= no new housing. ( Not building the dam was a huge mistake on the part of the peninsula communities. Today the dam would have been paid for = lower water rates; water available for the past 35+ years = more housing.( Instead, we have one of highest water rates in the country and schedule be even higher if and when adequate the new water sources are created) no water= few new housing units have been built during the past 35 + years =negative housing, fewer new units =higher rents , lower supply = higher demand= higher rents..
2. Impact of the 20% affordable: cost of construction. It cost the same to build affordable housing as market rent housing.
3. Operational cost of affordable units is the same as market units.
4. Reduced rents for 20% affordable housing = lower net operating income.
5. Net operating income is gross income less the operating expense of the property.
6. Lower income = lower value.
7. Lower net operating income = lower loans. Lenders base the loan amount and payments on net operation income, net operating income must equal at lease 125-135% of the loan payment, if not the lender will reduce the loan commitment to equal 125-135%=lower loan amount.
8. Loan is based on net operating income not the number of units or its appraised value.
9. Higher interest rates = lower return on investment.
10 Lower financing = higher cash investment in the project by developer = lower return on investment.
10.State mandated 20% affordable result= financially unfeasible new housing projects.
Consequence No Incentive too great a risk.
Fact: Not for profit developers can justify new projects because of the numerous subsides that are available like , larger loan amounts, lower interest rates, rent subsides , minimum property taxes and more. None of these incentives are available to conventional developers .
So, If the City of Monterey is serious about incentivizing new affordable housing, then there should be included in the update plan the availability of financial and other subsides to assist in offsetting the infeasibilities mentioned above. For example: financial subsides for the cost of constructing the affordable units, city rent subsidies to renters to offset loss of income for the affordable units Reduced fees. Not require numerous studies and plans prior to submission of a project to planning rather approve the project first subject to meeting city requirements and then expedite the process once approved. These numerous studies are costly and time consuming. Why does a developer have to pay for numerous studies and reports, in advance, when it’s not known if the project is acceptable to the city. It’s a waste of every bodies time and money. 6/4/24, 10:31 AM Mail - Erica Barrera - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADE1ZDM3ODlkLTU1MGYtNGM1NC1hZTdiLTA5OTE5MGQ5Y2ZlZQBGAAAAAAAG%2BMCojiwxTI… 2/3 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3513, Packet Page 3841 Also, higher building height for the downtown districts should be allowed in order to increase the number of housing units that can be develop. Allow housing on the first level and offsite parking.
Kindly submit my comments to the mayor, consul persons, city manager and planners.
Thank You for Listening,
Anthony G. Davi, Sr
Lifetime community member,
Property and Business Owner.
l
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/4/24, 10:31 AM Mail - Erica Barrera - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADE1ZDM3ODlkLTU1MGYtNGM1NC1hZTdiLTA5OTE5MGQ5Y2ZlZQBGAAAAAAAG%2BMCojiwxTI… 3/3 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3514, Packet Page 3842 4/22/24, 8:17 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Monterey's RHNA proposal
Dale & Caroline DePalatis
Fri 4/19/2024 7:31 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/wa ter availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Sincerely,
Dale and Caroline DePalatis
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3515, Packet Page 3843 4/19/24, 4:49 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Objection to City of Monterey RHNA Proposal to be submitted to the State 4/26/2 Gary Weitz
Fri 4/19/2024 2:32 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo,
Please see my comments below in regards to the City of Monterey's Revised RHNA proposal. I object to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091- 011-000.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city_hall/community_development/planning/development_ projects/water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for a development, and there not a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. The City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. Thus, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
This site is also an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which is already heavily impacted and the focus of several current CalTrans studies.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan. This would create a horrific traffic impact for Hwy 68 and destroy the natural habitat in this area.
Thank you.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3516, Packet Page 3844 4/19/24, 4:49 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Gary J. Weitz
Monterey, CA Resident
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3517, Packet Page 3845 4/19/24, 4:53 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 VIOLATION of AB 1397
Guy Agrati
Fri 4/19/2024 3:08 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Cc:Steve Thayer
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important As Andrew forcefully points out in his letter to you (email attached) the inclusion of the 'High School' parcel in the resubmission to the State violates state law. He emphasized water scarcity, and environmental impact.
In addition, highway 68 is already at capacity. During Race Season, Laguna Seca activities make the road impassable often during the day currently. Do a thought experiment, and add another 700-1000 cars to today's traffic, and you won't have a highway, you will have a 20 mile parking lot. All those money making events the the Race Way will soon stop coming to Monterey.
Regards,
Guy Agrati
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3518, Packet Page 3846 4/19/24, 4:57 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Violation
Kristin Russo
Fri 4/19/2024 4:35 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091- 011-000.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city_hall/community_development/planning/developmen t_projects/water_availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011- 000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3519, Packet Page 3847 4/19/24, 4:57 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Best Regards,
Kristin Russo
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3520, Packet Page 3848 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3521, Packet Page 3849 Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011- 000.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development proj ects/water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Andrew Hawryluk, Ph.D.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3522, Packet Page 3850 4/19/24, 4:42 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 RHNA Plan comments
mlcorliss
Fri 4/19/2024 2:19 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011- 000.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city_hall/community_development/planning/ development_projects/water_availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Melanie Corliss
Melanie
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3523, Packet Page 3851 4/19/24, 4:40 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 RHNA Proposal Objection
Michael Hoppe
Fri 4/19/2024 2:08 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo,
I am writing to provide my comments regarding the City of Monterey’s RHNA proposal that the city plans to submit to the state on April 26th.
Please note my objection to the School District Site parcel #259-091-011-000.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 which ensure the identification of realistic sites for housing which must include sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing or be included in the general program or other mandatory program plan.
This would violate the water permit moratorium in Monterey.
This site is environmentally sensitive and part of a scenic view corridor. Any development will add traffic to HW 68, destroy one of the few plots of beautiful undeveloped land in Monterey, and displace countless animals. Please leave this piece of land as-is.
I strongly encourage you to remove parcel 259-091-011-000 from the RHNA plan.
Sincerely,
Michael Hoppe
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3524, Packet Page 3852 4/19/24, 4:52 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 City of Monterey RHNA Proposal
Stephanie Stevenson
Fri 4/19/2024 2:36 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011- 000.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city_hall/community_development/planning/ development_projects/water_availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Stuart Jacobs
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3525, Packet Page 3853 4/19/24, 4:41 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Objection to City of Monterey RHNA Proposal to be submitted to the State 4/26/24 Susan Weitz
Fri 4/19/2024 2:15 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo,
Please see my comments below in regards to the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I object to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development_projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for a development, and there not a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. The City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. Thus, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
This site is also an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which is already heavily impacted and the focus of several current CalTrans studies.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you.
Susan Weitz
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3526, Packet Page 3854 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3527, Packet Page 3855 4/22/24, 9:42 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met. 2) Environmental issues: this site is part of a scenic view corridor in an environmentally sensitive area with limited dry utilities or sewer. Of great concern are also the issues related to traffic: HW 68 is already affected by high traffic.
Parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397 and section 65583.2(c)(2)(B), and will have a considerable negative environmental impact in this area. I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
I thank you in advance for your attention.
Regards,
~Alma S. Castro Peet Ed.D.
--
Alma S. Castro Peet, MBA, Ed.D.
Online Formative Assessments as Valid Correlates of Foreign Language Proficiency as Measured by Summative Tests "Now the whole earth had one language and the same words." ~Genesis 11:1 [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3528, Packet Page 3856 Letter to City re RHNA plan April 20 2024
Good afternoon, Ms. Sabdo:
I am writing this letter to express my concern regarding the City of Monterey RNHA proposal plan considered for submission to the state by April 26.
I express my objection to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011- 000, labeled on Table B as: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs".
I am also objecting to the plans listed on your table for the building of 614 units comprised of 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, a plan that is in violation of state laws and raises several environmental concerns:
1) State Law violations:
a) This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017), which requires for sites to have enough available water, sewer and dry utilities supply to support housing development and be included in an existing general plan program.
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have adequate amount of water for the development. Per the City of Monterey: “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”.
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Per your General Plan Update: Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Your General Plan Update also states: When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time. https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/water availability.php
b) Section 65583(a)(3) describes that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
c) Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3529, Packet Page 3857 2) Environmental issues: this site is part of a scenic view corridor in an environmentally sensitive area with limited dry utilities or sewer. Of great concern are also the issues related to traffic: HW 68 is already affected by high traffic.
Parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397 and section 65583.2(c)(2)(B), and will have a considerable negative environmental impact in this area. I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
I thank you in advance for your attention.
Regards,
~Alma S. Castro Peet Ed.D.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3530, Packet Page 3858 4/22/24, 9:53 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 City of Monterey's RHNA plan Comments Requested: /Olmsted Road
Andrea B Pace
Sat 4/20/2024 5:13 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development_projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3531, Packet Page 3859 4/22/24, 9:53 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Andrea B Pace
Monterey, Ca 93940
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3532, Packet Page 3860 4/22/24, 8:20 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Good morning
Christopher Bonavico
Sat 4/20/2024 7:11 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city_hall/community_development/planning/development_projects/ water_availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3533, Packet Page 3861 4/22/24, 8:20 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3534, Packet Page 3862 4/22/24, 9:24 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Monterey's RHNA proposal
Dana McManus
Sat 4/20/2024 10:47 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo,
We recently heard about the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the city plans to submit to the State on April 26, 2024. We urge you to fully object to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). AB 1397, states that potential sites must have sufficient available water, sewer and utilities, and must be available to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan.
There is a water moratorium in Monterey! Currently, the Monterey general plan regarding water states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation and when additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road to the site. Any development will add traffic to highway 68 which already is heavily impacted per several CalTrans studies.
We strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you,
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3535, Packet Page 3863 4/22/24, 9:24 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Dana and Collette McManus
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3536, Packet Page 3864 4/22/24, 9:28 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Objections to City Plan
Gail Robbins
Sat 4/20/2024 12:00 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development_projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3537, Packet Page 3865 4/22/24, 9:28 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Gail Robbins
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3538, Packet Page 3866 4/22/24, 9:28 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 City of Monterey’s RHNA proposal
Gary Gasperson
Sat 4/20/2024 1:11 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear Ms Sabdo,
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel #259–091–011–000.
The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
Your table calls for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of
AB 1397. This law ensures
the identification of realistic sites for housing.
Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer, and dry utilities supply, and must be available and accessible to support housing development.
Parcel 259–091–011–000 does NOT have sufficient water for the development, nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City Of Monterey’s
General Plan.
Inclusion of parcel
#259–091–011–000 is in violation of AB 1397.
This site is in an environmentally, sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site.
Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CALTRANS studies.
I strongly encourage you to remove parcel
#259–091–011–000 from your RHNA plan.
Regards,
Jane Gasperson
Sent from my iPhone
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3539, Packet Page 3867 4/22/24, 9:26 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/3 Re: Revised Draft 2023-31 Housing Element Available for Public Review geoff smith <
Sat 4/20/2024 11:10 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important RE: 2023-2031 Housing Element comments
Christy Sabdo, AICP
Senior Associate Planner
City of Monterey
Re: 2023-2031 Housing Element
Christy,
The following are comments from me and my wife, Linda, owners of property in the City of Monterey:
These comments are related only to the inclusion of one property parcel in the draft 2023-2031 Housing Element.
That parcel is referred to in the draft as a 50 acre vacant parcel owned by the Monterey City School District (MPUSD) located south of highway 68 east of Tarpey Flats. Neighbors tell me the parcel # is 259-091-011-000 although I cannot find that reference in the Housing Element draft. I will refer to this parcel as the “school district parcel.”
The school district parcel is ineligible for inclusion in the RHNA inventory for the 2023-2031 Housing Element because it does not meet the statutory requirement for inclusion and fails to discuss several elements required to be discussed as a prerequisite to determining that the parcel is “suitable” for inclusion in the RHNA inventory.
The statute, Government Code (GC) section 6558, requires that any parcel included in the RHNA inventory must be both “suitable” and “available.” As written in the Dyett and Bhatia draft of the 2023-2031 Housing Element the school district parcel is owned by MPUSD, not the City of Monterey and is not available for inclusion in the Housing Element. Nothing in the statute allows for inclusion of a parcel into the RHNA inventory which may or might someday be acquired.
Next, the school district parcel is not “suitable” for a variety of reasons, with the simplest disabling reason being that there no water allocations for the occupants of the forecasted 640 units. The draft 2023-2031 Housing Element very clearly acknowledges the impact of the current water moratorium on the previous Housing Element (241 units) as well as acknowledging the unpredictability of the moratorium being lifted now or at any time during the 2023-2031 Housing Element timeline. And, in particular, there is no discussion about the likelihood of the school district’s parcel of 640 units receiving a water allocation priority over and above the water needed for the projects currently defined in the draft Housing Element as “in the pipeline.” The draft Housing Element cannot make a judgment of “suitability” without completing analysis required by the statute, particularly the requirement that the Housing Element include “an analysis of potential and actual government constraints upon the …. Development of housing.” Permitting always involves “potential” or “actual” government constraints that need to be discussed before the parcel’s suitability for inclusion in the RHNA inventory can be determined. In this situation very typical and obvious permitting conditions would eliminate, impede or substantially restrict the development of the school district parcel. Water has already been mentioned. Traffic impacts will have to be approved and there is no comment in the Housing Element that suggests that there will be de minimus traffic impacts on the already overburdened Highway 68, nor is there any comment on how those traffic impacts can be ameliorated when adding the vehicles of 640 units to an already congested traffic mix. That will include analysis of safety impacts as well. Finally, another government constraint has to do with the protection of wildlife that proliferates in the area included in the school district parcel and the adjacent areas. Planners should be aware that there is a large pond and wetlands area that lies immediately adjacent to the eastern edge of the school district parcel and is split by the access road into the Monterra subdivision. This area is of particular importance to wildlife, particularly in the dry summer months. I have seen coyotes, turkeys, deer, ducks, herons and even a mountain lion. I am certain environmental specialists can better identify the volume and habitat. But, “suitability”requires that a discussion of whether the negative impacts on the wildlife in this habitat will or should prevent the inclusion of the school district parcel in the RHNA. Finally, there must be a discussion on the impact of students from the 640 multi-family ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3540, Packet Page 3868 4/22/24, 9:26 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/3 units in the school district parcel on the capacity of the Monterey School District. As it is, school district impact fees are always part of the permitting process, meaning by extension it is assured that the school district will need to input on the burdens students from the 640 units will have on its district.
Overall, the statute wants the inventory in the Housing Element to have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redeveloping during the planning period.” (i.e. by 2031) Clearly, the school district parcel cannot be included as it is not “available.” And, the draft Housing Element itself acknowledges that the absence of water makes the parcel not currently suitable. Importantly, statutorily mandated discussions related to “suitability”, such as traffic, wildlife, water, and school are not mentioned.
Accordingly, the school district parcel should be excluded from the RHNA inventory list in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
Geoff and Linda Smith
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 4:46 PM Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> wrote:
To Interested Parties,
You are receiving this email as you have either commented on the City of Monterey's 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element or have requested information on the project.
Under State law, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) must review and certify the City's 2023-31 Housing Element as complete. On December 22, 2023 HCD completed review of the Draft Housing Element, finding that while it meets many of the statutory requirements, some revisions are needed for full compliance with State law. The City has been working directly with HCD staff to ensure revisions made adequately address the comments. The Revised Draft Housing Element is now available for public review before it is formally resubmitted to HCD for certification. The City intends to resubmit on Friday, April 26, 2024 and a Joint Planning Commission and City Council hearing is anticipated in June, when the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (including the Housing Element) and EIR will be considered for adoption.
The revised Draft 2023-31 Housing Element can be found under the News Feed at the project website: https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031
Respectfully,
Christy
Christy Sabdo, AICP
Senior Associate Planner | City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street | Monterey, CA 93940
831-646-3885 (main) | 831-646-3758 (direct) |
[email protected] | have your say | city website
City of Monterey Logo
Facebook icon LinkedIn icon Twitter icon Youtube icon Instagram icon www.monterey.org
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3541, Packet Page 3869 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3542, Packet Page 3870 4/22/24, 8:42 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/3 Comments on Revised Draft 2023-31 Housing Element Available for Public Review Grant Hunt
Sat 4/20/2024 10:17 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo:
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
From the information below, it appears as if there is sufficient legal grounds for a successful challenge to the inclusion of MSUSD-owned property adjacent to SR68 between Olmsted and Canyon del Rey.
In order for the City of Monterey to avoid protracted and expensive litigation, I urge you to remove the School District site from your RHNA proposal set to be submitted to the state in a few days.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development_projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3543, Packet Page 3871 4/22/24, 8:42 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/3 City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards,
Grant Hunt
Monterey, CA
On Apr 18, 2024, at 3:45 PM, Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> wrote:
To Interested Parties,
You are receiving this email as you have either commented on the City of Monterey's 6 th Cycle Draft Housing Element or have requested information on the project.
Under State law, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) must review and certify the City's 2023-31 Housing Element as complete. On December 22, 2023 HCD completed review of the Draft Housing Element, finding that while it meets many of the statutory requirements, some revisions are needed for full compliance with State law. The City has been working directly with HCD staff to ensure revisions made adequately address the comments. The Revised Draft Housing Element is now available for public review before it is formally resubmitted to HCD for certification. The City intends to resubmit on Friday, April 26, 2024 and a Joint Planning Commission and City Council hearing is anticipated in June, when the ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3544, Packet Page 3872 4/22/24, 8:42 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 3/3 Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (including the Housing Element) and EIR will be considered for adoption.
The revised Draft 2023-31 Housing Element can be found under the News Feed at the project website:https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031 Respectfully,
Christy
Christy Sabdo, AICP
Senior Associate Planner | City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street | Monterey, CA 93940
831-646-3885 (main) | 831-646-3758 (direct) |
[email protected] | have your say | city website
City of Monterey Logo
Facebook icon LinkedIn icon Twitter icon Youtube icon
Instagram icon
www.monterey.org
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3545, Packet Page 3873 4/22/24, 9:26 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 City of Monterey's RHNA proposal
Ian Whiting
Sat 4/20/2024 11:23 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”.
For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3546, Packet Page 3874 4/22/24, 9:26 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Thank you for your attention.
Ian Whiting
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3547, Packet Page 3875 4/22/24, 8:41 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Comments to the City of Monterey’s RHNA proposal
Jackie Hamilton
Sat 4/20/2024 9:36 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3548, Packet Page 3876 4/22/24, 8:41 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
With the high fire risk in our area, and traffic flow restrictions we are also very concerned with how we would ever evacuate our neighborhood with this explosion of population added to our area. The Oak Tree neighborhood and much of Monterra is backed right up to Jacks Peak which is 575 acres of pine forest traveling all the way to Carmel Valley Road and the Joyce Stevens Pine Preserve is 851 acres of pine forest. Combined they are both part of “one of the largest Monterey Pine habitats left on the planet, which support 10 endangered species…” This area will not be groomed to avoid fire and continuously experiences fallen trees and accumulating fuel for a future massive fire. Our homes are built right against this forest and our exit is a 2 lane Olmstead Road. The more population added to our area the higher the fire risk and more difficult the evacuation routes become. Our emergency services are limited and will not be able to respond to risks of this magnitude.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Jackie Hamilton
Sent from my iPad
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3549, Packet Page 3877 4/22/24, 10:10 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 City of Monterey RHNA plan
Lurline Menzies
Sat 4/20/2024 8:20 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091- 011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city_hall/community_development/planning/development_ projects/water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3550, Packet Page 3878 4/22/24, 10:10 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011- 000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the site can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Lurline Menzies
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3551, Packet Page 3879 4/22/24, 8:44 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 RHNA plan
Sat 4/20/2024 10:38 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>;Michael Saldana
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3552, Packet Page 3880 4/22/24, 8:44 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3553, Packet Page 3881 4/22/24, 8:21 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/3 Re: Revised Draft 2023-31 Housing Element Available for Public Review Michael Healy
Sat 4/20/2024 7:29 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development_projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3554, Packet Page 3882 4/22/24, 8:21 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/3 locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Very truly yours,
Michael J Healy
On Apr 18, 2024, at 3:46 PM, Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> wrote:
To Interested Parties,
You are receiving this email as you have either commented on the City of Monterey's 6 th Cycle Draft Housing Element or have requested information on the project.
Under State law, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) must review and certify the City's 2023-31 Housing Element as complete. On December 22, 2023 HCD completed review of the Draft Housing Element, finding that while it meets many of the statutory requirements, some revisions are needed for full compliance with State law. The City has been working directly with HCD staff to ensure revisions made adequately address the comments. The Revised Draft Housing Element is now available for public review before it is formally resubmitted to HCD for certification. The City intends to resubmit on Friday, April 26, 2024 and a Joint Planning Commission and City Council hearing is anticipated in June, when the Monterey 2031 General Plan Update (including the Housing Element) and EIR will be considered for adoption.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3555, Packet Page 3883 4/22/24, 8:21 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 3/3 The revised Draft 2023-31 Housing Element can be found under the News Feed at the project website: https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031 Respectfully,
Christy
Christy Sabdo, AICP
Senior Associate Planner | City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street | Monterey, CA 93940
831-646-3885 (main) | 831-646-3758 (direct) |
[email protected] | have your say | city website
City of Monterey Logo
Facebook icon LinkedIn icon Twitter icon Youtube icon Instagram icon www.monterey.org
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3556, Packet Page 3884 4/22/24, 8:23 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 RHNA PROPOSAL comments
Randy Hamilton
Sat 4/20/2024 9:12 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3557, Packet Page 3885 4/22/24, 8:23 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Randy Hamilton
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3558, Packet Page 3886 4/22/24, 8:39 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 (No subject)
sarah hoppe
Sat 4/20/2024 9:26 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units. This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan. There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states: Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not
have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore it also states: When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development proj ects/water_availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”.
For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Sarah Hoppe
Challenge A Director
Salinas Community
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3559, Packet Page 3887 4/22/24, 9:25 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Comments regarding Revised Draft 2023-31 Housing Element RHNA proposal Susan Hunt
Sat 4/20/2024 10:50 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo:
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
From the information below, it appears as if there is sufficient legal grounds for a successful challenge to the inclusion of MSUSD-owned property adjacent to SR68 between Olmsted and Canyon del Rey.
In order for the City of Monterey to avoid protracted and expensive litigation, I urge you to remove the School District site from your RHNA proposal set to be submitted to the state in a few days.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development_projects/ water availability.php
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3560, Packet Page 3888 4/22/24, 9:25 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Susan Hunt
Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3561, Packet Page 3889 4/22/24, 10:13 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 City of Monterey RHNA Proposal
Allen Sorbo
Sun 4/21/2024 5:50 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development_projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3562, Packet Page 3890 4/22/24, 10:13 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3563, Packet Page 3891 4/22/24, 10:19 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Updated comments to the City's Updated RHNA Plan
andrew hawryluk
Sun 4/21/2024 10:22 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I submitted my original comments to you on April 19 and have since learned of additional matters that enforce my objections.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/wa ter availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3564, Packet Page 3892 4/22/24, 10:19 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) applies which requires that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without a demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the site can be developed as lower income housing. This parcel is slightly larger than 50 acres and the city has not demonstrated the successful development of an equivalently large site during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of units. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Andrew Hawryluk, Ph.D.
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3565, Packet Page 3893 4/22/24, 10:21 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 City of Monterey RHNA plan
Dana Heinrich
Sun 4/21/2024 10:49 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091- 011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city_hall/community_development/planning/development_ projects/water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3566, Packet Page 3894 4/22/24, 10:21 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011- 000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Dana Heinrich
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3567, Packet Page 3895 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3568, Packet Page 3896 4/22/24, 10:16 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/3 Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/wa ter_availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Fred Breidenbach
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3569, Packet Page 3897 4/22/24, 10:16 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 3/3 Monterey, CA 93940
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3570, Packet Page 3898 April 21, 2024
Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development proj ects/water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3571, Packet Page 3899 plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Fred Breidenbach
Monterey, CA 93940
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3572, Packet Page 3900 4/22/24, 10:24 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Objections to City’s RHNA Plan
Patrice Hawryluk
Sun 4/21/2024 12:30 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3573, Packet Page 3901 4/22/24, 10:24 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) applies which requires that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without a demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the site can be developed as lower income housing. This parcel is slightly larger than 50 acres and the city has not demonstrated the successful development of an equivalently large site during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of units. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Sent from my iPhone
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3574, Packet Page 3902 4/22/24, 10:31 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/3 City of Monterey RHNA plan
Rodney Heinrich
Sun 4/21/2024 7:55 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded
Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this
property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51
moderate income housing units as well as 512 above
moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support
housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that
determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your
published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3575, Packet Page 3903 4/22/24, 10:31 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/3 for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/p lanning/development projects/water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of
equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Rodney Heinrich
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3576, Packet Page 3904 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3577, Packet Page 3905 April 21, 2024
Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development proj ects/water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3578, Packet Page 3906 plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Susan Breidenbach
7650 Mills Road
Monterey, CA 93940
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3579, Packet Page 3907 4/22/24, 10:20 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 Parcel 259-091-011-000
WILLIAM YAKOBOVICH
Sun 4/21/2024 10:30 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear Ms. Sabdo, I am writing you regarding the above parcel which is evidently included in the city’s RHNA proposal to the state due April 26,2024. This inclusion needs to be withdrawn from the submission as it violates state laws specifically AB1397 regarding water of which there is NOT sufficient water and has NO PLAN for sufficient water. The inclusion also has issues with Section 65583.2(c) as it does NOT have a realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment to meet housing needs.
In addition this parcel is located in an area very close to the Monterey airport and could be the site of a disaster if developed with any density at all. We just had a horrible accident several years ago when a pilot had a medical issue and crashed into a home in nearby Monterra and TWO were killed and the home severely damaged . One can only estimate the high number of fatalities that would be present were this to happen in a high density development. This proposed location should definitely be withdrawn from the submission. There are many suitable locations AWAY from the airport that could serve the purpose for this submission.
Sincerely, William N Yakobovich
Sent from my iPad
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3580, Packet Page 3908 4/22/24, 10:09 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 Fwd: UPDATED; URGENT: City of Monterey RHNA plan
[email protected]
Sat 4/20/2024 6:52 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/wa ter availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3581, Packet Page 3909 4/22/24, 10:09 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Elece Leverone, , Monterey, CA 93940
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3582, Packet Page 3910 Comments re: City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
James Washington
Mon 4/22/2024 6:58 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Cc:James Washington
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/wa ter availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397. 4/23/24, 9:04 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3583, Packet Page 3911 Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
James Washington
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 4/23/24, 9:04 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3584, Packet Page 3912 4/22/24, 11:05 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 City of Monterey's RHNA proposal
Ken Lindsay
Mon 4/22/2024 10:41 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am the owner of the property that was destroyed by an aircraft crash in the nearby Monterra subdivision several years ago killing the two occupants of the aircraft originating from the Monterey airport.
As a pilot myself I object to building a school and a high density housing development so close to the airport along with other reasons stated hear-in.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs".
Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/water availability.php Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3585, Packet Page 3913 4/22/24, 11:05 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Ken Lindsay
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3586, Packet Page 3914 Comments re: City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
Lisa Villafranca
Mon 4/22/2024 6:45 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Dear Ms. Sabdo,
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/wa ter availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the 4/23/24, 9:03 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3587, Packet Page 3915 locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Lisa Villafranca
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 4/23/24, 9:03 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3588, Packet Page 3916 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3589, Packet Page 3917 Dear Ms. Sabdo
With regards to the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26, I would like to add my own views on the subject and believe that the plan for adding 614 new housing units is a serious mistake. I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000 into the RHNA proposal.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
It seems to me that since there has been a clearly demonstrated and advertised water shortage here on the entire Monterey Peninsula, the plans for a new development on this site should not and cannot be developed without additional water allocation and permitting. How can you develop 614 low and moderate housing units in such a small area with such high density, without impacting the existing water supply, while at the same time telling everybody that there is a water shortage and we have some of the highest consumer water costs in the country?
Additionally, this proposed site has no known infrastructure in place nor planned for such a high density housing project. The proposed site is within a scenic view, environmentally sensitive area that has no utility infrastructure in place and no access from established roads. If anyone has been monitoring the Hwy 68 corridor traffic over the last several years, it would be immediately obvious that the Hwy 68/ Del Rey Oaks Blvd intersection is already considered to be very high traffic and a crucial node in the traffic patterns here on the Peninsula. It is not hard to imagine what 614 new housing units worth of commuters will add to this already existing traffic congestion.
Considering these points as well as other technical issues of the planning process, I would strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Sincerely,
Markus Woehler
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3590, Packet Page 3918 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3591, Packet Page 3919 Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011- 000.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development proj ects/water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Andrew Hawryluk, Ph.D.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3592, Packet Page 3920 City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26 Craig Lilly
Mon 4/22/2024 2:32 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo:
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found at:
https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development projects/water av ailability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site.
Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies. Have you obtained an environnmental impact study and we see the study? I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
4/23/24, 9:26 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3593, Packet Page 3921 Best, Craig Lilly
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 4/23/24, 9:26 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3594, Packet Page 3922 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3595, Packet Page 3923 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3596, Packet Page 3924 Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011- 000.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". This could include 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
To keep it short and simple, here are the key reasons why this site should not be included:
1) There is insufficient water available to serve the site. 2) This site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
3) There are no dry utilities or sewer available.
4) Any development will seriously adversely impact traffic to and on HW 68 which already is heavily impacted.
5) We will no longer be able to reasonably enter and exit our neighborhood or the Monterey airport due to extreme traffic conjestion.
We strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for considering our request.
All the Best,
Robert Thull and Karen Thull
Monterey CA 93940
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3597, Packet Page 3925 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3598, Packet Page 3926 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3599, Packet Page 3927 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3600, Packet Page 3928 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3601, Packet Page 3929 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3602, Packet Page 3930 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3603, Packet Page 3931 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3604, Packet Page 3932 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3605, Packet Page 3933 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3606, Packet Page 3934 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3607, Packet Page 3935 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3608, Packet Page 3936 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3609, Packet Page 3937 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3610, Packet Page 3938 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3611, Packet Page 3939 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3612, Packet Page 3940 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3613, Packet Page 3941 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3614, Packet Page 3942 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3615, Packet Page 3943 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3616, Packet Page 3944 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3617, Packet Page 3945 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3618, Packet Page 3946 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3619, Packet Page 3947 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3620, Packet Page 3948 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3621, Packet Page 3949 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3622, Packet Page 3950 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3623, Packet Page 3951 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3624, Packet Page 3952 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3625, Packet Page 3953 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3626, Packet Page 3954 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3627, Packet Page 3955 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3628, Packet Page 3956 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3629, Packet Page 3957 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3630, Packet Page 3958 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3631, Packet Page 3959 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3632, Packet Page 3960 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3633, Packet Page 3961 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3634, Packet Page 3962 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3635, Packet Page 3963 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3636, Packet Page 3964 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3637, Packet Page 3965 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3638, Packet Page 3966 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3639, Packet Page 3967 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3640, Packet Page 3968 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3641, Packet Page 3969 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3642, Packet Page 3970 Monterey RHNA PLAN
Victoria Yakobovich
Tue 4/23/2024 4:56 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Ms. Sabdo,
I have been a resident of Monterey County for over 45 yrs and have seen a lot of changes some positive some negative. I am adamantly opposed to the city of Monterey’s RHNA PROPOSAL THAT THEY ARE PLANNING TO SUBMIT TO THE STATE ON APRIL 26th
This is in regards to parcel number 259-091-000 . This site is in violation of AB 1397 this law ensues the identification of realistic sites for affordable housing. Their is not sufficient water available , sewer and dry utilities supply and this parcel is not available and accessible to support housing development This site also is designated as an environmentally sensitive area. The site has no dry utilities , no sewer, and no access road . I commute on Highway 68 frequently and over the years that highway has become very congested this proposed development will only add more traffic .
Please remove this parcel from your RHNA PLAN
A very concerned citizen
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 4/24/24, 2:31 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3643, Packet Page 3971 City of Monterey RHNA
Karen Brown
Wed 4/24/2024 4:13 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Mr. Sabdo,
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development_projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
4/26/24, 8:18 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3644, Packet Page 3972 Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Karen Brown
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 4/26/24, 8:18 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3645, Packet Page 3973 City of Monterey's RHNA Proposal
Margaret Demers
Wed 4/24/2024 2:49 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo,
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development_projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
4/24/24, 3:07 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3646, Packet Page 3974 Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the site can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards,
Margaret Demers
Local Citizen
Margaret Demers
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 4/24/24, 3:07 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3647, Packet Page 3975 Monterey RHNAPlan for HIGH SCHOOL PROPERTY
Oona McLoghlin
Wed 4/24/2024 12:38 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development_projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
4/24/24, 2:50 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3648, Packet Page 3976 Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies.
Finally, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit the draft Housing Element was drafted for the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, but it appears to me that the resolution was never actually adopted.
I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you,
Oona McLoghlin
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 4/24/24, 2:50 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3649, Packet Page 3977 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3650, Packet Page 3978 Christy Sabdo, AICP
Senior Associate Planner | City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street | Monterey, CA 93940
April 24, 2024
Dear Ms. Sabdo:
We previously wrote to the City re the inclusion of site 259-091-011-000 for re-zoning and inclusion in the City of Monterey RHNA proposal. My wife and I are most disappointed that this site remains in the proposal.
As former long-term residents of the City, we understand the need for more local housing, however carving up rural space along a one of the two main (and very congested) “scenic” entry corridors to Monterey does not seem to make any sense.
The State is on record preferring infill projects of less than 10 acres, where water, u�li�es, and other infrastructure exist, close to transporta�on, jobs, and retail. All of these are lacking at the proposed loca�on, but are readily available at alterna�ve sites closer to town.
My par�cular concern is water availability. Unless the larger scale de-sal plant is implemented, Monterey will not have addi�onal water to support large scale development. Test wells drilled near Olmsted have verified that well-water in the area already suffers from salt-water intrusion (and exis�ng wells require very expensive reverse osmosis de-salina�on to make it potable).
There is also the concern about not having well water enough for the above parcel, even with treatment, due to addi�onal needs for the Airport expansion, Garden Road development, and poten�al development by the County along Olmsted.
Is the City prepared to subsidize de-salinated water for 600 dwellings? This could run to several million dollars per year, more if addi�onal pumping increases salinity, and even more if accommoda�ons have to be made for other residents losing access to their own wells.
Other sites appear to make much more sense, both in terms of feasibility and state requirements. We could certainly support several other sites actually in the main City footprint, such as lower Garden Road, adjacent to the Fairgrounds (can we get some of the very underu�lized Monterey Pines Golf Course?) with a LOT of seasonal jobs just steps away, the old hospital campus on Hartnell, and other possibili�es
Thank you for the thankless job of herding this effort.
Sincerely,
Robert and JoAnna Behl
Monterey, CA 93940
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3651, Packet Page 3979 City of Monterey RHNA Plan
Helen Whiting
Thu 4/25/2024 5:31 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091- 011-000.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/developm ent projects/water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011- 000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor. The site has limited (or none) dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies. 4/26/24, 8:51 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3652, Packet Page 3980 I strongly encourage you to remove Parcel 259-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours sincerely
Helen Whiting
Sent from my iPad
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 4/26/24, 8:51 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3653, Packet Page 3981 Objection to parcel number 259-091-011-000, whose inclusion violates multiple state laws
Michael H
Thu 4/25/2024 9:46 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Dear Ms. Sabdo
I am writing to provide you with my further comments regarding the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State on April 26.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
Further, development of this site would severely endanger the fire and police protection of the entire neighborhood, since traffic congestion already impedes safe response times for both fire and police. Further, the development of the proposed site risks loss of life from airplane crash and hearing impairment to new residents of the site, due to high decibel levels of aircraft operations at the subject site.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city hall/community development/planning/development_projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the 4/26/24, 8:20 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3654, Packet Page 3982 locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
Because the parcel is over 10 acres, section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) indicates that the site not to be considered as available for lower income need without demonstration that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units or by providing other evidence that the sire can be developed as lower income housing. This condition has not been met.
Furthermore, this site is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of a scenic view corridor.
The site has inadeqate dry utilities or sewer on the property and no access road access to the site. Any development will add traffic to HW 68 which already is heavily impacted and the focus of several CalTrans studies; air quality will thus be severely compromised.i I ask you to remove Parcel 259-091-011-000 from your RHNA plan.
Please respond pointwise to each of my comments.
Regards,
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 4/26/24, 8:20 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3655, Packet Page 3983 Monterey's RHNA proposal
sandra wheatley
Thu 4/25/2024 4:35 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo,
I hope this finds you well. I wanted to take a moment to share my thoughts on the City of Monterey's RHNA proposal and my objection to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091- 011-000.
It appearts that this inclusion is in conflict with several State laws.
According to your documentation, this site is listed in table B as one of the "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs." The table indicates a requirement for 51 low-income, 51 moderate-income, and 512 above moderate-income housing units, totaling 614 housing units.
However, I must highlight that this site appears to violate AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017), which mandates the identification of realistic sites for housing. Specifically, this law requires identified sites to have sufficient available water, sewer, and dry utilities, or to be included in existing general plan programs or other mandatory plans.
Furthermore, according to Section 65583.2(c) of the law, the local jurisdiction must determine the realistic number of units that can be accommodated for different income levels, considering factors such as water availability. Given the water permit moratorium in Monterey and the uncertainty surrounding water availability, as outlined in your General Plan Update, it seems evident that Parcel 259-091-011-000 lacks the necessary water resources for development.
Moreover, Section 65583(a)(3) necessitates that sites included in the inventory must have a realistic potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet housing needs. Unfortunately, this parcel does not meet this criterion.
Additionally, due to its size, Section 65583.2(c)(2)(B) stipulates that the site should not be considered available for lower-income housing unless evidence is provided that equivalent-sized sites have been successfully developed for such purposes. This condition has not been met.
On top of these concerns, the site's environmental sensitivity, location within a scenic view corridor, and lack of essential utilities further compound the unsuitability for development. Any development on this site would also exacerbate traffic issues on HW 68, which is already heavily impacted.
Lastly, it appears that the resolution authorizing the submission of the draft Housing Element was never adopted during the September 19, 2023 City Council meeting, adding another layer of uncertainty.
4/26/24, 8:22 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3656, Packet Page 3984 In light of these issues, I urge you to reconsider the inclusion of Parcel 259-091-011-000 in your RHNA plan.
Thank you for considering my perspective on this matter.
Kind regards,
Sandra Wheatley
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 4/26/24, 8:22 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3657, Packet Page 3985 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3658, Packet Page 3986
KENNEDY, ARCHER & GIFFEN
A Professional Corporation
April 26, 2024
Via Email
Kimberly Cole, Director
Community Development Department
City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street
Monterey, CA 93940
[email protected]
Attorneys at Law
24591 Silver Cloud Court
Suite 200
Monterey, California 93940
Tel (831) 373 7500
Fax(831)373 7555
Re: City of Monterey's 6
th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element
Dear Ms. Cole:
This firm represents the Olmstead Highway 68 Conservation Consortium, which is dedicated to the conservation of the Tarpey Flats area (including the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District site) along Highway 68 in the City of Monterey.
We must admit that the letter of December 22, 2023, and the accompanying Appendix with the specified need for changes to the City's draft Housing Element is a dizzyingly difficult document to digest, and it is impossible for us to directly see all the changes that have been made in response. Our concern, however, is the selection of the MPUSD site (APN 259-091-011-000) in the Inventory for 651 units, at 50 units per acre, which is a ludicrous amount.
Government Code section 65583(a) (3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a "realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality's housing need for a designated income level." This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion. Highway 68 is a State- designated Scenic Highway, and it has intractable problems today that cannot be remedied for many years. There is no water available to serve this site for many years, even with the best scenarios for Cal Am, MPWMD, and other parties.
The site does not have convenient access to supportive services in the City or adjoining cities. It is an outlier to the center of the City. The Housing Element describes it as a "buffer," meaning it is included over and above the RHNA to "ensure that there is sufficient capacity ... in the event that some sites on the inventory actually develop of lower densities those envisioned." Translation: its inclusion in the Inventory is not needed now.
ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3659, Packet Page 3987 ATTACHMENT 8
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3660, Packet Page 3988 1 June 19, 2024
Dear leaders of the City of Monterey,
Thank you for the many hours you've worked on the housing development plans. We offer our strong support for a responsible, affordable housing program. Our community needs it.
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require several things:
(1) That we protect desirable land,
(2) That we prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality, and (3)That we minimize risks from fire.
The School District Site (in Tarpy Flats; APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”; 50-acre parcel owned by MPUSD "Hwy 68 Area") fails on all three requirements, but possibly more importantly, the sites fail for many environmental and archeological reasons. There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
• Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation.
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3661, Packet Page 3989 2 • The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey
watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built. • The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter.
• Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks.
• Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna and a
significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3662, Packet Page 3990 3 Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well.
This was also pointed out by the BSLT. Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-000) fails on those criteria.
Specifically:
• Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels.
• Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits.
• Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the
adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “affordable housing”.
• Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would
severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3663, Packet Page 3991 4 Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County.
Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
• Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area. Homeowners and residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable housing is for low-income households who cannot afford to self-insure. • Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their take-off. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel.
• Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons. Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. See:
https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoA mstjiLESdDoMmStMdD3E9S1wmgESr3dUWNMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibe xtid=cr9u03
• Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a single-family residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a highdensity development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3664, Packet Page 3992 5 I would like to point out to you that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur. This is too important to get wrong!
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, any high-density development. I strongly encourage you to immediately remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Thank you again for the hard work you do, and for taking time to read this for consideration.
Respectfully,
Rae Darabont
Resident of Monterey
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3665, Packet Page 3993 1 June 19, 2024
Dear leaders of the City of Monterey,
Thank you for the many hours you've worked on the housing development plans. We offer our strong support for a responsible, affordable housing program. Our community needs it.
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require several things:
(1) That we protect desirable land,
(2) That we prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality, and (3)That we minimize risks from fire.
The School District Site (in Tarpy Flats; APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”; 50-acre parcel owned by MPUSD "Hwy 68 Area") fails on all three requirements, but possibly more importantly, the sites fail for many environmental and archeological reasons. There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
• Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation.
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3666, Packet Page 3994 2 • The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey
watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built. • The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter.
• Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks.
• Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna and a
significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3667, Packet Page 3995 3 Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well.
This was also pointed out by the BSLT. Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-000) fails on those criteria.
Specifically:
• Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels.
• Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits.
• Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the
adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “affordable housing”.
• Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would
severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3668, Packet Page 3996 4 Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County.
Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
• Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area. Homeowners and residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable housing is for low-income households who cannot afford to self-insure. • Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their take-off. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel.
• Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons. Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. See:
https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoA mstjiLESdDoMmStMdD3E9S1wmgESr3dUWNMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibe xtid=cr9u03
• Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a single-family residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a highdensity development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3669, Packet Page 3997 5 I would like to point out to you that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur. This is too important to get wrong!
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, any high-density development. I strongly encourage you to immediately remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Thank you again for the hard work you do, and for taking time to read this for consideration.
Respectfully,
Frank Darabont
Resident of Monterey
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3670, Packet Page 3998 Dear City of Monterey
I would like to provide you with my strong support for a responsible, affordable housing program. Our community needs more affordable housing.
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require that we a) protect desirable land, b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c) minimize risks from fire. The School District Site (in Tarpy Flats; APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”) fails on all three requirements, but possibly more importantly, the sites fail for many environmental and archeological reasons. There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
• Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation.
• The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built. • The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter.
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3671, Packet Page 3999 • Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks. • Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT.
Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3672, Packet Page 4000 requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-000) fails on those criteria. Specifically:
• Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break.
The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels. • Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits. • Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “affordable housing”.
• Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County.
Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
• Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area. Homeowners and ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3673, Packet Page 4001 residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable housing is for low-income households who cannot afford to self-insure.
• Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their take-off. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel. • Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons.
Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. See:
https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoAmstjiL ESdDoMmStMdD3E9S1wmgESr3dUWNMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibextid=c r9u03
• Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a single-family residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a high-density development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
I would like to point out to you that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high-density development. I strongly ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3674, Packet Page 4002 encourage you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Sincerely,
Warren Lyons
Monterey Citizen
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3675, Packet Page 4003 June 19th, 2024
Re: Proposed Affordable Housing Sites
Dear City of Monterey,
I would like to strongly support the need for affordable housing in our community.
However, I strongly oppose the Tarpy Flats loca�on, school district site, as a viable site for new high density affordable housing.
The Big Sur Land Trust has adjacent property, and the Tarpy Flats loca�on is a high fire hazard area without the wetlands, not enough water supply to meet demand of high density housing, a detriment to na�ve protected species of animals and na�ve plants. In addi�on, access to this proposed site is very limited and would be very costly to develop ingress/egress streets to avoid conges�on to highway 68 and Olmstead Road.
Please remove Tarpy Flats loca�on from your list as possible sites for affordable housing.
Thank you,
Dr. Michele Kra�
Monterey Resident
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3676, Packet Page 4004 City of Monterey revised RHNA Plan
Lilly, Craig
Wed 6/19/2024 11:11 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey:
I would like to provide you with my strong support for a responsible, affordable housing program. Our community needs more affordable housing. The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require that we a) protect desirable land, b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c) minimize risks from fire. The School District Site (in Tarpy Flats; APN number 259-091- 011-000; the “school site”) fails on all three requirements, but possibly more importantly, the sites fail for many environmental and archeological reasons. There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation.
The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built.
The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter.
Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks.
Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland6/20/24, 11:58 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3677, Packet Page 4005 Savanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found nowhere else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT. Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011- 000) fails on those criteria. Specifically:
Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels.
Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits.
Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “affordable housing”.
Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable.
Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County. 6/20/24, 11:58 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3678, Packet Page 4006 Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area. Homeowners and residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable housing is for low-income households who cannot afford to self-insure.
Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their take-off. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel.
Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons. Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. See:
https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoAmstjiLESdDoM mStMdD3E9S1wmgESr3dUWNMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibextid=cr9u03 Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a single-family residence located approximately 1 mile from this site.
Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a high-density development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
I would like to point out to you that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high-density development. I strongly encourage you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Sincerely, Craig and Christian Lilly
Concerned residents of Monterey and members of the Highway 68 Conservation Consortium
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have 6/20/24, 11:58 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 3/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3679, Packet Page 4007 received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
RSUSv12021
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/20/24, 11:58 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 4/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3680, Packet Page 4008 Objection to Parcel No. 259-091-011-000 in the Monterey Affordable Housing Plan Susan Weitz
Wed 6/19/2024 12:53 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
To: City of Monterey Planning Dept.
I would like to formally object to the inclusion of parcel no. 259-091-011-000 (“The School District Site” in Tarpy Flats) in the Monterey Affordable Housing Plan. While I support the need for more affordable housing in Monterey, this parcel does not meet the published guideline requirements for new affordable housing.
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require: a) protect desirable land, b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c) minimize risks from fire.
Parcel no. 259-091-011-000 fails all three requirement. Additionally, this site fails for many environmental and archeological reasons.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, is part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
· Preserving the cultural importance of the to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation. · The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This will be lost if a development is built.
· The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter. · Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks.
· Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated these sites include extensive, rare and extremely highquality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mimamound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create 6/20/24, 11:59 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/3 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3681, Packet Page 4009 seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species that is not found anywhere else in the world except the Monterey region.
On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State requires (AB 1397) that “realistic” sites for affordable homes are selected, but the school site (APN 259-091-011- 000) fails on these criteria.
· Environmentally sensitive area: This land forms a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. · Water: A recent drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a low cost housing development, concluded there was insufficient water without obtaining new water permits. · Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the BSLT land which is designated as preserved and unlikely to obtain road access. To the north is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. · Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is because it is the gateway to the Airport. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County. Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
· Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.
· Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their take-off. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here.
The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel.
· Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons. Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. · Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a single-family residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands. 6/20/24, 11:59 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/3 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3682, Packet Page 4010 If this parcel is accepted on the RHNA plan, the site will be rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this parcel not be allowed to be included in your plan.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high-density development. I strongly encourage you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Sincerely,
Susan Weitz
Monterey Resident
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/20/24, 11:59 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 3/3 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3683, Packet Page 4011 Parcel No. 259-091-011-000 in the Monterey Affordable Housing Plan Gary Weitz
Wed 6/19/2024 1:09 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Dear City of Monterey Planning Dept.,
I would like to formally object to the inclusion of parcel no. 259-091-011-000 (“The School District Site” in Tarpy Flats) in the Monterey Affordable Housing Plan. While I support the need for more affordable housing in Monterey, this parcel does not meet the published guideline requirements for new affordable housing.
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require: a) protect desirable land, b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c) minimize risks from fire.
Parcel no. 259-091-011-000 fails all three requirement. Additionally, this site fails for many environmental and archeological reasons identified by the Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT).
The BSLT states preserving this land is important for the following reasons:
· Preserving the cultural importance of the to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation. · The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This will be lost if a development is built.
· The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter. · Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks.
· Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are other concerns regarding developing the school site. The State requires (AB 1397) that “realistic” sites for affordable homes are selected, but the school site (APN 259-091-011- 000) fails on these criteria.
· Environmentally sensitive area: This land forms a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. 6/20/24, 12:00 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3684, Packet Page 4012 · Water: A recent drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a low cost housing development, concluded there was insufficient water without obtaining new water permits. · Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the BSLT land which is designated as preserved and unlikely to obtain road access. To the north is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. · Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is because it is the gateway to the Airport. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County. Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
· Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.
· Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their takeoff. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel.
· Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons. Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. · Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a singlefamily residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
If this parcel is accepted on the RHNA plan, the site will be rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this parcel not be allowed to be included in your plan.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site does not meet the requirements for any development, and in particular, high-density development. I ask you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Sincerely,
Gary J. Weitz
Monterey Resident
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/20/24, 12:00 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3685, Packet Page 4013 Objection to the City of Monterey's Housing Proposal
andrew hawryluk
Wed 6/19/2024 1:46 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Dear City of Monterey
I would like to provide you with my strong support for a responsible, affordable housing program. Our community needs more affordable housing.
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require that we a) protect desirable land, b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c) minimize risks from fire. The School District Site (in Tarpy Flats; APN number 259- 091-011-000; the “school site”) fails on all three requirements, but possibly more importantly, the sites fail for many environmental and archeological reasons.
There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
· Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/CostanoanEsselen Nation. · The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built. · The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter.
· Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks. · Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor.
Deer, coyotes, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland6/20/24, 1:20 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3686, Packet Page 4014 Savanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found nowhere else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT. Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259- 091-011-000) fails on those criteria. Specifically:
· Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels. · Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits. · Access: The school site is landlocked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection.
To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “affordable housing”.
· Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable 6/20/24, 1:20 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3687, Packet Page 4015 housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County. Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties. · Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area. Homeowners and residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable housing is for low-income households who cannot afford to selfinsure. · Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their take-off. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level of noise is enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel. · Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel.
Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons. Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. See:
https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoAmstjiLESdDo MmStMdD3E9S1wmgESr3dUWNMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibextid=cr9u03 · Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a single-family residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a high-density development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
I would like to point out to you that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high-density development. I strongly encourage you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
6/20/24, 1:20 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 3/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3688, Packet Page 4016 Sincerely,
Andrew M. Hawryluk, Ph.D.
President, Save Tarpy Flats Consortium
A community organization with over 250 households
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/20/24, 1:20 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 4/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3689, Packet Page 4017 Comments regarding revised Draft Housing Housing
Michael Healy
Wed 6/19/2024 1:51 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey
I would like to provide you with my strong support for a responsible, affordable housing program. Our community needs more affordable housing.
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require that we a) protect desirable land, b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c) minimize risks from fire. The School District Site (inTarpy Flats; APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”) fails on all three requirements, but possibly more importantly, the sites fail for many environmental and archeological reasons. There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
• Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation.
• The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built.
6/20/24, 1:22 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/5 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3690, Packet Page 4018 • The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter.
• Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks. • Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission)stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT. Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-000) failson those criteria.
Specifically:
6/20/24, 1:22 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/5 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3691, Packet Page 4019 • Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels.
• Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits.
• Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands.
Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “affordable housing”.
• Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County. Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
• Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area.
Homeowners and residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable housing is for low-income households who cannot afford to self-insure.
• Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their take-off. This is the loudest part of 6/20/24, 1:22 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 3/5 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3692, Packet Page 4020 the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel.
• Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons. Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels.
See: https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoA mstjiLESdDoMmStMdD3E9S1wmgESr3dUWNMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/? mibextid=cr9u03
• Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a single-family residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a high-density development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
I would like to point out to you that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that thissite is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high-density development. I strongly encourage you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Very truly yours,
Michael Healy
Monterey Resident
6/20/24, 1:22 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 4/5 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3693, Packet Page 4021 [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/20/24, 1:22 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 5/5 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3694, Packet Page 4022 Comments regarding revised Draft Housing Housing
linda Healy
Wed 6/19/2024 1:59 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey
I would like to provide you with my strong support for a responsible, affordable housing program. Our
community needs more affordable housing.
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require that we a) protect desirable land, b)
prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c)
minimize risks from fire. The School District Site (inTarpy Flats; APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”)
fails on all three requirements, but possibly more
importantly, the sites fail for many environmental
and archeological reasons. There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely
qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased
a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey
County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these
lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our
community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last
remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in
Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and
are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy
Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s reinorchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is
important for:
• Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation.
6/20/24, 1:23 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/6 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3695, Packet Page 4023 • The wetlands conserved on this property trap
sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the
flood risk for the downstream communities along
the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem
benefits will help reduce climate change impacts
related to increased storm flows of water and
sediment. This feature will be lost if a development
is built.
• The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the
property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow
species to move across landscapes to find food,
water and shelter.
• Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire
risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of
Monterey and Del Rey Oaks.
• Protecting important habitats that are part of a
valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain
lions and black bears have been spotted on the
land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3
letter to the Monterey County Planning
Commission)stated that these sites include extensive,
rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie
Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna and
a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of
native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs,
as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low,
mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create
seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months.
Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are
associated with these vernal pool habitats. The
Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these
sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s reinorchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either
6/20/24, 1:23 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/6 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3696, Packet Page 4024 Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have
been documented and mapped by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13
letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission,
identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT. Furthermore, she
pointed out the many environmental and safety issues
associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and
archaeological concerns, there are many practical
concerns regarding developing the school site. The
State requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-
000) failson those criteria. Specifically:
• Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land
Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel
of land that is contiguous to these parcels and,
together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire
break. The features of the purchased land will also
be true for these parcels.
• Water: Recently, a developer investigated the
availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site,
for the purpose of building a development using
the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study
concluded that there was insufficient water to
proceed without new water permits.
• Access: The school site is land locked. It has no
direct access to any roads except by imposing
eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is
the recently purchased BSLT land which is
designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to
obtain road access. To the north (and again,
through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is
unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this 6/20/24, 1:23 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 3/6 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3697, Packet Page 4025 parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To
the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted
Road through these lands requires the construction
of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures
in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is
inconsistent with the concept of “affordable
housing”.
• Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and
this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable housing
closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but
doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable.
Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely
impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey
Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the
County. Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it
would be impossible to exit these properties.
• Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger
zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area.
Homeowners and residents in this area will have to
bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable
housing is for low-income households who cannot
afford to self-insure.
• Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from
the end of the runway where planes begin their
take-off. This is the loudest part of the airport and
will certainly impact quality of life for residents
here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the
subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85
decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause
progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of
the subject parcel.
• Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this
greenbelt is a significant adverse impact
aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat 6/20/24, 1:23 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 4/6 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3698, Packet Page 4026 for many keystone animal species that can be
observed on the subject parcel. Frequent
observations occur of Apex/keystone species such
as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as
many avian species of special interest, such as red
shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons. Within the
past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of
both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak
neighborhood which is within a short walk of these
parcels.
See: https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pf
bid02iGA5UzZpuoAmstjiLESdDoMmStMdD3E9S1wmgESr3
dUWNMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibextid=cr9u03
• Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a singlefamily residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at
the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot
and her passenger. This will not be the case with
such a high-density development. In the event of a
similar accident hitting the proposed development,
the casualties would number in the hundreds if not
thousands.
I would like to point out to you that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear
that thissite is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high-density development. I
strongly encourage you to remove APN number 259-
091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted
to the State.
Very truly yours,
Linda E. Healy
Monterey Resident
6/20/24, 1:23 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 5/6 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3699, Packet Page 4027 [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/20/24, 1:23 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 6/6 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3700, Packet Page 4028 Re: City of Monterey Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element - Available for Public Review
Randy Hamilton
Wed 6/19/2024 2:12 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Dear Christy Sabdo,
Thanks for forwarding this for comment. My bottom line; let’s SAVE TARPY’S FLATS. Big Sur Land trust is supportive of saving TARPY’S Flats. One of the City’s proposed Parcels (259-091-011-000) or also known as Monterey School District Property is within the TARPY’S Flats area and butts up to the property which Big Sur Land trust just purchased for wildlife protection among other good reasons.
Please take this property off the City’s plan and save our wildlife.
Thanks for your consideration,
Randy Hamilton
Monterey Resident
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 18, 2024, at 5:36 PM, Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> wrote:
To Interested Community Member:
Under State law, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) must review and certify the City's 2023-31 Housing Element as complete. Since the April 30, 2024 submittal of the Housing Element to HCD, the City has been working directly with HCD staff to adequately address any outstanding comments. The Revised Draft Housing Element is now available for public review before it is formally resubmitted to HCD for certification.
The City intends to resubmit the Draft Housing Element to HCD on Wednesday, June 26, 2024. The Monterey 2031 General Plan Update consisting of the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements will be considered for adoption at a joint Planning Commission and City Council hearing scheduled for July 16, 2024.
Comments can be sent to the Planning Division by emailing Christy Sabdo, Senior Associate Planner: [email protected] or mailing a letter to City of Monterey Planning Division, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940. All comments received will be shared with the Planning Commission and City Council ahead of the public hearing planned in July 2024.
The revised Draft Housing Housing Element is available under News Feed on the project website: https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031
Respectfully,
Christy
Christy Sabdo, AICP
Senior Associate Planner | City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street | Monterey, CA 93940
831-646-3885 (main) | 831-646-3758 (direct) |
6/20/24, 1:26 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3701, Packet Page 4029 [email protected] | have your say | city website
City of Monterey Logo
Facebook icon LinkedIn icon Twitter icon Youtube icon Instagram icon www.monterey.org
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/20/24, 1:26 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3702, Packet Page 4030 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3703, Packet Page 4031 REVISED RHNA plan
Karen Brown
Wed 6/19/2024 4:54 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important I am writing to provide you with my comments regarding the City of Monterey's revised RHNA proposal that the City plans to submit to the State.
I am objecting to the inclusion of the School District Site, parcel number 259-091-011-000. The inclusion of this property in your plan appears to violate several State laws.
This site appears on your table B labeled: "Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Needs". Your table calls for 51 low income and 51 moderate income housing units as well as 512 above moderate-income housing units, for a total of 614 housing units.
This site is in violation of AB 1397 (Low, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2017). This law ensures the identification of realistic sites for housing. Under AB 1397, identified sites must have a sufficient available water, sewer and dry utilities supply and must be available and accessible to support housing development or be included in an existing general plan program or other mandatory program or plan.
Section 65583.2(c) provides that for sites within the inventory the local jurisdiction must determine the number of units “that can realistically be accommodated” for lower, moderate, or above moderate-income housing. As part of that determination, the “current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water” must be considered (Section 65583.2(c)(2)).
There is a water permit moratorium in Monterey. Your published General Plan Update discusses Water Availability and states:
Due to the Monterey Peninsula's limited water resources, the City of Monterey does not have water credits available for allocation.
Furthermore, it also states:
When additional water will be available for allocation to individual properties is uncertain at this time.
These statements can be found
at: https://www.monterey.org/city_hall/community_development/planning/development_projects/ water availability.php
Parcel 259-091-011-000 does not have sufficient water for the development nor is there a viable plan for sufficient water in the City of Monterey’s General Plan or any other City plan. In fact, the City of Monterey specifically states that “allocation of water is uncertain at this time”. For these reasons, inclusion of parcel 259-091-011-000 is in violation of AB 1397.
Additionally, Section 65583(a)(3) provides that sites included within the inventory must have a “realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.” This parcel clearly does not meet this criterion.
6/20/24, 1:30 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3704, Packet Page 4032 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3705, Packet Page 4033 Re: City of Monterey Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element - Available for Public Review
Alanier
Wed 6/19/2024 4:29 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Hi! Thanks for the update.
I was able to attend the Salinas county meeting
G via zoom. I was amazed at the unity of those speaking against some of the proposed rezoning.
I am opposed to the rezoning of the the Tarpeys Flat area ( I guess this is 1~4) as week as the small plot of land where the school is… I am in support of the tribal preservation… I think this should be YOUR Legacy to save this beautiful area from the development moving forward for all of the right reasons! I don’t think you will regret abstaining from rezoning the Olmstead area and Tarpey Flat area! Maybe make it into a walkable park!!!! Thanks Andrea B Lanier MD
On Jun 18, 2024, at 5:36 PM, Christy Sabdo <[email protected]> wrote:
To Interested Community Member:
Under State law, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) must review and certify the City's 2023-31 Housing Element as complete. Since the April 30, 2024 submittal of the Housing Element to HCD, the City has been working directly with HCD staff to adequately address any outstanding comments. The Revised Draft Housing Element is now available for public review before it is formally resubmitted to HCD for certification.
The City intends to resubmit the Draft Housing Element to HCD on Wednesday, June 26, 2024. The Monterey 2031 General Plan Update consisting of the Housing, Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements will be considered for adoption at a joint Planning Commission and City Council hearing scheduled for July 16, 2024.
Comments can be sent to the Planning Division by emailing Christy Sabdo, Senior Associate Planner: [email protected] or mailing a letter to City of Monterey Planning Division, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940. All comments received will be shared with the Planning Commission and City Council ahead of the public hearing planned in July 2024.
The revised Draft Housing Housing Element is available under News Feed on the project website: https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031
Respectfully,
Christy
Christy Sabdo, AICP
Senior Associate Planner | City of Monterey
570 Pacific Street | Monterey, CA 93940
6/20/24, 1:31 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3706, Packet Page 4034 831-646-3885 (main) | 831-646-3758 (direct) |
[email protected] | have your say | city website
City of Monterey Logo
Facebook icon LinkedIn icon Twitter icon Youtube icon Instagram icon www.monterey.org
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/20/24, 1:31 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3707, Packet Page 4035 Dear City of Monterey
I would like to provide you with my strong support for a responsible, affordable housing program. Our community needs more affordable housing.
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require that we a) protect desirable land, b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c) minimize risks from fire. The School District Site (in Tarpy Flats; APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”) fails on all three requirements, but possibly more importantly, the sites fail for many environmental and archeological reasons. There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
• Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation.
• The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built. • The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter.
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3708, Packet Page 4036 • Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks. • Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT.
Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3709, Packet Page 4037 requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-000) fails on those criteria. Specifically:
• Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break.
The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels. • Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits. • Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “affordable housing”.
• Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County.
Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
• Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area. Homeowners and ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3710, Packet Page 4038 residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable housing is for low-income households who cannot afford to self-insure.
• Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their take-off. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel. • Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons.
Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. See:
https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoAmstjiL ESdDoMmStMdD3E9S1wmgESr3dUWNMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibextid=c r9u03
• Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a single-family residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a high-density development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
I would like to point out to you that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high-density development. I strongly ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3711, Packet Page 4039 encourage you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Sincerely,
Allen Sorbo
Monterey Resident
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3712, Packet Page 4040 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3713, Packet Page 4041 Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT. Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-000) fails on those criteria. Specifically:
· Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50- acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels. · Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits. · Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “affordable housing”.
· Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County. Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
· Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area. Homeowners and residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable housing is for low-income households who cannot afford to self-insure. · Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their take-off. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel.
· Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be 6/20/24, 1:36 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/3 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3714, Packet Page 4042 observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons. Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. See:
https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoAmstjiLESdDoMmStM dD3E9S1wmgESr3dUWNMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibextid=cr9u03 · Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a single-family residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a high-density development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
Once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high-density development.
Once you do this you cannot reverse it. You cannot repair the damage you will have done. I strongly recommend that you remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Alma S. Castro Peet, MBA, Ed.D.
Resident of Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/20/24, 1:36 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 3/3 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3715, Packet Page 4043 Housing Element
Anthony Davi Sr
Wed 6/19/2024 10:52 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Christy: Couple of questions: Does the revised plan include city owned property like, the Hill Top School site and the senior citizen site on Lighthouse for affordable housing? Did all council members receive a copy of my e-mail letter dated February 17, 2024, which I sent c/o of you? If so, was there any consideration or discussions on my concerns.
Thank You,
Anthony Davi, SR
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/21/24, 2:45 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3716, Packet Page 4044 City of Monterey revised RHNA Plan released: SAVE TARPY FLATS! Andrea B Pace
Thu 6/20/2024 9:52 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Dear City of Monterey,
I am a 37 year resident of Monterey. I would like to provide you with my strong support for a responsible, affordable housing program. Our community needs more affordable housing.
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require that we a) protect desirable land, b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c) minimize risks from fire. The School District Site (in Tarpy Flats; APN number 259- 091-011-000; the “school site”) fails on all three requirements, but possibly more importantly, the sites fail for many environmental and archeological reasons.
There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
· Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/CostanoanEsselen Nation. · The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built.
· The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter.
· Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks.
6/20/24, 1:39 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3717, Packet Page 4045 · Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak WoodlandSavanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT. Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011- 000) fails on those criteria. Specifically:
· Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels.
· Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits.
· Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is 6/20/24, 1:39 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3718, Packet Page 4046 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3719, Packet Page 4047 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3720, Packet Page 4048 Revised RHNA Plan
Fred B
Thu 6/20/2024 10:29 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo,
I am fully in agreement with this letter below which was written by a colleague.
I would like to provide you with my strong support for a responsible, affordable housing program. Our community needs more affordable housing.
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require that we a) protect desirable land, b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c) minimize risks from fire. The School District Site (in Tarpy Flats; APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”) fails on all three requirements, but possibly more importantly, the sites fail for many environmental and archeological reasons. There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey.
The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation.
The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built.
The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter.
Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks.
Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT. Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites. 6/20/24, 2:07 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/3 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3721, Packet Page 4049 In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-000) fails on those criteria. Specifically:
Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels.
Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits.
Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “affordable housing”.
Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County.
Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area.
Homeowners and residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable housing is for low-income households who cannot afford to self-insure.
Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their takeoff. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel.
Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons. Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. See:
https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoAmstjiLESdDoMmStMdD3E9S1wmgESr3dUW NMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibextid=cr9u03
Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a singlefamily residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a high-density development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
I would like to point out to you that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high-density development. I strongly encourage you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
6/20/24, 2:07 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/3 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3722, Packet Page 4050 Sincerely,
Fred Breidenbach
Resident of Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/20/24, 2:07 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 3/3 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3723, Packet Page 4051 SsaveTarpy Flats
uli fowler
Thu 6/20/2024 12:26 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey,
I am all about providing responsible and affordable housing in this community.
The State's guidelines for selecting these sites require that we protect valuable land prevent erosion, enhance water qualityas well as minimizing risks of fire.
The school district site fails on all 3 requirements.
Most important, this site fails for many environmental as well as archeological reasons, and there is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1.It even barely qualifies as Tier 5! The Big Sur Land Trust recently purchased a 50 acre parcel land that is contiguous to this parceland, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and a fire break.
In their letter in May to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT identified these lands as an invaluable, ecologically resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique and underdeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a one of a kind of wetland, and are protected by by both state and federal law. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon's reinorchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for;
Preserving the cultural importance of the Esalen Nation .Also, the wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, decreases the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts, related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built!! This wetland will sequester carbon, and the property's location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food , water and shelter.
Protecting the habitats are part of the valuable wildlife corridor on this site. I personally have seen a bear, two mountain lions, every day I see deer, currently with their fawns, coyotes, and numerous amount of small critters, all that call this land their own. It would be devestating, and irresponsible, to develop this precious land, destroying the greenbelt, the wildlife' s habitat.
It is even likely due to indigenous artifacts that have been found on these properties, that Indigenous people lived and most likely buried on these grounds.
Traffic along HWY 68 is already congested. Every day at certain times I witness an almost gridlock.
Especially around the intersection to the airport. Noticing the traffic in the afternoon spilling over from HWY 1, people divert over Aguajito Rd , Mulhollan/ Olmsted Road,Hwy 68 to Imjin.This traffic will only increase with a new housing development along HWY 68.
Fire Hazard ;This area is in a high fire danger zone .Fire insurance prices are already through the roof, making it impossible to obtain with additional housing in this area Airport noise: The parcel sits right across the street from where airplanes begin their take-off. It is the loudest part and will certainly impact the residents living along that stretch. Especially since the airport brought in more larger planes, I witnessed car alarms going off from the rumble, people covering their 6/20/24, 2:08 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/2 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3724, Packet Page 4052 ears .And its getting worse with a growing community, and the demand of using Monterey Regional airport.
I've also witnessed a few airplane crashes over the years. Unfortunately with a couple of casualties, but with a high density population along the airport, it could lead to an even more devastating event, with many more casualties.
Water: Recently a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits.
Access: the school site is land locked .It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots.to the west it is recently purchased BSLT Land, which is designated as preserved which makes it most unlike to obtain road acc ess.To the north, and again through BSLT land, is HWY 68 and it is unlikely that Cal Trans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately owned lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands require the construction of a nearly one-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of "affordable housing".
I would like to point out that once accepted to the RHNA plan, the site is rezone, this rezoning will be permanent .Therefore it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons list, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high density development. I strongly encourage you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Sincerely,
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/20/24, 2:08 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/2 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3725, Packet Page 4053 Revised RHNA Plan
Susan Breidenbach
Thu 6/20/2024 1:32 PM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Ms. Sabdo,
I am fully in agreement with this letter below which was written by a colleague.
I would like to provide you with my strong support for a responsible, affordable housing program. Our community needs more affordable housing.
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require that we a) protect desirable land, b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c) minimize risks from fire. The School District Site (in Tarpy Flats; APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”) fails on all three requirements, but possibly more importantly, the sites fail for many environmental and archeological reasons. There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey.
The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation.
The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built.
The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter.
Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks.
Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT. Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites. 6/20/24, 2:33 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/3 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3726, Packet Page 4054 In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-000) fails on those criteria. Specifically:
Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels.
Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits.
Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “affordable housing”.
Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County.
Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area.
Homeowners and residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable housing is for low-income households who cannot afford to self-insure.
Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their takeoff. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel.
Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons. Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. See:
https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoAmstjiLESdDoMmStMdD3E9S1wmgESr3dUW NMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibextid=cr9u03
Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a singlefamily residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a high-density development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
I would like to point out to you that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high-density development. I strongly encourage you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
6/20/24, 2:33 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/3 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3727, Packet Page 4055 Sincerely,
Susan Breidenbach
Resident of Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/20/24, 2:33 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 3/3 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3728, Packet Page 4056 Dear City of Monterey
I would like to state my strong objection to listing the school district site in Tarpy Flats as an affordable housing site in your current RHNA. It needs to be taken off your list for the following reasons:
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require that we a) protect desirable land, b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c) minimize risks from fire. The School District Site (in Tarpy Flats; APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”) fails on all three requirements, but possibly more importantly, the sites fail for many environmental and archeological reasons. There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
• Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation.
• The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built. • The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter.
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3729, Packet Page 4057 • Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks. • Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT.
Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3730, Packet Page 4058 requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-000) fails on those criteria. Specifically:
• Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break.
The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels. • Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits. • Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “affordable housing”.
• Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County.
Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
• Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area. Homeowners and ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3731, Packet Page 4059 residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable housing is for low-income households who cannot afford to self-insure.
• Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their take-off. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel. • Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons.
Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. See:
https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoAmstjiL ESdDoMmStMdD3E9S1wmgESr3dUWNMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibextid=c r9u03
• Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a single-family residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a high-density development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
I would like to point out to you that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high-density development. I strongly ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3732, Packet Page 4060 encourage you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Sincerely,
Henry Brown
Member, Save Tarpy Flats Consortium
A community organization with over 250 households
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3733, Packet Page 4061 City of Monterey 2023-31 Housing Element Comments
Grant Hunt
Fri 6/21/2024 11:16 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Dear Christy Sabdo and Monterey City leaders:
The continued inclusion of the “school district site” (APN number 259-091-011-000) in the Housing Element is ill-advised. I urge the City to remove this site for many reasons including:
1. The state affordable housing site requirement that the City must minimize risks from fire,
2. Prevent soil erosion and enhance water qualtity,
3. Minimize risk of fire.
Additionally, there are serious concerns raised by the Big Sur Land Trust by identifying this site as having invaluable ecological resources to our community. Also, this land is identified as land of our native tribes of the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation. It has been claimed that Indigenous artifacts have been found on this property. This essential wetland is also an environmental treasure decreasing flood risk for downstream communities. It is an important habitat for local wildlife.
Other environmentalists at the California Native Plant Society have noted that this site is a rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna as well as being a treasured Monterey Pine forest.
I urge the removal of this site from your Housing Element.
Best Regards,
Grant Hunt
Monterey
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/21/24, 2:50 PM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/1 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3734, Packet Page 4062 Dear City of Monterey
I would like to provide you with my strong support for a responsible, aƯordable housing program. Our community needs more aƯordable housing.
The State’s guidelines for selecting aƯordable housing sites require that we a) protect desirable land, b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c) minimize risks from fire. The School District Site (in Tarpy Flats; APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”) fails on all three requirements, but possibly more importantly, the sites fail for many environmental and archeological reasons. There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation.
The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built. The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter.
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3735, Packet Page 4063 Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks. Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT.
Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3736, Packet Page 4064 requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-000) fails on those criteria. Specifically:
Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break.
The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels. Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the AƯordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insuƯicient water to proceed without new water permits. Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “aƯordable housing”.
TraƯic: TraƯic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing aƯordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County.
Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area. Homeowners and ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3737, Packet Page 4065 residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but aƯordable housing is for low-income households who cannot aƯord to self-insure.
Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their take-oƯ. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoƯ noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel. Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons.
Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. See:
https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoAmstjiL ESdDoMmStMdD3E9S1wmgESr3dUWNMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibextid=c r9u03
Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a single-family residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a high-density development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
I would like to point out to you that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high-density development. I strongly ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3738, Packet Page 4066 encourage you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Sincerely,
Dana Heinrich
Resident of Monterey
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3739, Packet Page 4067 Dear City of Monterey
I would like to provide you with my strong support for a responsible, aƯordable housing program. Our community needs more aƯordable housing.
The State’s guidelines for selecting aƯordable housing sites require that we a) protect desirable land, b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and c) minimize risks from fire. The School District Site (in Tarpy Flats; APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”) fails on all three requirements, but possibly more importantly, the sites fail for many environmental and archeological reasons. There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it barely qualifies as Tier 5.
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel and, together, a part of a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT has identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation.
The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built. The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter.
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3740, Packet Page 4068 Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks. Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak Woodland-Savanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Mayor Mary Ann Carbone of Sand City, in her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, identified that Indigenous artifacts have been found on these properties and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and perhaps, are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT.
Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3741, Packet Page 4069 requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-000) fails on those criteria. Specifically:
Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break.
The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels. Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the AƯordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insuƯicient water to proceed without new water permits. Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “aƯordable housing”.
TraƯic: TraƯic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing aƯordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County.
Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area. Homeowners and ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3742, Packet Page 4070 residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but aƯordable housing is for low-income households who cannot aƯord to self-insure.
Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their take-oƯ. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoƯ noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel. Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons.
Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. See:
https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoAmstjiL ESdDoMmStMdD3E9S1wmgESr3dUWNMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibextid=c r9u03
Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a single-family residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a high-density development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
I would like to point out to you that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development, and in particular, high-density development. I strongly ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3743, Packet Page 4071 encourage you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Sincerely,
Rodney Heinrich
Resident of Monterey
ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3744, Packet Page 4072 Comments re: City of Monterey's Revised Draft RHNA proposal to be submitted to HCD June 26,2024
Lisa Villafranca
Sun 6/23/2024 10:02 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
Cc:Lisa Villafranca
Dear City of Monterey
I would like to provide you with my strong support for a responsible, affordable housing program. Our community needs more affordable housing.
The State’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing sites require that we a) protect desirable land
b) prevent soil erosion and enhance water quality and
c) minimize risks from fire.
The School District Site: APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site” fails on all three requirements.
But more importantly, APN 259-091-011-000 which is part of Tarpy Flats fails for multiple environmental and archeological reasons:
The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to this parcel.
Together these parcels:
Form a part of the last wildlife corridor that connects Fort Ord to Jacks Peak and Palo Corona Regional Park.
And form an essential fire break.
In their May 31 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, BSLT identified these lands as an invaluable ecological resource to our community. Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. Its vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats is home to the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The BSLT further states that preserving these lands is important for:
a) Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation. b) The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built. c) The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter. d) Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks.
e) Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, fox, mountain lions, bobcats, black bears as well as many birds- live, feed, and pass through this land.
6/24/24, 9:12 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3745, Packet Page 4073 In their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission, The California Native Plant Society stated that Tarpy Flats (which includes APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”) has extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands, with Coast Live Oak WoodlandSavanna, and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. These vernal pools support rare species such as fairy shrimp and the California Tiger Salamander, as well as many rare plant assemblages. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found nowhere else in the world except the Monterey region. At least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals have been documented and mapped on Tarpy Flats by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and many of these are protected by Federal and State Endangered Species Laws.
In her May 13 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission the Mayor of Sand City Mary Ann Carbone, stated that Indigenous artifacts have been found on Tarpy Flats (which includes APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”) and it is likely that Indigenous people lived and are buried in this area as well. This was also pointed out by the BSLT. Furthermore, she pointed out the many environmental and safety issues associated with developing these sites.
In addition to the environmental, cultural, and archaeological concerns, there are many practical concerns regarding developing the school site. The State requires (AB 1397) that we select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-000) fails on those criteria. Specifically:
1. Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust (BSLT) has recently purchased a 50- acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. The features of the purchased land are also true for APN 259-091- 011-000 the “school site”.
2. Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits.
3. Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that Caltrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1- mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “affordable housing”.
4. Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County. Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
6/24/24, 9:12 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3746, Packet Page 4074
5. Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area. Homeowners and residents in this area will have to bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable housing is for low-income households who cannot afford to self-insure.
6. Airport noise: This parcel is across the street from the end of the runway where planes begin their take-off. This is the loudest part of the airport and will certainly impact quality of life for residents here. The takeoff noise of individual flights over the subject parcel needing rezoning could reach 85 decibels or higher. This level is high enough to cause progressive hearing loss to the > 1000 residents of the subject parcel.
7. Vanishing Greenbelt. The removal of this greenbelt is a significant adverse impact aesthetically and visually as well as a loss of habitat for many keystone animal species that can be observed on the subject parcel. Frequent observations occur of Apex/keystone species such as Mountain Lion, Bobcat and Coyote as well as many avian species of special interest, such as red shouldered hawks and peregrine falcons. Within the past few weeks, KWBW reported on sightings of both bears and mountain lions in the Jacks Peak neighborhood which is within a short walk of these parcels. See:
https://www.facebook.com/100064912142998/posts/pfbid02iGA5UzZpuoAmstjiLESdDoMmS tMdD3E9S1wmgESr3dUWNMEuVBRAPPjHhPuH1BzJl/?mibextid=cr9u03
8. Safety (flight crash risk): Within the past 3 years, a plane from Monterey Airport crashed into a single-family residence located approximately 1 mile from this site. Fortunately, no one was home at the time and the casualties were limited to the pilot and her passenger. This will not be the case with such a high-density development. In the event of a similar accident hitting the proposed development, the casualties would number in the hundreds if not thousands.
Finally ,I would like to point out that, once accepted on the RHNA plan, the site is rezoned, and this rezoning is permanent. There is no justification for listing this property as Tier 1. In fact, it scarcely qualifies as Tier 5.
Therefore, it is imperative that this mistake not be allowed to occur.
For all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that this site is not suitable for any development. I strongly encourage you to remove APN number 259-091-011-000 from the proposal that is being submitted to the State.
Please do the right thing and Save Tarpy Flats.
This land should be preserved for future generations -not paved over, and destroyed forever.
Sincerely,
Lisa Villafranca
Resident of Monterey, Ca
6/24/24, 9:12 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 3/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3747, Packet Page 4075 [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 6/24/24, 9:12 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 4/4 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3748, Packet Page 4076 Reject Tarpy Flats from RHNA PLan
Dana McManus
Sun 6/23/2024 10:20 AM
To:Christy Sabdo <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear City of Monterey
We strongly encourage you to reject the School District Site (in Tarpy Flats; APN number 259-091-011-000; the “school site”) because it fails to meet the States’s guidelines for selecting affordable housing.
Tarpy Flats is one of the last remaining, unique, and undeveloped marine terraces in Monterey. The vernal pools are a kind of wetland and are protected by both state and federal laws. Tarpy Flats harbor the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid and the California Rare Trifolium polyodont. The Big Sur Land Trust states that preserving these lands is important for:
· Preserving the cultural importance of the land to the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation,
· The wetlands conserved on this property trap sediment, improve water quality, and decrease the flood risk for the downstream communities along the Canyon Del Rey watershed. These ecosystem benefits will help reduce climate change impacts related to increased storm flows of water and sediment. This feature will be lost if a development is built,
· The wetlands also help to sequester carbon, and the property’s location in a wildlife corridor will allow species to move across landscapes to find food, water and shelter,
· Proper management of this land will reduce wildfire risk for the surrounding wildland urban interface of Monterey and Del Rey Oaks, and · Protecting important habitats that are part of a valuable wildlife corridor. Deer, coyote, mountain lions and black bears have been spotted on the land.
The California Native Plant Society (in their June 3 letter to the Monterey County Planning Commission) stated that these sites include extensive, rare and extremely high-quality Coastal Prairie Grasslands with Coast Live Oak WoodlandSavanna and a significant stand of Monterey Pine Forest. The Coastal Prairie Grassland habitat includes notable patches of native, perennial bunchgrasses and flowering forbs, as well as mima-mound topology characterized by low, mounded hillocks that allow ponded water to create seasonal vernal pools during rainy winter months. Unique fairy shrimp and rare plant assemblages are associated with these vernal pool habitats. The Monterey Pine Forest stand straddling these 6/24/24, 9:13 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 1/3 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3749, Packet Page 4077 sites includes the federally endangered Yadon’s rein-orchid, an endemic species found no where else in the world except the Monterey region. On Tarpy Flats are at least 23 element occurrences of sensitive status plants and animals (many of which are protected by either Federal or State Endangered Species Act). These have been documented and mapped by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
California requires (AB 1397) that Monterey select “realistic” sites, but the school site (APN 259-091-011-000) fails on those criteria. Specifically:
· Environmentally sensitive area: The Big Sur Land Trust has recently purchased a 50-acre parcel of land that is contiguous to these parcels and, together, form a wildlife corridor and essential fire break. The features of the purchased land will also be true for these parcels.
· Water: Recently, a developer investigated the availability of water by drilling on an adjacent site, for the purpose of building a development using the Affordable Housing Overlay. The study concluded that there was insufficient water to proceed without new water permits.
· Access: The school site is land locked. It has no direct access to any roads except by imposing eminent domain on the adjacent lots. To the west is the recently purchased BSLT land which is designated as preserved which makes it unlikely to obtain road access. To the north (and again, through the BSLT land) is highway 68 and it is unlikely that CalTrans will allow direct access to this parcel as it will create a dangerous intersection. To the west are privately held lands. Access to Olmsted Road through these lands requires the construction of a nearly 1-mile road over waterways and fissures in the land; a highly expensive proposition which is inconsistent with the concept of “affordable housing”. · Traffic: Traffic on HW 68 is already congested and this intersection is particularly bad because it is the gateway to the Airport. Bringing affordable housing closer to jobs is certainly the correct approach but doing so by gridlocking HW 68 is not reasonable. Gridlocking HW 68 at Olmsted Road would severely impact ingress and egress to and from Monterey Regional Airport, an economic lifeline to the County. Furthermore, in case of an emergency, it would be impossible to exit these properties.
· Fire hazard: This area is in a “high fire danger zone” and is adjacent to an “extremely high fire danger zone.” At present, it is virtually impossible to obtain fire insurance for most houses in the area. Homeowners and residents in this area will 6/24/24, 9:13 AM Mail - Christy Sabdo - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGVlZjBmYTIwLTZmZTAtNGFkMy05M2YwLWNmY2E4ZmY1NWIzMABGAAAAAADidRUKlyk8RauC… 2/3 ATTACHMENT 9
Council Regular Meeting, 7/16/2024, Item No. 15., Item Page 3750, Packet Page 4078 have to bear the burden of self-insuring but affordable housing is for low-income households who cannot afford to self-insure.