Monterey City Council
May 6, 2025

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 145, Packet Page 757 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 6-13
and are not permitted on the first floor between Alvarado Street and the first block of Del Monte Avenue and Franklin Street in the Alvarado District. Program 4-G of the 2023-31 Housing Element proposes to revise the Zoning Ordinance and other City regulations to recognize SRO units rented for more than 30 days as a type of housing. SRO units should, at a minimum, be permitted in the same districts where residential uses are allowed subject to the same use regulations, including provision for individual or communal cooking facilities.

EMPLOYEE AND FARMWORKER HOUSING
Local zoning, development standards, and permitting processes must comply with State Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6. This generally requires employee housing for six or fewer persons to be treated as a single-family structure and residential use. The City’s zoning, development standards and permitting processes currently comply with the State Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Sections 17021) which requires employee housing for six of fewer persons to be treated as a single-family structure and residential use. The Act also allows farmworker housing with up to 12 units or accommodations for 36 persons by-right in any zone where agriculture is a permitted use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance may be required for this type of employee housing.

The special housing needs of many agricultural workers is due to their generally lower wages and the insecure nature of their employment. Only 281 workers, representing about 2 percent of the city’s work force, were employed in agricultural and natural resources industries in 2019, compared with 29,975 (15.6 percent) of all workers in Monterey County.3 Census data indicates that there were only 157 persons who worked in agricultural, fishing, forestry, hunting, and/or mining.

Because there is no land within the City limit that the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance classifies or designates for agricultural use, it is likely that the workers identified as being engaged in agriculture, work in other businesses associated with this use. As such, the demand for housing generated by farmworkers in the City of Monterey is likely to be nominal and can be addressed through other types of affordable housing. The Housing Authority of Monterey County operates Migrant and Permanent Farm Labor housing with a total of 215 housing units for this targeted population. Farmworker housing available in Monterey County includes a 100-unit housing project for migrant farm worker in Spreckels developed by Tanimura & Antle, an agricultural company, completed in 2016.4 Other United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) farmworker housing is located in other South Monterey County cities. State Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6, which generally requires employee housing consisting or not more than 36 beds in group quarters or 12 units or less designed for use by a single family or household to be treated as an agricultural use, does not apply to the City of Monterey because there are no agricultural zoning districts or agricultural lands.
3 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030. 4 Henderson, Tim, 2017. “Could Good, Affordable Housing Solve Farmworker Shortage?” Available:
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/01/05/could-good-affordable-housingsolve-farmworker-shortage

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 146, Packet Page 758 Chapter 6: Public Policies and Programs
6-14

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
SB 520 (Chapter 671, Statutes of 2001) requires all local jurisdictions to undertake an analysis of governmental constraints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing for persons with disabilities and to include a program to remove constraints or provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for occupancy by, or with supportive services for persons with disabilities. For the purposes of state law, “persons with disabilities” are defined in the Government Code as those individuals facing a variety of physical, mental, or health problems that make major life activities difficult or impossible.

Monterey’s Municipal Code defines a family as “an individual or two or more persons living together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit” (Section 38-11). The definition is broad and neither mentions nor omits people with disabilities. Monterey does not have any specific land use or development standard related to the spacing or concentration of persons with disabilities or any special parking requirements and the City amended the Zoning Code in 2016 to add Article 30, Reasonable Accommodation to provide a process for individuals with disabilities to request relief from the various land use, zoning, or building laws. To facilitate the review and approval process, requests for reasonable accommodation are reviewed by the City Manager or a designated staff member unless the request is submitted for concurrent review with an application for discretionary planning or zoning approval. The City has appointed an ADA Coordinator to assist applicants with preparation and submission of accommodation requests. The Accommodation Form and the Coordinator’s contact information are provided online along with other relevant information at https://monterey.org/city_hall/city_manager/accessibility/index.php.

Article 30, Reasonable Accommodation establishes a clear process for processing requests for exceptions from the city’s land use regulations that meets the requirements of federal and State law and is similar to the model ordinance developed by Mental Health Advocacy Services available on the HCD website. The only inconsistency between Monterey’s reasonable accommodation provisions and the Model Ordinance is that the city’s regulations do not describe any procedures for appealing decisions. The Housing Element Action Plan includes a program committing the City to amending Article 30 to add appeal provisions consistent with the Mental Health Advocacy Services model ordinance.

HOUSING FOR EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Assembly Bill 2634 (Lieber, 2006) requires the quantification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs of extremely low-income households. Housing elements must also identify zoning to encourage and facilitate supportive housing and single-room occupancy units (SROs). Extremely low-income households typically comprise persons with special housing needs, including, but not limited to, persons experiencing homelessness or near-homelessness, persons with substance abuse problems, and farmworkers. The Downtown, North Fremont, and Lighthouse Area Specific Plans all include a definition for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities but do not specify what type of approval Monterey requires for this land use. A program apart of the Housing Element Update plans to address this.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 147, Packet Page 759 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 6-15

6.4 Building Code and Occupancy Standards
Building codes, such as the California Building Standards Code5 and the Uniform Housing Code are necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare. However, local codes that require substantial improvements to a building might not be warranted and deter housing construction and/or neighborhood improvement.

BUILDING CODES
The City of Monterey has adopted all the 2022 California building codes with amendments to the Building, Residential, and Plumbing Codes regarding the expiration of permit and other revisions related to fire and seismic hazards. The City amended the Building and Residential Codes to require new roofing in all fire hazard severity zones to be fire retardant or Class A roofing. The City also amended the residential code to require automatic fire sprinklers in all new one and two-family dwellings and when alterations or repairs are made involving 50 percent or more of the linear length of walls. Code enforcement plays an important role in maintaining the quality of neighborhoods.

Code enforcement deals with a range of neighborhood issues, from abandoned vehicles parked in yards or driveways to illegal conversions of garages into living spaces to unsanitary buildup of trash and debris on private property. The first “tool” in enforcing codes in Monterey is public education.

When code enforcement officers explain that a law is being broken, most problems are resolved quickly. Actual code “enforcement” (usually by way of issuing citations) is normally used only when voluntary cooperation is not received. The goal is to stay in contact with community groups to understand local concerns, and questions regarding neighborhood issues are welcomed.

OCCUPANCY STANDARDS
Disputes over occupancy standards are typical tenant/landlord and fair housing issues. Families with children and large households may face discrimination in the housing market, particularly in the rental housing market, because landlords are reluctant or flatly refuse to rent to such households. Establishing a strict occupancy standard, either by the local jurisdictions or by landlords on the rental agreements, may be a violation of fair housing practices.

In general, no state or federal regulations govern occupancy standards. The State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) uses the “two-plus-one” rule in considering the number of persons per housing unit – two persons per bedroom plus an additional person. Using this rule, a landlord cannot restrict occupancy to fewer than three persons for a one-bedroom unit or five persons for a two-bedroom unit, etc. While DFEH also uses other factors, such as the age of the occupants and size of rooms, to consider the appropriate standard, the two-plus-one rule is generally followed.
5 California Building Standards Code, adopted by a Building Standards Commission, is actually a set of uniform building, electrical, mechanical, and other codes adopted by professional associations such as the International Conference of Building Officials, and amended to include California-specific requirements.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 148, Packet Page 760 Chapter 6: Public Policies and Programs
6-16
Other guidelines are also used as occupancy standards. The Uniform Housing Code (Section 503.2) requires that a dwelling unit have at least one room which is not less than 120 square feet in area.

Other habitable rooms, except kitchens, are required to have a floor area of not less than 70 square feet. The Housing Code further states that where two persons occupy a room used for sleeping purposes, the required floor area should be increased at a rate of 50 square feet for each occupant in excess of two. There is nothing in the Housing Code that prevents people from sleeping in the living or dining rooms, as long as these rooms have a window or door meeting all the provisions of the California Building Code for emergency egress. The Fire Code allows one person per 150 square feet of “habitable” space. These standards are typically more liberal than the “two-plus-one” rule.

For example, three people could sleep in a one-bedroom apartment where the bedroom is at least 120 square feet; and where the living/dining area is at least 170 square feet, an additional three people could sleep there. Therefore, a 290-square foot one-bedroom apartment can accommodate up to six persons or a two-bedroom 410-square foot apartment can sleep up to nine persons. A review of occupancy standards for Monterey revealed there is no limit of number of people who can occupy a housing unit.

6.5 Affordable Housing Development
In general, many minority and special needs households are disproportionately affected by a lack of adequate and affordable housing in a region. While affordability issues are not directly fair housing issues, expanding access to housing choices for these groups cannot ignore the affordability factor. Insofar as rent-restricted or non-restricted low-cost housing is concentrated in certain geographic locations, access to housing by lower-income and minority groups in other areas is limited and can therefore be an indirect impediment to fair housing choice. Furthermore, various permit processing and development impact fees charged by local government results in increased housing costs and can be a barrier to the development of affordable housing. Other policies and programs, such as inclusionary housing and growth management programs, can either facilitate or inhibit the production of affordable housing. These issues are examined in the subsections below.

SITING OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The California Housing Partnership (CHP) estimates that there are 5,864 low-income rental units in Monterey County. Table 6-3 shows that there are 64 units (0.09 percent) at moderate risk of conversion, 345 units (5.3 percent) at high risk, and 0 units (0 percent) at very high risk. There are no assisted units in the City with covenants expiring within the planning period; however, there are 64 subsidized rental housing in the City at risk of conversion to market rate within the next eight years as shown in Table 6-4. Monterey's assisted housing inventory includes El Estero, Portola Vista, Montecito/Watson, and Dela Vina Apartments. While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in the city that are not captured in this data table.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 149, Packet Page 761 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 6-17
Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database, 2022 As required by HCD in cities Housing Element processes, local jurisdictions must list the specific affordable housing developments at risk of converting to market rate uses to supplement the aggregate numbers provided in Table 6-3. The assisted housing inventory is available in Table 6-4. below. Several of these units are restricted for affordable use through the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program. Another large portion of these units are owned by nonprofits that provide housing for special needs groups.

FEES
The City collects various fees from applicants to cover the costs of processing permits, including fees for planning approvals, subdivision map approvals, environmental review, public works and plan check services, and building permits. In addition to these service fees associated with development processing, the City and regional transportation agency charges several impact fees to offset the future impact of development on regional traffic and circulation, parks, and libraries.

Table 6-5 lists the planning and zoning fees most commonly applicable to residential and mixeduse development.

Table 6-3: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Monterey Monterey County
Risk Level1 Number Percent Number Percent
Low 142 0.01%
Moderate 0 0% 64 0.09%
High 0 0% 345 5.34%
Very High 0 0% 0 0%
Total 142 409
Notes:

1. California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:
• Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. • Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
• High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
• Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 150, Packet Page 762 Chapter 6: Public Policies and Programs
6-18
Table 6-4: Monterey Assisted Housing Inventory
Project Name Project Address Project Type
Total
Units
Affordable
Units
Affordability End
Date
Portola Vista 20 Del
Monte
Avenue
Seniors
62+
and/or
Disabled
64 64 1/31/2033
Montecito
Apartments –
Public Housing
242
Montecito
Street
Family 8 8 6/30/2036
Watson
Apartments –
Public Housing
531 Watson
Street
Family 5 5 6/30/2036
Van Buren Senior
Housing
613 Van
Buren
Street
Seniors 19 18 2070
El Estero Senior
Housing
151 Park
Avenue
Seniors 26 26 8/31/2035
Casa de Los
Robles
504 W.

Franklin
Street
Special
Needs
6 6 2049
Dela Vina
Apartments
345 Dela
Vina Avenue
Family 14 14 9/30/2038
Total 142 141
Source: Housing Authority of Monterey, 2022, Community Development Block Grant 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, & 2020- 2021 Annual Action Plan, City of Monterey, 2020
Table 6-5: FY 2023/24 City of Monterey Planning Fees
Category Permit Type Fee
Architectural Review ARC Major $4,620.00
ARC Minor $2,102.50
Architectural Review - Admin Major $1,298.50
Architectural Review - Admin Minor $362.50
Historic Preservation Mills Act Request w/ rezone $4,422.58 Historic Preservation Mills Act Request w/o rezone $3,117.51 Historic Preservation Demolition Review $379.19
Historic Preservation Historic Permit, major $2,053.62
Historic Preservation Historic Permit, admin $536.86
Historic Preservation Historic Report, review $1,018.74 Historic Preservation Historic Survey $1,619.93

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 151, Packet Page 763 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 6-19
Table 6-5: FY 2023/24 City of Monterey Planning Fees
Category Permit Type Fee
Conditional Use Permit Preapplication $3,000 deposit
Planning Commission Major-Deposit $4,000 deposit
Planning Commission Minor $2,392.50
Zoning Administrator $1,012.00
Permit Extension $1,014.50
Permit Amendment 2/3 of permit fee
Variance/Parking
Adjustment
Major - Planning Commission $1,894.00
Minor - Zoning Administrator $1,012.00
Subdivision Tentative Map (includes Preliminary and Final Map)
$6,000 deposit
Minor Subdivision $4,831.50
Lot Line Adjustment $4,259.00
Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment – Licensed
Land Surveyor Review
$4,000.00
Certificate of Compliance $1,534.00
Plan Amendment (Text or
Map)
General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning
Ordinance
$4,000 deposit
Local Coastal Plan $5,000 deposit
Environmental Review Environmental Impact Report Deposit based on estimated cost
Environmental Initial Study leading to a
Negative Declaration
$4,000 deposit
Concept Review Planning Commission $1740.50
Tree Permit Associated w. Development (ARC) $741.50
Associated w. Development
(Administrative)
$313.50
SB9 Ministerial Review $1,086.47
SB35 Ministerial Review $2,131.18
Source: City of Monterey, Master Fee Schedule, Fiscal Year 2023-2024

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 152, Packet Page 764 Chapter 6: Public Policies and Programs
6-20

6.6 Other Land Use Policies, Programs, and
Controls
Land use policies, programs, and controls can impede or facilitate housing development and can have implications for fair housing choice in a community. Inclusionary housing policies and redevelopment project areas can facilitate new affordable housing projects, while growth management programs can impede new affordable housing development. Jurisdictions that have not sought Article 34 authority may also be prevented from directly engaging in affordable housing development.

ARTICLE 34
Article 34 of the State Constitution requires a majority vote of the electorate to approve the development, construction, or acquisition by a public body of any “low rent housing project” within that jurisdiction. In other words, for any projects to be built and/or operated by a public agency where at least 50 percent of the occupants are low-income and rents are restricted to affordable levels, the jurisdiction must seek voter approval known as “Article 34 authority” to authorize that number of units. The City of Monterey has not obtained Article 34 authority to be directly involved in the development, construction, or acquisition of low-rent housing.

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAMS
Inclusionary housing describes a local government’s requirement specifying a percentage of new housing units be reserved for, and affordable to, lower- and moderate-income households. The goal of inclusionary housing programs is to increase the supply of affordable housing commensurate with new market-rate development in a jurisdiction. This can result in an improved regional jobshousing balances and foster greater economic and racial integration within a community. The policy is most effective in areas experiencing rapid growth and a strong demand for housing.

Chapter 8, Affordable Housing, of the City Code establishes requirements for Monterey’s inclusionary ordinance. The City adopted the inclusionary ordinance in October 2003 to implement its previous housing element, which included a program requiring that a minimum of 20 percent of the units in any project with more than six new housing units be permanently affordable for the life of the project. Through Program 2-I of the 2023-31 Housing Element, the City will amend the City Code to codify the inclusionary requirement.

The regulations require eligible developers to either:
• Provide at least 20 percent of their project for moderate- and low-income households (10 percent moderate and 10 percent low-income) with a mix of units proportionate to the number of units in the entire project with respect to size and type, excluding amenities; or • Provide an approved Developer Housing Program to the City that will meet the City’s goal that at least 20 percent of all new housing be affordable to low- and moderate-income households through a technique or combination of techniques subject to Council approval.

Designations of levels of affordability are subject to Council approval of the Developer

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 153, Packet Page 765 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 6-21
Housing Program, but units supplied shall be a proportionate mix of units to the number of units in the entire project and similar in size and type, excluding amenities and must be on-site unless the project is intended for sale or rent at levels above those affordable to moderate-income households.

The City may provide incentives for a project including, but not limited to those provided by State law if the developer proposes to make 20 percent of the units affordable to low-income households.

If a developer provides land or funds in lieu of producing housing, the City or other housing sponsor may choose to use these resources to produce low- or moderate-income housing.

6.7 Policies Causing Displacement or Affect
Housing Choice of Persons with Disabilities
Local government policies could result in displacement or affect representation of minorities or the disabled.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
Under State and Federal laws, local governments are required to “reasonably accommodate” housing for persons with disabilities when exercising planning and zoning powers. Jurisdictions must grant variances and zoning changes if necessary to make new construction or rehabilitation of housing for persons with disabilities feasible but are not required to fundamentally alter their zoning ordinance. Although most local governments are aware of State and federal requirements to allow reasonable accommodations, if specific policies or procedures are not adopted by a jurisdiction, disabled residents may be unintentionally displaced or discriminated against.

As mentioned in Section 6.3, Variety of Housing Opportunity, Housing for People with Disabilities, the City of Monterey has adopted reasonable accommodation procedures. Article 30, Reasonable Accommodation establishes a clear process for processing requests for exceptions from the city’s land use regulations that meets the requirements of federal and State law and is similar to the model ordinance developed by Mental Health Advocacy Services available on the HCD website. The only inconsistency between Monterey’s reasonable accommodation provisions and the Model Ordinance is that the city’s regulations do not describe any procedures for appealing decisions.

6.8 Local Housing Authorities
In the Monterey Peninsula region, the HUD Housing Choice Voucher program is administered by the Housing Authority of the County of Monterey (HACM), which also owns and manages public housing in addition to administering the Housing Choice Voucher program. The availability and use of Housing Choice Vouchers and public housing units must also adhere to fair housing laws.

Most local housing authorities in the county have adopted priorities or preferences for Housing Choice Vouchers and/or public housing. Typically, low-income households, older adult families, disabled families, and veterans are given preferences.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 154, Packet Page 766 Chapter 6: Public Policies and Programs
6-22
Section 16(a)(3)(B) of the United States Housing Act (Housing Act) mandates that public housing authorities adopt an admissions policy that promotes the deconcentration of poverty in public housing. HUD emphasizes that the goal of deconcentration is to foster the development of mixedincome communities within public housing. In mixed-income settings, lower income residents are provided with greater access to employment and information networks.

For Housing Choice Vouchers, the Housing Act mandates that not less than 75 percent of new admissions must have incomes at or below 30 percent of the Area Median Income. The remaining balance of 25 percent may have incomes up to 50 percent of the Area Median Income. For public housing, the Housing Act mandates that not less than 40 percent of new admissions must have incomes at or below 30 percent of the Area Median Income. The balance of 60 percent of new admissions may have incomes up to 50 percent of the Area Median Income.

6.9 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) is the State's environmental law that applies to all discretionary projects proposed by public agencies, including private projects requiring government approval. The primary purpose of CEQA is to inform the public about the significant environmental impacts of a proposed project. It also mandates that public agencies share the decision-making process used to approve projects, aiming to increase public involvement in the environmental review process.

In October 2011, Governor Brown signed SB 226 into law, which streamlines CEQA review for certain infill development projects, including some transit-oriented developments (TODs). The law provides exemptions or limited environmental reviews for projects that meet specific criteria and align with established policies such as General Plans, Specific Plans, or Master Plans. Subsequent environmental reviews for qualifying projects are limited to new or substantially increased impacts that were not adequately addressed in previous CEQA documentation.

SB 226’s streamlined process allows the environmental impacts of plans such as General Plans, Specific Plans, or Master Plans to be analyzed well in advance of any physical development proposal. Since SB 226 does not impose a time limit, CEQA’s environmental review and public comment requirements can be met by documents prepared years before a specific project is proposed. However, because infill and TOD projects are often planned in underserved, lowerincome neighborhoods, the fragmented disclosure of potential environmental impacts under SB 226 could lead to disproportionately negative effects on protected classes.

6.10 Community Representation and Participation
Effective community involvement and representation are crucial for identifying and addressing barriers to fair housing. Housing development decisions in a community are typically made by the City Council or the relevant Planning Commissions. The Council consists of elected officials who are accountable to the community, while Planning Commissioners are residents appointed by the Council or Board, often serving in an advisory capacity.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 155, Packet Page 767 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 6-23
A wider range of residents may be more inclined to engage with an agency if that agency provides sensitivity or diversity training for staff members who regularly interact with the public.

Additionally, if staff members’ language skills do not align with the primary languages spoken by residents, non-English-speaking individuals may be unintentionally excluded from the decisionmaking process. Another factor that can influence community participation is the failure of an agency or public facility to accommodate residents with various disabilities.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 156, Packet Page 768 7-1
7 Fair Housing Profile
This chapter evaluates and analyzes the institutional framework of the housing industry in relation to fair housing practices. It examines fair housing practices in both the ownership and rental housing markets, identifying potential barriers and opportunities within these sectors. Additionally, the chapter outlines the fair housing services available to residents in the City and reviews the nature and scope of fair housing complaints received by service providers.

7.1 Fair Housing in Homeownership Market
A key aspect of the American dream is the ability to own a home in a neighborhood of one's choice.

However, not all Americans have had equal access to homeownership due to factors such as credit market distortions, redlining, steering, and predatory lending practices. This section examines potential barriers to fair housing within the homeownership sector.

HOMEOWNERSHIP PROCESS
The following discussions outline the homebuying process and the potential situations where individuals or households may face housing discrimination. However, much of this process takes place in the private housing market, where local jurisdictions have limited control or authority to regulate. The responsibility for addressing these issues falls to contracted fair housing service providers, who monitor these practices, identify offenders, and take appropriate steps for resolution or legal action.

Advertising
When a potential buyer begins to consider purchasing a home, the first step is often to search for listings in newspapers, online platforms, or through specific realtors to get an understanding of what the market offers. Advertisements must not include discriminatory language, such as terms that describe:
• Current or potential residents;
• Neighbors or the neighborhood in racial or ethnic terms; • Adults preferred (except for senior or active adult living); • Perfect for empty nesters;
• Conveniently located by a Catholic Church; or
• Ideal for married couples without kids.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 157, Packet Page 769 7-2
Chapter 7: Fair Housing Profile
In a survey of online listing for homes available for purchase in Monterey in March 2025, a limited number of advertisements showed a preference for certain groups. Of the total 85 listing sur-veyed, five listing included references to something other than the physical description of the home or included amenities and services. Most advertisements were targeted specifically at families with children through the identification of school districts, though one advertisement was focused on income.

Advertising has become a sensitive area in real estate. By law, an English version of the ad must be published, though real estate advertising can also be published in other languages. Monitoring this requirement is rather difficult. Even if an agent does not intend to discriminate in an ad, it would still be considered a violation to suggest to a reader whether a particular group is preferred.

Previous litigation has set precedence for violations in advertisements that hold publishers, newspapers, Multiple Listing Services, real estate agents, and brokers accountable for discriminatory ads.

Lending
At the outset, buyers must identify a lender willing to qualify them for a loan. This stage of the process involves submitting an application, undergoing a credit check, assessing the ability to repay, determining the loan amount they are eligible for, and selecting the loan type and terms.

Applicants are typically asked to provide sensitive information, such as their gender, ethnicity, income level, age, and family status. Much of this data is collected for reporting purposes mandated by the Com-munity Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). Chapter 5 Lending Practices of this AI provides an analysis of HMDA data for the City of Monterey.

Appraisals
Banks request appraisal reports to assess whether a property’s value justifies the loan amount they plan to offer. Typically, appraisals are based on the sale prices of comparable properties within the same neighborhood. Additional factors are also considered, such as the property's age, any im-provements made, its location, and broader economic conditions.

Real Estate Agents
Real estate agents can sometimes act as agents of discrimination, either unintentionally or, in some cases, intentionally. They may steer potential buyers toward specific neighborhoods by encouraging them to explore certain areas, while withholding other available options. Agents may also engage in discriminatory practices by selectively choosing whom to represent, turning away certain clients, or making biased comments about the individuals they serve.

The California Association of REALTORS® (CAR) has included language on many standard forms disclosing fair housing laws to those involved. Many REALTOR® Associations also host fair housing trainings/seminars to educate members on the provisions and liabilities of fair housing laws, and the Equal Opportunity Housing Symbol is also printed on all CAR forms as a reminder.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 158, Packet Page 770 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 7-3
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are binding agreements that impose restrictions on property use. These voluntary agreements, which "run with the land," are included in a recorded Declaration of Restrictions. Under the Statute of Frauds (Civil Code Section 1624), CC&Rs must be in writing because they pertain to real property. They also need to be recorded in the county where the property is located to apply to future owners. While property owners can mutually agree on use restrictions, for them to be enforceable, they must be deemed reasonable.

The California Department of Real Estate reviews the CC&Rs for subdivisions with five or more lots or condominiums with five or more units, as required by the Subdivided Lands Act and the Business and Professions Code, Section 11000. This review covers a broad range of issues, including compliance with fair housing laws. The review must be completed and approved before the Department of Real Estate can issue a final subdivision public report, which is necessary before any real estate broker or individual can sell the units. A copy of the report must be provided to each prospective buyer. If the CC&Rs are not approved, the Department will issue a "deficiency notice" requiring revisions. CC&Rs are considered void if they are unlawful, impossible to enforce, orinclude a restraint on alienation (a clause preventing the sale or transfer of property). However, older subdivisions and condominium or townhome developments may still contain illegal clauses that homeowners' associations continue to enforce.

As California’s laws regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) have changed significantly in recent years, many jurisdictions are facing challenges with homeowners' associations that have CC&Rs requiring HOA approval for such constructions.

Homeowners Insurance Industry
Without insurance, banks and other financial institutions are less likely to lend. For instance, if an insurance company excludes older homes from coverage, lower-income and minority households—who may only be able to afford homes in older neighborhoods—could be disproportionately impacted. Another example is private mortgage insurance (PMI), which helps reduce lender risk, especially when obtained by applicants from neighborhoods protected under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Redlining can occur in lower-income and minority neighborhoods if qualified applicants are denied loans or pushed into obtaining PMI.1 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (NAR)
The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) has developed a Fair Housing Program to provide resources and guidance to REALTORS® in ensuring equal professional services for all people. The term REALTOR® identifies a licensed professional in real estate who is a member of the NAR; however, not all licensed real estate brokers and salespersons are members of the NAR. 1 “Borrower and Neighborhood Racial Characteristics and Financial Institution Financial Application Screening”; Mester, Loretta J; Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics; 9 241-243; 1994.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 159, Packet Page 771 Chapter 7: Fair Housing Profile
7-4
Code of Ethics
Article 10 of the NAR Code of Ethics stipulates that “REALTORS® must not deny equal professional services to anyone based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity. REALTORS® must also avoid participating in any agreements or plans that discriminate against individuals on these grounds.” Furthermore, Standard of Practice 10-1 specifies that “In the sale or rental of a home, REALTORS® should not provide information about the racial, religious, or ethnic makeup of a neighborhood, nor should they engage in activities that may encourage panic selling. However, REALTORS® may offer other demographic information.” In addition, Standard of Practice 10-3 asserts that “REALTORS® must not publish, display, or distribute any advertisements or statements regarding property sales or rentals that imply any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Diversity Certification
The NAR has developed a diversity certification called "At Home with Diversity: One America," which is awarded to licensed real estate professionals who meet the eligibility criteria and complete the NAR "At Home with Diversity" course. This certification serves as an indicator to clients that the real estate professional has received specialized training in working with diverse communities within the real estate market. The course offers valuable business planning tools to help real estate professionals engage with and market to a diverse clientele. Key topics of the NAR course include fostering diversity awareness, building cross-cultural skills, and creating a business diversity strategy.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE (DRE)
The California Department of Real Estate (DRE) is responsible for overseeing the licensing of real estate brokers and salespersons. As previously mentioned, not all licensed brokers and salespersons are members of the National or California Association of REALTORS®.

The DRE has established education requirements, which include courses in ethics and fair housing.

To renew a real estate license, licensees must complete 45 hours of continuing education, which includes three hours in each of the four required areas: Agency, Ethics, Trust Fund Handling, and Fair Housing. The fair housing course provides agents with the knowledge to identify and prevent discriminatory practices when offering real estate services.

As part of the 45 hours of continuing education, licensees must complete five mandatory threehour courses in Agency, Ethics, Trust Fund Handling, Fair Housing, and Risk Management. Additionally, licensees are required to complete at least 18 hours of courses focused on consumer protection. The remaining hours needed to meet the 45-hour requirement can be focused on either consumer service or consumer protection, at the licensee's discretion.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 160, Packet Page 772 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 7-5
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (CAR)
The California Association of REALTORS® (CAR) is a statewide trade organization for real estate professionals. As part of the organized real estate community, REALTORS® adhere to a strict code of ethics, as mentioned earlier. Recently, CAR established the role of Equal Opportunity/Cultural Diversity Coordinator. CAR holds three general membership meetings annually, typically featuring sessions focused on fair housing topics. Currently, CAR’s outreach efforts in Northern California are aimed at underserved communities as well as state-licensed brokers and salespersons who are not members of CAR.

REALTORS® Association Serving City of Monterey
REALTOR® Associations are generally the first line of contact for real estate agents who need continuing education courses, legal forms, career development, and other daily work necessities. The frequency and availability of courses varies amongst these associations, and local association membership is generally determined by the location of the broker for which an agent works. Complaints involving agents or brokers may be filed with these associations.

Monitoring of services by these associations is difficult as detailed statistics of the education/services the agencies provide or statistical information pertaining to the members is rarely available.

Monterey County Association of REALTORS (MCAR) serve Monterey County and the City of Monterey.

7.2 Fair Housing in the Rental Housing Market

RENTAL PROCESS
Advertising
Similar to advertisements for homes for sale, rental listings must also avoid discriminatory language. In a survey of 84 rental listings conducted in March 2025, eight ads were found to contain language that could show a preference for certain groups. It is best if this type of language is avoided.

The City hosts fair housing workshops that help property managers and owners avoid using discriminatory language. Terms in advertisements related to household size, familial status, schools or children (in two ads), and pets (in eight ads) are terms that could be seen as problematic.

Under California's fair housing law, source of income is a protected class. This means it is illegal to discriminate against or place preferences based on a potential tenant’s source of income. Prior to 2020, Section 8 assistance was not included in the source of income protection, but with the passage of SB 329 in 2019 (effective January 1, 2020), Section 8 and other forms of public assistance were recognized as valid sources of income for rental purposes.

In the survey of rental ads in Monterey, the issue of pet-related language was notable. Individuals with disabilities are a protected class under fair housing law, and housing providers must allow “service animals” and “companion animals” under specific conditions. Service animals are trained to assist individuals with disabilities, performing tasks such as guiding people who are blind,

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 161, Packet Page 773 Chapter 7: Fair Housing Profile
7-6
alerting those who are deaf, pulling wheelchairs, or providing support during a seizure. These animals are considered working animals, not pets. Companion animals, also known as assistive or therapeutic animals, help individuals with disabilities in daily living, aiding them in overcoming environmental barriers and the limitations caused by their disabilities.

Under the law, people with disabilities have the right to request reasonable accommodations to “no pets” policies, allowing them to keep service or companion animals. However, rental advertisements that explicitly state “no pets” may lead some individuals with disabilities to be unaware of their right to request an exception. As a result, these individuals might perceive themselves as having fewer housing options, and the “no pets” policy could be seen as discriminatory.

Responding to Ads
The unequal treatment of individuals responding to advertisements is an increasing concern in the context of fair housing. A 2011 national study utilized comprehensive audit-style experiments through email correspondence to examine racial discrimination in the rental housing market. What set this study apart was its focus on two key factors: racial discrimination and social class. In this national study, researchers responded to online rental listings using names associated with specific racial or ethnic groups, while also adjusting the grammatical content of the messages to reflect different education and income levels, signaling variations in social class. The findings revealed that Black individuals continued to face significant racial discrimination in the rental market. This discrimination was even more severe when the inquiry appeared to come from a Black person perceived as belonging to a lower social class.2 Viewing the Unit
Viewing a rental unit is one of the most common situations where potential renters may face discrimination. Landlords or property managers may base their judgments on factors such as race, disability, or appearance, particularly when assessing a renter's reliability or whether they might break any rules. In a follow-up to the national study mentioned above, researchers conducted an experiment to examine subtle discrimination. Subtle discrimination refers to unequal treatment between groups that is difficult to measure and may not always be evident through typical indicators like price differences. The study revealed that landlords responded more quickly and with longer messages to inquiries made by individuals with traditionally "white" names. Additionally, landlords were more likely to use descriptive language, extend invitations to view the unit, encourage further communication, employ polite language, and include formal greetings in responses to emails from white home seekers.3
2 Hanson, Andrew and Hawley, Zack 2011. “Do landlords discriminate in the rental housing market? Evidence from an internet field experiment in US cities.” Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227419425_Do_landlords_discriminate_in_the_rental_housing_market_Evidence_from_an_internet_field_experiment_in_US_cities 3 Hanson, Andrew and Hawley, Zack 2011. “Subtle discrimination in the rental housing market: Evidence from e-mail correspondence with landlords.” Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230807679_Subtle_discrimination_in_the_rental_housing_market_Evidence_from_e-mail_correspondence_with_landlords

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 162, Packet Page 774 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 7-7
Credit/Income Check
Landlords often require potential renters to provide credit references, a list of previous addresses and landlords, as well as employment history and salary information. However, the specific criteria used for tenant selection are usually not disclosed to those seeking to rent. Many landlords may cite credit history as a reason to exclude certain groups. Legislation ensures that applicants are entitled to receive a copy of the report used in evaluating their application.

The earlier study on subtle discrimination found no statistically significant evidence of discrimination related to the use of language regarding fees, requests for employment or rental history, or inquiries into background information.

Lease/Rental Agreement
Typically, the lease or rental agreement is a standard form used for all units within the same building. However, the enforcement of the rules outlined in the lease may not be consistent for all tenants. Landlords may choose to enforce certain rules more strictly for specific tenants, potentially based on arbitrary factors such as race, the presence of children, or disability.

Language barriers in lease agreements can hinder fair housing opportunities if landlords and tenants do not speak the same language. In California, applicants and tenants have the right to negotiate lease terms in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, or Korean. If a language barrier exists, the landlord must provide the tenant with a written translation of the proposed lease or rental agreement in the language used during the negotiation, before the tenant signs it.4 This requirement applies to leases of one month or longer, regardless of whether the negotiations were conducted orally or in writing.

Security Deposit
A security deposit is usually required when renting an apartment. To discourage "undesirable" tenants, a landlord may ask for a higher deposit from certain renters compared to others. Discriminatory treatment may also occur when tenants vacate the unit. For instance, a landlord might return a smaller portion of the security deposit to some tenants, citing excessive wear and tear. Additionally, landlords may ask individuals with disabilities to pay extra pet rent for their service animals, impose a monthly pet surcharge, or require a deposit, all of which constitute discriminatory practices.

During the Tenancy
During their tenancy, tenants may commonly experience discrimination based on familial status, race, national origin, sex, or disability. This discrimination can manifest through inconsistent enforcement of rules, overly strict rules for children, excessive occupancy limits, refusal to provide reasonable accommodations for accessibility, failure to make necessary repairs, eviction notices, illegal entry, rent hikes, or harassment. These actions may be used as a tactic to pressure undesirable tenants into leaving voluntarily, without the landlord needing to go through the formal eviction process.
4 California Civil Code Section 1632(b).

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 163, Packet Page 775 Chapter 7: Fair Housing Profile
7-8

CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION (CAA)
The California Apartment Association created the California Certified Residential Manager (CCRM) program to offer a thorough series of courses designed to enhance the approach, attitude, and professional abilities of on-site property managers and others interested in the field. The CCRM program includes 31.5 hours of training, covering topics such as fair housing and ethics, along with nine additional course areas:
• Preparing the Property for Market
• Professional Leasing Skills and the Application Process • The Move-in Process, Rent Collection and Notices
• Resident Issues and Ending the Tenancy
• Professional Skills for Supervisors
• Maintenance Management: Maintaining a Property
• Liability and Risk Management: Protecting the Investment • Fair Housing: It’s the Law
• Ethics in Property Management
The CAA supports the intent of all local, State, and federal fair housing laws for all residents without regard to color, race, religion, sex, marital status, mental or physical disability, age, familial status, sexual orientation, or national origin. Members of the CAA agree to abide by the provisions of their Code for Equal Housing Opportunity.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY MANAGERS
(NARPM)
The National Association of Residential Property Managers promotes a high standard of property management business ethics, professionalism and fair housing practices within the residential property management field. NARPM is an association of real estate professionals who are experienced in managing single-family and small residential properties. Members of the association adhere to a strict Code of Ethics to meet the needs of the community, which include the following duties:
• Protect the public from fraud, misrepresentation, and unethical practices of property managers. • Adhere to the Federal Fair Housing Stature.
• Protect the fiduciary relationship of the Client.
• Treat all Tenants professionally and ethically.
• Manage the property in accordance with the safety and habitability standards of the community. • Hold all funds received in compliance with state law with full disclosure to the Client.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 164, Packet Page 776 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 7-9
NARPM offers three designations to qualified property managers and property management firms:

1. Residential Management Professional, RMP ®

2. Master Property Manager, MPM ®

3. Certified Residential Management Company, CRMC ®
Various educational courses are offered as part of attaining these designations including the following fair housing and landlord/tenant law courses:
• Ethnics (required for all members every four years)
• Habitability Standards and Maintenance
• Marketing
• Tenancy
• ADA Fair Housing
• Lead-Based Paint Law

WESTERN MANUFACTURED HOUSING COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION
(WMA)
Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) is a nonprofit organization created in 1945 for the exclusive purpose of promoting and protecting the interests of owners, operators and developers of manufactured home communities in California. WMA assists its members in the operations of successful manufactured home communities in today's complex business and regulatory environment. WMA has over 1,700 member parks located in all 58 counties of California.

WMA offers a manager accreditation program as well as numerous continuing education opportunities. The Manufactured Home Community Manager (MCM) program is a manager accreditation program that provides information on effective community operations. WMA’s industry experts give managers intensive training on law affecting the industry, maintenance standards, HCD inspections, discrimination, mediation, disaster planning, and a full range of other vital subjects.

7.3 Fair Housing Services
Fair housing services typically encompass the investigation and resolution of housing discrimination complaints, discrimination audits and testing, and educational outreach, which includes distributing fair housing information through materials, workshops, and seminars. Another key service is landlord/tenant counseling, which provides guidance on the rights and responsibilities of both parties under fair housing laws and other consumer protection regulations, while also mediating disputes. This section outlines the fair housing services offered in the City of Monterey.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 165, Packet Page 777 Chapter 7: Fair Housing Profile
7-10

PROJECT SENTINEL
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has several programs that fund State and local agencies to conduct fair housing services and activities, including the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP). These groups communicate with housing providers, conduct investigations, perform testing to help determine if someone has experienced discrimination, and provide information and assistance. The FHAP funds the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) to enforce Federal fair housing laws in California. The closest FHIP to Monterey is Project Sentinel, a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Santa Clara that HUD funds to provide education, outreach, and enforcement. Housing discrimination complaints can be filed directly with HUD, with the State Civil Rights Department with Project Sentinel, or with local fair housing providers such as Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Housing.

EDEN COUNCIL FOR HOPE AND OPPORTUNITY (ECHO) HOUSING
Housing discrimination complaints are one method to evaluate the extent of fair housing issues in a community. Monterey contracts with the ECHO to provide fair housing and tenant-landlord counseling services. The Community Development Department provides contact information for ECHO and links to an ECHO information sheet on the City website. ECHO, based in Hayward, was founded in 1964 as a fair housing agency and now provides a variety of housing services to lowand moderate-income clients in the Bay Area and on the Central Coast. ECHO has been providing fair housing services to Monterey, Salinas, Seaside, and Monterey County’s urban unincorporated communities since 2017.

Established as a fair housing agency, ECHO has expanded to a full-service housing counseling organization providing services to very low- and moderate-income clients. ECHO’s current service programs include:
• Fair Housing Services serving urban and unincorporated Alameda, Contra Costa, and Monterey Counties, and the Cities of Alameda, Antioch, Concord, Hayward, Livermore, Monterey, Oakland, Pleasanton, Richmond, Salinas, San Leandro, Seaside, Union City, and Walnut Creek;
• Tenant/Landlord Services serving urban and unincorporated Alameda, Contra Costa, and Monterey Counties, and the Cities of Alameda, Hayward, Livermore, Monterey, Pleasanton, Richmond, Salinas, San Leandro, Seaside, Union City, and Walnut Creek.

CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT
The mission of the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), formerly known as Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), is to protect Californians from employment, housing and public accommodation discrimination and hate violence. To achieve this mission, CRD tracks and investigates complaints of housing discrimination, as well as complaints in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations and hate violence. In 2023, 20 fair housing complaints in Monterey County had been filed with CRD.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 166, Packet Page 778 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 7-11

CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) is a nonprofit legal service program created to help California’s low-income individuals and communities. CRLA provides low-income rural Californians with free legal assistance and a variety of community education and outreach programs. Half of its resources are committed to multi-client cases that grapple with the root causes of poverty, with the goal of improving conditions for farmworkers, single parents, school children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and entire communities. Specifically, CRLA provides a wide range housing protection including foreclosure and eviction defense, housing discrimination, substandard housing, farmworker housing, lockout and utility shut-offs by landlords, and rent deposit refunds.

CRLA has a HUD-funded fair housing project providing a range of services to support fair housing and civil rights for rural populations facing housing discrimination. CRLA's work includes investigating violations of state and federal fair housing laws, filing administrative complaints and engaging in affirmative litigation, land use and housing element advocacy, and conducting education, outreach, workshops, and training. CRLA also works with state and local fair housing agencies, local governments, and other non-profits and community-based organizations to remedy discrimination in public and private housing markets and to reduce the incidence of practices that perpetuate segregation.

UNITED WAY MONTEREY COUNTY’S 211 PROGRAM
United Way Monterey County’s 211 program assists residents of Monterey and other cities in the County who believe they have been subjected to housing discrimination with referrals to ECHO, CRLA, and other organizations that operate statewide. The 211 program provides a call-in number and a website with information about organizations that assist persons experiencing housing discrimination.

LEGAL SERVICES FOR SENIORS
Legal Services for Seniors (LSS) serves Monterey County residents who are 60 years of age and older. LSS provides the following fair housing related services free of charge to all elderly County residents:
• Aid with most basic counsel and advice issues up to and including full legal representation in the local Superior Court with legal assistance in the areas of:
- Health care, Medicare, Medi-Cal and private health insurance problems - Security, SSI, and private pension problems
- Housing rights, landlord/tenant disputes, and other housing issues - Advanced Health Care Directives and long-term care problems - Simple wills
- Consumer and debt collection problems
- Guardianships
- Elder abuse (financial, social, and physical)

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 167, Packet Page 779 Chapter 7: Fair Housing Profile
7-12
• Provides education, training, and assistance to other County agencies and organizations such as Meals on Wheels, Alliance on Aging, and the Ombudsman who can pass along information of the existence of LSS to homebound and other seniors who may not know about the available services.

Between 2019 and 2024, LSS served 10,640 clients in the County. Among their clients, 65 percent were White, four percent were Asian, four percent were Black, and 27 percent were other races or declined to answer. Of these cases about 25 percent are Hispanic. Approximately 64 percent of their clients were female households. LSS handles a range of issues for seniors; about 26 percent of the client’s requested assistance in housing related issues including fair housing.

OVERALL SERVICE COVERAGE
The region is well served by multiple agencies for fair housing services. However, residents may find it hard to navigate the service system and identify the appropriate agency for contact. A jurisdiction’s contract for fair housing service providers may also change year to year. To ensure the public is well aware of available services, the City of Monterey updates its websites and outreach materials frequently. The City also hosts annual workshops on Fair Housing for both tenants and landlords with Echo Fair Housing. April is Fair Housing Month and the City is hosting fair housing workshops with Echo Fair Housing.

The City also provides a rental assistance program since 2024. This program has provided the community with more resources for rental assistance and callers are more aware of requesting assistance from the City for rental assistance and fair housing needs. Since launching rental assistance, the City has logged over 459 calls from people in need of assistance . Many callers request information on AB 1482 to check if their landlords have increased their rents too high. The rental assistance program is not just a program to provide funding, but also a program to provide information to the community on tenant and landlord rights. Landlords have called the housing office for rental assistance for their tenants.

7.4 Fair Housing Statistics
As part of the enforcement and tracking services provided by the above-mentioned fair housing service providers, intake and documentation of all complaints and inquiries result in the compilation of statistics provided to each jurisdiction in the form of quarterly and annual reports. However, because the various agencies that provide fair housing services in the County each have their own intake forms, the amount and specificity of available fair housing data is highly uneven throughout the County and difficult to use for regional comparisons and analyses. The following sections summarize fair housing statistics in Monterey, CA using available data and sources.

Fair housing complaints are not the only indication of fair housing conditions, but data from ECHO, along with records published by California Civil Rights Department (CRD), provide a basis for viewing Monterey in a broader context. The majority of people filing complaints to ECHO and CRD, including all of the complainants from Monterey, were white. Race and mental/physical disabilities were the most frequently alleged bases for discrimination. Between 2020 and 2025, of the 21 cases from Monterey County, no allegations were sustained. Of the 251 cases in Monterey

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 168, Packet Page 780 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 7-13
County, a total of ten cases were resolved through conciliation. When an individual reports possible discrimination, it is considered an inquiry. Between 2020 and 2025, there were a total of 67 Fair Housing inquires (or complaints) made in the City of Monterey. Of that, no cases were referred to HUD or CRD. However, nine cases required education to the owner and in one case there was a referral to an attorney.

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

7.5 Fair Housing Testing
The goal of fair housing testing is to identify whether discriminatory business practices exist in apartment rental housing and related markets, and to assess their extent. In response to recommendations from the previous AI, some jurisdictions have started conducting fair housing testing on a regular basis. Other jurisdictions commissioned fair housing testing specifically for this AI report to gather additional insights into potential housing discrimination within their communities.

METHODOLOGY
While methodologies may differ, fair housing testing generally involves selecting volunteer testers who are screened for suitability and then provided with training. This training typically covers an overview and history of fair housing laws, testing methodology, and the key qualities needed in a tester, such as objectivity, reliability, flexibility, and the ability to maintain confidentiality throughout the process. Testers also participate in practice tests and/or role-playing scenarios to ensure they are well-prepared. The project supervisor identifies apartment vacancies by reviewing advertisements on platforms like Craigslist, Zillow, Redfin, or other rental guides and online resources.

Testers are then paired in matched groups, with one tester representing the variable being tested and the other serving as a control and are assigned their identities for the project.

7.6 Hate Crimes
The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) protects individuals in California from any interference with their constitutional or statutory rights, including the right to equal access to housing, through force or threats of force. Hate crimes, which are motivated by bias against race, religion, disability, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, are tracked by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program to understand their scope. These crimes often reflect the broader context of discrimination and should be reported to the Police or Sheriff’s department.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 169, Packet Page 781 Chapter 7: Fair Housing Profile
7-14
In contrast, a hate incident refers to behavior driven by hate but protected by the First Amendment, such as name-calling, the distribution of hate materials, or displaying offensive content. While these actions are protected by freedom of speech, they only become a crime when they interfere with the civil rights of others or escalate beyond mere expression.

Hate crime statistics compiled by the FBI show that a total of 15 hate crimes were committed in Monterey over a five-year period.5 In the City as a whole, race-based hate crimes were the most prevalent (9 crimes), followed by hate crimes based on religion (4 crimes), and hate crimes based on sexual orientation (2 crimes). Overall, the incidence of reported hate crimes in the City of Monterey was very low—less than one per 1,000 people (0.05 per 1,000 persons) between 2020 and 2025. 5 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2020-2025.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 170, Packet Page 782 8-1
8 Progress Towards Prior AI Goals
This section describes the progress made on implementing the actions recommended by the 2019 Analysis of Impediments. The recommended actions included both public and private sector impediments to fair housing choice. Table 8-1 provides an action-by-action evaluation and recommendations on which actions should be continued and carried forward.

8.1 Progress in Addressing Previous Impediments
This section summarizes and compares key findings contained in the regional 2019 AI document in order to evaluate the progress toward addressing impediments to fair housing choice. As shown in greater detail in Table 8-1, the City made a diligent, consistent effort to address the impediments to fair housing choice through the implementation of policies and programs from the 2019 Regional AI Report and collaboration efforts. Following is a summary of the effectiveness of impediments and actions that addressed them:
• The City provided emergency repair assistance to 22 low- and moderate-income households between 2018 and 2022. About 54 total households received rehabilitation assistance between 2018 and 2022 aimed at low-income population, which on average was more than double the objective to assist 5 households per year. 26 total households received assistance under the “Mr. Fixit” program to support low-income type residents owning single-family homes. In FY 2023-2024, the City successfully administered and completed rehabilitation projects for five low-income households through the Housing Preservation Program grants.
• In 2019, construction of the Van Buren Senior Housing project was completed, providing 19 rental units of which 18 rental units are affordable to very low- and low-income seniors at 669 Van Buren Street behind the City's Police Station. • In 2020, the City issued an RFP for 100 percent affordable housing developments on City owned sites at 587 and 593 Van Buren Street and 424 and 450 Madison Street. The City Council entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with MidPen Housing and in 2022, the City authorized a loan for this project (Madison Street project). The City also received a Permanent Local Housing Allocation grant award for this project in 2021 year in the amount of $116,419 of which 95 percent of the grant funds can be used for predevelopment costs related to affordable housing development. • The City restarted the Down Payment Assistance Program in 2020 and issued one new Down Payment Assistance loan for $50,000 to a qualified buyer through the City's Purchase and Resale Program, which supports low-income residents that live and/or work in the City

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 171, Packet Page 783 Chapter 8: Progress Towards Prior AI Goals
8-2
of Monterey. In 2022, two new Down Payment Assistance loans, one totaling $36,750 and the second totaling $35,560, were given to qualified buyers through the City's Purchase and Resale Program.
• Between 2021 and 2022, the Housing Programs Office spent $1.9 million on housing programs, including support of public services, public facilities improvements, and rehabilitation of non-profit owned facilities used to provide services to the disadvantaged, preservation of existing affordable ownership units, and housing rehabilitation grants. $127,000 was distributed to low-income homeowners for health and safety rehabilitation grants and loans. Public services were provided to 1,714 low- and moderate-income households and individuals including services for seniors, persons with disabilities, homeless persons, youth and families. In addition, over 500 below market rate, deed restricted affordable rental and ownership housing unit were maintained, administered and monitored.
• The City has opted to acquire deed-restricted units to sell to income eligible first-time homebuyers. This effort has been a continued practice through the Purchase and Resale Housing Program. The City purchased and resold 16 total units through the Purchase and Resale Program between 2019 and 2022 to support first-time low- and moderate-income homebuyers.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 172, Packet Page 784 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 8-3
Table 8-1 Monterey’s Progress to Reduce Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Since 2019 Impediment
No. Action No. Monterey County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2019) Actions Timeline in
Original Plan
CompletedIn ProgressNot Completed/Deferred 2019 Timeline and Specific Accomplishments Evaluation Continue/Modify /Delete
1 2.2
Establish relationships with local lenders and real estate agent associations to better understand what steps they are taking to promote borrowing opportunities for low-income residents. Ongoing x The City planned to offer supportive
resources to mortgage lender groups in
the form of an annual workshop or event
to discuss fair housing law and how to best
implement fair housing practices.

The City plans to host an annual Fair Housing Workshop for the community that will offer supportive resources and discuss fair housing law.

Modify
3 3.1
Continue to allocate CDBG Public Services funds for agencies to represent low-income tenants in fair housing violation cases.

Ongoing x
Annually, the City allocates funds to CDBG
Public Services. In FY 17-18 over $100,000
were allocated to CDBG Public Services, of
which about six percent were allocated to
fair housing support services.

During FY 2023-24, CDBG funds were allocated for public services through 11 local public service activities, which in total served individuals including seniors, youth, persons with disabilities, homeless and households at risk of homelessness, and low-income households.

Echo Fair Housing provided fair housing support services to lowincome households in the City, while Alliance on Aging provided tax assistance and ombudsman services and referrals to low-income seniors. Approximately 94 percent of those who received support from public service agencies through CDBG were extremely low- to moderate-income.

Continue
3 3.2
As discussed in previous Action in Lending Practices, consider collaborating with local housing providers and real estate agent associations to sponsor an annual workshop or event that includes training or education in fair housing law. This training should expand awareness of fair housing regulations and best practices.

Consider use of CDBG funds for this purpose. Ongoing x
The City is in the process of determining
what level of fair housing support will be
appropriate to address the fair housing
impediments identified in the 2017 update
to the City’s Analysis of Impediments to
Fair Housing Choice and 2019 AI. In
addition to completing this regional AI,
actions may include: contracting with a
third-party service provider, providing
services in-house, and partnering with
neighboring jurisdictions to provide
regional services.

The City continues contracts with Echo Fair Housing for Fair Housing services for the community. Neighboring jurisdictions also partner with Echo Fair Housing to provide regional fair housing services in Monterey County.

Continue
4 4.1
First, identify neighborhoods with concentrations of older housing units with deferred maintenance. Second, identify structures within such neighborhoods that are in greatest need of repair based on visual surveys and code enforcement and building department records. Implement outreach to the homeowners and landlords of the identified structures to offer lead-based paint mitigation services with CDBG funds.

The City will provide funding for lead-based paint hazard assessment for all interior housing rehabilitation grant and loan activities. Mitigation will occur when approved scope of work encounters the lead-based paint.

Ongoing x
The City conducts assessments on any
rehabilitation or loan grant project. In FY
2017-18, the City allocated about $400,000
in funds for home rehabilitation/repairs.

The City distributes educational materials
regarding lead-based paint,such as
HUD/EPA publications, “Protect Your
Family from Lead in Your Home.”
Publications and referral information will
be placed on the City’s website for
education of the public.

The City continues its Housing Rehabilitation Grant and Loan Programs and test for lead-based paint as necessary.

In FY 2023-2024, the City successfully administered and completed rehabilitation projects for five (5) low-income households through the Housing Preservation Program grants.

Continue
5 1
Work with HACM to develop an outreach strategy to landlords who own rental housing in the City of Monterey.The strategy should include providing resources that assist landlords in addressing potential problems or concerns, and a description of the benefits of program participation that includes specific measurable outcomes and testimonials where possible.
2022 x
Over the next three years, the City will
continue to work with HACM to develop
effective outreach strategies.

Housing Authority of the County of Monterey has held annual landlord luncheons to provide information and incentivize landlords to accept housing choice and other vouchers.The City is also working with the Housing Resource Center to host a landlord workshop on accepting Section 8 Vouchers. The City will have community partners in attendance, including the Housing Authority.

Continue
and expand

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 173, Packet Page 785 9-1
9 Fair Housing Goals and Priorities: Action
Plan
This chapter builds upon the previous analyses and presents a list of specific actions the City of Monterey is planning to undertake in order to address the impediments. Impediments and recommendations are grouped in the following categories: 1) housing supply and affordability, 2) displacement risk and supportive services, 3) discrimination, and 4) regional collaboration.

9.1 Housing Supply and Affordability
Impediment 1: Chronic underproduction of housing in the city and the region has led to an acute shortage and high rents and sales prices, which are a significant impediment to fair housing choice.

The lack of adequate water supply stemming from a cease-and-desist order against California American Water (Cal-Am) put in place in 2009 to halt excessive pumping from the Carmel River aquifer has effectively halted the development of housing within the Cal-Am service area, which includes much of the City of Monterey and surround jurisdictions on the Monterey Peninsula.

Regulatory and process requirements for proposed housing developments have also constrained production, although to a much lesser extent than the availability of adequate water supply.

Facts and Figures
• Housing supply in Monterey has been constrained by chronic underproduction of housing, due to limits on housing construction linked to the availability of water supply. • During the 2010 to 2023 period, the city saw development of only 241 new homes. - There was an increase of 135 single-family homes (attached/detached). - Slight decrease of 7 multi-family housing units (two to four units). - Increase of 103 units of multi-family housing (five plus units). • During the City’s 5th cycle Housing Element of 2015 to 2023, only 29 units were completed.

A majority were accessory dwelling units (ADUs). In addition, 25 multifamily housing units (five-plus units) were entitled but have not been permitted and only seven multifamily housing units (two to four units) were completed. - This means almost three times the number of workers commute out of Monterey compared to those who live and work in the city. Additionally, more than double the number of workers commute into Monterey as compared to those who live in Monterey and commute out of the city to work.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 174, Packet Page 786 Chapter 9: Fair Housing Goals and Priorities: Action Plan 9-2
• Impacted development of workforce housing has resulted in workers who work on the Monterey Peninsula living far outside of the community, adding to traffic and creating long and expensive commutes.
• The City of Monterey is in need of smaller units that serve single people, larger units for families, and more affordable units that serve the workforce.

The City's 2023-31 Housing Element, adopted in July 2024, incorporates a robust suite of programs intended to expand local water supply, increase housing supply and catalyze the production of affordable housing in the city. For each program, the Housing Element identifies the responsible City department, implementation timing, and potential funding sources. Implementation of these programs will help address impediments related to housing supply and affordability.

Action 1.1 - In collaboration with Housing Authority County of Monterey (HACM), develop and implement a proactive outreach and marketing strategy to increase the number of landlords accepting Housing Choice Vouchers.

9.2 Displacement Risk and Supportive Services
Impediment 2: There is risk of displacement in eastern neighborhoods, in Old Town and Downtown, due to the high cost of housing. This means that older adults and low-income households are particularly vulnerable throughout the community. High housing costs in combination with transportation, childcare costs, home repairs, and other needs limit fair housing choice for residents and put many at risk of becoming homeless in the event of unemployment or unexpected expenses.

Facts and Figures
• A little less than half (44.5 percent) of all households in the city experience some level of cost burden
- A total of 3,060 households experience cost burden (24.7 percent) while an additional 2,445 households experience severe cost burden (19.8 percent). • Cost burden for renters and owners is not evenly distributed, and renters are more cost burdened than owners.
- About 34 percent of all renters experience some level of cost burden while only 10.5 percent of owners do.
• Cost burden is not distributed evenly across race and ethnicity in the City. - 23.5 percent of Hispanic or Latino residents in owner occupied units are severely cost burdened, while 19 percent, 13.1, and 10 percent of Asian, White, and Other Race residents respectively were severely cost burdened.
• Renters tend to experience overcrowding more often than owners in the City of Monterey. - About 1.3 percent of renter-occupied households experience overcrowding and 6.6 percent experience severe overcrowding. By contrast, less than one percent of owneroccupied households experience any level of overcrowding.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 175, Packet Page 787 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 9-3
• About 73 percent of older adult households making below 30 percent of AMI spend more than 50 percent on their income, while approximately 58.5 percent older adult households making more than 80 but less than 100 percent of AMI spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing costs.
• Areas identified as “At Risk of Displacement” include Old Monterey, parts of Downtown and Del Monte, and the Casanova/Oak Knoll neighborhoods. • The recommended benchmark is that combined housing and transportation costs should not exceed 45 percent of household income. By this measure, residents of the North Fremont, Downtown, Pacific/Munras/Cass, and Lighthouse areas have affordable combined housing and transportation costs, while residents of other areas of the city do not.

Recommended Strategies and Actions
Action 2.1 - Implement Housing Element programs that aim to lower displacement risk in Monterey:
§ Program 4-B Rental Assistance Pilot Program. The City will implement a rental assistance program that provides lower income renter households with recurring rental assistance at a fixed rate (known as a shallow subsidy) to help improve housing stability and prevent displacement.
§ Program 4-J, Anti-Displacement Strategy. The City will prepare an antidisplacement strategy, focused on preserving subsidized affordable units through partnerships with the Housing Authority of the County of Monterey and protecting renters through efforts to raise awareness of tenants’ rights.

Action 2.2 - Continue to provide funding for housing rehabilitation and home repairs to help ensure safe, habitable housing stock in the community and prevent displacement due to substandard conditions. The City administers and manages a Housing Rehabilitation Program which encompasses a variety of home repair grants and loans intended to improve the condition of substandard owner-occupied singlefamily homes, with special emphasis placed on the remediation of health and safety housing issues. Additionally, the City will provide funding for lead-based paint hazard assessments for all interior housing rehabilitation grant and loan activities.

Mitigation will occur when the approved scope of work encounters lead-based paint.

Action 2.3 - Support and work to expand access to rental assistance and "shallow subsidy" programs for Monterey residents. United Way Monterey County operates a variety of programs that offer short-term assistance to help cover the cost of food, transportation, and childcare and help prevent evictions and homelessness. A program example includes the Emergency Food and Shelter Program.

Action 2.4 - Work with community-based organizations to connect residents in need with relevant supportive services, such as substance abuse treatment, mental health services, transportation assistance, and preventative health, which can help people build a foundation for self-sufficiency and maintaining stable housing.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 176, Packet Page 788 Chapter 9: Fair Housing Goals and Priorities: Action Plan 9-4

9.3 Discrimination
Impediment 3: Racial and ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the pool of housing loan applicants relative to their share of the population, Regionally, large parts of the Monterey Peninsula, including some single-family neighborhoods in the City of Monterey, are classified by the State of California as being racially concentrated areas of affluence, which tend to have high concentrations of wealthy White residents and low shares of residents belonging to ethnic minority groups.

Facts and Figures
• A common theme heard in the AI stakeholder meetings is that there is an absence of fair housing education for mom-and-pop landlords who may not be familiar with fair housing law.
• Participants from the AI workshop noted there is a cost barrier to fair housing rights and tenant services.
• Hispanics and Blacks are underrepresented in the homebuyer market. Patterns of racial and ethnic concentration are present within particular areas of the city and within the Monterey Peninsula region.
- Residents of Hispanic, Black, and 2 or more races continue to be underrepresented in the homebuyer market.

Recommended Strategies and Actions
Action 3.1 - Continue efforts to raise awareness of fair housing rights and responsibilities in the community. Conduct an annual Fair Housing Workshop to highlight supportive resources available and provide information on fair housing law; providing fair housing information at community events; involving neighborhood groups and other community organizations when conducting outreach and education activities; continue to provide funding to service providers for fair housing enforcement and outreach services; exploring alternative formats for fair housing education workshops, such as pre-taped videos and/or recordings; and conducting a public awareness campaign on social media.

Action 3.2 - Expand access to aid for residents in need of counseling, recognizing that the cost of services can be an impediment to fair housing choice. Continue to contract with a fair housing counseling group in providing legal services (mediation and the processing of fair housing complaints) and fair housing education. Continue to allocate federal housing funds for service providers to represent low-income tenants in fair housing violation cases.

Action 3.3 - Partner with Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, the Monterey County Association of Realtors, and other real estate professionals to develop and conduct trainings on fair housing practices for realtors and property managers.

Develop separate training for each group.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 177, Packet Page 789 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 9-5
Action 3.4 - Support the efforts of non-profit groups that offer financial literacy training and homebuyer educational training. United Way Monterey County (UWMC) and Goodwill Central Coast offer financial literacy training, including workshops for low-income families, personalized financial coaching, and other services that help Monterey residents with financial empowerment. Housing Resource Center of Monterey County (HRC) provides an online course for first time homebuyers and Housing Trust Silicon Valley offers homebuyer assistance programs, including the Home Access Program and the Homebuyer Empowerment Loan Program (HELP). Echo Fair Housing also provides First Time Homebuyer Training.

9.4 Regional Collaboration
Impediment 4: Many issues, such as homelessness, affordable housing, jobs-housing balance, and access to frequent transit services, are regional issues that require the collaboration of communities throughout the region. In recent years, the County jurisdictions have undertaken multiple regional initiatives to address housing-related issues.

Facts and Figures
• The Coalition of Homeless Services Providers (CHSP) is updating the "Lead Me Home" Plan, a five-year strategy initiated in 2021 to reduce homelessness in Monterey and San Benito Counties by 50 percent by 2026. This update involves assessing the current homelessness response system, gathering community input, and analyzing data to inform future actions.
• The Farmworker Housing Study and Action Plan for Salinas Valley and Pajaro Valley was conducted to address the critical shortage of housing for agricultural workers in Monterey County. This comprehensive study was a collaborative effort among county and city governments, affordable housing developers, and nonprofit organizations, Key findings included there is a need for approximately 45,560 new housing units to alleviate overcrowding and living conditions for farmworkers in the Salinas and Pajaro Valleys. • The Monterey Bay Housing Trust (MBHT) is a revolving loan fund aimed at increasing affordable housing for low-income households in the Monterey Bay Region, including Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey counties. Launched in July 2016, the fund was initially backed by a $2 million commitment from the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP), which was later supplemented by $2.25 million in donations from various public and private partners. The fund has financed three affordable housing projects, with loans repaid from construction financing and reinvested in future projects. Contributions have come from several local government entities and organizations.

Recommended Strategies and Actions
Action 4.1 - Continue to participate in regional initiatives addressing housing-related issues, including the Lead Me Home Plan Update, the Regional Farmworker Housing Study, and regional Emergency Solutions Grants, among others.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 178, Packet Page 790 Chapter 9: Fair Housing Goals and Priorities: Action Plan 9-6
Action 4.2 - Partner with regional groups and initiatives such as the Monterey Bay Housing Trust to identify opportunities to increase the supply of affordable housing for lowincome households in Monterey.

EXHIBIT A DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 179, Packet Page 791 Appendix A

OUTREACH MATERIALS
DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 180, Packet Page 792 Table of Contents
Fair Housing Workshop Summary Memo
Fair Housing Survey Report
Stakeholder Interview Summary Memo
A-1
A-7
A-27
DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 181, Packet Page 793

MEMORANDUM
To: Anastacia Wyatt, Housing Manager, City of Monterey
From: Claire Villegas, D&B
Re: AI Workshop Summary
Date: August 16, 2024
Dear Anastacia:

The workshop meeting held on July 15, 2024 was intended to, inform community members about the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) Report Project, including purpose, scope of the report, and timeline for completion, solicit input on impediments to fair housing and potential solutions to address them from community members to inform development of the AI Report, and answer questions from the community. This memo presents a summary of the information and feedback gathered during the workshop held on July 15, 2024.

Time and Location
Gathering for Women
Monday, July 15, 2024, 6:00-8:00pm
147 El Dorado Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Meeting Summary
At the event, attendees were welcomed at a sign-in table and then heard a 10 minute presentation on fair housing. Participants were then encouraged to circulate to four different Stations set up around the room to engage with City Staff members posted at each station for the remainder of the evening. Participants had the opportunity to ask questions, interact, and provide feedback. Layout of the workshop stations are included below.

In total, approximately 18 community members attended the open house meeting at Gathering for Women, including Mayor Tyller Williamson. The following section includes a summary of input collected at each station from the participants of the meeting. Written comments are included in the Appendix of this document. Participants were overall interested in learning more about fair housing issues and shared concerns about increased housing costs and limited housing supply as barriers to accessing housing in Monterey.

A-1 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 182, Packet Page 794

MEMORANDUM

STATION LAYOUT
Summary of Input By Station
STATION 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The first introductory Station provided residents with background information on fair housing, displayed community demographic data, and highlighted groups that experience increased challenges relative to other groups related to fair housing access.

STATION 2: SUITABLE HOUSING IN MONTEREY
At this station, participants were asked to rank 6 statements on the challenges around finding suitable housing in Monterey from 1-5, where 1 represents the least challenging and represents 5 the most challenging. Participants consistently ranked “the cost of housing is too high” as a 5. Most participants ranked all other statements as between 3 and 5, and only a few participants identified the statement on discrimination as least challenging.

A-2 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 183, Packet Page 795

MEMORANDUM
Additional comments from participants noted that high housing costs result specifically because supply is too low; rental application criteria can create barriers to accessing housing especially for people with no rental history or credit (ie. Homeless individuals); and, generally, there is not enough affordable housing for those who need it. Overall, participants agreed residents face a variety of challenges in finding suitable housing in Monterey and felt there was more the City could do to address the affordability and accessibility of housing.

STATION 3: CHALLENGES IN HOUSING SITUATIONS
At this station, participants were asked to rank the biggest challenges they or their neighbors have faced in past or current housing situations. They ranked the challenges from 1-5, where 1 represents disagree they have experienced these challenges and 5 represents 5 strongly agree. Most participants rated all statements as at least a 3 and most commonly a 5, agreeing that participants frequently face challenges in past and current housing situations.

Additional comments from participants reiterated challenges related to increased rental housing costs and limited access to information on fair housing. Participants also cited there are no city or county rent control regulations and that wages and pensions have not increased proportional to housing costs. Similarly to Station 2, participants felt that City actions addressing the high cost of housing could help alleviate challenges that residents face in finding housing in Monterey.

A-3 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 184, Packet Page 796

MEMORANDUM
STATION 4: FAIR HOUSING SOLUTIONS
Station 4 asked participants which potential fair housing solutions they found valuable, ranking 1 as the least valuable and 5 as the most valuable. Overall, attendees expressed support for all solutions posed at the station. Affordable childcare and after school activities, tenant rights and services and supportive services had the highest level of support, marked by most participants rank as a 4 or 5, followed by rental assistance and shallow subsidies, and centralized application portal. The concept of shallow subsidies was not well understood, but once explained to participants, many agreed it could be a valuable strategy for preventing eviction and homelessness.

Participants also offered additional solutions including increasing supply of low-income/affordable units; implementing rent control; offering a call line as well as an online centralized application portal; and cohousing. Overall, participants showed support for City actions to implement new solutions, while also reiterating long-term affordability concerns.

A-4 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 185, Packet Page 797

MEMORANDUM
Appendix: Open House Written Station Comments
Station 2: How would you rank the following statements about finding suitable housing in Monterey?
There are not enough units in the pipeline because the Water Mgmt Dist. Controlled housing for far too long.

They should be disbanded
In regards to housing location, consider noise pollution + air pollution + don’t put housing next to busy roads In a safe neighborhood
Studios and 1 beds are impossible to find at a price reasonable for single-income households Dog friendly! Bella is my child
Rental application approval criteteria (obstacle)
Property mgmt. co. require income (monthly) to be 3x rent Finding suitable housing – challenging for homeless w/o rental history, no credit, etc.

Have erroneous concept of “affordable housing.” Sometime is believed that affordable housing is for people without education
Kids
There is not enough affordable housing. The prices increased so rapidly Rent increases challenge keeping housing. AB-1482 allows up to 10% increase 2x/yr / rent caps needed The region needs to work together to develop more housing in Monterey where all the jobs are More bus routes
Station 3: What are the biggest challenges you or your neighbors have faced in past or current housing situations?
Landlords not monitored when poor quality units
Social security disability takes on AVERAGE 265 days to approve a person to receive payments With climate change, housing needs to be real city services + not be dependent on cars Most people do not know what fair housing means
Housing prices have doubled so quickly!
Constantly increasing rents + no increase in wages/pensions etc.

Large rent increases w/o city or county rent cap laws
Access to information, most of residents have not much time to check emails but rather to browse on media.

People need to get paid a living wage.

The city needs to be more proactive in outreach as opposed to passive comms A-5 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 186, Packet Page 798

MEMORANDUM
Station 3: What are the biggest challenges you or your neighbors have faced in past or current housing situations?
This is why we need the rental inventory to create transparency in own rental housing stock Station 4: What can be done to improve fair housing in Monterey? 2 things not listed:
1) Add more low income/ affordable units
2) Institute a rent cap. These are all band aids, they aren’t long-term solutions.

LACK of housing units
There can be barriers to utilizing this money depending on criteria Co-housing pair renter w/ older property owner
In addition to portal, phone # + people to help explain Priority should be keeping folks housed before requiring participation in other services Tenants need advocates due to fear of retaliation
Housing authority has too much power when renter has problem A-6 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 187, Packet Page 799 Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice
Survey Report
April 2025
Prepared for the City of Monterey
Prepared by
A-7 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 188, Packet Page 800 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 1 Executive Summary
The Community Development Block Grant Funding (CDBG) Resident Survey for Community Needs and Fair Housing was conducted from December 17, 2024, to January 31, 2025 to provide residents from all neighborhoods, business owners, and people working or attending school in Monterey with an opportunity to share input that will inform how the City of Monterey can utilize funding from United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) CDBG funds.

The survey focused on housing and community development needs, as the questions were designed to solicit feedback on where the City can focus funding, such as ranking community facility needs, neighborhood improvement needs, community program and services needs, economic development needs, and housing needs.

The survey also inquired about fair housing topics, such as discrimination and fair housing education and training. The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish. An online version of the survey was available via a link on the Have Your Say Monterey website, allowing people to access it on their own time from their laptop, smartphone, or home computer. A paper version of the survey was also available at the various community meetings and pop-up outreach events, as well as Monterey Public Library and at City Hall. A full survey report provides a profile of respondents and presents key implications for the planning process.

In total over 200 survey responses were received from December 17, 2024, to January 31, 2025, which includes online responses, input from about 242 people at pop-up outreach events, and paper comments. The survey was available in two languages: English and Spanish. Out of the total number of survey participants, 98.5 percent of the respondents spoke English while only 1.4 percent respondents had Spanish as their first or second language.

SURVEY ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT
The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish, with online and paper versions available.

Following key objectives were identified for the survey:

1. Inform residents in Monterey about the purpose and need for the project and the legal requirements for the Consolidated Plan (Fiscal Year 2025-2029) and Annual Action Plan (Fiscal Year 2025-2026);

2. Solicit community input to inform decisions about how and where to allocate grant funding in order to maximize efforts towards housing and community development goals;

3. Garner responses from a wide variety of voices in the community to ensure a full range of perspectives is considered in preparing of the Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI).

The online survey platform featured a user-friendly interface and a range of engaging and easy-touse question types that allow users to quickly grasp background information and provide responses.

A landing page provided a brief introduction to the project, framing the challenges and inviting survey responses to help inform strategies to address them. The survey was structured to allow participants to provide quick responses if they only have a few minutes to contribute. The survey A-8 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 189, Packet Page 801 Fair Housing Survey Report
2 presented five subtopics where participants were asked about their demographics, housing and community development needs, and fair housing topics.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
• A little less than half (45.9 percent) of respondents were 65 years and older. The next largest age cohort was 25-34 years at 15.7 percent. This finding aligns with the percentage of respondents that are retired (20.2 percent).
• About a quarter of survey respondents (23.9 percent) were not residents from Monterey.

Salinas residents (6.2 percent) and Pacific Grove residents (6.2 percent) were among those who took the survey, but do not reside in Monterey.
• Key neighborhoods, such as Naval Postgraduate School, La Mesa Village, and Del Monte Beach, that include student and military representation were not represented in the survey.

Two neighborhoods in Monterey, New Monterey and Monterey Vista, make up 43.8 percent of respondents.
• About half (50 percent) of survey respondents identified as Above Income proportional to their household size.
• Majority of respondents (78.1 percent) identified as White, which is more than the City’s 2020 White composition at 67.7 percent.
• Housing needs ranked as the most important housing and community development need at 35.7 percent, which is about two times the amount of the second ranked need of community programs and service needs (18.1 percent). Out of the housing needs, affordable rental housing was the most important ranked need at 43.9 percent, followed by energy efficient home improvements (12.3 percent).
• Housing for seniors (30.1 percent) and emergency housing for homeless (26.3 percent) were the top two ranked special needs housing, while permanent housing for homeless (33.8 percent) and housing for disabled (28.1 percent) were the lowest ranked special needs housing.

Analysis of Survey Responses

DEMOGRAPHICS
The survey received 215 responses. As shown in Figure 1, survey respondents ranged in age from 18 to over 65, and there was a balance among various age cohorts. People in the 65 plus age cohort were most likely to respond and given that this cohort represents approximately 18.4 of the City’s population, this group is overrepresented. By contrast, the response rate for people under the age of 24 was low, indicating an opportunity to target future outreach efforts specifically toward these age cohorts to ensure their voices are reflected in the project update.

More respondents for the survey identified as female (59 percent) than male (38.3 percent), while about 2.2 percent did not specify a gender and 0.5 percent identified as transgender (Figure 2).

There is approximately equal distribution of males and females living in the City. Women were A-9 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 190, Packet Page 802 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 3 more likely than men to take the survey, which is consistent with results from many other communities. Future outreach activities for the project should make specific efforts to engage male residents, business owners, employees, and students.

Figure 1: “What is your age?”
Figure 2: “To which gender identity to you most identify?”

2.2%

15.7%

13.5%

8.6%

14.1%

45.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Female
59%
Male
38%
Transgender
1%
Prefer Not to Say
2%
A-10 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 191, Packet Page 803 Fair Housing Survey Report
4 Figure 3 demonstrates the majority of respondents to the survey (76.1 percent) live in Monterey, while 23.6 percent live outside of Monterey. There was a wide geographical distribution of survey respondents across Monterey. As shown in Figure 4, out of the Monterey residents who filled out the survey, most respondents live in the New Monterey (29.2 percent) and Monterey Vista (14.9 percent) neighborhoods, while other neighborhoods like Del Monte Beach, La Mesa Village, and Naval Postgraduate School neighborhoods are not represented.

Long-term residents and workers were more likely to complete the survey making up over 50 percent of survey respondents. 22.8 percent of respondents who responded they lived in Monterey for 4-10 years (Figure 5). The lowest percentage of respondents (6 percent) responded they have lived or worked in Monterey for 0-1 years.

Figure 3 “What City & ZIP Code do you live in?”

1.9%

2.4%

2.9%

4.3%

6.2%

6.2%

76.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Marina
Other
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Seaside
Pacific Grove
Salinas
Monterey
A-11 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 192, Packet Page 804 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 5 Figure 4: “If you live in the City of Monterey, what neighborhood do you live in?”

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.7%

0.7%

1.3%

2.6%

2.6%

3.3%

3.3%

3.9%

5.2%

5.9%

7.2%

9.8%

9.8%

14.4%

29.4%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Del Monte Beach
La Mesa Village
Naval Postgraduate School
Aguajito Oaks
Presidio of Monterey
Fisherman Flats
Deer Flats
Skyline Forest
Alta Mesa
Casanova Oak Knoll
Villa Del Monte
Glenwood
Oak Grove
Downtown
Del Monte Grove/Laguna Grande
Old Town
Monterey Vista
New Monterey
A-12 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 193, Packet Page 805 Fair Housing Survey Report
6 Figure 5: “How long have you lived in the City of Monterey?” As shown in Figure 6, majority of the survey respondents indicated they are homeowners (54.8 percent), while 39.7 percent are renters. About 3 percent of respondents noted they live with their family and friends, while 2.5 percent stated they are unsheltered. About 18.6 percent of respondents noted they or a person they live with have a disability that may impact their housing needs (Figure 7).

Figure 6: “What best describes your housing situation?”

6.0%

19.5%

22.8%

51.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Less than 1 year 1-3 years 4-10 years 10+ years

54.8%

39.7%

2.5% 2.0% 1.0%
Homeowner Renter I am currently
unsheltered
I live with friends
or family, my
name does not
appear on their
rental lease or
home title
I live with friends
or family, my
name appears
on their rental
lease or home
title
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
A-13 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 194, Packet Page 806 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 7 Figure 7: “Do you or a person you live with have a disability that may impact your housing needs?”
Approximately 47 percent of survey respondents noted their household is headed by a single individual, where 30 percent are female-headed and 17 percent are male headed, as noted in Figure

8. Income categories were determined by the 2024 State Income Limits and may be used to calculate affordable housing costs for applicable housing assistance programs. There was a household represented from each income category in the survey; Figure 9 displays the range of income inferred from survey respondents. About half of survey respondents identified as above moderate income, while the second largest category was low income (15 percent).

Figure 8: “Do you live in a household headed by a single individual?” Yes
16%
No
84%
Yes, Female Head
30%
Yes, Male Head
17%
No
53%
A-14 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 195, Packet Page 807 Fair Housing Survey Report
8 Figure 9: “What is the size and income of your household (including yourself)?” Figure 10 displays the working situation for each survey respondent divided into four categories:
private sector employee, government employee, self-employed, and other. The largest portion of respondents were retired (20.2 percent, 38 respondents) followed by private-sector for-profit employment (17.6 percent, 33 respondents). About 17.6 percent of all survey respondents were government employees, while 23.9 percent of respondents were self-employed, meaning they own a business (incorporated or non-incorporated) or work without pay at a for-profit family business.

Figure 11 shows the spread of business or industry that survey respondents are occupied in, following up on Figure 10. Majority of survey respondents selected “other” as their answer, which include industries like education, healthcare, landscaping, real estate, and transportation. From the pre-determined industries listed on the survey, “service” was the most selected. 3%
9% 9%
15%
8%
5%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Acute Extremely
Low
Very Low Low Median Moderate Above
Moderate
A-15 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 196, Packet Page 808 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 9 Figure 10: “Please select the answer that best describes your working situation.”
2 15
38 3
9 19
2 6
11 14
22 33
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Student
Other (Worker's comp, home care support,
government part-time)
Retired
Worked without pay in a for-profit family
business or farm for 15 hours or more per week
Owner of incorporated business, practice, or
farm
Owner of non-incorporated business, practice
or firm
Active-duty military
Federal government
State government
Local government
Non-profit
For-profit
Other Self-Employed or Other Government Employee
Private Sector
Employee
A-16 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 197, Packet Page 809 Fair Housing Survey Report
10 Figure 11: “What kind of business or industry was this primarily? (select the best one):”
About 75 percent of respondents identified as Not Hispanic or Latino, while 16 percent did, and 9 percent of respondents preferred not to answer the question, shown in Figure 12. Majority of respondents identified as White (78.1 percent) (Figure 13), signaling a slight overrepresentation of this racial category, as the City of Monterey is composed of 64.6 percent of White citizens1. The second highest racial category of respondents was “other” at 6.6 percent, where responses included Chicano, Mexican American, Hispanic, and prefer not to say. English is the predominant language spoken at home for respondents at 94 percent, while Spanish followed at 3 percent (Figure 14) 1 Chapter 4: Housing Profile, Table 4-7.
67 30
22 7 7
3 3 3
0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
A-17 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 198, Packet Page 810 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 11 Figure 12: “Ethnic Categories (select one):”
Figure 13: “Racial Categories (select all that apply):” Hispanic or Latino
16%
Not Hispanic or
Latino
75%
Prefer Not to Say
9%

78.1%

2.6%

5.6%

1.0% 1.0%

5.1% 6.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
White Black or
African
American
Asian or Asian
American
Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
One or More
Races
Other
A-18 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 199, Packet Page 811 Fair Housing Survey Report
12 Figure 14: “What is the primary language you speak at home?” Community Needs
Respondents were asked to rank six different housing and community development needs for the City as shown on Figure 15. Respondents ranked housing needs (affordable rental housing and low-income homeowner rehab programs) as the most important need in the community (35.7 percent). Further, community programs and service needs (such as healthcare services and emergency preparedness) were also a top priority by respondents (18.1 percent). Respondents also noted neighborhood improvement needs (safe routes to school and sidewalk improvements) as a top three priority (16.3 percent), followed closely by special needs housing (housing for seniors, housing for homeless) at 15.8 percent. Economic development needs, such as job training and commercial building rehabilitation, was ranked as the least important need at 35.4 percent.

Similarly, respondents were asked to rank 11 different community program and service needs in order of importance for the City, shown on Figure 16. Lining up with the answers in Figure 15, the top community program of importance for respondents was healthcare services (26 percent), followed by disaster and emergency preparedness services (15.5 percent), and homeless counseling/outreach services (14.9 percent). On the contrary, rental – legal assistance (26.7 percent) and neighborhood crime prevention programs (20.5 percent) were ranked as the lowest importance by respondents.

English
94%
Spanish
3%
Other
3%
A-19 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 200, Packet Page 812 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 13 Figure 15: Housing and Community Development Needs:

Rank the following types of need in Monterey in order of importance to you (1 = most important, 6 = least important). Please rank each item once.” Figure 16: “Community Program and Service Needs:

Rank the following programs in order of importance to you (1 = most important, 11 = least important). Please rank each item once.” 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Economic Development Needs(i.e. job training,
commercial building rehab)
Community Facilities Needs(i.e. parks and
recreation facilities, community centers)
Special Needs Housing(i.e. housing for seniors,
housing for the homeless)
Neighborhood Improvement Needs (i.e. safe routes
to school, sidewalk improvements)
Community Programs and Services Needs(i.e.
healthcare services, emergency preparedness)
Housing Needs(i.e. affordable rental housing, lowincome homeowner rehab programs) 1 - highest 2 3 4 5 6 - lowest
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Affordable Legal Services
Drug/Alcohol Abuse Counseling/Treatment
Domestic Violence Services
Food Services for Residents with Special Needs
Mental Health Services
Rental – Legal Assistance
Neighborhood Crime Prevention Programs
Youth Services (childcare, youth programs,…
Homeless Counseling/Outreach Services
Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Services
Healthcare Services
1 - highest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - lowest
A-20 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 201, Packet Page 813 Fair Housing Survey Report
14 Housing Needs
Respondents were asked to rank six different housing needs in order of importance to them, shown on Figure 17. Respondents ranked affordable rental housing (43.9 percent) as the most important need to them, echoing the response received in Figure 15. Following up to affordable rental housing, respondents also ranked energy efficient home improvements as the second most important need (12.3 percent). Further, down payment assistance for low-income individuals (10.5 percent), rental housing rehabilitation multi-family affordable programs (9.9 percent), and low-income homeowner rehabilitation programs (9.9 percent) relatively received equal amounts of support.

Respondents noted electrical vehicle charging infrastructure was the least important need (49.7 percent).

Figure 17: “Housing Needs: Rank the following programs in order of importance to you (1 = most important, 7 = least important). Please rank each item once”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure (Help
funding/support EV chargers in or near affordable
housing units)
Lead Testing/Abatement (Programs to detect and
remove lead from homes built prior to 1978 to ensure
safe living conditions.)
Low-income Homeowner Rehabilitation Programs
(Financial aid in the form of loans and/or grants to
help low-income homeowners repair or improve
their homes, ensuring safe and decent living…
Rental Housing Rehabilitation Multi-family
Affordable Programs (Funding/support in the form of
loans and/or grants to repair/improve existing rental
properties to ensure that they are in compliance…
Down Payment Assistance for Low-income
Individuals (Help with down payments for lowincome individuals trying to buy their first home.) Energy Efficient Home Improvements (Help with
home project e.g.: insulation, energy-efficient
windows, replacing older home appliances)
Affordable Rental Housing (Creation of rental
housing with affordable rents for extremely low, very
low, and low-income households.)
1 - highest 2 3 4 5 6 7 - lowest
A-21 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 202, Packet Page 814 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 15 Respondents were asked to rank five different special housing needs in order of importance to them, shown on Figure 18. Housing for seniors was ranked as the most important special needs housing program at 30.1 percent, followed closely by emergency housing for homeless at 26.3 percent.

Permanent housing for homeless was ranked as the lowest out of the special needs housing at 33.8 percent.

Figure 18: “Special Needs Housing: Rank the following programs in order of importance to you (1 = most important, 5 = least important). Please rank each item once.”
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Housing for Disabled (Housing that is designed to
meet the special needs of persons with disabilities
and that is reserved for such persons.)
Transitional Housing for Homeless (Housing for at
least six months for homeless individuals and
families with supportive services with the goal of
moving to permanent housing.)
Permanent Housing for Homeless (Long-term rental
subsidy contracts that facilitate development of
housing for homeless individuals and families which
may include supportive services in addition to the
rental subsidy.)
Emergency Housing for Homeless (Temporary
shelter/beds for those who are homeless or at
imminent risk of becoming homeless.)
Housing for Seniors (Housing options for older
people that are designed to meet their needs and
provide safety, accessibility, and adaptability.)
1 - highest 2 3 4 5 - lowest
A-22 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 203, Packet Page 815 Fair Housing Survey Report
16 Fair Housing
In the fair housing portion of the survey, respondents were asked about their experience with discrimination. Majority of respondents, 90 percent, noted they had not personally ever experienced discrimination, while 10 percent stated they had (Figure 19). Further, if respondents answered yes, respondents were asked on what basis they believe they were discriminated against and how they were discriminated against. In total, 10 percent of respondents answered questions about discrimination. Respondents noted national origin, source of income, gender, age, and race as the top answers for the basis for the discrimination faced (Figure 20), and further noted the discrimination occurred by not showing apartment unit for sale and higher security deposit than industry standard (Figure 21) as how respondents were discriminated against. When asked other ways they were discriminated against, respondents noted answers, such as “Would not rent even though I had the money and permanent job,” “UNABLE TO FIND LANDLORD ACCEPTING SECTION 8,” and complaints about cooking non-American food.

Figure 19: “Have you personally ever experienced discrimination in housing?” Yes
10%
No
90%
A-23 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 204, Packet Page 816 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 17 Figure 20: “On what basis do you believe you were discriminated against? (check all that apply).”
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 4
4 4
4 4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Color
Ancestry
Marital Status
Sexual Orientation
Family Status (e.g. single-parent with children,
family with children or expecting a child)
Disability/Medical Conditions (either you or
someone close to you)
Religion
Source of Income (e.g. welfare,
unemployment insurance)
Gender
Age
Race
National Origin
A-24 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 205, Packet Page 817 Fair Housing Survey Report
18 Figure 21: “How were you discriminated against? (check all that apply).” When asked about attending a fair housing training, majority of respondents had noted they had not attended a fair housing training (86 percent), while 14 percent of respondents had attended one (Figure 22). Most respondents who had attended a fair housing training stated it was free (85 percent); however, some respondents (15 percent) noted a fee was required to attend (15 percent).

Most respondents had attended a fair housing training at work (45 percent), while other respondents (35 percent) noted the different locations they had attended one, like cities in California (Sacramento and Palo Alto), and online.

Figure 22: “Have you attended a Fair Housing Training? If YES, was it free or was there a fee? If YES, where was the training?”
6 5
4 1
7 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Not Shown
Apartment or Unit
For Sale
Higher Security
Deposit than
Industry Standard
Higher Rent than
Advertised
Provided Different
Housing Services
or Facilities
Other (please
describe)
Yes
14%
No
86%
Free
85%
Required
a Fee
15%
A-25 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 206, Packet Page 818 City of Monterey | Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 19 As shown in Figure 23, about 22 percent of respondents noted they had seen a Fair Housing Public Service Announcement (PSA); however, majority of respondents (78 percent) had not. Out of the respondents that had seen a PSA, about 62.5 percent had seen it on a television, followed by radio (34.4 percent), then online (31.3 percent).

Figure 23: “Have you ever seen or heard a Fair Housing Public Service Announcement (PSA) on TV/Radio/Online/Flyer?”
5%
45%
15%
35%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Home Work City of Monterey Other (please
describe):

Yes
22%
No
78%

62.5%

34.4%

31.3%

25.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
TV Radio Online Flier
A-26 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 207, Packet Page 819

MEMORANDUM
To: Anastacia Wyatt, Housing Manager, City of Monterey
From: Andrew Hill, Principal, and Karen Chavez, Planner Re: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) Stakeholder Interviews Summary Date: June 2024
Dear Anastacia:

As one of the first tasks in drafting the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), Dyett and Bhatia, held seven focus groups, between May 6, 2024, and May 10, 2024, to connect with stakeholders and provide a forum for members to learn and participate about the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) report. Held virtually over Zoom, each focus group garnered discussion on fair housing topics such as housing challenges, vulnerable populations, and potential solutions. Approximately twenty-five (29) individuals, including housing developers, service providers, property managers, fair housing advocates, and realtors participated in the sessions.

Recurring Themes and Points of General Consensus
This document serves as a summary of the insights received through the stakeholder interview process.

Insights are grouped under overarching topics, although there are overlapping themes/ideas that relate to multiple topics. A summary of recurring themes and points of consensus is also provided. The themes are divided into challenges, vulnerable populations, and opportunities.

CHALLENGES
• Lack of Housing Supply. There was strong consensus among stakeholders that there is a shortage of housing supply in the City of Monterey, Monterey Peninsula, and Monterey County as a whole.

Stakeholders mentioned that even if cost was not a factor, it is still difficult to find housing due to little supply. Stakeholders also emphasized the urgent need to keep housing up with the demands of the County, especially as the region is absorbing some of the lack of housing of adjacent urban centers such as San Jose and Santa Clara. Lastly, stakeholders mentioned the specific need for affordable housing in order to retain population that are at-risk of displacement after living in the City and County for years.
• Cost Burden. Stakeholders overwhelmingly agreed with the high cost of housing in the area, noting the cost burden that falls on residents who are extremely low and low income. Particularly, application costs impose a huge barrier to low-income households in applying for housing, as many application costs end up stacking up if fees are charged per tenant or if they are not able to find a place. Additionally, concerns were raised about tenants needing to make three times the rent in order to qualify to apply, when many people do not make the requirement. • Water Supply. Stakeholders reiterated the biggest challenge in developing and constructing housing in the area is the lack of water supply/credits available. Often addressed as the “elephant in A-27 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 208, Packet Page 820

MEMORANDUM
the room,” stakeholders noted that there is not enough water supply to meet with the population growth demands.
• Overcrowding. Large households and families are moving away from the region because they are tired of living in a garage or a substandard housing location. Stakeholders mentioned there is a lack of housing fitted for large households and that families that have been here for [decades] and have not found a housing situation that meets the needs of their family, so they are moving to different areas [within California] that are affordable.
• Discrimination. Stakeholders spoke about the discrimination felt within the City of Monterey, particularly in the search for an apartment for non-White populations. Monterey and the Peninsula are viewed and felt as an unwelcoming environment for certain populations due to cultural factors.

Many minorities often rent in cities like Seaside, Marina, and Salinas, where there is more available housing supply and there is more comfortability. Stakeholders also emphasized the largest challenge with discrimination that it is often difficult to prove due to the many microaggressions and comments faced. Many comments are not overt or written, so there can seemingly not be enough evidence to take matters to a fair housing agency or similar organization. • Reasonable Accommodations. Stakeholders noted a variety of reasonable accommodations requested by tenants; these include installing a handlebar in restroom, allowing for an emotional support animal, and finding a space to recharge a resident’s cart for mobility. A challenge that arises with reasonable accommodations is the question of who’s responsibility it is to pay the accommodation, either the tenant or landlord.
• Deferred Maintenance. Concerns were raised about deferred maintenance in rental units mainly, noting this issue filters its way down to the overall price of rent. Older, less well-maintained homes with potential health and safety issues are going for a cheaper price. Tenants who are searching for affordability may end up in substandard units. Many stakeholders linked deferred maintenance to a lack of supply and production.
• Fear of Retaliation. Stakeholders noted that tenants do not raise awareness of certain issues like a heater not working or faucet leaking, due to the fear of retaliation from landlord or property management company. Stakeholders mentioned tenants fear lease renewal may be costly or they may not receive their security deposit back at all if they do speak up. • Language Access. Some stakeholders noted that there can be a language barrier between landlords and property managers with their tenants. For example, landlords will negotiate a contract in Spanish, but will not provide a Spanish language copy of the contract to the tenant. This can cause tenants to breach their contract because they are less likely able to read it. However, many stakeholders had a positive perspective on language and noted that most property management companies or landlords hire Spanish speaking staff and have leases available in Spanish. • Lack of Regional Funding. Stakeholders emphasized that the City of Monterey has not built substantial amounts of housing since the 1990’s, mentioning about 30 years of inactivity.

Participants mentioned there could be more housing development within the City or County if there was a regional entity or fund that could be used solely for housing; though, it would be difficult to pass a vote or law as such now.
• Digital Divide. Concerns were raised about creating a digital application process or digital lease, as stakeholders noted there is a digital divide present in the area. Stakeholders particularly noted A-28 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 209, Packet Page 821

MEMORANDUM
that older adults, farmworkers, and residents who don’t speak English may have difficulty with technology because they don’t often use computers.

VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
• Older adults/seniors. Within the Monterey Peninsula, older adults are fast growing population that are often at risk of displacement due to their fixed incomes. Stakeholders often mentioned seniors as a vulnerable population due to their special needs, such as daily assistance with life. • People with disabilities. Stakeholders mentioned how difficult it can be to find housing as a person with disabilities because housing design is not always adaptable or accessible. Stakeholders mentioned there are subsidized rentals for persons with disabilities in Monterey, but there isn’t much availability.
• Families. Families are often a vulnerable population when seeking housing due to the size of their family. Stakeholders mentioned it may be more expensive for families to apply for housing due to application fees per person stacking up. Stakeholders are also mentioned there is a lack of housing supply that can accommodate families.
• Single men. Concerns were raised about the lack of resources for single individuals, particularly men, facing housing insecurity, highlighting disparities in available support services based on sex.

A couple of stakeholders mentioned there are decent services for women within the Monterey Peninsula, but they may not be a lot geared for men.
• Extremely low- and low-income households. ELI and lower income households are a vulnerable population due to their income. Stakeholders mentioned that landlords or property managers often require tenants to show they have income that is three times the amount of rent, which is a barrier for lower income households.
• Farmworkers. Stakeholders mentioned agriculture and farmworkers are also a vulnerable population due to their low-income and lack of access to healthcare. Often times, farmworkers cannot live on a sole income and live with others, which can cause overcrowding. Participants mentioned cities in south Monterey County, such as Greenfield and King City, that are developing farmworker housing and can serve as an example for Monterey Peninsula cities.

A-29 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 210, Packet Page 822

MEMORANDUM

OPPORTUNITIES
• Centralized Application Portal. Many stakeholders discussed the challenges in the apartment application process, sharing concerns about affordability and discrimination. Specifically, stakeholders mentioned the cost of applying to apartment can add up quickly with many high applications fees. Certain property manager companies allow the application fee to rollover to other properties within the organization, but most expire within a couple months. Stakeholders theorized a potential solution that could involve the creation of a centralized application portal, where applicants can pay a standard fee to access many properties and apply through this portal. Many stakeholders supported this idea. However, other stakeholders felt it would be difficult to coordinate within property managers and feared it could marginalize communities with novice knowledge of technology.
• Fair Housing Law and Education. Stakeholders emphasized that education plays a crucial role in mitigating bias and discrimination in fair housing. Specifically, stakeholders stressed the need for ongoing training and education for mom-and-pop landlords to ensure they understand and are up to date on tenant rights, fair housing laws, and any government services available to them and their tenants. Stakeholders recommended continuous training for staff members and independent operators to ensure compliance with regulations.
• Partnerships with Lenders. Stakeholders also suggested partnerships with lenders can aid firsttime homebuyers with the process. Often, homebuyers can secure the house, but may struggle with the cost upkeep of their home. A Stakeholder suggested that lenders can provide homeownership counseling to buyers to help them with understand their obligations of their investments, and to maintain buyers and families in their home.
• Employer-Sponsored and Workforce Housing. Stakeholders discussed collaboration opportunities between entities like the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, church properties in Monterey and the County, and nonprofit developers to address funding gaps hindering affordable housing initiatives. Discussions included examples such as the Salinas Unified School District building 50 below-market rate units in a 100-unit budling on Abbott Street in Salinas.
• Childcare Cooperative. Stakeholders discussed childcare as a major expense for working families and parents. A suggestion was made about creating a childcare cooperative, where full day care is provided and parents contribute by volunteering hours, which reduced overhead costs and allows for community-building.

A-30 DRAFT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 10., Item Page 211, Packet Page 823 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognize May 2025 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognize May 2025 as Asian
American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Preserve, promote, and maintain our City’s historic and cultural resources through responsible stewardship and
historic preservation that highlights the contributions and perspectives of all people who are a part of Monterey’s diverse history.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey recognizes and celebrates Asian
American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in honor
of the culture, accomplishments, and contributions of the Asian American and Pacific Islander communities in
Monterey and across the United States. The City
proudly supports the continued quality of life for Asian Americans and Pacific Islander individuals and their
families.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no costs incurred in connection with
supporting this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed
action is not a project as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14,
Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section
15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061
Agenda Report Highlights
 The Council will recognize May
2025 as Asian American and Pacific
Islander Heritage Month, a
nationally recognized heritage
month.
 First recognized in 1978 by the
House and Senate as Asian/Pacific
American Heritage Week, the
celebration was later extended to
the entire month of May in 1992.
 The Monterey Peninsula has had
residents of Asian and Pacific
Islander heritage since the early
1800s.
 Historically, the fishing industry was
heavily influenced by Chinese and
Japanese immigrants, with Chinese
immigrants establishing the first
fishing villages in the 1850s and the
first cannery being opened by a
Japanese businessman in 1869.
 The City is proud to recognize the
AAPI community and its lasting
impact on the Monterey Peninsula.

Date: 5/6/2025
Item No.: 15.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 1, Packet Page 824 №10/24
includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

City Council could choose not to recognize May 2025 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month; however, that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

Spearheaded by New York Representative Frank Horton and Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye in 1978, the House and Senate passed a joint resolution proclaiming the first ten days of May as Asian/Pacific American Heritage Week. The ten days were to be a chance to celebrate Asian and Pacific Islander citizens and culture, and honor those who have heritage from the Asian continent and the Pacific Islands of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. The celebration was extended to the entire month of May in 1992 and in 2009, renamed to Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month.

Those with Asian and Pacific Islander heritage have been living on the Monterey Peninsula since the early 1800s. Chinese immigrants arrived in the 1850s and established a fishing village at Point Alones, where the Hopkins Marine Station and the end of Cannery Row now stand. In the early 1900s, anti-Chinese sentiments were at an all-time high across the country and the village was burned down, likely from arson fueled by racism. The village was never able to recover following the destruction. Despite the injustices, the community has endured for more than a century and their descendants continue to live on the Peninsula. Each year in May, the ‘Walk of Remembrance’ is held to honor the community of the Point Alones fishing village and to celebrate the life of local activist Gerry Low-Sabado. A descendant of Quock Mui, who was born at Point Lobos in 1859, Low-Sabado organized the first Walk of Remembrance to recognize the displacement of the community following the Point Alones fire. The Walk of Remembrance trail runs from the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History to the Hopkins Marine Station, the site where the fishing village once stood.

In 1869, the first Japanese settlement was established and the first cannery, Pacific Mutual Fish Company, was owned and operated by Otosaburo Noda, a Japanese businessman. Noda saw the abundance of fish and abalone and soon set up a small fishing colony with other Japanese immigrants. In August of 1909, the end of salmon season, the Monterey Daily Cypress reported that there were 185 salmon boats fishing the bay; 145 of these boats were Japanese owned. Monterey had its own nibon-machi, or Japantown, bound by Alvarado, Adams, and Pearl Streets. In addition, several Chinese businesses operated on Washington Street and Franklin Street.

Japanese- and Chinese-owned businesses included homes, saloons, billiard parlors, hotels, restaurants, and stores. The Japanese community and businesses also faced anti-Asian resentment and organizations from American farm and labor bureaus nationwide between 1910 Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 2, Packet Page 825 №10/24
and 1940s, culminating in the 1942 executive order that mandated all persons of Japanese ancestry to be forcibly moved to incarceration centers and eventually to internment camps.

When the order was finally lifted in late 1944, a petition was published in the Monterey Peninsula Herald, welcoming Monterey’s Japanese-Americans back home. The petition had over 440 signatures, with many of the signatures coming from local workers like Sicilian fisherman and some well-known names like John Steinbeck, Ed Ricketts, and Robinson Jeffers.

The theme of 2025 Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month is ‘Legacy of Leadership and Resilience’ as designated by the Federal Asian Pacific American Council (FAPAC). The City of Monterey is proud to recognize and celebrate Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. The AAPI community in Monterey has been and continues to be part of the community’s history and future.
[HU/HG]
Attachments: 1. Proclamation
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 3, Packet Page 826

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 15., Item Page 4, Packet Page 827 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Karen Larson, Parks and Recreation Director
Prepared By: Shannon Leon, Recreation Manager
Bill Rothschild, Sports Center Manager
SUBJECT: Approve a Concession Agreement for the Monterey Sports Center Cafe with 831 Catering with Conditions (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council approve a concession agreement
with 831 Catering for the Monterey Sports Center Cafe
operations with conditions.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources
through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining
operations, reasonable revenue enhancements,
visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and
community partnerships.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Awarding concession agreements is consistent with past
Council policy and is used for other types of services
throughout the City. This concession agreement will
augment the City’s capacity for providing excellent
programs and amenities at the Monterey Sports Center,
as well as help with revenue generation and cost
recovery.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Sports Center currently collects minimal revenue
from vending machine sales with $2,182 received since
July 2024. With the new concession agreement, base
rent is $6,000 annually. Combined with revenue from
gross receipts, the projected revenues are estimated at $15,000 in FY 25-26. This will grow as additional catered events, rentals, and internal promotional opportunities are implemented such as “Taco Tuesdays” or “Pizza Fridays” and box lunches for Sports Camps. Anticipated retention of members, due to access to a consistent food service, will have a positive impact on membership sales and revenues as well.

Agenda Report Highlights
 Reopening the Sports Cafe will
enhance the member experience,
encourage social interaction, and
help retain members by providing
consistent, high-quality food service.
 This new cafe model supports the
City’s fiscal goals by using
alternative service delivery methods
that are more cost-effective and
sustainable.
 Switching to a concession model
with 831 Catering is expected to
boost annual revenues to $15,000,
compared to past losses of
$18,000/year under the staff-run
model.
 After a detailed proposal and
evaluation process, 831 Catering
was chosen for its strong service
history, creative programming ideas,
and alignment with the Sports
Center's mission and community
focus.

Date: 5/6/2025
Item No.: 16.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 1, Packet Page 828 №10/24
This concession model for the Sports Center Cafe is expected to be much more financially feasible for the City than the previous model of a staff-run cafe, which brought in less revenue than the staff cost to operate it. In the two full fiscal years prior to the pandemic, the cafe averaged a net revenue loss of $18,000 per year.

The concession model aligns with the City’s Fiscal Health Response Plan’s “CORE” Strategy, which includes “operational reductions or services provided by someone else, where appropriate.”
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed access is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA Guidelines Article20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could elect not to award the agreement; however, this is not recommended by staff.

The Cafe at the Sports Center was long a central feature of Sports Center operations, driving social interaction and contributing to revenue both directly and indirectly through increasing member retention. Having the Sports Cafe closed since the pandemic has created the perception of a reduced level of service among MSC members. Offering this amenity with a professional staff and quality food and beverage options will significantly increase the opportunities for both social interaction and membership retention.

DISCUSSION:

History of the Sports Cafe
For nearly 20 years, the Monterey Sports Center operated the Sports Cafe in-house. The Cafe was a popular and much appreciated amenity that grew out of a demand for service over the years. When originally built in 1992, the facility did not contain food service. Guest requests started for basic items like water, sports drinks and sodas. Vending machines were installed near the elevators, but soon there was a growing demand for food items like protein bars, bananas, bagels and coffee. A small snack bar and a few tables were added under the staircase by the Natatorium entrance in the back lobby.

This amenity was so popular that the Sports Cafe was constructed in a more central location of the facility during the Sports Center expansion in 2002. This provided a full-service food option for guests and staff. The Sports Cafe became a beloved gathering place for guests of all ages, including students doing their homework while enjoying a snack, or older adults enjoying coffee and breakfast after their morning workout. One guest even celebrated his 90th birthday with his Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 2, Packet Page 829 №10/24
friends and family. With membership now exceeding levels prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, members and guests are consistently requesting this service to be restored.

Sports Cafe Closed During Pandemic Due to Net Revenue Loss During COVID-19, the Sports Cafe was closed, along with the rest of the facility, because the cost to operate the cafe exceeded revenues. As stated earlier, in the two full fiscal years leading up to the pandemic, the staff-run cafe operated at an averaged net loss of $18,000 per year and required an average of 5,600 direct staff hours to operate the cafe. These hours did not include any indirect labor related to cafe staff recruitment, hiring, training, scheduling, and supervision.

As a cost savings measure, while the Sports Center financially recovered from the pandemic, the Sports Cafe remained closed.

Selection of a Concession-based Cafe Operator
In an effort to replace this service, which Sports Center customers expect, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Monterey Sports Center Cafe operations. The City completed two RFP processes seeking a qualified vendor to operate the Cafe. The first RFP had three submittals, but none of the submittals met the criteria stipulated in the RFP and were rejected.

The City then issued a second RFP on November 4, 2024, further detailing the criteria sought for the Cafe operations. The City received three proposals in response to the RFP from Moises Munoz, 831 Catering, and HZIP. The MSC staff met with the vendors that submitted the proposals that best met the criteria identified in the RFP. The proposals were evaluated on overall quality, detail and clarity, potential challenges in providing the service, efficiency of operations and the ability to operate in a busy environment.

Vendors also offered service suggestions that would benefit members, guests and staff, including options for easy ordering, convenience and menu options. Potential vendors were evaluated based on experience with food service laws, management plans, staffing models, staff and owner qualifications and references. Knowledge of the Sports Center and closeness of offices to be responsive to the needs of the Cafe were important. Compliance and exceptions to the criteria in the RFP were considered along with the financial and operational stability of the vendors and associated costs and projected revenues. Adherence to the Monterey Sports Center mission of commitment “to providing quality service to our diverse community in ways that are helpful, caring, responsive and cost-effective and adherence to the City's Healthy Eating Active Living Initiative were also evaluated. Finally, menu affordability and quality, and overall ability to serve the needs of the Monterey Sport Center were discussed.

Following the evaluation and interviews of the top candidates, 831 Catering was selected as the best option for the City. For quality assurance, food samples were provided for staff and were considered to be exceptional. Additionally, 831 Catering has also provided meals and service for special events in the City including at the Scholze Park Center and Monterey Conference Center. The quality of the food and level of service has been excellent.

The owner of 831 Catering, Joseph Talley, has operated a highly successful catering service since 2020. Mr. Talley operates a kitchen and cafe, 831 Beach Kitchen, at 1098 Del Monte Avenue in Monterey. His interest in operating the Cafe includes his desire to support the mission of the Sports Center to serve the community. 831 Catering has proposed creative ideas to expand the level of service by offering programs such as box lunches for children enrolled in Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 3, Packet Page 830 №10/24
Sports Camp programs and “Taco Tuesdays” and “Pizza Fridays” on the Sports Center sundeck as special promotions. 831 Catering is also available to provide catering for birthday parties and special events. 831 Catering would be a valuable partner in staff efforts to make the Sports Center a destination spot for private parties and special events and enhance opportunities to increase revenue without impacting existing programs and services.

Along with generating revenue, the Sports Cafe adds value to Sports Center memberships, programs and services, as well as serving as a retention mechanism for both guests and staff. It is helpful to have convenient, healthy food options on-site that nourish the community as they work and play at the Monterey Sports Center.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, which:

1. Awards a Concession Agreement for the Monterey Sports Center Cafe operations to 831 Catering with an initial term of three (3) years, plus an option for one 3-year extension, to operate and maintain a food and beverage service facility at the Sports Center’s Cafe space with conditions for operating hours, required permits, sustainability, utilities, maintenance, equipment and fixtures, annual performance evaluation and other permitted uses and conditions.

2. Requires 831 Catering to pay the City a base rent of $500 per month for the first three (3) months and a base rent of $500 per month or five (5%) percent of monthly gross receipts whichever amount is greater after the initial three months.

3. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the agreement with 831 Catering.

KL/sl
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Hans Uslar, City Manager
Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
Christine Davi, City Attorney
Rafaela King, Finance Director
Stella Sandoval, Assistant Finance Director
Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director
Janna Aldrete, Property Manager
Bill Rothschild, Sports Center Manager
Shannon Leon, Recreation Manager
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 4, Packet Page 831 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24

APPROVING A CONCESSION AGREEMENT FOR
THE MONTEREY SPORTS CENTER CAFE WITH 831 CATERING WITH CONDITIONS WHEREAS, on November 4, 2024, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Monterey Sports Center Cafe operations;
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2024, the City received three (3) responsive proposals from interested vendors;
WHEREAS, staff formed a selection committee to independently review and score each firm’s proposal based upon specific criteria in the RFP; WHEREAS, following deliberations, the selection committee determined that 831 Catering was the best qualified firm;
WHEREAS, a new concession agreement with 831 Catering is necessary to support the Monterey Sports Center Cafe operations and provide a membership and guest amenity; WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department will ensure that the Monterey Sports Center continues to meet its 75% cost recovery guideline established in Resolution 92-061; WHEREAS, the City’s cost of offering Parks and Recreation programs and services continues to rise due to increases in minimum wage, supplies, materials, vendor costs and economic impacts;
WHEREAS, the City provides a variety of services to the public which benefit the entire community, individuals, or businesses;
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department has evaluated the Monterey Sports Cafe operations and determined the most responsible course of action is to award a concession agreement for the Monterey Sports Center Cafe in order to address ongoing fiscal challenges and allow the Parks and Recreation Department to maintain its contribution to the General Fund while continuing to keep Recreation programs affordable as a service to the community; and

WHEREAS, 831 Catering is offering to provide affordable food and beverages that will help support Monterey Sports Center members, programs participants, and facility rentals and; WHEREAS, The City of Monterey determined that the proposed access is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 CEQA Guidelines Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 5, Packet Page 832 proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability;

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 it hereby:

1. Awards a Concession Agreement for the Monterey Sports Center Cafe operations to 831 Catering with an initial term of three (3) years, plus an option for one 3-year extension, to operate and maintain a food and beverage service facility at the Sports Center’s Café space with conditions for operating hours, required permits, sustainability, utilities, maintenance, equipment and fixtures, annual performance evaluation and other permitted uses and conditions.

2. 831 Catering shall pay the City a base rent of $500 per month for the first three (3) months and a base rent of $500 per month or five (5%) percent of monthly gross receipts whichever amount is greater after the initial three months.

3. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the agreement with 831 Catering.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 16., Item Page 6, Packet Page 833 Council
Agenda Report
№10/24
FROM: Karen Larson, Parks & Recreation Director
Prepared By: Vickie Rahman, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution to Allocate Funding for Special Event Support Program (SESP) (Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution to allocate
$72,840 in Special Event Support Program (SESP)
funding as recommended by staff and authorize the City
Manager, or designee, to enter into funding agreements
with the grant recipients.

VALUE DRIVERS:

In collaboration with our community partners, work to
improve the quality of life of all of our community
members by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion;
championing equitable access to affordable housing; and maintaining a safe environment. The Council also is
committed to ensuring that Monterey is a safe, affordable, and inclusive place to live, work, and visit.

Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources
through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining
operations, reasonable revenue enhancements, visionary
long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and community
partnerships.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

None. This action is consistent with the Council’s
commitment to ensuring that Monterey is a safe,
affordable, and inclusive place to live, work, and visit by supporting community partnerships that may result from
special events in the City of Monterey, including
community identity, civic pride, and economic vitality. In addition, this recommendation is consistent with the SESP Guidelines.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: Yes.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is considering a
resolution to allocate $72,840 to 17
organizations who applied for SESP
funding.
 The program aims to support
community partnerships that may
result from special events and
promote special events in Monterey.
 Funding for SESP was included in
the FY 24-25 Adopted Budget and
this action will approve the
allocations and authorize the City
Manager to enter into funding
agreements.
 Applicants participated in verbal
presentations to the SESP panel on
April 2, 2025, to provide more
information on their event(s).
 This is the eighth grant cycle for
SESP.

Date: 5/6/2025
Item No.: 17.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 1, Packet Page 834 №10/24
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

It is being recommended to approve the allocation of $72,840 to seventeen (17) organizations for (19) nineteen events as part of the Special Event Support Program (SESP). The funding level for the SESP program was previously approved by the Council as part of the FY 24-25 budget process.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
[The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could choose to deny the request or ask staff to reallocate the funds differently.

DISCUSSION:

Staff held the mandatory presentations on Wednesday, April 2, 2025, at The Monterey Conference Center. The panel consisted of three neutral parties from various areas of service delivery within the City, including the Monterey Conference Center, the Parks and Recreation Department, and the Police Department. Each applicant was given three minutes to present details of their event to the panel. The panel asked questions to the presenters to get additional information as needed. Following these presentations, staff met and reached an agreement on how to allocate the funds based on the criteria outlined in the SESP Guidelines.

Background:

The Special Event Support Program (SESP) Guidelines were revised and approved by the City Council on February 19, 2019. With this revision, there was a change to program evaluation criteria which focuses on overall benefits to the local community, youth, arts and culture, recreational activities, and education. Additionally, there was a change to include no term limits in which events are eligible to receive equal priority to receive funding. An additional revision to The Special Event Support Program (SESP) Guidelines was approved by the City Council on September 3, 2024. With this revision, language was updated to provide clarification and additional criteria and include, a funding agreement, advertisement of sponsorship, business license and vendor record requirements, and presentation requirements.

The Special Event Support Program (SESP) returned in FY23/24, after being placed on hold during COVID-19. This is the eighth grant cycle the City of Monterey has held for SESP.

Applications received requesting funding for FY2025/2026 events resulted in:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 2, Packet Page 835 №10/24
 17 organizations submitting grant applications for 19 events  17 of the 17 invited organizations appeared for the mandatory hearing presentation as required.

Staff recommends allocating the SESP funding recommendations as indicated in Exhibit A.

The City recognizes the substantial community benefits that result from special events. They provide cultural enrichment, promote economic vitality, and enhance community identity.

Special events also provide funding opportunities for service organizations. Cooperation between the City, event organizers and sponsors, and the community is vital to successful events. Therefore, staff recommends approving the committee’s recommendation for allocating the SESP funds, and that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into Funding Agreements with the grant recipients, containing the terms and conditions of receiving the grant.

KL/vr
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A
e: 2024/2025 SESP Applicants
Big Sur Marathon Foundation
Captain + Stoker
Cooper-Molera Adobe, The National Trust for Historic Preservation Festa Italia Foundation
First Night Monterey
Fisherman's Wharf Association
Gateway Center of Monterey County Inc.

Jade Events Unlimited
Monterey Bay Parent
Monterey Bay Pony Baseball and Softball
Monterey Firefighters Community Foundation
Monterey History & Art Association
Monterey Museum of Art
Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association
New Monterey Business Association
The Japanese American Citizens League of the Monterey Peninsula Whalefest Monterey
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 3, Packet Page 836 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24

ALLOCATING FUNDING FOR THE SPECIAL EVENT SUPPORT PROGRAM (SESP) FOR FISCAL YEAR 24/25 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO FUNDING

AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that substantial community benefits may result from special events in the City of Monterey as they can provide social, cultural, educational and recreational enrichment, promote economic vitality, community identity and civic pride and may also provide funding opportunities for service organizations; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey previously conducted seven funding cycles of the Special Event Support Program (SESP) starting in the Fall of 2015, through the Summer of 2019, with a return in the 23-24 fiscal year, following a suspension to the program during COVID-19;
WHEREAS, revisions in the SESP Guidelines were approved in February 2019 and September 2024 to allow the City of Monterey to promote special events in the city by providing grant recipients with assistance in covering City-related costs associated with holding their event in Monterey and also allowing the City to be fiscally responsible with public funds; WHEREAS, applicants gave presentations on Wednesday, April 2, 2025, at the Monterey Conference Center, and the panel reached an agreement on how to allocate the funds based upon the criteria approved by Council; and
WHEREAS, The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

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 it hereby adopts the staff recommendation for allocation of SESP funds for the FY24/25 attached hereto as Exhibit A based on the terms and conditions set forth in the Funding Agreements, and it hereby authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to enter into Funding Agreements with the grant recipients.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 4, Packet Page 837 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 6th day of May, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 5, Packet Page 838 



      








!!"
"#$%

&
'
(!)*!
+&,-,.


'
(!)*!
/-&,-,. /0&---1--
/0&---1--
23

4 
5! 24

"
!67,.&8$"/9&,-,. .&---1--
:&---1--
2 3!;
$!
<
*!&
=
!
'

$
=6
%
 #6
>
?!6!(

6&
3!6
@

!6A
<



%
8$"2!$!*

2 3!;
$!
<
*!&
8$"0&,-,. .&---1--
,&---1--
!6
B$



!6
B$



!6($&
!3!)*!
0&,-,.


!3!)*!
C&,-,./-&---1--
:&.--1--
6
'



!!" ))!
'
6

<>
!
?5A
<
!!&
)$";!
$"
2!$!*

%
6>&
D
>
&


2 ))
"&
8$/9& ,-,. /&---1--
/&---1--
6
!)
76 E
%
<66
>

/F-

E
%

"
?"&
G>
*!
/,&,-,. .&---1--
:&---1--
H!I"
2!
!

%

!!"
2 
"
B
>1 

!!"
J
>5
@
J

!6($;/9&
8
!
,-&
,-,+ .&---1--
.&---1--
8 !
K(!
6
L
$)! 

!!"
"8 !
!6($&
8
!
/,&
,-,+


8
!
/0&
,-,+.&---1--
/&---1--


!!"
"?!
 2"

%

!!"
?56
#
3&
!3!)*!
/:&,-,. ,.&---1--
C&.--1--


!!"
"?

"
6!*$$



%*$$ 

!!"
"?

"
6!*$$



%*$$
2$
6

2!!)

!6&
"/C&,-,+.&---1--
,&---1--


!!"
!%
!6
2 ))
"




M 6
#!

J
&
>

,F&
,-,+ 0&---1--
,&---1--


!!"
!%
!6
2 ))
"





(!



!
?5&
<6
:&,-,. .&---1--
0&---1--


!!"
#6
@
"
<<66
>

N
!!
&
8
!
.&
,-,+


8
!
+&
,-,+ .&---1--
/0-1--


!!"
#6
@
"
<<66
>



!!"
#6
"
@
<G3!

#
6!&
!*"
/.&,-,+0&+--1--
:&---1--


!!"
6!)

%< <76
<

$
$
>5
?"A
<2

!>

2 ))
"&
<3$//&,-,+/-&---1--
C&.--1--


!!"
O6
'!
*


<66
>

,F

<

$
K$2$$!P

!
<$$!"
?"&
8$0&,-,. C--1--
C--1--
'!I


!!"
6
!66
<66
>


(!



!
?5&
!3!)*!
,-&,-,. /&---1--
/&---1--
=
!
83
!6!
<)!>

2Q!
6 N!!

%

!


!!"
?!

6$ 2!$!*

%

!


!!"
8<2N
#$$76
/--

<

(!6"
8$,+&,-,.


8$"
,C&,-,.&
'
(!)*!
,,&,-,.&
8
"
/-&,-,+&
8
"
/C&,-,+&
!*"
/+&,-,+&
>

/0&
,-,+&
<3$/9&,-,+&
<3$,.&,-,+&
",& ,-,+&
"/+&,-,+ /-&---1--
C&.--1--
E
$!%!6


!!" E
$!%!6


!!"
,-,+&
<3$//&,-,+


<3$
/,&,-,+.&---1--

.&---1--

RSTUVWWXWW Y

ZSU[\WXWW Y

]
   

  ^_

` 
SWS\aSWST  _



] Exhibit A
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 17., Item Page 6, Packet Page 839 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter on Behalf of the City Council Supporting AB 650 (Papan) Planning and Zoning: Housing Element: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter on behalf of the City Council supporting AB 650 (Papan) Planning and Zoning: Housing Element: Regional
Housing Needs Allocation.

VALUE DRIVERS:

In collaboration with our community partners, work to
improve the quality of life of all of our community
members by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion;
championing equitable access to affordable housing; and maintaining a safe environment.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

During the two-year State legislative session, State
Assemblymembers and State Senators propose
legislation that may impact local governments in
California, including the City of Monterey. It is within the City’s best interest for the City Council to take a position on proposed legislation that impacts the City before it is considered by the upper or lower houses of the State
Legislature, as well as before legislation is signed into law by the Governor.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no costs incurred for the City to take a position on this bill.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is recommended to
authorize the Mayor to support AB
650, which addresses housing
element updates.
 AB 650 would simplify the process
by providing clear standards and
allowing earlier updates for local
governments.
 The City of Monterey’s Sixth Cycle
Housing Element plans for 3,654
housing units across all income
levels.
 Current housing element
requirements are unclear,
subjective, and place a strain on
fiscal and staffing resources.

Date: 5/6/2025
Item No.: 18.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 1, Packet Page 840 №10/24
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to take a position on AB 650 (Papan) or take a position to oppose the bill.

DISCUSSION:

Since 1969, California’s local governments have planned and selected sites for housing at all income levels through the housing element portion of a local government’s general plan. Every five to eight years, local governments are required to adopt a blueprint outlining where sufficient zoning capacity exists to support residential developments within their respective communities and obtain certification from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Local governments plan for their fair share of housing development as determined through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. As part of this complex process, local governments submit in their housing elements a variety of essential data, actions, and programs to promote fair, equitable, and affordable housing in their community. Currently, local jurisdictions are planning and zoning for nearly 2.5 million additional homes statewide.

On July 16, 2024, the City Council adopted the Monterey 2031 - General Plan Update, including the City's Sixth Cycle Housing Element. The housing element was subsequently certified by the HCD on October 4, 2024.The housing element identified locations for future housing development for all income levels. The plan addresses the housing development goals (3,654 units) established for the City.

Unfortunately, the current Housing Element requirements and standards for State certification have been very complicated and unclear. The ambiguous and subjective criteria that the City is measured against coupled with multiple HCD reviewers’ interpretation of State law leaves local governments in a vulnerable position. The current process results in multiple reviewers and changing perspectives as reviewers and staff change. Furthermore, there is subjective legal text that is narrowly interpreted by HCD staff, resulting in stiff penalties for noncompliance. There were also statutory deadlines that did not allow adequate time for environmental review and meaningful community feedback. This convoluted process places a significant burden on the City’s fiscal and staffing resources.

AB 650 would address these issues by allowing local governments to begin updating their housing element six months early. The bill would also require HCD to provide specific text and analysis that must be included in the housing element to remedy deficiencies, ensuring that local governments are not penalized when HCD identifies additional deficiencies not previously noted in prior review letters.

Attachments:

1. Draft Letter of Support

2. Senate Bill No. 650 (Papan), as amended March 28, 2025 Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 2, Packet Page 841 №10/24
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 3, Packet Page 842 ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT
May 7, 2025
The Honorable Diane Papan
Member, California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 4220
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 650 (Papan) Planning and Zoning: Housing Element: Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

Notice of SUPPORT (As of 3/28/25)
Dear Assembly Member Papan,
The City of Monterey is pleased to support your measure AB 650 (Papan), which would allow local governments to begin the housing element update process six months early, provide greater certainty and reduce ambiguity in the housing element review process, and ensure that local governments have adequate time to respond to the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) review letters.

Since 1969, California’s local governments have planned and selected sites for housing at all income levels through the housing element portion of a local government’s general plan.

Every five to eight years, local governments are required to adopt a blueprint outlining where sufficient zoning capacity exists to support residential developments within their respective communities and obtain certification from HCD. Local governments plan for their fair share of housing development as determined through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. As part of this complex process, local governments submit in their housing elements a variety of essential data, actions, and programs to promote fair, equitable, and affordable housing in their community. Currently, local jurisdictions are planning and zoning for nearly 2.5 million additional homes statewide.

On July 16, 2024, the City Council adopted the Monterey 2031 - General Plan Update, including the City's Sixth Cycle Housing Element. The housing element was subsequently certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development on October 4, 2024.The housing element identified locations for future housing development for all income levels. The plan addresses the housing development goals (3,654 units) established for the City.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 4, Packet Page 843

Unfortunately, the current Housing Element requirements and standards for State certification have been very complicated and unclear. The ambiguous and subjective criteria that the City is measured against coupled with multiple HCD reviewers’ interpretation of State law leaves local governments in a vulnerable position. The current process results in multiple reviewers and changing perspectives as reviewers and staff change. Furthermore, there is subjective legal text that is narrowly interpreted by HCD staff, resulting in stiff penalties for noncompliance. There were also statutory deadlines that did not allow adequate time for environmental review and meaningful community feedback. This convoluted process places a significant burden on the City’s fiscal and staffing resources.

AB 650 would address these issues by allowing local governments to begin updating their housing element six months early. The bill would also require HCD to provide specific text and analysis that must be included in the housing element to remedy deficiencies, ensuring that local governments are not penalized when HCD identifies additional deficiencies not previously noted in prior review letters.

For these reasons, the City of Monterey is pleased to support your measure AB 650 (Papan).

Sincerely,
Tyller Williamson
Mayor
cc. Senator John Laird
Assemblymember Dawn Addis
Deanna Sessums, League of California Cities, [email protected] League of California Cities, [email protected]
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 5, Packet Page 844 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 28, 2025
california legislature—2025–26 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 650
Introduced by Assembly Member Papan
February 13, 2025
An act to amend Section 38405 Sections 65583, 65584, 65584.01, 65584.04, 65584.05, 65585, and 65589.5 of the Government Code, relating to parks. land use.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 650, as amended, Papan. Discontinuance of parks. Planning and zoning: housing element: regional housing needs allocation. (1) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, which includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires a public agency to administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. Existing law defines “affirmatively furthering fair housing,” as provided.

The Planning and Zoning Law requires that a housing element include, among other things, a program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period. Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop a standardized reporting format for programs and actions taken pursuant to the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing.

This bill would require the department to develop the above-described standardized reporting format on or before December 31, 2026. 98 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 6, Packet Page 845 (2)  Existing law requires, for the 4th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, the department to determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified. Existing law requires the department, in consultation with the council of governments, to determine the existing and projected need of housing for each region at least 2 years prior to the scheduled revision of the housing element, as provided. Existing law requires the department to meet and consult with the council of governments regarding the assumptions and methodology to be used to determine the region’s housing needs at least 26 months prior to the scheduled revision of the housing element, as provided.

This bill would extend the above-described timeline for the department to determine the existing and projected need of housing for each region from 2 years to 30 months prior to the scheduled revision of the housing element, and the above-described timeline to meet and consult with a council of governments from at least 26 months to at least 32 months prior to the scheduled revision of the housing element, respectively. (3)  Existing law, at least 2 years before a scheduled revision of the housing element, as specified, requires each council of governments, or delegate subregion as applicable, to develop, in consultation with the department, a proposed methodology for distributing the existing and projected regional housing need to jurisdictions, as specified.

Existing law, at least 1 1⁄2 years before a scheduled revision of the housing element, as specified, requires each council of governments and delegate subregion, as applicable, to distribute a draft allocation of regional housing needs to each local government in the region or subregion, where applicable, and the department, as specified.

This bill, except with respect to the 7th housing element cycle for councils of governments with a housing element revision due date during the 2027 calendar year, would instead require that the above-described methodology be developed from at least 2 1⁄2 years before a scheduled revision of the housing element, and that the distribution of the draft allocation plan be made at least 2 years before a scheduled revision of the housing element, respectively.
(4)  Existing law requires a planning agency to submit a copy of its draft housing element or amendments to its housing element or housing element revision to the department for review, and requires the department to notify the city, county, or city and county with written findings if the department finds that the housing element or the amendment does not substantially comply with specified law. If the 98 AB 650 — 2 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 7, Packet Page 846 department finds that the draft housing element or draft amendment is not in substantial compliance, existing law requires the jurisdiction to either update the draft to substantially comply with specified law, or adopt the draft housing element or amendment without changes, as provided.

This bill would require the department, if the department finds that a draft element or draft amendment does not substantially comply, as described above, to (A) identify and explain the specific deficiencies in the draft element or draft amendment and (B) provide the specific analysis or text that the department expects the planning agency to include in the draft element or draft amendment to remedy those deficiencies, as specified. The bill would require a jurisdiction, in updating a noncompliant housing element or amendment under the above-described provisions, to include the specific analysis or text in its draft element or amendment. The bill would also exempt a jurisdiction from certain requirements to approve a so-called “builder’s remedy project” under specified law for the period during which the department is reviewing that jurisdiction’s updated draft element or draft amendment after submission of the updated element or amendment, as described above, or for 90 days from the date the department notifies the planning agency of additional deficiencies with the draft, as provided. The bill would make various conforming changes in this regard.
(5)  By imposing additional duties on local governments, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.

Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law authorizes a legislative body, defined as a board of trustees, city council, or other governing body of a city, to abandon a park and sell the land comprising it pursuant to a prescribed procedure.

This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no yes.

State-mandated local program: no yes.
98 — 3 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 8, Packet Page 847 The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 65583 of the Government Code is line 2 amended to read:
line 3 65583. The housing element shall consist of an identification line 4 and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a line 5 statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial line 6 resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, line 7 improvement, and development of housing. The housing element line 8 shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, line 9 factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and line 10 shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs line 11 of all economic segments of the community. The housing element line 12 shall contain all of the following:
line 13 (a)  An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of line 14 resources and constraints that are relevant to the meeting of these line 15 needs. The assessment and inventory shall include all of the line 16 following:
line 17 (1)  An analysis of population and employment trends and line 18 documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality’s line 19 existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. These line 20 existing and projected needs shall include the locality’s share of line 21 the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584. line 22 (2)  An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, line 23 including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing line 24 characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock line 25 condition.
line 26 (3)  An inventory of land suitable and available for residential line 27 development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and line 28 demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning line 29 period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income line 30 level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public line 31 facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the line 32 relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the line 33 jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. line 34 (4)  (A)  The identification of one or more zoning designations line 35 that allow residential uses, including mixed uses, where emergency line 36 shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use line 37 or other discretionary permit and that are suitable for residential line 38 uses. The identified zoning designations shall include sufficient 98 AB 650 — 4 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 9, Packet Page 848 line 1 sites meeting the requirements of subparagraph (H) with sufficient line 2 capacity, as described in subparagraph (I), to accommodate the line 3 need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7), except that line 4 each local government shall identify a zoning designation or line 5 designations that can accommodate at least one year-round line 6 emergency shelter. If the local government cannot identify a zoning line 7 designation or designations with sufficient capacity, the local line 8 government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance line 9 to meet the requirements of this paragraph within one year of the line 10 adoption of the housing element. The local government may line 11 identify additional zoning designations where emergency shelters line 12 are permitted with a conditional use permit. The local government line 13 shall also demonstrate that existing or proposed permit processing, line 14 development, and management standards that apply to emergency line 15 shelters are objective and encourage and facilitate the development line 16 of, or conversion to, emergency shelters.
line 17 (B)  Emergency shelters shall only be subject to the following line 18 written, objective standards:
line 19 (i)  The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be line 20 served nightly by the facility.
line 21 (ii)  Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the line 22 emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more line 23 parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial line 24 uses within the same zone.
line 25 (iii)  The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting line 26 and client intake areas.
line 27 (iv)  The provision of onsite management.
line 28 (v)  The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that line 29 emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart. line 30 (vi)  The length of stay.
line 31 (vii)  Lighting.
line 32 (viii)  Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in line 33 operation.
line 34 (C)  For purposes of this paragraph, “emergency shelter” shall line 35 include other interim interventions, including, but not limited to, line 36 a navigation center, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative line 37 care.
line 38 (D)  The permit processing, development, and management line 39 standards applied under this paragraph shall not be deemed to be line 40 discretionary acts within the meaning of the California 98 — 5 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 10, Packet Page 849 line 1 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section line 2 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
line 3 (E)  If a local government has adopted written, objective line 4 standards pursuant to subparagraph (B), the local government shall line 5 include an analysis of the standards in the analysis of constraints line 6 pursuant to paragraph (5).
line 7 (F)  A local government that can demonstrate, to the satisfaction line 8 of the department, the existence of one or more emergency shelters line 9 either within its jurisdiction or pursuant to a multijurisdictional line 10 agreement that can accommodate that jurisdiction’s need and the line 11 needs of the other jurisdictions that are a part of the agreement for line 12 emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) may comply with line 13 the zoning requirements of subparagraph (A) by identifying a line 14 zoning designation where new emergency shelters are allowed line 15 with a conditional use permit.
line 16 (G)  A local government with an existing ordinance or ordinances line 17 that comply with this paragraph shall not be required to take line 18 additional action to identify zoning designations for emergency line 19 shelters. The housing element must only describe how existing line 20 ordinances, policies, and standards are consistent with the line 21 requirements of this paragraph.
line 22 (H)  The zoning designation or designations where emergency line 23 shelters are allowed, as described in subparagraph (A), shall include line 24 sites that meet at least one of the following standards:
line 25 (i)  Vacant sites zoned for residential use.
line 26 (ii)  Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow line 27 residential development, if the local government can demonstrate line 28 how the sites with this zoning designation that are being used to line 29 satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1) are located near amenities line 30 and services that serve people experiencing homelessness, which line 31 may include health care, transportation, retail, employment, and line 32 social services, or that the local government will provide free line 33 transportation to services or offer services onsite. line 34 (iii)  Nonvacant sites zoned for residential use or for line 35 nonresidential use that allow residential development that are line 36 suitable for use as a shelter in the current planning period, or which line 37 can be redeveloped for use as a shelter in the current planning line 38 period. A nonvacant site with an existing use shall be presumed line 39 to impede emergency shelter development absent an analysis based line 40 on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued 98 AB 650 — 6 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 11, Packet Page 850 line 1 during the planning period. The analysis shall consider current line 2 market demand for the current uses, market conditions, and line 3 incentives or standards to encourage shelter development. line 4 (I)  The zoning designation or designations shall have sufficient line 5 sites meeting the requirements of subparagraph (H) to line 6 accommodate the need for shelters identified pursuant to paragraph line 7 (7). The number of people experiencing homelessness that can be line 8 accommodated on any site shall be demonstrated by dividing the line 9 square footage of the site by a minimum of 200 square feet per line 10 person, unless the locality can demonstrate that one or more line 11 shelters were developed on sites that have fewer square feet per line 12 person during the prior planning period or the locality provides line 13 similar evidence to the department demonstrating that the site can line 14 accommodate more people experiencing homelessness. Any line 15 standard applied pursuant to this subparagraph is intended only line 16 for calculating site capacity pursuant to this section, and shall not line 17 be construed as establishing a development standard applicable to line 18 the siting, development, or approval of a shelter. line 19 (J)  Notwithstanding subparagraph (H), a local government may line 20 accommodate the need for emergency shelters identified pursuant line 21 to paragraph (7) on sites owned by the local government if it line 22 demonstrates with substantial evidence that the sites will be made line 23 available for emergency shelter during the planning period, they line 24 are suitable for residential use, and the sites are located near line 25 amenities and services that serve people experiencing line 26 homelessness, which may include health care, transportation, retail, line 27 employment, and social services, or that the local government will line 28 provide free transportation to services or offer services onsite. line 29 (5)  An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints line 30 upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing line 31 for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in line 32 paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities line 33 as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including line 34 land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site line 35 improvements, fees, and other exactions required of developers, line 36 local processing and permit procedures, historic preservation line 37 practices and policies and an assessment of how existing and line 38 proposed historic designations affect the locality’s ability to meet line 39 its share of the housing need pursuant to paragraph (1), and any line 40 locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply 98 — 7 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 12, Packet Page 851 line 1 of residential development. The analysis shall also demonstrate line 2 local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the line 3 locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in line 4 accordance with Section 65584 and from meeting the need for line 5 housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, line 6 transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant line 7 to paragraph (7).
line 8 (6)  An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental line 9 constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development line 10 of housing for all income levels, including the availability of line 11 financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests line 12 to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the line 13 analysis required by subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, and the line 14 length of time between receiving approval for a housing line 15 development and submittal of an application for building permits line 16 for that housing development that hinder the construction of a line 17 locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with line 18 Section 65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts line 19 to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between line 20 the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all line 21 income levels and the construction of that housing. line 22 (7)  (A)  An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those line 23 of the elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental line 24 disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and line 25 Institutions Code; extremely low income households; large line 26 families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; line 27 and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. The need line 28 for emergency shelter shall be assessed based on the capacity line 29 necessary to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time line 30 count conducted before the start of the planning period, the need line 31 for emergency shelter based on number of beds available on a line 32 year-round and seasonal basis, the number of shelter beds that go line 33 unused on an average monthly basis within a one-year period, and line 34 the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to line 35 permanent housing solutions. The need for emergency shelter may line 36 be reduced by the number of supportive housing units that are line 37 identified in an adopted 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness line 38 and that are either vacant or for which funding has been identified line 39 to allow construction during the planning period. An analysis of 98 AB 650 — 8 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 13, Packet Page 852 line 1 special housing needs by a city or county may include an analysis line 2 of the need for frequent user coordinated care housing services. line 3 (B)  For the seventh and subsequent revisions of the housing line 4 element, the analysis required in subparagraph (A) shall also line 5 include an analysis of the housing needs of acutely and extremely line 6 low income households.
line 7 (8)  An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with line 8 respect to residential development. Cities and counties are line 9 encouraged to include weatherization and energy efficiency line 10 improvements as part of publicly subsidized housing rehabilitation line 11 projects. This may include energy efficiency measures that line 12 encompass the building envelope, its heating and cooling systems, line 13 and its electrical system.
line 14 (9)  An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that line 15 are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the line 16 next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage line 17 prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. “Assisted housing line 18 developments,” for the purpose of this section, shall mean line 19 multifamily rental housing that receives governmental assistance line 20 under federal programs listed in subdivision (a) of Section line 21 65863.10, state and local multifamily revenue bond programs, line 22 local redevelopment programs, the federal Community line 23 Development Block Grant Program, or local in-lieu fees. “Assisted line 24 housing developments” shall also include multifamily rental units line 25 that were developed pursuant to a local inclusionary housing line 26 program or used to qualify for a density bonus pursuant to Section line 27 65916.
line 28 (A)  The analysis shall include a listing of each development by line 29 project name and address, the type of governmental assistance line 30 received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income line 31 use, and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could line 32 be lost from the locality’s low-income housing stock in each year line 33 during the 10-year period. For purposes of state and federally line 34 funded projects, the analysis required by this subparagraph need line 35 only contain information available on a statewide basis. line 36 (B)  The analysis shall estimate the total cost of producing new line 37 rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace line 38 the units that could change from low-income use, and an estimated line 39 cost of preserving the assisted housing developments. This cost line 40 analysis for replacement housing may be done aggregately for 98 — 9 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 14, Packet Page 853 line 1 each five-year period and does not have to contain a line 2 project-by-project cost estimate.
line 3 (C)  The analysis shall identify public and private nonprofit line 4 corporations known to the local government that have legal and line 5 managerial capacity to acquire and manage these housing line 6 developments.
line 7 (D)  The analysis shall identify and consider the use of all federal, line 8 state, and local financing and subsidy programs that can be used line 9 to preserve, for lower income households, the assisted housing line 10 developments, identified in this paragraph, including, but not line 11 limited to, federal Community Development Block Grant Program line 12 funds, tax increment funds received by a redevelopment agency line 13 of the community, and administrative fees received by a housing line 14 authority operating within the community. In considering the use line 15 of these financing and subsidy programs, the analysis shall identify line 16 the amounts of funds under each available program that have not line 17 been legally obligated for other purposes and that could be line 18 available for use in preserving assisted housing developments. line 19 (b)  (1)  A statement of the community’s goals, quantified line 20 objectives, and policies relative to affirmatively furthering fair line 21 housing and to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and line 22 development of housing.
line 23 (2)  It is recognized that the total housing needs identified line 24 pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and line 25 the community’s ability to satisfy this need within the content of line 26 the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing line 27 with Section 65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified line 28 objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. The line 29 quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of line 30 housing units by income category that can be constructed, line 31 rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time period. line 32 (c)  A program that sets forth a schedule of actions during the line 33 planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that may line 34 recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will line 35 be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, line 36 that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake line 37 to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of line 38 the housing element through the administration of land use and line 39 development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and line 40 incentives, the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing 98 AB 650 — 10 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 15, Packet Page 854 line 1 and subsidy programs when available, and the utilization of moneys line 2 in a low- and moderate-income housing fund of an agency if the line 3 locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to line 4 the Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing line 5 with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code). In order to line 6 make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic line 7 segments of the community, the program shall do all of the line 8 following:
line 9 (1)  Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available line 10 during the planning period with appropriate zoning and line 11 development standards and with services and facilities to line 12 accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the line 13 regional housing need for all income levels that could not be line 14 accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed line 15 pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and line 16 to comply with the requirements of Section 65584.09. Sites shall line 17 be identified as needed to affirmatively further fair housing and line 18 to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types line 19 of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental line 20 housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for line 21 agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy line 22 units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. line 23 (A)  Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of line 24 subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate line 25 the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to line 26 Section 65584, a program for rezoning of those sites, subject to line 27 the following deadlines:
line 28 (i)  For the adoption of the sixth revision of the housing element, line 29 jurisdictions with an eight-year housing element planning period line 30 pursuant to Section 65588, including adoption of minimum density line 31 and development standards or, for a jurisdiction in the coastal zone, line 32 any necessary local coastal program amendments related to land line 33 use designations, changes in intensity of land use, zoning line 34 ordinances, or zoning district maps, consistent with Sections 30512, line 35 30512.2, 30513, and 30514 of the Public Resources Code, shall line 36 be completed no later than three years after either the date the line 37 housing element is adopted pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section line 38 65585 or the date that is 90 days after receipt of comments from line 39 the department pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65585, line 40 whichever is earlier, unless the deadline is extended pursuant to 98 — 11 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 16, Packet Page 855 line 1 subdivision (f). Notwithstanding the foregoing, for a local line 2 government that fails to adopt a housing element that the line 3 department has found to be in substantial compliance with this line 4 article within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 line 5 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning of those sites, line 6 including adoption of minimum density and development standards line 7 or, for a jurisdiction in the coastal zone, any necessary local coastal line 8 program amendments related to land use designations, changes in line 9 intensity of land use, zoning ordinances, or zoning district maps, line 10 consistent with Sections 30512, 30512.2, 30513, and 30514 of the line 11 Public Resources Code, shall be completed no later than one year line 12 from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the line 13 housing element.
line 14 (ii)  For adoption of the seventh and all subsequent revisions of line 15 the housing element, rezonings shall be completed no later than line 16 one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption line 17 of the housing element.
line 18 (iii)  Notwithstanding clause (ii), for the adoption of the seventh line 19 and all subsequent revisions of the housing element, rezonings line 20 shall be completed no later than three years and 90 days after the line 21 statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing line 22 element, unless the deadline is extended pursuant to subdivision line 23 (f). This clause shall apply only if the local government complies line 24 with all of the following:
line 25 (I)  The local government submits a draft element or draft line 26 amendment to the department for review pursuant to paragraph line 27 (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 65585 at least 90 days before the line 28 statutory deadline established in Section 65588 for adoption of the line 29 housing element.
line 30 (II)  The local government receives from the department findings line 31 that the draft element or draft amendment substantially complies line 32 with this article pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of line 33 Section 65585 on or before the statutory deadline set forth in line 34 Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element. line 35 (III)  The local government adopts the draft element or draft line 36 amendment that the department found to substantially comply with line 37 this article no later than 120 days after the statutory deadline set line 38 forth in Section 65588.
line 39 (B)  Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of line 40 subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate 98 AB 650 — 12 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 17, Packet Page 856 line 1 the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to line 2 Section 65584, the program shall identify sites that can be line 3 developed for housing within the planning period pursuant to line 4 subdivision (h) of Section 65583.2. The identification of sites shall line 5 include all components specified in Section 65583.2. line 6 (C)  Where the inventory of sites pursuant to paragraph (3) of line 7 subdivision (a) does not identify adequate sites to accommodate line 8 the need for farmworker housing, the program shall provide for line 9 sufficient sites to meet the need with zoning that permits line 10 farmworker housing use by right, including density and line 11 development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the line 12 feasibility of the development of farmworker housing for low- and line 13 very low income households.
line 14 (2)  (A)  Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet line 15 the needs of extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income line 16 households.
line 17 (B)  For the seventh and subsequent revisions of the housing line 18 element, the program shall also assist in the development of line 19 adequate housing to meet the needs of acutely low income line 20 households.
line 21 (3)  Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove line 22 governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, line 23 improvement, and development of housing, including housing for line 24 all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The line 25 program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable line 26 accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy line 27 by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. line 28 Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered line 29 a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those line 30 restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same line 31 type in the same zone. Supportive housing, as defined in Section line 32 65650, shall be a use by right in all zones where multifamily and line 33 mixed uses are permitted, as provided in Article 11 (commencing line 34 with Section 65650).
line 35 (4)  Conserve and improve the condition of the existing line 36 affordable housing stock, which may include addressing ways to line 37 mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public or private line 38 action.
line 39 (5)  Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities line 40 and promote housing throughout the community or communities 98 — 13 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 18, Packet Page 857 line 1 for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, line 2 ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and line 3 other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment line 4 and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of line 5 Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and line 6 federal fair housing and planning law.
line 7 (6)  Preserve for lower income households the assisted housing line 8 developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision line 9 (a). The program for preservation of the assisted housing line 10 developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all available line 11 federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified line 12 in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has line 13 other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not line 14 available. The program may include strategies that involve local line 15 regulation and technical assistance.
line 16 (7)  Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation line 17 of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, line 18 as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for line 19 very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of line 20 this paragraph, “accessory dwelling units” has the same meaning line 21 as “accessory dwelling unit” as defined in subdivision (a) of line 22 Section 66313.
line 23 (8)  Include an identification of the agencies and officials line 24 responsible for the implementation of the various actions and the line 25 means by which consistency will be achieved with other general line 26 plan elements and community goals.
line 27 (9)  Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve line 28 public participation of all economic segments of the community line 29 in the development of the housing element, and the program shall line 30 describe this effort.
line 31 (10)  (A)  Affirmatively further fair housing in accordance with line 32 Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of line 33 Title 2. The program shall include an assessment of fair housing line 34 in the jurisdiction that shall include all of the following line 35 components:
line 36 (i)  A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction and an line 37 assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and fair line 38 housing outreach capacity.
line 39 (ii)  An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and line 40 knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and 98 AB 650 — 14 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 19, Packet Page 858 line 1 trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and line 2 affluence, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate line 3 housing needs, including displacement risk. The analysis shall line 4 identify and examine such patterns, trends, areas, disparities, and line 5 needs, both within the jurisdiction and comparing the jurisdiction line 6 to the region in which it is located, based on race and other line 7 characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and line 8 Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of line 9 Division 3 of Title 2) and Section 65008.
line 10 (iii)  An assessment of the contributing factors, including the line 11 local and regional historical origins and current policies and line 12 practices, for the fair housing issues identified under clauses (i) line 13 and (ii).
line 14 (iv)  An identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities line 15 and goals, giving highest priority to those factors identified in line 16 clause (iii) that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to line 17 opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights line 18 compliance, and identifying the metrics and milestones for line 19 determining what fair housing results will be achieved. line 20 (v)  Strategies and actions to implement those priorities and line 21 goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing line 22 mobility strategies and encouraging development of new affordable line 23 housing in areas of opportunity, as well as place-based strategies line 24 to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of line 25 existing affordable housing, and protecting existing residents from line 26 displacement.
line 27 (B)  A jurisdiction that completes or revises an assessment of line 28 fair housing pursuant to Subpart A (commencing with Section line 29 5.150) of Part 5 of Subtitle A of Title 24 of the Code of Federal line 30 Regulations, as published in Volume 80 of the Federal Register, line 31 Number 136, page 42272, dated July 16, 2015, or an analysis of line 32 impediments to fair housing choice in accordance with the line 33 requirements of Section 91.225 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal line 34 Regulations in effect before August 17, 2015, may incorporate line 35 relevant portions of that assessment or revised assessment of fair line 36 housing or analysis or revised analysis of impediments to fair line 37 housing into its housing element.
line 38 (C)  (i)  The requirements of this paragraph shall apply to housing line 39 elements due to be revised pursuant to Section 65588 on or after line 40 January 1, 2021.
98 — 15 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 20, Packet Page 859 line 1 (ii)  The assessment required pursuant to this paragraph shall be line 2 completed before the planning agency makes its first draft revision line 3 of a housing element available for public comment pursuant to line 4 subdivision (b) of Section 65585.
line 5 (D)  (i)  The On or before December 31, 2026, the department line 6 shall develop a standardized reporting format for programs and line 7 actions taken pursuant to this paragraph. The standardized reporting line 8 format shall enable the reporting of all of the assessment line 9 components listed in subparagraph (A) and, at a minimum, include line 10 all of the following fields:
line 11 (I)  Timelines for implementation.
line 12 (II)  Responsible party or parties.
line 13 (III)  Resources committed from the local budget to affirmatively line 14 further fair housing.
line 15 (IV)  Action areas.
line 16 (V)  Potential impacts of the program.
line 17 (ii)  A local government shall utilize the standardized report line 18 format developed pursuant to this subparagraph for the seventh line 19 and each subsequent revision of the housing element. line 20 (d)  (1)  A local government may satisfy all or part of its line 21 requirement to identify a zone or zones suitable for the line 22 development of emergency shelters pursuant to paragraph (4) of line 23 subdivision (a) by adopting and implementing a multijurisdictional line 24 agreement, with a maximum of two other adjacent communities, line 25 that requires the participating jurisdictions to develop at least one line 26 year-round emergency shelter within two years of the beginning line 27 of the planning period.
line 28 (2)  The agreement shall allocate a portion of the new shelter line 29 capacity to each jurisdiction as credit toward its emergency shelter line 30 need, and each jurisdiction shall describe how the capacity was line 31 allocated as part of its housing element.
line 32 (3)  Each member jurisdiction of a multijurisdictional agreement line 33 shall describe in its housing element all of the following:
line 34 (A)  How the joint facility will meet the jurisdiction’s emergency line 35 shelter need.
line 36 (B)  The jurisdiction’s contribution to the facility for both the line 37 development and ongoing operation and management of the line 38 facility.
line 39 (C)  The amount and source of the funding that the jurisdiction line 40 contributes to the facility.
98 AB 650 — 16 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 21, Packet Page 860 line 1 (4)  The aggregate capacity claimed by the participating line 2 jurisdictions in their housing elements shall not exceed the actual line 3 capacity of the shelter.
line 4 (e)  Except as otherwise provided in this article, amendments to line 5 this article that alter the required content of a housing element line 6 shall apply to both of the following:
line 7 (1)  A housing element or housing element amendment prepared line 8 pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, line 9 when a city, county, or city and county submits a draft to the line 10 department for review pursuant to Section 65585 more than 90 line 11 days after the effective date of the amendment to this section. line 12 (2)  Any housing element or housing element amendment line 13 prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section line 14 65584.02, when the city, county, or city and county fails to submit line 15 the first draft to the department before the due date specified in line 16 Section 65588 or 65584.02.
line 17 (f)  The deadline for completing required rezoning pursuant to line 18 subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) shall be line 19 extended by one year if the local government has completed the line 20 rezoning at densities sufficient to accommodate at least 75 percent line 21 of the units for lower income households and if the legislative line 22 body at the conclusion of a public hearing determines, based upon line 23 substantial evidence, that any of the following circumstances exists:
line 24 (1)  The local government has been unable to complete the line 25 rezoning because of the action or inaction beyond the control of line 26 the local government of any other state, federal, or local agency. line 27 (2)  The local government is unable to complete the rezoning line 28 because of infrastructure deficiencies due to fiscal or regulatory line 29 constraints.
line 30 (3)  The local government must undertake a major revision to line 31 its general plan in order to accommodate the housing-related line 32 policies of a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative line 33 planning strategy adopted pursuant to Section 65080. line 34 The resolution and the findings shall be transmitted to the line 35 department together with a detailed budget and schedule for line 36 preparation and adoption of the required rezonings, including plans line 37 for citizen participation and expected interim action. The schedule line 38 shall provide for adoption of the required rezoning within one year line 39 of the adoption of the resolution.
98 — 17 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 22, Packet Page 861 line 1 (g)  (1)  If a local government fails to complete the rezoning by line 2 the deadline provided in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of line 3 subdivision (c), as it may be extended pursuant to subdivision (f), line 4 except as provided in paragraph (2), a local government may not line 5 disapprove a housing development project, nor require a line 6 conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other line 7 locally imposed discretionary permit, or impose a condition that line 8 would render the project infeasible, if the housing development line 9 project, (A) is proposed to be located on a site required to be line 10 rezoned pursuant to the program action required by that line 11 subparagraph and, (B) complies with applicable, objective general line 12 plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review line 13 standards, described in the program action required by that line 14 subparagraph. Any subdivision of sites shall be subject to the line 15 Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section line 16 66410)). Design review shall not constitute a “project” for purposes line 17 of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public line 18 Resources Code.
line 19 (2)  A local government may disapprove a housing development line 20 described in paragraph (1) if it makes written findings supported line 21 by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following line 22 conditions exist:
line 23 (A)  The housing development project would have a specific, line 24 adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project line 25 is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be line 26 developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, line 27 adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and line 28 unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public line 29 health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed line 30 on the date the application was deemed complete. line 31 (B)  There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or line 32 avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other line 33 than the disapproval of the housing development project or the line 34 approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at line 35 a lower density.
line 36 (3)  The applicant or any interested person may bring an action line 37 to enforce this subdivision. If a court finds that the local agency line 38 disapproved a project or conditioned its approval in violation of line 39 this subdivision, the court shall issue an order or judgment line 40 compelling compliance within 60 days. The court shall retain 98 AB 650 — 18 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 23, Packet Page 862 line 1 jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out. If line 2 the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried line 3 out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders to ensure line 4 that the purposes and policies of this subdivision are fulfilled. In line 5 any such action, the city, county, or city and county shall bear the line 6 burden of proof.
line 7 (4)  For purposes of this subdivision, “housing development line 8 project” means a project to construct residential units for which line 9 the project developer provides sufficient legal commitments to the line 10 appropriate local agency to ensure the continued availability and line 11 use of at least 49 percent of the housing units for very low, low-, line 12 and moderate-income households with an affordable housing cost line 13 or affordable rent, as defined in Section 50052.5 or 50053 of the line 14 Health and Safety Code, respectively, for the period required by line 15 the applicable financing.
line 16 (h)  An action to enforce the program actions of the housing line 17 element shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of line 18 Civil Procedure.
line 19 (i)  Notwithstanding any other law, the otherwise applicable line 20 timeframe set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) and line 21 subdivision (d) of Section 21080.3.1 of the Public Resources Code, line 22 and paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 21082.3 of the line 23 Public Resources Code, for a Native American tribe to respond to line 24 a lead agency and request consultation in writing is extended by line 25 30 days for any housing development project application line 26 determined or deemed to be complete on or after March 4, 2020, line 27 and prior to December 31, 2021.
line 28 (j)  On or after January 1, 2024, at the discretion of the line 29 department, the analysis of government constraints pursuant to line 30 paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) may include an analysis of line 31 constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development line 32 of housing for persons with a characteristic identified in subdivision line 33 (b) of Section 51 of the Civil Code. The implementation of this line 34 subdivision is contingent upon an appropriation by the Legislature line 35 in the annual Budget Act or another statute for this purpose. line 36 SEC. 2. Section 65584 of the Government Code is amended to line 37 read:
line 38 65584. (a)  (1)  For the fourth and subsequent revisions of the line 39 housing element pursuant to Section 65588, the department shall line 40 determine the existing and projected need for housing for each 98 — 19 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 24, Packet Page 863 line 1 region pursuant to this article. For purposes of subdivision (a) of line 2 Section 65583, the share of a city or county of the regional housing line 3 need shall include that share of the housing need of persons at all line 4 income levels within the area significantly affected by the general line 5 plan of the city or county.
line 6 (2)  It is the intent of the Legislature that cities, counties, and line 7 cities and counties should undertake all necessary actions to line 8 encourage, promote, and facilitate the development of housing to line 9 accommodate the entire regional housing need, and reasonable line 10 actions should be taken by local and regional governments to line 11 ensure that future housing production meets, at a minimum, the line 12 regional housing need established for planning purposes. These line 13 actions shall include applicable reforms and incentives in Section line 14 65582.1.
line 15 (3)  The Legislature finds and declares that insufficient housing line 16 in job centers hinders the state’s environmental quality and runs line 17 counter to the state’s environmental goals. In particular, when line 18 Californians seeking affordable housing are forced to drive longer line 19 distances to work, an increased amount of greenhouse gases and line 20 other pollutants are released and puts in jeopardy the achievement line 21 of the state’s climate goals, as established pursuant to Section line 22 38566 of the Health and Safety Code, and clean air goals. line 23 (b)  The department, in consultation with each council of line 24 governments, shall determine each region’s existing and projected line 25 housing need pursuant to Section 65584.01 at least two years 30 line 26 months prior to the scheduled revision required pursuant to Section line 27 65588. The appropriate council of governments, or for cities and line 28 counties without a council of governments, the department, shall line 29 adopt a final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of line 30 the regional housing need to each city, county, or city and county line 31 at least one year prior to the scheduled revision for the region line 32 required by Section 65588. The allocation plan prepared by a line 33 council of governments shall be prepared pursuant to Sections line 34 65584.04 and 65584.05.
line 35 (c)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the due dates line 36 for the determinations of the department or for the council of line 37 governments, respectively, regarding the regional housing need line 38 may be extended by the department by not more than 60 days if line 39 the extension will enable access to more recent critical population line 40 or housing data from a pending or recent release of the United 98 AB 650 — 20 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 25, Packet Page 864 line 1 States Census Bureau or the Department of Finance. If the due line 2 date for the determination of the department or the council of line 3 governments is extended for this reason, the department shall line 4 extend the corresponding housing element revision deadline line 5 pursuant to Section 65588 by not more than 60 days. line 6 (d)  The regional housing needs allocation plan shall further all line 7 of the following objectives:
line 8 (1)  Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types, line 9 tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the region line 10 in an equitable manner, which shall result in each jurisdiction line 11 receiving an allocation of units for low- and very low income line 12 households. The regional housing needs allocation plan shall line 13 allocate units for extremely low- and acutely low income line 14 households in a manner that is roughly proportional to, and within line 15 a range of 3 percent of, the housing need for very low income line 16 households.
line 17 (2)  Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, line 18 the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, the line 19 encouragement of efficient development patterns, and the line 20 achievement of the region’s greenhouse gas reductions targets line 21 provided by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section line 22 65080.
line 23 (3)  Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between line 24 jobs and housing, including an improved balance between the line 25 number of low-wage jobs and the number of housing units line 26 affordable to low-wage workers in each jurisdiction. line 27 (4)  Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income line 28 category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high line 29 share of households in that income category, as compared to the line 30 countywide distribution of households in that category from the line 31 most recent American Community Survey.
line 32 (5)  Affirmatively furthering fair housing.
line 33 (e)  For purposes of this section, “affirmatively furthering fair line 34 housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to line 35 combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation line 36 and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict line 37 access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. line 38 Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking line 39 meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant line 40 disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing 98 — 21 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 26, Packet Page 865 line 1 segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living line 2 patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas line 3 of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining line 4 compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. line 5 (f)  (1)  Subject to paragraph (2), for purposes of this section line 6 with respect to revisions of the housing element through the sixth line 7 revision, “household income levels” are as determined by the line 8 department pursuant to the following code sections:
line 9 (A)  Very low incomes, as defined by Section 50105 of the line 10 Health and Safety Code.
line 11 (B)  Lower incomes, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health line 12 and Safety Code.
line 13 (C)  Moderate incomes, as defined by Section 50093 of the line 14 Health and Safety Code.
line 15 (D)  Above moderate incomes are those exceeding the line 16 moderate-income level of Section 50093 of the Health and Safety line 17 Code.
line 18 (2)  For purposes of this section with respect to the seventh and line 19 subsequent revisions of the housing element, “household income line 20 levels” are as determined by the department in accordance with line 21 the definitions of acutely low, extremely low, very low, low, line 22 moderate, and above moderate income in Section 65582. line 23 (g)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, determinations line 24 made by the department, a council of governments, or a city or line 25 county pursuant to this section or Section 65584.01, 65584.02, line 26 65584.03, 65584.04, 65584.05, 65584.06, 65584.07, or 65584.08 line 27 are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act line 28 (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public line 29 Resources Code).
line 30 SEC. 3. Section 65584.01 of the Government Code is amended line 31 to read:
line 32 65584.01. For the fourth and subsequent revision of the housing line 33 element pursuant to Section 65588, the department, in consultation line 34 with each council of governments, where applicable, shall line 35 determine the existing and projected need for housing for each line 36 region in the following manner:
line 37 (a)  The department’s determination shall be based upon line 38 population projections produced by the Department of Finance line 39 and regional population forecasts used in preparing regional line 40 transportation plans, in consultation with each council of 98 AB 650 — 22 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 27, Packet Page 866 line 1 governments. If the total regional population forecast for the line 2 projection year, developed by the council of governments and used line 3 for the preparation of the regional transportation plan, is within a line 4 range of 1.5 percent of the total regional population forecast for line 5 the projection year by the Department of Finance, then the line 6 population forecast developed by the council of governments shall line 7 be the basis from which the department determines the existing line 8 and projected need for housing in the region. If the difference line 9 between the total population projected by the council of line 10 governments and the total population projected for the region by line 11 the Department of Finance is greater than 1.5 percent, then the line 12 department and the council of governments shall meet to discuss line 13 variances in methodology used for population projections and seek line 14 agreement on a population projection for the region to be used as line 15 a basis for determining the existing and projected housing need line 16 for the region. If agreement is not reached, then the population line 17 projection for the region shall be the population projection for the line 18 region prepared by the Department of Finance as may be modified line 19 by the department as a result of discussions with the council of line 20 governments.
line 21 (b)  (1)  At least 26 32 months prior to the scheduled revision line 22 pursuant to Section 65588 and prior to developing the existing and line 23 projected housing need for a region, the department shall meet and line 24 consult with the council of governments regarding the assumptions line 25 and methodology to be used by the department to determine the line 26 region’s housing needs. The council of governments shall provide line 27 data assumptions from the council’s projections, including, if line 28 available, the following data for the region:
line 29 (A)  Anticipated household growth associated with projected line 30 population increases.
line 31 (B)  Household size data and trends in household size. line 32 (C)  The percentage of households that are overcrowded and the line 33 overcrowding rate for a comparable housing market. For purposes line 34 of this subparagraph:
line 35 (i)  The term “overcrowded” means more than one resident per line 36 room in each room in a dwelling.
line 37 (ii)  The term “overcrowded rate for a comparable housing line 38 market” means that the overcrowding rate is no more than the line 39 average overcrowding rate in comparable regions throughout the line 40 nation, as determined by the council of governments. 98 — 23 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 28, Packet Page 867 line 1 (D)  The rate of household formation, or headship rates, based line 2 on age, gender, ethnicity, or other established demographic line 3 measures.
line 4 (E)  The vacancy rates in existing housing stock, and the vacancy line 5 rates for healthy housing market functioning and regional mobility, line 6 as well as housing replacement needs. For purposes of this line 7 subparagraph, the vacancy rate for a healthy rental housing market line 8 shall be considered no less than 5 percent.
line 9 (F)  Other characteristics of the composition of the projected line 10 population.
line 11 (G)  The relationship between jobs and housing, including any line 12 imbalance between jobs and housing.
line 13 (H)  The percentage of households that are cost burdened and line 14 the rate of housing cost burden for a healthy housing market. For line 15 the purposes of this subparagraph:
line 16 (i)  The term “cost burdened” means the share of very low, low-, line 17 moderate-, and above moderate-income households that are paying line 18 more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs. line 19 (ii)  The term “rate of housing cost burden for a healthy housing line 20 market” means that the rate of households that are cost burdened line 21 is no more than the average rate of households that are cost line 22 burdened in comparable regions throughout the nation, as line 23 determined by the council of governments.
line 24 (I)  The loss of units during a state of emergency that was line 25 declared by the Governor pursuant to the California Emergency line 26 Services Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of line 27 Division 1 of Title 2), during the planning period immediately line 28 preceding the relevant revision pursuant to Section 65588 that line 29 have yet to be rebuilt or replaced at the time of the data request. line 30 (J)  The housing needs of individuals and families experiencing line 31 homelessness.
line 32 (i)  The data utilized by the council of governments shall align line 33 with homelessness data best practices as determined by the line 34 department.
line 35 (ii)  Sources of homelessness data may include the Homeless line 36 Data Integration System administered by the Interagency Council line 37 on Homelessness, the homeless point-in-time count, or other line 38 sources deemed appropriate by the department.
line 39 (2)  The department may accept or reject the information line 40 provided by the council of governments or modify its own 98 AB 650 — 24 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 29, Packet Page 868 line 1 assumptions or methodology based on this information. After line 2 consultation with the council of governments, the department shall line 3 make determinations in writing on the assumptions for each of the line 4 factors listed in subparagraphs (A) to (I), inclusive, of paragraph line 5 (1) and the methodology it shall use and shall provide these line 6 determinations to the council of governments. The methodology line 7 submitted by the department may make adjustments based on the line 8 region’s total projected households, which includes existing line 9 households as well as projected households.
line 10 (c)  (1)  After consultation with the council of governments, the line 11 department shall make a determination of the region’s existing line 12 and projected housing need based upon the assumptions and line 13 methodology determined pursuant to subdivision (b). The region’s line 14 existing and projected housing need shall reflect the achievement line 15 of a feasible balance between jobs and housing within the region line 16 using the regional employment projections in the applicable line 17 regional transportation plan. Within 30 days following notice of line 18 the determination from the department, the council of governments line 19 may file an objection to the department’s determination of the line 20 region’s existing and projected housing need with the department. line 21 (2)  The objection shall be based on and substantiate either of line 22 the following:
line 23 (A)  The department failed to base its determination on the line 24 population projection for the region established pursuant to line 25 subdivision (a), and shall identify the population projection which line 26 the council of governments believes should instead be used for the line 27 determination and explain the basis for its rationale. line 28 (B)  The regional housing need determined by the department line 29 is not a reasonable application of the methodology and assumptions line 30 determined pursuant to subdivision (b). The objection shall include line 31 a proposed alternative determination of its regional housing need line 32 based upon the determinations made in subdivision (b), including line 33 analysis of why the proposed alternative would be a more line 34 reasonable application of the methodology and assumptions line 35 determined pursuant to subdivision (b).
line 36 (3)  If a council of governments files an objection pursuant to line 37 this subdivision and includes with the objection a proposed line 38 alternative determination of its regional housing need, it shall also line 39 include documentation of its basis for the alternative determination. line 40 Within 45 days of receiving an objection filed pursuant to this 98 — 25 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 30, Packet Page 869 line 1 section, the department shall consider the objection and make a line 2 final written determination of the region’s existing and projected line 3 housing need that includes an explanation of the information upon line 4 which the determination was made.
line 5 (4)  In regions in which the department is required to distribute line 6 the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584.06, no city line 7 or county may file an objection to the regional housing need line 8 determination.
line 9 (d)  Statutory changes enacted after the date the department line 10 issued a final determination pursuant to this section shall not be a line 11 basis for a revision of the final determination. line 12 SEC. 4. Section 65584.04 of the Government Code is amended line 13 to read:
line 14 65584.04. (a)  At least two and one-half years before a line 15 scheduled revision required by Section 65588, each council of line 16 governments, or delegate subregion as applicable, shall develop, line 17 in consultation with the department, a proposed methodology for line 18 distributing the existing and projected regional housing need to line 19 cities, counties, and cities and counties within the region or within line 20 the subregion, where applicable pursuant to this section. The line 21 methodology shall further the objectives listed in subdivision (d) line 22 of Section 65584.
line 23 (b)  (1)  No more than six months before the development of a line 24 proposed methodology for distributing the existing and projected line 25 housing need, each council of governments shall survey each of line 26 its member jurisdictions to request, at a minimum, information line 27 regarding the factors listed in subdivision (e) that will allow the line 28 development of a methodology based upon the factors established line 29 in subdivision (e).
line 30 (2)  With respect to the objective in paragraph (5) of subdivision line 31 (d) of Section 65584, the survey shall review and compile line 32 information that will allow the development of a methodology line 33 based upon the issues, strategies, and actions that are included, as line 34 available, in an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice line 35 or an Assessment of Fair Housing completed by any city or county line 36 or the department that covers communities within the area served line 37 by the council of governments, and in housing elements adopted line 38 pursuant to this article by cities and counties within the area served line 39 by the council of governments.
98 AB 650 — 26 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 31, Packet Page 870 line 1 (3)  The council of governments shall seek to obtain the line 2 information in a manner and format that is comparable throughout line 3 the region and utilize readily available data to the extent possible. line 4 (4)  The information provided by a local government pursuant line 5 to this section shall be used, to the extent possible, by the council line 6 of governments, or delegate subregion as applicable, as source line 7 information for the methodology developed pursuant to this section. line 8 The survey shall state that none of the information received may line 9 be used as a basis for reducing the total housing need established line 10 for the region pursuant to Section 65584.01.
line 11 (5)  If the council of governments fails to conduct a survey line 12 pursuant to this subdivision, a city, county, or city and county may line 13 submit information related to the items listed in subdivision (e) line 14 before the public comment period provided for in subdivision (d). line 15 (c)  The council of governments shall electronically report the line 16 results of the survey of fair housing issues, strategies, and actions line 17 compiled pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). The report line 18 shall describe common themes and effective strategies employed line 19 by cities and counties within the area served by the council of line 20 governments, including common themes and effective strategies line 21 around avoiding the displacement of lower income households. line 22 The council of governments shall also identify significant barriers line 23 to affirmatively furthering fair housing at the regional level and line 24 may recommend strategies or actions to overcome those barriers. line 25 A council of governments or metropolitan planning organization, line 26 as appropriate, may use this information for any other purpose, line 27 including publication within a regional transportation plan adopted line 28 pursuant to Section 65080 or to inform the land use assumptions line 29 that are applied in the development of a regional transportation line 30 plan.
line 31 (d)  Public participation and access shall be required in the line 32 development of the methodology and in the process of drafting line 33 and adoption of the allocation of the regional housing needs. line 34 Participation by organizations other than local jurisdictions and line 35 councils of governments shall be solicited in a diligent effort to line 36 achieve public participation of all economic segments of the line 37 community as well as members of protected classes under Section line 38 12955 and households with special housing needs under paragraph line 39 (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. The proposed line 40 methodology, along with any relevant underlying data and 98 — 27 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 32, Packet Page 871 line 1 assumptions, an explanation of how information about local line 2 government conditions gathered pursuant to subdivision (b) has line 3 been used to develop the proposed methodology, how each of the line 4 factors listed in subdivision (e) is incorporated into the line 5 methodology, and how the proposed methodology furthers the line 6 objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584, shall be line 7 distributed to all cities, counties, any subregions, and members of line 8 the public who have made a written or electronic request for the line 9 proposed methodology and published on the council of line 10 governments’, or delegate subregion’s, internet website. The line 11 council of governments, or delegate subregion, as applicable, shall line 12 conduct at least one public hearing to receive oral and written line 13 comments on the proposed methodology.
line 14 (e)  To the extent that sufficient data is available from local line 15 governments pursuant to subdivision (b) or other sources, each line 16 council of governments, or delegate subregion as applicable, shall line 17 consider including the following factors in developing the line 18 methodology that allocates regional housing needs:
line 19 (1)  Each member jurisdiction’s existing and projected jobs and line 20 housing relationship. This shall include an estimate based on line 21 readily available data on the number of low-wage jobs within the line 22 jurisdiction and how many housing units within the jurisdiction line 23 are affordable to low-wage workers as well as an estimate based line 24 on readily available data, of projected job growth and projected line 25 household growth by income level within each member jurisdiction line 26 during the planning period.
line 27 (2)  The opportunities and constraints to development of line 28 additional housing in each member jurisdiction, including all of line 29 the following:
line 30 (A)  Lack of capacity for sewer or water service due to federal line 31 or state laws, regulations or regulatory actions, or supply and line 32 distribution decisions made by a sewer or water service provider line 33 other than the local jurisdiction that preclude the jurisdiction from line 34 providing necessary infrastructure for additional development line 35 during the planning period.
line 36 (B)  The availability of land suitable for urban development or line 37 for conversion to residential use, the availability of underutilized line 38 land, and opportunities for infill development and increased line 39 residential densities. The council of governments may not limit line 40 its consideration of suitable housing sites or land suitable for urban 98 AB 650 — 28 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 33, Packet Page 872 line 1 development to existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions line 2 of a locality, but shall consider the potential for increased line 3 residential development under alternative zoning ordinances and line 4 land use restrictions. The determination of available land suitable line 5 for urban development may exclude lands where the Federal line 6 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of line 7 Water Resources has determined that the flood management line 8 infrastructure designed to protect that land is not adequate to avoid line 9 the risk of flooding.
line 10 (C)  Lands preserved or protected from urban development under line 11 existing federal or state programs, or both, designed to protect line 12 open space, farmland, environmental habitats, and natural resources line 13 on a long-term basis, including land zoned or designated for line 14 agricultural protection or preservation that is subject to a local line 15 ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction line 16 that prohibits or restricts conversion to nonagricultural uses. line 17 (D)  County policies to preserve prime agricultural land, as line 18 defined pursuant to Section 56064, within an unincorporated area line 19 and land within an unincorporated area zoned or designated for line 20 agricultural protection or preservation that is subject to a local line 21 ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction line 22 that prohibits or restricts its conversion to nonagricultural uses. line 23 (E)  Emergency evacuation route capacity, wildfire risk, sea line 24 level rise, and other impacts caused by climate change. line 25 (3)  The distribution of household growth assumed for purposes line 26 of a comparable period of regional transportation plans and line 27 opportunities to maximize the use of public transportation and line 28 existing transportation infrastructure.
line 29 (4)  Agreements between a county and cities in a county to direct line 30 growth toward incorporated areas of the county and land within line 31 an unincorporated area zoned or designated for agricultural line 32 protection or preservation that is subject to a local ballot measure line 33 that was approved by the voters of the jurisdiction that prohibits line 34 or restricts conversion to nonagricultural uses. line 35 (5)  The loss of units contained in assisted housing developments, line 36 as defined in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, line 37 that changed to non-low-income use through mortgage prepayment, line 38 subsidy contract expirations, or termination of use restrictions. line 39 (6)  The percentage of existing households at each of the income line 40 levels listed in subdivision (f) of Section 65584 that are paying 98 — 29 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 34, Packet Page 873 line 1 more than 30 percent and more than 50 percent of their income in line 2 rent.
line 3 (7)  The rate of overcrowding.
line 4 (8)  The housing needs of farmworkers.
line 5 (9)  The housing needs generated by the presence of a private line 6 university or a campus of the California State University or the line 7 University of California within any member jurisdiction. line 8 (10)  The housing needs of individuals and families experiencing line 9 homelessness. If a council of governments has surveyed each of line 10 its member jurisdictions pursuant to subdivision (b) on or before line 11 January 1, 2020, this paragraph shall apply only to the development line 12 of methodologies for the seventh and subsequent revisions of the line 13 housing element.
line 14 (11)  The loss of units during a state of emergency that was line 15 declared by the Governor pursuant to the California Emergency line 16 Services Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of line 17 Division 1 of Title 2), during the planning period immediately line 18 preceding the relevant revision pursuant to Section 65588 that line 19 have yet to be rebuilt or replaced at the time of the analysis. line 20 (12)  The region’s greenhouse gas emissions targets provided line 21 by the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 65080. line 22 (13)  Any other factors adopted by the council of governments, line 23 that further the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section line 24 65584, provided that the council of governments specifies which line 25 of the objectives each additional factor is necessary to further. The line 26 council of governments may include additional factors unrelated line 27 to furthering the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section line 28 65584 so long as the additional factors do not undermine the line 29 objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584 and are applied line 30 equally across all household income levels as described in line 31 subdivision (f) of Section 65584 and the council of governments line 32 makes a finding that the factor is necessary to address significant line 33 health and safety conditions.
line 34 (f)  The council of governments, or delegate subregion, as line 35 applicable, shall explain in writing how each of the factors line 36 described in subdivision (e) was incorporated into the methodology line 37 and how the methodology furthers the objectives listed in line 38 subdivision (d) of Section 65584. The methodology may include line 39 numerical weighting. This information, and any other supporting line 40 materials used in determining the methodology, shall be posted 98 AB 650 — 30 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 35, Packet Page 874 line 1 on the council of governments’, or delegate subregion’s, internet line 2 website.
line 3 (g)  The following criteria shall not be a justification for a line 4 determination or a reduction in a jurisdiction’s share of the regional line 5 housing need:
line 6 (1)  Any ordinance, policy, voter-approved measure, or standard line 7 of a city or county that directly or indirectly limits the number of line 8 residential building permits issued by a city or county. line 9 (2)  Prior underproduction of housing in a city or county from line 10 the previous regional housing need allocation, as determined by line 11 each jurisdiction’s annual production report submitted pursuant line 12 to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section line 13 65400.
line 14 (3)  Stable population numbers in a city or county from the line 15 previous regional housing needs cycle.
line 16 (h)  Following the conclusion of the public comment period line 17 described in subdivision (d) on the proposed allocation line 18 methodology, and after making any revisions deemed appropriate line 19 by the council of governments, or delegate subregion, as applicable, line 20 as a result of comments received during the public comment period, line 21 and as a result of consultation with the department, each council line 22 of governments, or delegate subregion, as applicable, shall publish line 23 a draft allocation methodology on its internet website and submit line 24 the draft allocation methodology, along with the information line 25 required pursuant to subdivision (e), to the department. line 26 (i)  Within 60 days, the department shall review the draft line 27 allocation methodology and report its written findings to the line 28 council of governments, or delegate subregion, as applicable. In line 29 its written findings the department shall determine whether the line 30 methodology furthers the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of line 31 Section 65584. If the department determines that the methodology line 32 is not consistent with subdivision (d) of Section 65584, the council line 33 of governments, or delegate subregion, as applicable, shall take line 34 one of the following actions:
line 35 (1)  Revise the methodology to further the objectives listed in line 36 subdivision (d) of Section 65584 and adopt a final regional, or line 37 subregional, housing need allocation methodology. line 38 (2)  Adopt the regional, or subregional, housing need allocation line 39 methodology without revisions and include within its resolution line 40 of adoption findings, supported by substantial evidence, as to why 98 — 31 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 36, Packet Page 875 line 1 the council of governments, or delegate subregion, believes that line 2 the methodology furthers the objectives listed in subdivision (d) line 3 of Section 65584 despite the findings of the department. line 4 (j)  If the department’s findings are not available within the time line 5 limits set by subdivision (i), the council of governments, or delegate line 6 subregion, may act without them.
line 7 (k)  Upon either action pursuant to subdivision (i), the council line 8 of governments, or delegate subregion, shall provide notice of the line 9 adoption of the methodology to the jurisdictions within the region, line 10 or delegate subregion, as applicable, and to the department, and line 11 shall publish the adopted allocation methodology, along with its line 12 resolution and any adopted written findings, on its internet website. line 13 (l)  The department may, within 45 days, review the adopted line 14 methodology and report its findings to the council of governments, line 15 or delegate subregion.
line 16 (m)  (1)  It is the intent of the Legislature that housing planning line 17 be coordinated and integrated with the regional transportation plan. line 18 To achieve this goal, the allocation plan shall allocate housing line 19 units within the region consistent with the development pattern line 20 included in the sustainable communities strategy. line 21 (2)  (A)  The final allocation plan shall ensure that the total line 22 regional housing need, by income category, as determined under line 23 Section 65584, is maintained, and that each jurisdiction in the line 24 region receive an allocation of units for low- and very low income line 25 households.
line 26 (B)  For the seventh and subsequent revisions of the housing line 27 element, the allocation to each region required under subparagraph line 28 (A) shall also include an allocation of units for acutely low and line 29 extremely low income households.
line 30 (3)  The resolution approving the final housing need allocation line 31 plan shall demonstrate that the plan is consistent with the line 32 sustainable communities strategy in the regional transportation line 33 plan and furthers the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section line 34 65584.
line 35 (n)  This section shall become operative on January 1, 2025. line 36 (o)  For the seventh housing element cycle, the changes to this line 37 section made by the act adding this subdivision shall not apply to line 38 councils of governments with a housing element revision due date line 39 during the 2027 calendar year.
98 AB 650 — 32 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 37, Packet Page 876 line 1 SEC. 5. Section 65584.05 of the Government Code is amended line 2 to read:
line 3 65584.05. (a)  At least one and one-half two years before the line 4 scheduled revision required by Section 65588, each council of line 5 governments and delegate subregion, as applicable, shall distribute line 6 a draft allocation of regional housing needs to each local line 7 government in the region or subregion, where applicable, and the line 8 department, based on the methodology adopted pursuant to Section line 9 65584.04 and shall publish the draft allocation on its internet line 10 website. The council of governments may additionally distribute line 11 the draft allocation plan upon adoption of the final methodology line 12 reviewed and accepted by the department pursuant to paragraph line 13 (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 65584.04. The draft allocation line 14 shall include the underlying data and methodology on which the line 15 allocation is based, and a statement as to how it furthers the line 16 objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584. It is the intent line 17 of the Legislature that the draft allocation should be distributed line 18 before the completion of the update of the applicable regional line 19 transportation plan. The draft allocation shall distribute to localities line 20 and subregions, if any, within the region the entire regional housing line 21 need determined pursuant to Section 65584.01 or within line 22 subregions, as applicable, the subregion’s entire share of the line 23 regional housing need determined pursuant to Section 65584.03. line 24 (b)  Within 30 days following receipt of the draft allocation, a line 25 local government within the region or the delegate subregion, as line 26 applicable, or the department may appeal to the council of line 27 governments or the delegate subregion for a revision of the share line 28 of the regional housing need proposed to be allocated to one or line 29 more local governments. Appeals shall be based upon comparable line 30 data available for all affected jurisdictions and accepted planning line 31 methodology, and supported by adequate documentation, and shall line 32 include a statement as to why the revision is necessary to further line 33 the intent of the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section line 34 65584. An appeal pursuant to this subdivision shall be consistent line 35 with, and not to the detriment of, the development pattern in an line 36 applicable sustainable communities strategy developed pursuant line 37 to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080. Appeals shall line 38 be limited to any of the following circumstances:
98 — 33 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 38, Packet Page 877 line 1 (1)  The council of governments or delegate subregion, as line 2 applicable, failed to adequately consider the information submitted line 3 pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65584.04. line 4 (2)  The council of governments or delegate subregion, as line 5 applicable, failed to determine the share of the regional housing line 6 need in accordance with the information described in, and the line 7 methodology established pursuant to, Section 65584.04, and in a line 8 manner that furthers, and does not undermine, the intent of the line 9 objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584. line 10 (3)  A significant and unforeseen change in circumstances has line 11 occurred in the local jurisdiction or jurisdictions that merits a line 12 revision of the information submitted pursuant to subdivision (b) line 13 of Section 65584.04. Appeals on this basis shall only be made by line 14 the jurisdiction or jurisdictions where the change in circumstances line 15 has occurred.
line 16 (c)  At the close of the period for filing appeals pursuant to line 17 subdivision (b), the council of governments or delegate subregion, line 18 as applicable, shall notify all other local governments within the line 19 region or delegate subregion and the department of all appeals and line 20 shall make all materials submitted in support of each appeal line 21 available on a publicly available internet website. Local line 22 governments and the department may, within 45 days, comment line 23 on one or more appeals. If no appeals are filed, the draft allocation line 24 may be adopted pursuant to subdivision (g).
line 25 (d)  No later than 30 days after the close of the comment period, line 26 and after providing all local governments within the region or line 27 delegate subregion, as applicable, at least 10 days prior notice, the line 28 council of governments or delegate subregion shall conduct one line 29 public hearing to consider all appeals filed pursuant to subdivision line 30 (b) and all comments received pursuant to subdivision (c). line 31 (e)  No later than 45 days after the public hearing pursuant to line 32 subdivision (d), the council of governments or delegate subregion, line 33 as applicable, shall do all of the following:
line 34 (1)  Make a final determination that either accepts, rejects, or line 35 modifies each appeal for a revised share filed pursuant to line 36 subdivision (b). Final determinations shall be based upon the line 37 information and methodology described in Section 65584.04 and line 38 whether the revision is necessary to further the objectives listed line 39 in subdivision (d) of Section 65584. The final determination shall line 40 be in writing and shall include written findings as to how the 98 AB 650 — 34 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 39, Packet Page 878 line 1 determination is consistent with this article. The final determination line 2 on an appeal may require the council of governments or delegate line 3 subregion, as applicable, to adjust the share of the regional housing line 4 need allocated to one or more local governments that are not the line 5 subject of an appeal.
line 6 (2)  Issue a proposed final allocation plan.
line 7 (3)  Submit the proposed final allocation plan to the department. line 8 (4)  Set a date for a public hearing to adopt a final allocation line 9 plan pursuant to subdivision (g).
line 10 (f)  In the proposed final allocation plan, the council of line 11 governments or delegate subregion, as applicable, shall adjust line 12 allocations to local governments based upon the results of the line 13 appeals process. If the adjustments total 7 percent or less of the line 14 regional housing need determined pursuant to Section 65584.01, line 15 or, as applicable, total 7 percent or less of the subregion’s share line 16 of the regional housing need as determined pursuant to Section line 17 65584.03, then the council of governments or delegate subregion, line 18 as applicable, shall distribute the adjustments proportionally to all line 19 local governments. If the adjustments total more than 7 percent of line 20 the regional housing need, then the council of governments or line 21 delegate subregion, as applicable, shall develop a methodology to line 22 distribute the amount greater than the 7 percent to local line 23 governments. The total distribution of housing need shall not equal line 24 less than the regional housing need, as determined pursuant to line 25 Section 65584.01, nor shall the subregional distribution of housing line 26 need equal less than its share of the regional housing need as line 27 determined pursuant to Section 65584.03.
line 28 (g)  Within 45 days after the issuance of the proposed final line 29 allocation plan by the council of governments and each delegate line 30 subregion, as applicable, the council of governments shall hold a line 31 public hearing to adopt a final allocation plan. To the extent that line 32 the final allocation plan fully allocates the regional share of line 33 statewide housing need, as determined pursuant to Section line 34 65584.01 and has taken into account all appeals, the council of line 35 governments shall have final authority to determine the distribution line 36 of the region’s existing and projected housing need as determined line 37 pursuant to Section 65584.01. The council of governments shall line 38 submit its final allocation plan to the department within three days line 39 of adoption. Within 15 days after the department’s receipt of the line 40 final allocation plan adopted by the council of governments, the 98 — 35 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 40, Packet Page 879 line 1 department shall determine if the final allocation plan is consistent line 2 with the existing and projected housing need for the region, as line 3 determined pursuant to Section 65584.01. The department may line 4 revise the determination of the council of governments if necessary line 5 to obtain this consistency.
line 6 (h)  Any authority of the council of governments to review and line 7 revise the share of a city or county of the regional housing need line 8 under this section shall not constitute authority to revise, approve, line 9 or disapprove the manner in which the share of the city or county line 10 of the regional housing need is implemented through its housing line 11 program.
line 12 (i)  Any time period in subdivision (d) or (e) may be extended line 13 by a council of governments or delegate subregion, as applicable, line 14 for up to 30 days. Any time period in subdivision (b), (c), (d), (e), line 15 or (g) may be reduced by a council of governments or delegate line 16 subregion, as applicable, to facilitate earlier adoption of the final line 17 allocation plan. No time period shall be reduced to fewer than a line 18 minimum of 10 days.
line 19 (j)  The San Diego Association of Governments may follow the line 20 process in this section for the draft and final allocation plan for line 21 the sixth revision of the housing element notwithstanding such line 22 actions being carried out before the adoption of an updated regional line 23 transportation plan and sustainable communities strategy. line 24 (k)  For the seventh housing element cycle, the changes to this line 25 section made by the act adding this subdivision shall not apply to line 26 councils of governments with a housing element revision due date line 27 during the 2027 calendar year.
line 28 SEC. 6. Section 65585 of the Government Code is amended to line 29 read:
line 30 65585. (a)  In the preparation of its housing element, each city line 31 and county shall consider the guidelines adopted by the department line 32 pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health and Safety Code. Those line 33 guidelines shall be advisory to each city or county in the line 34 preparation of its housing element.
line 35 (b)  (1)  (A)  At least 90 days prior to adoption of a revision of line 36 its housing element pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588, line 37 or at least 60 days prior to the adoption of a subsequent amendment line 38 to this element, the planning agency shall submit a draft element line 39 revision or draft amendment to the department. The local line 40 government of the planning agency shall make the first draft 98 AB 650 — 36 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 41, Packet Page 880 line 1 revision of a housing element available for public comment for at line 2 least 30 days and, if any comments are received, the local line 3 government shall take at least 10 business days after the 30-day line 4 public comment period to consider and incorporate public line 5 comments into the draft revision prior to submitting it to the line 6 department. For any subsequent draft revision, the local line 7 government shall post the draft revision on its internet website and line 8 shall email a link to the draft revision to all individuals and line 9 organizations that have previously requested notices relating to line 10 the local government’s housing element at least seven days before line 11 submitting the draft revision to the department. line 12 (B)  The planning agency staff shall collect and compile the line 13 public comments regarding the housing element received by the line 14 city, county, or city and county and provide these comments to line 15 each member of the legislative body before it adopts the housing line 16 element.
line 17 (C)  The department shall review the draft and report its written line 18 findings to the planning agency within 90 days of its receipt of the line 19 first draft submittal for each housing element revision pursuant to line 20 subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or within 60 days of its receipt line 21 of a subsequent draft amendment or an adopted revision or adopted line 22 amendment to an element. The department shall not review the line 23 first draft submitted for each housing element revision pursuant line 24 to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 until the local government has line 25 made the draft available for public comment for at least 30 days line 26 and, if comments were received, has taken at least 10 business line 27 days to consider and incorporate public comments pursuant to line 28 paragraph (1).
line 29 (2)  (A)  At least 90 days prior to the initial adoption of a revision line 30 of its housing element pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588, line 31 and at least 7 days prior to any subsequent adoption submittal if line 32 changes have occurred to the inventory of sites, a local government line 33 shall do both of the following:
line 34 (i)  Make a draft of its inventory of sites required pursuant to line 35 paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 available to the line 36 department and the public and post the draft inventory on its line 37 internet website.
line 38 (ii)  Send an email to all individuals and organizations that have line 39 previously requested notices notifying them that the inventory has 98 — 37 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 42, Packet Page 881 line 1 been updated that includes a link to the draft inventory on its line 2 website.
line 3 (B)  The requirements of this paragraph shall apply to the seventh line 4 and each subsequent revision of the housing element. line 5 (c)  In the preparation of its findings, the department may consult line 6 with any public agency, group, or person. The department shall line 7 receive and consider any written comments from any public line 8 agency, group, or person regarding the draft or adopted element line 9 or amendment under review.
line 10 (d)  In its written findings, the department shall determine line 11 whether the draft element or draft amendment substantially line 12 complies with this article. If the department finds that the draft line 13 element or draft amendment does not substantially comply with line 14 this article, the department shall in a written communication to line 15 the planning agency do both of the following:
line 16 (1)  Identify and explain the specific deficiencies in the draft line 17 element or draft amendment, including a reference to each line 18 subdivision of Section 65583 that the draft element or draft line 19 amendment does not comply with.
line 20 (2)  Provide the specific analysis or text that the department line 21 expects the planning agency to include in the draft element or draft line 22 amendment to remedy the deficiencies identified in paragraph (1). line 23 (e)  Prior to the adoption of its draft element or draft amendment, line 24 the legislative body shall consider the findings made made, and line 25 the specific analysis or text required, by the department. If the line 26 department’s findings are not available within the time limits set line 27 by this section, the legislative body may act without them. line 28 (f)  If the department finds that the draft element or draft line 29 amendment does not substantially comply with this article, the line 30 legislative body shall take one of the following actions:
line 31 (1)  (A)  Change Include the specific analysis or text in the draft line 32 element or draft amendment to substantially comply with this line 33 article. article, as required by the department pursuant to line 34 subdivision (d).
line 35 (B)  Any change to a draft element or draft amendment pursuant line 36 to subparagraph (A) shall be completed in accordance with line 37 subdivision (b). This subparagraph does not constitute a change line 38 in, but is declaratory of, existing law.
line 39 (C)  Notwithstanding Section 65589.5, a jurisdiction shall not line 40 be required to approve a builder’s remedy project, as defined in 98 AB 650 — 38 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 43, Packet Page 882 line 1 paragraph (11) of subdivision (h) of Section 65889.5, within the line 2 planning agency’s jurisdiction during either of the following line 3 periods:
line 4 (i)  The duration of the department’s review of a draft element line 5 or draft amendment revised pursuant to this paragraph. line 6 (ii)  Ninety days from the date the department notifies the line 7 planning agency of additional deficiencies not previously identified line 8 by the department in response to the prior submission of the draft line 9 element or draft amendment.
line 10 (2)  Adopt the draft element or draft amendment without changes. line 11 the specific analysis or text required by the department pursuant line 12 to subdivision (d). The legislative body shall include in its line 13 resolution of adoption written findings that explain the reasons the line 14 legislative body believes that the draft element or draft amendment line 15 substantially complies with this article despite the findings of of, line 16 and specific analysis or text required by, the department. line 17 (g)  (1)  Promptly following the adoption of its element or line 18 amendment, the planning agency shall submit a copy of the adopted line 19 element or amendment and any findings made pursuant to line 20 paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) to the department. line 21 (2)  This subdivision shall not be construed to excuse a legislative line 22 body from complying with subdivision (f). This paragraph does line 23 not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law. line 24 (h)  The department shall, within 60 days, review adopted line 25 housing elements or amendments and any findings pursuant to line 26 paragraph (2) of subdivision (f), make a finding as to whether the line 27 adopted element or amendment is in substantial compliance with line 28 this article, and report its findings to the planning agency. If the line 29 department finds that the adopted element or amendment is not in line 30 substantial compliance with this article, the department shall line 31 identify each subdivision of Section 65583 that the housing element line 32 does not substantially comply with and provide the specific analysis line 33 or text to the planning agency that, if adopted, would bring the line 34 housing element or amendment into substantial compliance. line 35 (i)  (1)  (A)  The department shall review any action or failure line 36 to act by the city, county, or city and county that it determines is line 37 inconsistent with an adopted housing element or Section 65583, line 38 including any failure to implement any program actions included line 39 in the housing element pursuant to Section 65583. The department line 40 shall issue written findings to the city, county, or city and county 98 — 39 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 44, Packet Page 883 line 1 as to whether the action or failure to act substantially complies line 2 with this article, and provide a reasonable time no longer than 30 line 3 days for the city, county, or city and county to respond to the line 4 findings before taking any other action authorized by this section, line 5 including the action authorized by subparagraph (C). line 6 (B)  If the department finds that the city’s, county’s, or city and line 7 county’s action or failure to act does not substantially comply with line 8 its adopted housing element or its obligations pursuant to Section line 9 65583, there shall be a rebuttable presumption of invalidity in any line 10 legal action challenging that action or failure to act. line 11 (C)  If the department finds that the action or failure to act by line 12 the city, county, or city and county does not substantially comply line 13 with this article, and if it has issued findings pursuant to this section line 14 that an amendment to the housing element substantially complies line 15 with this article, the department may revoke its findings until it line 16 determines that the city, county, or city and county has come into line 17 compliance with this article.
line 18 (2)  The department may consult with any local government, line 19 public agency, group, or person, and shall receive and consider line 20 any written comments from any public agency, group, or person, line 21 regarding the action or failure to act by the city, county, or city line 22 and county described in paragraph (1), in determining whether the line 23 housing element substantially complies with this article. line 24 (j)  The department shall notify the city, county, or city and line 25 county and may notify the office of the Attorney General that the line 26 city, county, or city and county is in violation of state law if the line 27 department finds that the housing element or an amendment to this line 28 element, or any action or failure to act described in subdivision line 29 (i), (j), does not substantially comply with this article or that any line 30 local government has taken an action in violation of the following:
line 31 (1)  Housing Accountability Act (Section 65589.5). line 32 (2)  Section 65863.
line 33 (3)  Chapter 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915). line 34 (4)  Section 65008.
line 35 (5)  Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2019, line 36 Sections 65941.1, 65943, and 66300).
line 37 (6)  Section 8899.50.
line 38 (7)  Section 65913.4.
line 39 (8)  Article 11 (commencing with Section 65650). line 40 (9)  Article 12 (commencing with Section 65660). 98 AB 650 — 40 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 45, Packet Page 884 line 1 (10)  Section 65913.11.
line 2 (11)  Section 65400.
line 3 (12)  Section 65863.2.
line 4 (13)  Chapter 4.1 (commencing with Section 65912.100). line 5 (14)  Section 65905.5.
line 6 (15)  Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 66310). line 7 (16)  Section 65852.21.
line 8 (17)  Section 65852.24.
line 9 (18)  Section 66411.7.
line 10 (19)  Section 65913.16.
line 11 (20)  Article 2 (commencing with Section 66300.5) of Chapter line 12 12.
line 13 (21)  Section 65852.28.
line 14 (22)  Section 65913.4.5.
line 15 (23)  Section 66499.41.
line 16 (24)  Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program line 17 (Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 50216) and Chapter 6.5 line 18 (commencing with Section 50230) of Part 1 of Division 31 of the line 19 Health and Safety Code).
line 20 (25)  Encampment Resolution Funding program (Chapter 7 line 21 (commencing with Section 50250) of Part 1 of Division 31 of the line 22 Health and Safety Code).
line 23 (26)  Family Homelessness Challenge Grants and Technical line 24 Assistance Program (Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 50255) line 25 of Part 1 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code). line 26 (27)  (A)  Article 11.5 (commencing with Section 65658). line 27 (B)  This paragraph shall become operative only if Assembly line 28 Bill 3068 of the 2023–24 Regular Session of the Legislature is line 29 enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2025. line 30 (k)  Commencing July 1, 2019, prior to the Attorney General line 31 bringing any suit for a violation of the provisions identified in line 32 subdivision (j) related to housing element compliance and seeking line 33 remedies available pursuant to this subdivision, the department line 34 shall offer the jurisdiction the opportunity for two meetings in line 35 person or via telephone to discuss the violation, and shall provide line 36 the jurisdiction written findings regarding the violation. This line 37 paragraph does not affect any action filed prior to the effective line 38 date of this section. The requirements set forth in this subdivision line 39 do not apply to any suits brought for a violation or violations of line 40 paragraphs (1) and (3) to (9), inclusive, of subdivision (j). 98 — 41 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 46, Packet Page 885 line 1 (l)  In any action or special proceeding brought by the Attorney line 2 General relating to housing element compliance pursuant to a line 3 notice or referral under subdivision (j), the Attorney General may line 4 request, upon a finding of the court that the housing element does line 5 not substantially comply with the requirements of this article line 6 pursuant to this section, that the court issue an order or judgment line 7 directing the jurisdiction to bring its housing element into line 8 substantial compliance with the requirements of this article. The line 9 court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment line 10 is carried out. If a court determines that the housing element of line 11 the jurisdiction substantially complies with this article, it shall line 12 have the same force and effect, for purposes of eligibility for any line 13 financial assistance that requires a housing element in substantial line 14 compliance and for purposes of any incentives provided under line 15 Section 65589.9, as a determination by the department that the line 16 housing element substantially complies with this article. line 17 (1)  If the jurisdiction has not complied with the order or line 18 judgment after 12 months, the court shall conduct a status line 19 conference. Following the status conference, upon a determination line 20 that the jurisdiction failed to comply with the order or judgment line 21 compelling substantial compliance with the requirements of this line 22 article, the court shall impose fines on the jurisdiction, which shall line 23 be deposited into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. Any line 24 fine levied pursuant to this paragraph shall be in a minimum line 25 amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per month, but shall not line 26 exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per month, except line 27 as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3). In the event that the line 28 jurisdiction fails to pay fines imposed by the court in full and on line 29 time, the court may require the Controller to intercept any available line 30 state and local funds and direct such funds to the Building Homes line 31 and Jobs Trust Fund to correct the jurisdiction’s failure to pay. line 32 The intercept of the funds by the Controller for this purpose shall line 33 not violate any provision of the California Constitution. line 34 (2)  If the jurisdiction has not complied with the order or line 35 judgment after three months following the imposition of fees line 36 described in paragraph (1), the court shall conduct a status line 37 conference. Following the status conference, if the court finds that line 38 the fees imposed pursuant to paragraph (1) are insufficient to bring line 39 the jurisdiction into compliance with the order or judgment, the line 40 court may multiply the fine determined pursuant to paragraph (1) 98 AB 650 — 42 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 47, Packet Page 886 line 1 by a factor of three. In the event that the jurisdiction fails to pay line 2 fines imposed by the court in full and on time, the court may line 3 require the Controller to intercept any available state and local line 4 funds and direct such funds to the Building Homes and Jobs Trust line 5 Fund to correct the jurisdiction’s failure to pay. The intercept of line 6 the funds by the Controller for this purpose shall not violate any line 7 provision of the California Constitution.
line 8 (3)  If the jurisdiction has not complied with the order or line 9 judgment six months following the imposition of fees described line 10 in paragraph (1), the court shall conduct a status conference. Upon line 11 a determination that the jurisdiction failed to comply with the order line 12 or judgment, the court may impose the following:
line 13 (A)  If the court finds that the fees imposed pursuant to line 14 paragraphs (1) and (2) are insufficient to bring the jurisdiction into line 15 compliance with the order or judgment, the court may multiply line 16 the fine determined pursuant to paragraph (1) by a factor of six. line 17 In the event that the jurisdiction fails to pay fines imposed by the line 18 court in full and on time, the court may require the Controller to line 19 intercept any available state and local funds and direct such funds line 20 to the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund to correct the line 21 jurisdiction’s failure to pay. The intercept of the funds by the line 22 Controller for this purpose shall not violate any provision of the line 23 California Constitution.
line 24 (B)  The court may order remedies available pursuant to Section line 25 564 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the agent of the line 26 court may take all governmental actions necessary to bring the line 27 jurisdiction’s housing element into substantial compliance pursuant line 28 to this article in order to remedy identified deficiencies. The court line 29 shall determine whether the housing element of the jurisdiction line 30 substantially complies with this article and, once the court makes line 31 that determination, it shall have the same force and effect, for all line 32 purposes, as the department’s determination that the housing line 33 element substantially complies with this article. An agent appointed line 34 pursuant to this paragraph shall have expertise in planning in line 35 California.
line 36 (4)  This subdivision does not limit a court’s discretion to apply line 37 any and all remedies in an action or special proceeding for a line 38 violation of any law identified in subdivision (j). line 39 (m)  In determining the application of the remedies available line 40 under subdivision (l), the court shall consider whether there are 98 — 43 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 48, Packet Page 887 line 1 any mitigating circumstances delaying the jurisdiction from coming line 2 into compliance with state housing law. The court may consider line 3 whether a city, county, or city and county is making a good faith line 4 effort to come into substantial compliance or is facing substantial line 5 undue hardships.
line 6 (n)  Nothing in this section shall limit the authority of the office line 7 of the Attorney General to bring a suit to enforce state law in an line 8 independent capacity. The office of the Attorney General may seek line 9 all remedies available under law including those set forth in this line 10 section.
line 11 (o)  Notwithstanding Sections 11040 and 11042, if the Attorney line 12 General declines to represent the department in any action or line 13 special proceeding brought pursuant to a notice or referral under line 14 subdivision (j), the department may appoint or contract with other line 15 counsel for purposes of representing the department in the action line 16 or special proceeding.
line 17 (p)  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the statute of line 18 limitations set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 338 of the Code line 19 of Civil Procedure shall apply to any action or special proceeding line 20 brought by the office of the Attorney General or pursuant to a line 21 notice or referral under subdivision (j), or by the department line 22 pursuant to subdivision (o).
line 23 (q)  The amendments to this section made by the act adding this line 24 subdivision shall not be construed to limit the department’s ability line 25 to enforce programmatic requirements or remedies against cities, line 26 counties, and continuums of care pursuant to the Homeless line 27 Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program (Chapter 6 line 28 (commencing with Section 50216) and Chapter 6.5 (commencing line 29 with Section 50230) of Part 1 of Division 31 of the Health and line 30 Safety Code), the Encampment Resolution Funding program line 31 (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 50250)), and the Family line 32 Homelessness Challenge Grants and Technical Assistance Program line 33 (Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 50255)).
line 34 SEC. 7. Section 65589.5 of the Government Code is amended line 35 to read:
line 36 65589.5. (a)  (1)  The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 37 following:
line 38 (A)  The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a line 39 critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and line 40 social quality of life in California.
98 AB 650 — 44 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 49, Packet Page 888 line 1 (B)  California housing has become the most expensive in the line 2 nation. The excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially line 3 caused by activities and policies of many local governments that line 4 limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, line 5 and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of line 6 housing.
line 7 (C)  Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination line 8 against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to line 9 support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, line 10 reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air line 11 quality deterioration.
line 12 (D)  Many local governments do not give adequate attention to line 13 the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that line 14 result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction line 15 in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing line 16 development projects.
line 17 (2)  In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act line 18 adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares line 19 the following:
line 20 (A)  California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of line 21 historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively line 22 and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of line 23 Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call line 24 California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and line 25 businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining line 26 the state’s environmental and climate objectives. line 27 (B)  While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, line 28 the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to line 29 significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable line 30 to Californians of all income levels is a key factor. line 31 (C)  The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, line 32 demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the line 33 negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted line 34 unaffordability.
line 35 (D)  According to reports and data, California has accumulated line 36 an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must line 37 provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with line 38 growth through 2025.
line 39 (E)  California’s overall home ownership rate is at its lowest line 40 level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in 98 — 45 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 50, Packet Page 889 line 1 home ownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. line 2 Only one-half of California’s households are able to afford the line 3 cost of housing in their local regions.
line 4 (F)  Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality line 5 and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians. line 6 (G)  The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 line 7 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent line 8 and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more line 9 than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
line 10 (H)  When Californians have access to safe and affordable line 11 housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are line 12 less likely to become homeless and in need of
line 13 government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; line 14 and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining line 15 employees.
line 16 (I)  An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing line 17 shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions line 18 caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states line 19 with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and line 20 middle-class households. California’s cumulative housing shortfall line 21 therefore has not only national but international environmental line 22 consequences.
line 23 (J)  California’s housing picture has reached a crisis of historic line 24 proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has line 25 enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the line 26 approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income line 27 levels, including this section.
line 28 (K)  The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and line 29 in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase line 30 the approval and construction of new housing for all economic line 31 segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and line 32 effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, line 33 reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development line 34 projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled. line 35 (L)  It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted line 36 and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight line 37 to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. line 38 (3)  It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that line 39 would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and 98 AB 650 — 46 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 51, Packet Page 890 line 1 safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and line 2 paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently. line 3 (4)  It is the intent of the Legislature that the amendments line 4 removing provisions from subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph line 5 (6) of subdivision (h) and adding those provisions to Sections line 6 65589.5.1 and 65589.5.2 by Assembly Bill 1413 (2023), insofar line 7 as they are substantially the same as existing law, shall be line 8 considered restatements and continuations of existing law, and not line 9 new enactments.
line 10 (b)  It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject line 11 or make infeasible housing development projects, including line 12 emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined line 13 pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, line 14 social, and environmental effects of the action and without line 15 complying with subdivision (d).
line 16 (c)  The Legislature also recognizes that premature and line 17 unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses line 18 continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands line 19 for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. line 20 Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should line 21 be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in line 22 implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, line 23 to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas. line 24 (d)  For a housing development project for very low, low-, or line 25 moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, a local line 26 agency shall not disapprove the housing development project or line 27 emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders line 28 the housing development project or emergency shelter infeasible, line 29 including through the use of design review standards, unless it line 30 makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the line 31 evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
line 32 (1)  The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to line 33 this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, line 34 is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction line 35 has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need line 36 allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for line 37 the income category proposed for the housing development project, line 38 provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be line 39 based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the line 40 housing development project includes a mix of income categories, 98 — 47 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 52, Packet Page 891 line 1 and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional line 2 housing need for one or more of those categories, then this line 3 paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve line 4 the housing development project. The share of the regional housing line 5 need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with line 6 the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department line 7 of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section line 8 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall line 9 have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified line 10 pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any line 11 disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph line 12 shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. line 13 (2)  The housing development project or emergency shelter as line 14 proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public line 15 health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily line 16 mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering line 17 the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income line 18 households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter line 19 financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, line 20 adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and line 21 unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public line 22 health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed line 23 on the date the application was deemed complete. The following line 24 shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public line 25 health or safety:
line 26 (A)  Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan line 27 land use designation.
line 28 (B)  The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under line 29 subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. line 30 (3)  The denial of the housing development project or imposition line 31 of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or line 32 federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without line 33 rendering the development unaffordable to low- and line 34 moderate-income households or rendering the development of the line 35 emergency shelter financially infeasible.
line 36 (4)  The housing development project or emergency shelter is line 37 proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation line 38 that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for line 39 agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not line 40 have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. 98 AB 650 — 48 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 53, Packet Page 892 line 1 (5)  On the date an application for the housing development line 2 project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction line 3 had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial line 4 compliance with this article, and the housing development project line 5 or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s line 6 zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified line 7 in any element of the general plan.
line 8 (A)  This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or line 9 conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on line 10 a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as line 11 suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income line 12 households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing line 13 development project is consistent with the density specified in the line 14 housing element, even though the housing development project line 15 was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and line 16 general plan land use designation on the date the application was line 17 deemed complete.
line 18 (B)  If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones line 19 where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without line 20 a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to line 21 demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient line 22 capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified line 23 in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed line 24 to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate line 25 at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of line 26 subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be line 27 utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency line 28 shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general line 29 plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In line 30 any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency line 31 to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of line 32 paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. line 33 (6)  On the date an application for the housing development line 34 project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction line 35 did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in line 36 substantial compliance with this article and the housing line 37 development project is not a builder’s remedy project. line 38 (7)  On the date an application for the housing development line 39 project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction line 40 did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in 98 — 49 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 54, Packet Page 893 line 1 substantial compliance with this article, and the housing line 2 development project is a builder’s remedy project, and at least line 3 one of the conditions described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph line 4 (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 65585 applies. line 5 (e)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local line 6 agency from complying with the congestion management program line 7 required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of line 8 Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 line 9 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public line 10 Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be line 11 construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of line 12 the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public line 13 Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California line 14 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section line 15 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
line 16 (f)  (1)  Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (8) of this line 17 subdivision, and subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be line 18 construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring the housing line 19 development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written line 20 development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, line 21 and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional line 22 housing need pursuant to Section 65584. However, the line 23 development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied line 24 to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted line 25 on the site and proposed by the development. Nothing in this line 26 section shall limit a project’s eligibility for a density bonus, line 27 incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development line 28 standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915. line 29 (2)  Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section line 30 shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an line 31 emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, line 32 written development standards, conditions, and policies that are line 33 consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 line 34 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s line 35 need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph line 36 (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development line 37 standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local line 38 agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the line 39 emergency shelter project.
98 AB 650 — 50 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 55, Packet Page 894 line 1 (3)  Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section line 2 shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees line 3 and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential line 4 to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing line 5 development project or emergency shelter.
line 6 (4)  For purposes of this section, a housing development project line 7 or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and line 8 in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, line 9 standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is line 10 substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to line 11 conclude that the housing development project or emergency line 12 shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. line 13 (5)  For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance line 14 or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the line 15 application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis line 16 to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development line 17 project or emergency shelter.
line 18 (6)  Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, all of the line 19 following apply to a housing development project that is a builder’s line 20 remedy project:
line 21 (A)  A local agency may only require the project to comply with line 22 the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, line 23 conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had line 24 it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and line 25 zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed line 26 by the applicant. If the local agency has no general plan designation line 27 or zoning classification that would have allowed the density and line 28 unit type proposed by the applicant, the development proponent line 29 may identify any objective, quantifiable, written development line 30 standards, conditions, and policies associated with a different line 31 general plan designation or zoning classification within that line 32 jurisdiction, that facilitate the project’s density and unit type, and line 33 those shall apply.
line 34 (B)  (i)  Except as authorized by paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, line 35 of subdivision (d), a local agency shall not apply any individual line 36 or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development line 37 standards, conditions, and policies to the project that do any of the line 38 following:
line 39 (I)  Render the project infeasible.
98 — 51 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 56, Packet Page 895 line 1 (II)  Preclude a project that meets the requirements allowed to line 2 be imposed by subparagraph (A), as modified by any density bonus, line 3 incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development line 4 standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915, from line 5 being constructed as proposed by the applicant.
line 6 (ii)  The local agency shall bear the burden of proof of complying line 7 with clause (i).
line 8 (C)  (i)  A project applicant that qualifies for a density bonus line 9 pursuant to Section 65915 shall receive two incentives or line 10 concessions in addition to those granted pursuant to paragraph (2) line 11 of subdivision (d) of Section 65915.
line 12 (ii)  For a project seeking density bonuses, incentives, line 13 concessions, or any other benefits pursuant to Section 65915, and line 14 notwithstanding paragraph (6) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, line 15 for purposes of this paragraph, maximum allowable residential line 16 density or base density means the density permitted for a builder’s line 17 remedy project pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of line 18 subdivision (h).
line 19 (iii)  A local agency shall grant any density bonus pursuant to line 20 Section 65915 based on the number of units proposed and line 21 allowable pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of line 22 subdivision (h).
line 23 (iv)  A project that dedicates units to extremely low-income line 24 households pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (i) of subparagraph line 25 (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (h) shall be eligible for the line 26 same density bonus, incentives or concessions, and waivers or line 27 reductions of development standards as provided to a housing line 28 development project that dedicates three percentage points more line 29 units to very low income households pursuant to paragraph (2) of line 30 subdivision (f) of Section 65915.
line 31 (v)  All units dedicated to extremely low-income, very low line 32 income, low-income, and moderate-income households pursuant line 33 to paragraph (11) of subdivision (h) shall be counted as affordable line 34 units in determining whether the applicant qualifies for a density line 35 bonus pursuant to Section 65915.
line 36 (D)  (i)  The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive line 37 approval of, a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, line 38 rezoning, or other legislative approval.
98 AB 650 — 52 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 57, Packet Page 896 line 1 (ii)  The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive, line 2 any approval or permit not generally required of a project of the line 3 same type and density proposed by the applicant. line 4 (iii)  Any project that complies with this paragraph shall be line 5 deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable line 6 plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, line 7 redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar line 8 provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated line 9 as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose. line 10 (E)  A local agency shall not adopt or impose any requirement, line 11 process, practice, or procedure or undertake any course of conduct, line 12 including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary housing line 13 requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the line 14 basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project. line 15 (F)  (i)  A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in line 16 compliance with the residential density standards for the purposes line 17 of complying with subdivision (b) of Section 65912.123. line 18 (ii)  A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in line 19 compliance with the objective zoning standards, objective line 20 subdivision standards, and objective design review standards for line 21 the purposes of complying with paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) line 22 of Section 65913.4.
line 23 (G)  (i)  (I)  If the local agency had a local affordable housing line 24 requirement, as defined in Section 65912.101, that on January 1, line 25 2024, required a greater percentage of affordable units than line 26 required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision line 27 (h), or required an affordability level deeper than what is required line 28 under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), then, line 29 except as provided in subclauses (II) and (III), the local agency line 30 may require a housing development for mixed-income households line 31 to comply with an otherwise lawfully applicable local affordability line 32 percentage or affordability level. The local agency shall not require line 33 housing for mixed-income households to comply with any other line 34 aspect of the local affordable housing requirement. line 35 (II)  Notwithstanding subclause (I), the local affordable housing line 36 requirements shall not be applied to require housing for line 37 mixed-income households to dedicate more than 20 percent of the line 38 units to affordable units of any kind.
line 39 (III)  Housing for mixed-income households that is required to line 40 dedicate 20 percent of the units to affordable units shall not be 98 — 53 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 58, Packet Page 897 line 1 required to dedicate any of the affordable units at an income level line 2 deeper than lower income households, as defined in Section line 3 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 4 (IV)  A local agency may only require housing for mixed-income line 5 households to comply with the local percentage requirement or line 6 affordability level described in subclause (I) if it first makes written line 7 findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that line 8 compliance with the local percentage requirement or the line 9 affordability level, or both, would not render the housing line 10 development project infeasible. If a reasonable person could find line 11 compliance with either requirement, either alone or in combination, line 12 would render the project infeasible, the project shall not be required line 13 to comply with that requirement.
line 14 (ii)  Affordable units in the development project shall have a line 15 comparable bedroom and bathroom count as the market rate units. line 16 (iii)  Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph line 17 shall count toward satisfying a local affordable housing line 18 requirement. Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to a local line 19 affordable housing requirement that meets the criteria established line 20 in this subparagraph shall count towards satisfying the requirements line 21 of this subparagraph. This is declaratory of existing law. line 22 (7)  (A)  For a housing development project application that is line 23 deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development line 24 proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions line 25 of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary line 26 application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition line 27 of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any line 28 or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, line 29 2025.
line 30 (B)  Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 65941.1, for a line 31 housing development project deemed complete before January 1, line 32 2025, the development proponent may choose to revise their line 33 application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, without line 34 being required to resubmit a preliminary application, even if the line 35 revision results in the number of residential units or square footage line 36 of construction changing by 20 percent or more. line 37 (8)  A housing development project proposed on a site that is line 38 identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or line 39 moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element, line 40 that is consistent with the density specified in the most recently 98 AB 650 — 54 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 59, Packet Page 898 line 1 updated and adopted housing element, and that is inconsistent with line 2 both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use line 3 designation on the date the application was deemed complete, shall line 4 be subject to the provisions of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of line 5 paragraph (6) and paragraph (9).
line 6 (9)  For purposes of this subdivision, “objective, quantifiable, line 7 written development standards, conditions, and policies” means line 8 criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public line 9 official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external line 10 and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by line 11 both the development applicant or proponent and the public official line 12 before submittal, including, but not limited to, any standard, line 13 ordinance, or policy described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (o). line 14 Nothing herein shall affect the obligation of the housing line 15 development project to comply with the minimum building line 16 standards approved by the California Building Standards line 17 Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section line 18 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event line 19 that applicable objective, quantifiable, written development line 20 standards, conditions, and policies are mutually inconsistent, a line 21 development shall be deemed consistent with the criteria that line 22 permits the density and unit type closest to that of the proposed line 23 project.
line 24 (g)  This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the line 25 Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency line 26 shelter, is a critical statewide problem.
line 27 (h)  The following definitions apply for the purposes of this line 28 section:
line 29 (1)  “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a line 30 successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into line 31 account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. line 32 (2)  “Housing development project” means a use consisting of line 33 any of the following:
line 34 (A)  Residential units only.
line 35 (B)  Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and line 36 nonresidential uses that meet any of the following conditions:
line 37 (i)  At least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage line 38 is designated for residential use.
98 — 55 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 60, Packet Page 899 line 1 (ii)  At least 50 percent of the new or converted square footage line 2 is designated for residential use and the project meets both of the line 3 following:
line 4 (I)  The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. line 5 (II)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, line 6 motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a line 7 portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential line 8 hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. line 9 (iii)  At least 50 percent of the net new or converted square line 10 footage is designated for residential use and the project meets all line 11 of the following:
line 12 (I)  The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. line 13 (II)  The project involves the demolition or conversion of at least line 14 100,000 square feet of nonresidential use.
line 15 (III)  The project demolishes at least 50 percent of the existing line 16 nonresidential uses on the site.
line 17 (IV)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, line 18 motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a line 19 portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential line 20 hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. line 21 (C)  Transitional housing or supportive housing. line 22 (D)  Farmworker housing, as defined in subdivision (h) of line 23 Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 24 (3)  (A)  “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income line 25 households” means housing for lower income households, line 26 mixed-income households, or moderate-income households. line 27 (B)  “Housing for lower income households” means a housing line 28 development project in which 100 percent of the units, excluding line 29 managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as line 30 defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, at an line 31 affordable cost, as defined by Section 50052.5 of the Health and line 32 Safety Code, or an affordable rent set in an amount consistent with line 33 the rent limits established by the California Tax Credit Allocation line 34 Committee. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction line 35 for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for line 36 owner-occupied units.
line 37 (C)  (i)  “Housing for mixed-income households” means any of line 38 the following:
line 39 (I)  A housing development project in which at least 7 percent line 40 of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) 98 AB 650 — 56 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 61, Packet Page 900 line 1 of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to extremely line 2 low income households, as defined in Section 50106 of the Health line 3 and Safety Code.
line 4 (II)  A housing development project in which at least 10 percent line 5 of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) line 6 of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to very low line 7 income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and line 8 Safety Code.
line 9 (III)  A housing development project in which at least 13 percent line 10 of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) line 11 of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to lower income line 12 households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety line 13 Code.
line 14 (IV)  A housing development project in which there are 10 or line 15 fewer total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) line 16 of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, that is on a site that is smaller line 17 than one acre, and that is proposed for development at a minimum line 18 density of 10 units per acre.
line 19 (ii)  All units dedicated to extremely low income, very low line 20 income, and low-income households pursuant to clause (i) shall line 21 meet both of the following:
line 22 (I)  The units shall have an affordable housing cost, as defined line 23 in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable line 24 rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. line 25 (II)  The development proponent shall agree to, and the local line 26 agency shall ensure, the continued affordability of all affordable line 27 rental units included pursuant to this section for 55 years and all line 28 affordable ownership units included pursuant to this section for a line 29 period of 45 years.
line 30 (D)  “Housing for moderate-income households” means a line 31 housing development project in which 100 percent of the units are line 32 sold or rented to moderate-income households, as defined in line 33 Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable line 34 housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and line 35 Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of line 36 the Health and Safety Code. The units shall be subject to a recorded line 37 deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 line 38 years for owner-occupied units.
line 39 (4)  “Area median income” means area median income as line 40 periodically established by the Department of Housing and 98 — 57 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 62, Packet Page 901 line 1 Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health line 2 and Safety Code.
line 3 (5)  Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, line 4 “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a line 5 preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the line 6 applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, has line 7 submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. The line 8 local agency shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that the line 9 application is not complete.
line 10 (6)  “Disapprove the housing development project” includes any line 11 instance in which a local agency does any of the following:
line 12 (A)  Votes or takes final administrative action on a proposed line 13 housing development project application and the application is line 14 disapproved, including any required land use approvals or line 15 entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. line 16 (B)  Fails to comply with the time periods specified in line 17 subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant line 18 to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to line 19 be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph. line 20 (C)  Fails to meet the time limits specified in Section 65913.3. line 21 (D)  Fails to cease a course of conduct undertaken for an line 22 improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay line 23 or needless increases in the cost of the proposed housing line 24 development project, that effectively disapproves the proposed line 25 housing development without taking final administrative action if line 26 all of the following conditions are met:
line 27 (i)  The project applicant provides written notice detailing the line 28 challenged conduct and why it constitutes disapproval to the local line 29 agency established under Section 65100.
line 30 (ii)  Within five working days of receiving the applicant’s written line 31 notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall post the notice line 32 on the local agency’s internet website, provide a copy of the notice line 33 to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant line 34 to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, line 35 and file the notice with the county clerk of each county in which line 36 the project will be located. The county clerk shall post the notice line 37 and make it available for public inspection in the manner set forth line 38 in subdivision (c) of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. line 39 (iii)  The local agency shall consider all objections, comments, line 40 evidence, and concerns about the project or the applicant’s written 98 AB 650 — 58 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 63, Packet Page 902 line 1 notice and shall not make a determination until at least 60 days line 2 after the applicant has given written notice to the local agency line 3 pursuant to clause (i).
line 4 (iv)  Within 90 days of receipt of the applicant’s written notice line 5 described in clause (i), the local agency shall issue a written line 6 statement that it will immediately cease the challenged conduct or line 7 issue written findings that comply with both of the following line 8 requirements:
line 9 (I)  The findings articulate an objective basis for why the line 10 challenged course of conduct is necessary.
line 11 (II)  The findings provide clear instructions on what the applicant line 12 must submit or supplement so that the local agency can make a line 13 final determination regarding the next necessary approval or set line 14 the date and time of the next hearing.
line 15 (v)  (I)  If a local agency continues the challenged course of line 16 conduct described in the applicant’s written notice and fails to line 17 issue the written findings described in clause (iv), the local agency line 18 shall bear the burden of establishing that its course of conduct does line 19 not constitute a disapproval of the housing development project line 20 under this subparagraph in an action taken by the applicant. line 21 (II)  If an applicant challenges a local agency’s course of conduct line 22 as a disapproval under this subparagraph, the local agency’s written line 23 findings described in clause (iv) shall be incorporated into the line 24 administrative record and be deemed to be the final administrative line 25 action for purposes of adjudicating whether the local agency’s line 26 course of conduct constitutes a disapproval of the housing line 27 development project under this subparagraph.
line 28 (vi)  A local agency’s action in furtherance of complying with line 29 the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 line 30 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), line 31 including, but not limited to, imposing mitigating measures, shall line 32 not constitute project disapproval under this subparagraph. line 33 (E)  Fails to comply with Section 65905.5. For purposes of this line 34 subparagraph, a builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to line 35 comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning line 36 standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. line 37 (F)  (i)  Determines that an application for a housing development line 38 project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section line 39 65943 and includes in the determination an item that is not required line 40 on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist. The local 98 — 59 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 64, Packet Page 903 line 1 agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item is line 2 listed on the submittal requirement checklist.
line 3 (ii)  In a subsequent review of an application pursuant to Section line 4 65943, requests the applicant provide new information that was line 5 not identified in the initial determination and upholds this line 6 determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed line 7 pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. The local agency line 8 shall bear the burden of proof that the required item was identified line 9 in the initial determination.
line 10 (iii)  Determines that an application for a housing development line 11 project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section line 12 65943, a reasonable person would conclude that the applicant has line 13 submitted all of the items required on the local agency’s submittal line 14 requirement checklist, and the local agency upholds this line 15 determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed line 16 pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943.
line 17 (iv)  If a local agency determines that an application is line 18 incomplete under Section 65943 after two resubmittals of the line 19 application by the applicant, the local agency shall bear the burden line 20 of establishing that the determination is not an effective disapproval line 21 of a housing development project under this section. line 22 (G)  Violates subparagraph (D) or (E) of paragraph (6) of line 23 subdivision (f).
line 24 (H)  Makes a written determination that a preliminary application line 25 described in subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 has expired or that line 26 the applicant has otherwise lost its vested rights under the line 27 preliminary application for any reason other than those described line 28 in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 65941.1. line 29 (I)  (i)  Fails to make a determination of whether the project is line 30 exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division line 31 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources line 32 Code), or commits an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision line 33 (b) of Section 65589.5.1 if all of the conditions in Section line 34 65589.5.1 are satisfied.
line 35 (ii)  This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, line 36 2031.
line 37 (J)  (i)  Fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for line 38 the project, to certify an environmental impact report for the line 39 project, or to approve another comparable environmental document, line 40 such as a sustainable communities environmental assessment 98 AB 650 — 60 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 65, Packet Page 904 line 1 pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code, as line 2 required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act line 3 (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public line 4 Resources Code), if all of the conditions in Section 65589.5.2 are line 5 satisfied.
line 6 (ii)  This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, line 7 2031.
line 8 (7)  (A)  For purposes of this section and Sections 65589.5.1 and line 9 65589.5.2, “lawful determination” means any final decision about line 10 whether to approve or disapprove a statutory or categorical line 11 exemption or a negative declaration, addendum, environmental line 12 impact report, or comparable environmental review document line 13 under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 line 14 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) line 15 that is not an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision (b) of line 16 Section 65589.5.1 or subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.2. line 17 (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. line 18 (8)  “Lower density” includes any conditions that have the same line 19 effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing. line 20 (9)  Until January 1, 2030, “objective” means involving no line 21 personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being line 22 uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform line 23 benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the line 24 development applicant or proponent and the public official. line 25 (10)  Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, line 26 “determined to be complete” means that the applicant has submitted line 27 a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. line 28 (11)  “Builder’s remedy project” means a project that meets all line 29 of the following criteria:
line 30 (A)  The project is a housing development project that provides line 31 housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. line 32 (B)  On or after the date an application for the housing line 33 development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, line 34 the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in line 35 substantial compliance with this article.
line 36 (C)  The project has a density such that the number of units, as line 37 calculated before the application of a density bonus pursuant to line 38 Section 65915, complies with all of the following conditions:
line 39 (i)  The density does not exceed the greatest of the following line 40 densities:
98 — 61 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 66, Packet Page 905 line 1 (I)  Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed line 2 appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as line 3 specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) line 4 of Section 65583.2.
line 5 (II)  Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning line 6 ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater.
line 7 (III)  The density that is consistent with the density specified in line 8 the housing element.
line 9 (ii)  Notwithstanding clause (i), the greatest allowable density line 10 shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable pursuant line 11 to clause (i), if any portion of the site is located within any of the line 12 following:
line 13 (I)  One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section line 14 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
line 15 (II)  A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision line 16 (h).
line 17 (III)  A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by line 18 the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” line 19 published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and line 20 the Department of Housing and Community Development. line 21 (D)  (i)  On sites that have a minimum density requirement and line 22 are located within one-half mile of a commuter rail station or a line 23 heavy rail station, the density of the project shall not be less than line 24 the minimum density required on the site.
line 25 (I)  For purposes of this subparagraph, “commuter rail” means line 26 a railway that is not a light rail, streetcar, trolley, or tramway and line 27 that is for urban passenger train service consisting of local short line 28 distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburb line 29 with service operated on a regular basis by or under contract with line 30 a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within line 31 urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas, line 32 using either locomotive-hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger line 33 cars, with multitrip tickets and specific station-to-station fares. line 34 (II)  For purposes of this subparagraph, “heavy rail” means an line 35 electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic line 36 using high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars line 37 operating singly or in multicar trains on fixed rails, separate line 38 rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are line 39 excluded, and high platform loading.
98 AB 650 — 62 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 67, Packet Page 906 line 1 (ii)  On all other sites with a minimum density requirement, the line 2 density of the project shall not be less than the local agency’s line 3 minimum density or one-half of the minimum density deemed line 4 appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as line 5 specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) line 6 of Section 65583.2, whichever is lower.
line 7 (E)  The project site does not abut a site where more than line 8 one-third of the square footage on the site has been used, within line 9 the past three years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V line 10 industrial use, as those terms are defined in Section 65913.16. line 11 (12)  “Condition approval” includes imposing on the housing line 12 development project, or attempting to subject it to, development line 13 standards, conditions, or policies.
line 14 (13)  “Unit type” means the form of ownership and the kind of line 15 residential unit, including, but not limited to, single-family line 16 detached, single-family attached, for-sale, rental, multifamily, line 17 townhouse, condominium, apartment, manufactured homes and line 18 mobilehomes, factory-built housing, and residential hotel. line 19 (14)  “Proposed by the applicant” means the plans and designs line 20 as submitted by the applicant, including, but not limited to, density, line 21 unit size, unit type, site plan, building massing, floor area ratio, line 22 amenity areas, open space, parking, and ancillary commercial uses. line 23 (i)  If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or line 24 imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or line 25 a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a line 26 building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in line 27 force at the time the housing development project’s application is line 28 complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or line 29 affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or line 30 moderate-income households, and the denial of the development line 31 or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject line 32 of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of line 33 conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative line 34 body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as line 35 described in subdivision (d), and that the findings are supported line 36 by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, and with the line 37 requirements of subdivision (o).
line 38 (j)  (1)  When a proposed housing development project complies line 39 with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision line 40 standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect 98 — 63 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 68, Packet Page 907 line 1 at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local line 2 agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition line 3 that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency line 4 shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development line 5 project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the line 6 evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
line 7 (A)  The housing development project would have a specific, line 8 adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project line 9 is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be line 10 developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, line 11 adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and line 12 unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public line 13 health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed line 14 on the date the application was deemed complete. line 15 (B)  There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or line 16 avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other line 17 than the disapproval of the housing development project or the line 18 approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at line 19 a lower density.
line 20 (2)  (A)  If the local agency considers a proposed housing line 21 development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not line 22 in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, line 23 standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in line 24 this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written line 25 documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an line 26 explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing line 27 development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in line 28 conformity as follows:
line 29 (i)  Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing line 30 development project is determined to be complete, if the housing line 31 development project contains 150 or fewer housing units. line 32 (ii)  Within 60 days of the date that the application for the line 33 housing development project is determined to be complete, if the line 34 housing development project contains more than 150 units. line 35 (B)  If the local agency fails to provide the required line 36 documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing line 37 development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and line 38 in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, line 39 standard, requirement, or other similar provision. 98 AB 650 — 64 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 69, Packet Page 908 line 1 (3)  For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus, line 2 incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development line 3 standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid line 4 basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is line 5 inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an line 6 applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, line 7 or other similar provision specified in this subdivision. line 8 (4)  For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development line 9 project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards line 10 and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing line 11 development project is consistent with the objective general plan line 12 standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is line 13 inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied line 14 with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed line 15 housing development project to comply with the objective line 16 standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the line 17 general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied line 18 to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed line 19 on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed line 20 housing development project.
line 21 (k)  (1)  (A)  (i)  The applicant, a person who would be eligible line 22 to apply for residency in the housing development project or line 23 emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action line 24 to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this line 25 section, a court finds that any of the following are met, the court line 26 shall issue an order pursuant to clause (ii):
line 27 (I)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved line 28 a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a line 29 manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency line 30 shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income line 31 households, including farmworker housing, without making the line 32 findings required by this section.
line 33 (II)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved line 34 a housing development project complying with applicable, line 35 objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed line 36 a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without line 37 making the findings required by this section.
line 38 (III)  (ia)  Subject to sub-subclause (ib), the local agency, in line 39 violation of subdivision (o), required or attempted to require a line 40 housing development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, 98 — 65 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 70, Packet Page 909 line 1 or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary line 2 application was submitted.
line 3 (ib)  This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2030. line 4 (IV)  The local agency violated a provision of this section line 5 applicable to a builder’s remedy project.
line 6 (ii)  If the court finds that one of the conditions in clause (i) is line 7 met, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling line 8 compliance with this section within a time period not to exceed line 9 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency line 10 take action on the housing development project or emergency line 11 shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the line 12 local agency to approve the housing development project or line 13 emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in line 14 bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the line 15 housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this line 16 section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order line 17 or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorney’s line 18 fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, provided, line 19 however, that the court shall not award attorney’s fees in either of line 20 the following instances:
line 21 (I)  The court finds, under extraordinary circumstances, that line 22 awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. line 23 (II)  (ia)  In a case concerning a disapproval within the meaning line 24 of subparagraph (I) or (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h), the line 25 court finds that the local agency acted in good faith and had line 26 reasonable cause to disapprove the housing development project line 27 due to the existence of a controlling question of law about the line 28 application of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division line 29 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources line 30 Code) or implementing guidelines as to which there was a line 31 substantial ground for difference of opinion at the time of the line 32 disapproval.
line 33 (ib)  This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. line 34 (B)  Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to line 35 comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with line 36 this section within the time period prescribed by the court, the line 37 court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this line 38 section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied line 39 pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The line 40 local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building 98 AB 650 — 66 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 71, Packet Page 910 line 1 Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum line 2 amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the line 3 housing development project on the date the application was line 4 deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the line 5 amount of the fine to impose, the court shall consider the local line 6 agency’s progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional line 7 housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations line 8 of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already line 9 dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low line 10 and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to line 11 housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and line 12 federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community line 13 Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall line 14 commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund line 15 within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly line 16 constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, line 17 or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not line 18 been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited line 19 in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for the sole purpose line 20 of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to line 21 extremely low, very low, or low-income households. line 22 (C)  If the court determines that its order or judgment has not line 23 been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders line 24 as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this line 25 section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate line 26 the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing line 27 development project, in which case the application for the housing line 28 development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the line 29 local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation line 30 of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by line 31 the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar line 32 projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant line 33 consents to a different decision or action by the local agency. line 34 (D)  Nothing in this section shall limit the court’s inherent line 35 authority to make any other orders to compel the immediate line 36 enforcement of any writ brought under this section, including the line 37 imposition of fees and other sanctions set forth under Section 1097 line 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
line 39 (2)  For purposes of this subdivision, “housing organization” line 40 means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily 98 — 67 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 72, Packet Page 911 line 1 engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a line 2 nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or line 3 advocating for increased access to housing for low-income line 4 households and have filed written or oral comments with the local line 5 agency prior to action on the housing development project. A line 6 housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this line 7 section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by line 8 a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to line 9 reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in line 10 an action to enforce this section.
line 11 (l)  If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith line 12 when it violated this section and (2) failed to carry out the court’s line 13 order or judgment within the time period prescribed by the court, line 14 the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this line 15 section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph line 16 (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. If a court line 17 has previously found that the local agency violated this section line 18 within the same planning period, the court shall multiply the fines line 19 by an additional factor for each previous violation. For purposes line 20 of this section, “bad faith” includes, but is not limited to, an action line 21 or inaction that is frivolous, pretextual, intended to cause line 22 unnecessary delay, or entirely without merit.
line 23 (m)  (1)  Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this line 24 section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code line 25 of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify line 26 the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of line 27 Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 line 28 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of line 29 preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless line 30 the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision line 31 (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this line 32 section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the line 33 later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency line 34 imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on line 35 a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time line 36 periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of line 37 subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial court’s order, a party may, line 38 in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition line 39 within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry line 40 of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 98 AB 650 — 68 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 73, Packet Page 912 line 1 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal line 2 the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the line 3 Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment line 4 of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount line 5 to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the line 6 plaintiff is the project applicant.
line 7 (2)  (A)  A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (I) line 8 of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of line 9 this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful line 10 determination within the time period set forth in paragraph (5) of line 11 subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 after the applicant’s timely line 12 written notice.
line 13 (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. line 14 (3)  (A)  A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (J) line 15 of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of line 16 this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful line 17 determination within 90 days of the applicant’s timely written line 18 notice.
line 19 (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. line 20 (n)  In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local line 21 agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, line 22 notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or line 23 subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be line 24 prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioner’s points line 25 and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondent’s points and line 26 authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as line 27 otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the line 28 record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the line 29 prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs. line 30 (o)  (1)  Subject to paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), and subdivision line 31 (d) of Section 65941.1, a housing development project shall be line 32 subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and line 33 in effect when a preliminary application including all of the line 34 information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was line 35 submitted.
line 36 (2)  Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a housing development line 37 project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards line 38 adopted after the preliminary application was submitted pursuant line 39 to Section 65941.1 in the following circumstances:
98 — 69 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 74, Packet Page 913 line 1 (A)  In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, to line 2 an increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based line 3 on an independently published cost index that is referenced in the line 4 ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary line 5 exaction.
line 6 (B)  A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes line 7 that subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, line 8 policy, or standard beyond those in effect when a preliminary line 9 application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a line 10 specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined line 11 in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), and there line 12 is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid line 13 the adverse impact.
line 14 (C)  Subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, line 15 policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when line 16 a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or line 17 substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California line 18 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section line 19 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
line 20 (D)  The housing development project has not commenced line 21 construction within two and one-half years, or three and one-half line 22 years for an affordable housing project, following the date that the line 23 project received final approval. For purposes of this subparagraph:
line 24 (i)  “Affordable housing project” means a housing development line 25 that satisfies both of the following requirements:
line 26 (I)  Units within the development are subject to a recorded line 27 affordability restriction for at least 55 years for rental housing and line 28 45 years for owner-occupied housing, or the first purchaser of each line 29 unit participates in an equity sharing agreement as described in line 30 subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section line 31 65915.
line 32 (II)  All of the units within the development, excluding managers’ line 33 units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by line 34 Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
line 35 (ii)  “Final approval” means that the housing development project line 36 has received all necessary approvals to be eligible to apply for, line 37 and obtain, a building permit or permits and either of the following line 38 is met:
line 39 (I)  The expiration of all applicable appeal periods, petition line 40 periods, reconsideration periods, or statute of limitations for 98 AB 650 — 70 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 75, Packet Page 914 line 1 challenging that final approval without an appeal, petition, request line 2 for reconsideration, or legal challenge having been filed. line 3 (II)  If a challenge is filed, that challenge is fully resolved or line 4 settled in favor of the housing development project. line 5 (E)  The housing development project is revised following line 6 submittal of a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 line 7 such that the number of residential units or square footage of line 8 construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any line 9 increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, line 10 concession, waiver, or similar provision, including any other locally line 11 authorized program that offers additional density or other line 12 development bonuses when affordable housing is provided. For line 13 purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction” line 14 means the building area, as defined by the California Building line 15 Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). line 16 (3)  This subdivision does not prevent a local agency from line 17 subjecting the additional units or square footage of construction line 18 that result from project revisions occurring after a preliminary line 19 application is submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 to the line 20 ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the line 21 preliminary application was submitted.
line 22 (4)  For purposes of this subdivision, “ordinances, policies, and line 23 standards” includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, line 24 zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards line 25 and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and line 26 policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including line 27 those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection line 28 fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions. line 29 (5)  This subdivision shall not be construed in a manner that line 30 would lessen the restrictions imposed on a local agency, or lessen line 31 the protections afforded to a housing development project, that are line 32 established by any other law, including any other part of this line 33 section.
line 34 (6)  This subdivision shall not restrict the authority of a public line 35 agency or local agency to require mitigation measures to lessen line 36 the impacts of a housing development project under the California line 37 Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section line 38 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
line 39 (7)  With respect to completed residential units for which the line 40 project approval process is complete and a certificate of occupancy 98 — 71 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 76, Packet Page 915 line 1 has been issued, nothing in this subdivision shall limit the line 2 application of later enacted ordinances, policies, and standards line 3 that regulate the use and occupancy of those residential units, such line 4 as ordinances relating to rental housing inspection, rent line 5 stabilization, restrictions on short-term renting, and business line 6 licensing requirements for owners of rental housing. line 7 (8)  (A)  This subdivision shall apply to a housing development line 8 project that submits a preliminary application pursuant to Section line 9 65941.1 before January 1, 2030.
line 10 (B)  This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, line 11 2034.
line 12 (p)  (1)  Upon any motion for an award of attorney’s fees line 13 pursuant to Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a line 14 case challenging a local agency’s approval of a housing line 15 development project, a court, in weighing whether a significant line 16 benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class line 17 of persons and whether the necessity of private enforcement makes line 18 the award appropriate, shall give due weight to the degree to which line 19 the local agency’s approval furthers policies of this section, line 20 including, but not limited to, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), the line 21 suitability of the site for a housing development, and the line 22 reasonableness of the decision of the local agency. It is the intent line 23 of the Legislature that attorney’s fees and costs shall rarely, if ever, line 24 be awarded if a local agency, acting in good faith, approved a line 25 housing development project that satisfies conditions established line 26 in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 line 27 or paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.2. line 28 (2)  This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, line 29 2031.
line 30 (q)  This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the line 31 Housing Accountability Act.
line 32 (r)  The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision line 33 of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall line 34 not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect line 35 without the invalid provision or application.
line 36 SEC. 8. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 37 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because line 38 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 39 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or 98 AB 650 — 72 —
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 77, Packet Page 916 line 1 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 2 17556 of the Government Code.
line 3 SECTION 1. Section 38405 of the Government Code is line 4 amended to read:
line 5 38405. The resolution described in Section 38404 shall be line 6 published once a week for at least the three weeks before the day line 7 fixed for final action, in a newspaper of general circulation line 8 published in the city, or if there is none, in a newspaper designated line 9 by the legislative body which is published in the county. Not less line 10 than four copies of the resolution shall be posted conspicuously line 11 not more than one hundred feet apart along the boundaries of the line 12 park.

O
98 — 73 — AB 650
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 18., Item Page 78, Packet Page 917 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, P.E., PTOE, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Receive Presentation on the State of Our City’s Infrastructure Funding Needs (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation from Staff regarding the condition of the City’s infrastructure
funding needs.

VALUE DRIVERS:

In collaboration with our community partners, work to
improve the quality of life of all of our community
members by fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion;
championing equitable access to affordable housing;
and maintaining a safe environment.

Expand opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to bike and walk safely through active transportation,
accessibility, and safety initiatives.

Preserve, promote, and maintain our City’s historic and cultural resources through responsible stewardship and
historic preservation that highlights the contributions and perspectives of all people who are a part of
Monterey’s diverse history.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Receiving a presentation on the status of the City’s
infrastructure funding needs would be consistent with
City practice and policy.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no fiscal impact to receiving this presentation.

Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council will receive a
presentation on Monterey's $338
million of infrastructure funding needs
over the next 30 years, excluding
major future projects like a Public
Safety Facility or sea level rise
adaptations.
 Facility Condition Assessments
identified $26 million in critical
maintenance needs over the next five
years, including roof repairs, HVAC
updates, and electrical upgrades.
 Right-of-way infrastructure requires
$56 million in investments over the
next five years, with additional annual
costs to maintain streets, sidewalks,
and traffic signals.
 Wharf I and Wharf II are in poor
condition, requiring $18 million in
immediate repairs and $50 million for
long-term strengthening of Wharf II.
 Current funding is insufficient, with
only $2.5 million allocated in the last
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 and none in
the upcoming FY 2025-26, prompting
the need for sustainable funding
strategies beyond competitive grants.

Date: 5/6/2025
Item No.: 19.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 1, Packet Page 918 №10/24
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

Because the proposed action and this matter have no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to receive this presentation; however, that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

In preparation for adoption of the FY 2025/26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that includes a five-year program, staff has prepared a presentation regarding the condition of the City’s infrastructure funding needs.

On May 29, 2024, City Council received a presentation from staff titled “State of the City’s Infrastructure.” This was a first look at the breadth repairs that had been deferred and current needs across the City, from fire stations and community centers to sewer infrastructure and roads. Since that date, staff have been working diligently to refine the estimates and performing facility condition assessments. In 2024, the estimate of deferred maintenance needs were identified as approximately $96 million in projects to address maintenance, repairs, and infrastructure needs within the next five years and $288 million over the next 20 years for a total of $288 million.

As the numbers were refined and additional needs identified, the estimates were updated in April 2025. The new estimate is that deferred maintenance needs to $117 million within the next five years and $221 from year six to year 30, for a total of $338 million. These estimates do not include the cost of a new public safety facility, sea level rise mitigation efforts, undergrounding of electrical service, or vehicle electrification.

The City’s Finance Budget team has determined that no funding is available for the Capital Improvement Program from the General Fund in FY 2025/26. In FY 2024/25, only $2.5 million was allocated, representing just 2.3% of the General Fund. In comparison, other cities allocate a much higher percentage of their General Fund to their CIP, with amounts ranging from 13% in Seaside to 25% in San Luis Obispo.

Facilities
In 2024, City Council awarded a contract with Bureau Veritas for a comprehensive Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) for our staffed buildings. The assessment included:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 2, Packet Page 919 №10/24
 Monterey Conference Center
 Monterey Sports Center
 Monterey Public Library
 City Hall Buildings
 Colton Hall
 Fire Station 11
 Fire Station 12
 Fire Station 13
 Police Department
 Ryan Ranch Corporation Yard
 Casanova Oak Knoll Park Center
 El Estero Park Center
 Hilltop Park Center
 Scholze Park Center
 Vasquez Adobe (Parks & Recreation Administration and Public Works)  Ketcham House (City Attorney's Office)
The focus of the assessment was to determine immediate repair and replacement needs, establish a replacement plan to proactively replace equipment at the end of its usable life, document all equipment manufacturers and recommend an updated preventative maintenance plan, and establish a Facility Condition Index (FCI) for each building to help determine where critical efforts should be prioritized.

The consultant, in collaboration with City staff, identified $1,758,800 in total costs for immediate needs for the next year, which includes repairing roofs, replacing electrical panels, and completing accessibility repairs. For the next five years, $26 million in lifecycle replacement costs were identified. Repairs include but are not limited to:
 $4,769,900 for exterior repairs
 $5,320,900 for interior repairs
 $3,754,000 for HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning), and  $3,891,200 for electrical upgrades.

The items called out for replacement are all critical maintenance items. When exterior maintenance is neglected, roof replacements are delayed, or mechanical equipment is only repaired after it fails. This has resulted in staff and customer service disruptions. Shifting from proactive management to crisis response is a far more expensive and disruptive approach.

Emergencies cost significantly more and leave little room to plan, budget, or collaborate with stakeholders to meet their needs.

With adequate funding, the City can stay ahead of costly failures, ensuring uninterrupted operations while also creating opportunities for major cost savings, energy efficiencies, and modernization. While the City has strengthened staffing to better manage routine maintenance, major projects still require contractor support. Without appropriate levels of funding, there is the risk of falling further behind, incurring even greater emergency repair costs.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Improvements
On December 17, 2024, the City Council received a presentation on and adopted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan 2024 Update. The plan provides an overview of the barriers that must be removed throughout the City to provide access to all individuals including Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 3, Packet Page 920 №10/24
those with disabilities. Prior to that, the Plan was updated in 2013, and the City has made many improvements since the last assessment. While many improvements have been completed, construction costs have continued to increase, and some accessibility standards have changed.

Overall City facilities, not including right of way, are estimated to need $19 million in ADA upgrades in order to bring facilities into compliance with federal civil rights law, including:
 $10 million for City buildings
 $9 million for City parks
Right of Way
The City of Monterey owns and maintains a large network of public streets and sidewalks, covering 108 centerline miles. These streets include not just pavement, but also curbs, gutters, sidewalks, traffic signals, streetlights, crosswalks, flashing beacons, park strips, and other public features.

Thanks to voter support for local sales tax measures (Measure P/S), the pavement is in relatively good condition compared to similar cities. However, to maintain a strong pavement condition score of at least 75, the City will need to invest $5 million to $6 million each year.

Measure S is set to sunset in March 2027, and without renewal, the City will need new funding sources to continue essential maintenance, or the road condition will degrade to the state it was before the Measure P/S investment.

Beyond streets, the following Right-of-Way infrastructure needs have been identified:
 $25 million to replace outdated traffic signal systems across 56 intersections  $30 million to update curb ramps along arterial and connector streets to meet ADA standards
 $3.5 million to upgrade crosswalks
 $2.5 million for immediate repairs to Custom House Tunnel In total, there are over $49 million in right-of-way infrastructure needs over the next five years, another $45 million beyond that, and about $7.5 million annually to maintain these critical public assets.

Public Utilities
The City also owns storm drain and sanitary sewer utilities which are usually in the right of way but sometimes cross private property through easements. The City strives to fully fund the operations and maintenance for both public utilities using utility rate revenue, however when there is a shortfall these utilities are subsidized with General Funds. The City recently updated the Sanitary Sewer Utility Master Plan and adjusted the sewer rates. The City has initiated a Storm Drain Master Plan to assess the current infrastructure needs.

Wharves
Wharf I, also known as Old Fisherman’s Wharf, extends approximately 850 feet into Monterey harbor in a north-south direction. Wharf I includes a main boardwalk, various concession buildings, finger piers, and docking and mooring structures, with both City-owned and tenantoperated facilities. Many of the concessions are maintained by the tenants through the lease agreement. The City completed a recent assessment in 2024 and based on the observations and inspections the overall condition rating of Wharf I is poor. The American Society of Civil Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 4, Packet Page 921 №10/24
Engineers defines poor condition as “advanced deterioration or overstressing observed on widespread portions of the structure but does not significantly reduce the load-bearing capacity of the structure. Repairs may need to be carried out with moderate urgency.” Staff estimates Wharf I requires $6.2 million to address immediate needs and roughly $700,000 in annual operation and maintenance costs.

Wharf II extends approximately 1,500 feet into Monterey harbor in a north-south direction. Wharf II was built in phases and includes a warehouse, restaurants, restrooms, a pump house, a yacht club, abalone farm, public parking, and public access areas. Wharf II includes a breakwater which supports the parking area. The City completed a recent assessment in 2024, and based on observations and inspections, the overall condition rating of Wharf II is also poor.

Staff estimates that Wharf II requires $12 million in immediate repairs and roughly $1 million in annual operation and maintenance cost. At its April 15th meeting, Council received a presentation on the strategies for the future. The strategies for consideration are abandonment, strengthening and replacement, or various combinations of multiple strategies. Strengthening Wharf II by adding new, larger concrete or steel piles and structural members throughout the Wharf II and may cost approximately $50 million in construction costs.

Summary of Funding Needs and Challenges
The City of Monterey, like many cities across the United States, is facing serious challenges with aging infrastructure and a critical lack of funding.

In preparation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), City staff is presenting a sobering look at the state of Monterey’s infrastructure: an estimated $338 million in needed repairs and upgrades over the next 30 years and that figure does not even include major future projects like a new Public Safety Facility or adaptations for sea level rise.

Currently, there is no available funding from the General Fund for CIP projects in FY 2025-26, and even in FY 2024-25, only $2.5 million was allocated, a fraction of what is needed. Recent Facility Condition Assessments revealed nearly $26 million in critical maintenance needs over the next five years alone, from roof repairs to HVAC and electrical updates. Monterey's right-ofway infrastructure, including streets, sidewalks, traffic signals, and curb ramps, requires over $49 million in investments in the next five years to maintain safe and accessible public spaces.

Meanwhile, both Wharf I and Wharf II have been rated in poor condition, requiring urgent repairs totaling over $18 million.

Without funding, Monterey risks shifting from planned maintenance to costly emergency repairs, a much more expensive and disruptive path. The scale of the needs far outpaces current revenues and resources. Like many cities, without significant and sustained investment, Monterey faces mounting costs, growing risks and deeper impacts to its economy, environment, and quality of life.

Staff continues to pursue grant opportunities. While grants can provide important funding resources, they are not a guaranteed solution to Monterey’s infrastructure challenges. Grants are highly competitive, often with strict eligibility requirements and limited funding pools. Even when a grant is awarded, the funding may only cover a portion of project costs, leaving significant gaps that still require local funding. Relying on grants creates uncertainty and delays critical repairs and upgrades. A more sustainable and reliable funding strategy is needed, one Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 5, Packet Page 922 №10/24
that allows Monterey to plan and invest proactively, rather than depending on a patchwork of external funding sources that may or may not come through. Relying on the process of "applying for grants" is insufficient to meet the magnitude and immediacy of the City's infrastructure needs.

Deferred maintenance will no longer be an invisible problem — it will show up in the form of closed facilities, and diminished public services. The choices made now will determine whether Monterey builds a resilient, vibrant future or struggle under the weight of crumbling infrastructure. It is essential that we recognize infrastructure as the foundation of our community’s health, safety, and prosperity and prioritize its funding.

Next Steps
At its meeting on May 6, 2025, the City Council will receive this State of Our City’s Infrastructure Presentation. Following that, on May 20, 2025, the City Council will review infrastructure financing and funding options in greater detail.

Over the next few months, the City Council will review and adopt a budget for FY 2025-26. The City’s Fiscal Health Response Plan emphasizes the need for the City to solve long-term funding needs by analyzing our service levels and adjust them where appropriate. While there may be a desire in the community to expand or sustain City services, it will be necessary for policymakers to prioritize the funding of infrastructure.

AR
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 19., Item Page 6, Packet Page 923 Council
Agenda Report
№10/24
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to Require New Businesses and Existing Businesses that are Changing the Type of Use, Location or Building Occupancy Classification to Obtain a Zoning Clearance Permit (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council approve the 2nd reading of an
Ordinance amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City
Code to require new businesses and existing businesses
that are changing the type of use, location or building occupancy classification to obtain a Zoning Clearance
Permit.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Foster a local government that is transparent and
collaborative; and solicits, welcomes and appreciates input from all.

Recognize that City government’s role is to provide core services to the public, and partnerships with nonprofit, military, business, and other government agencies can be an effective means of supporting the public good.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Land Use within the City’s jurisdiction is regulated by Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code. The proposed
Ordinance would require new businesses and existing
businesses that are changing land uses, location or
building occupancy classification to obtain a zoning
clearance permit to ensure the applicable land use policies are being enforced.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

If approved, the proposed Ordinance would require new businesses and existing businesses that are changing land uses, location or building occupancy classifications to obtain a zoning Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is considering the
2nd reading of an ordinance
requiring Zoning Clearance Permits
for new businesses and businesses
changing use, location, or building
occupancy classification.
 The ordinance aims to ensure
compliance with land use policies
and provide an early checkpoint to
avoid costly mistakes or denials.
 A $42 application fee will be
required for cost recovery of staff
time associated with permit
applications.
 Public concerns led to modifications
in the ordinance language, replacing
"structure" with "building occupancy
classification" to address
accessibility improvement concerns.

Date: 5/6/2025
Item No.: 20.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 1, Packet Page 924 №10/24
clearance permit. Permit applications would require payment of a $42.00 application fee for cost recovery of staff time.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the adoption of this ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The adoption of this ordinance is an organizational and administrative activity of the City, does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeably indirect physical change in the environment, and is therefore not a project of purposes of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3); 15378(b)(5).

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. In the event adoption of this ordinance does constitute a project, it is categorically exempt under the Class 20 (Changes in the Organization of Local Governments) categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines section 15320). Further, none of the exceptions to exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission (Government Code section 65857). Any substantial modification proposed by the City Council not previously considered by the Planning Commission shall first be referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. (Government Code section 65857.) The Planning Commission has 40 days to report on the reference, and if it does not report back, it shall be deemed a recommendation for approval.

DISCUSSION:

On April 15, 2025, the City Council approved the first reading of a new ordinance to require a Zoning Clearance Permit to determine whether a business meets the zoning requirements for a particular location and to approve the establishment of the business use at a location. The zone clearance is a tool that assists property and business owners by having an early checkpoint in the development process to avoid costly mistakes or denials.

The City received multiple letters from Ms. Gorman expressing concerns about the reference to structure and that it may prevent property owners from constructing accessibility improvements.

In response, staff has modified the draft ordinance to replace the word structure with building occupancy classification. If a change of use, location or building occupancy is proposed, then a Zoning Clearance Permit would be required.

In conclusion, staff recommends the City Council approve the 2nd reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 38 of the Monterey City Code to require new businesses and existing businesses that are changing the type of use, location or building occupancy obtain a Zoning Clearance Permit
Pursuant to Monterey City Charter section 4.4(c)(1), a proposed ordinance may be amended or modified at the time of its final passage without an additional reading provided the general Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 2, Packet Page 925 №10/24
scope and original purpose are retained. Therefore, the proposed ordinance, as amended, may be adopted at this reading.

KC/lh
Attachments: 1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 38 of the City Code

2. Public Comments Received Prior to City Council Report Publication Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 3, Packet Page 926 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22

AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO REQUIRE NEW BUSINESSES AND EXISTING

BUSINESSES THAT ARE CHANGING THE TYPE OF USE, LOCATION, OR BUILDING

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TO OBTAIN A ZONING CLEARANCE PERMIT THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, pursuant to Monterey City Code section 19-2, the City’s business license ordinance is not regulatory, it is for revenue generating purposes only; WHEREAS, a Zoning Clearance Permit procedure is used to determine whether a business meets the zoning requirements for a particular location and to approve the establishment of the business use at that location;
WHEREAS, regulatory review of whether a proposed activity complies with the regulations of the City’s zoning code is to assist business owners with meeting all requirements to open and operate a new business or an existing business that is changing location or building occupancy classification;
WHEREAS, a Zoning Clearance Permit process helps to provide certainty to potential business owners/operators before entering into a lease or spending significant investment on tenant improvements for a use or location that is not permitted under the City’s regulations; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission (PC) considered the amendment at the March 11, 2025 regularly scheduled meeting. The PC received the staff presentation along with public comment and adopted a Resolution recommending approval of the proposed Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the adoption of this ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The adoption of this ordinance is an organizational and administrative activity of the City, does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeably indirect physical change in the environment, and is therefore not a project of purposes of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(3); 15378(b)(5).

Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. In the event adoption of this ordinance does constitute a project, it is categorically exempt under the Class 20 (Changes in the Organization of Local Governments) categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines section Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 4, Packet Page 927 2 15320). Further, none of the exceptions to exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

SECTION 2: 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.

SECTION 3: Chapter 38, Article 21, Section 38-150, Zoning Review Generally, is amended as follows:

A. Purpose. Zoning Clearance is the procedure used by the City to verify that a proposed land use or building occupancy classification complies with the list of uses allowed in the applicable zone and the development standards applicable to the use or building occupancy classification, or if additional approvals are required before a Zoning Clearance Permit can be issued.

B. Applicability. A Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, or designee, shall be obtained:

1. For each new or expanded use of a site and each new or changed building occupancy classification prior to issuance of a building permit, grading permit, certificate of occupancy, or utility service connection.

2. For all new businesses to the City that are required to have a business license pursuant to Monterey City Code section 19-4, and

3. For all existing businesses that are required to have a business license pursuant to Monterey City Code section 19-4 that are changing the type of use or location within the City.

C. Review Procedures. Zoning Clearance permits are reviewed and issued by the Community Development Department. Other City departments, such as the Fire Department, will be notified when a Zoning Clearance Permit application has been submitted and will contact the applicant if additional permits or inspections are required.

D. Validity. A Zoning Clearance Permit remains valid as long as the land use, business operations, building occupancy classification, and location do not change.

SECTION 4: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 5: If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of these amendments and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

SECTION 6: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 2025, by the following vote:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 5, Packet Page 928 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 6, Packet Page 929 From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 07:45
To: Nat Rojanasathira <[email protected]>
Cc: Christine Davi <[email protected]>; Tyller Williamson <[email protected]>; Ed Smith <[email protected]>; Kim Barber <[email protected]>; Gino Garcia <[email protected]>; Jean Rasch <[email protected]> Subject: ADA Grievance Complaint
Mr. Rojanasathira,
Please see the attached ADA Grievance Complaint form. On April 15, 2025, the City Council adopted the Ordinance to amend Section: 3, Article 21, 38-150 Zoning Review General. The businesses that are issued the Zoning Clearance Permit will no longer be able to occupy a building/structure/property when the structure is changed as the Zoning Clearance Permit then becomes invalid. The City is violating the ADA by prohibiting the businesses from complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act, thereby, discriminating against the general public and the employees of the business.

D. Validity. A Zoning Clearence Permit remains valid as long as the land use, business operations, structure, and locations do not change.

Can you please acknowledge receipt of this email.

Thank you,
Julie Gorman
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 7, Packet Page 930 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 8, Packet Page 931 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 9, Packet Page 932 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 10, Packet Page 933 April 16, 2025
Julie Gorman
Via e-mail: [email protected]
RE: ADA Grievance – Zoning Clearance Permit
Dear Ms. Gorman:

The City of Monterey is in receipt of your ADA Grievance dated April 15, 2025 regarding the 1st reading of the ordinance related to the Zoning Clearance Permit.

The proposed Zoning Clearance Permit process will help business owners confirm their business use is permitted at a specific location, providing certainty before investing in leases or tenant improvements. The ordinance does not contain any language that would prevent businesses from making necessary ADA upgrades, nor does it state that such upgrades would automatically invalidate a Zoning Clearance Permit.

The City is committed to both ensuring zoning compliance and facilitating accessibility for all members of the public. The Zoning Clearance Permit process does not hinder legally required accessibility improvements.

Kind regards,
Nat Rojanasathira
Assistant City Manager / ADA Coordinator
cc: Mayor and City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 11, Packet Page 934 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 12, Packet Page 935 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 13, Packet Page 936 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 14, Packet Page 937 On Monday, April 21, 2025 at 03:08:14 PM PDT, Christine Davi <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Ms. Gorman:

The city will revise the draft ordinance and replace the word "structure" with "building occupancy."
Christine Davi
City Attorney
City of Monterey
(831) 646-3915 (main)
(831) 646-1562 (direct)
Confidentiality and Privilege Notice: This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 15, Packet Page 938 From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 9:57 AM
To: Christine Davi <[email protected]>
Cc: Tyller Williamson <[email protected]>; Ed Smith <[email protected]>; Gino Garcia <[email protected]>; Kim Barber <[email protected]>; Jean Rasch <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: ADA Grievance Complaint
Ms. Davi,
It is not unreasonable to request that businesses that have spent monies on tenant improvements (ADA or otherwise) are permitted to continue to occupy the current structure/building/parcel when the "land use" changes.

I suggest amending the Ordinance to read:

D. Validity. A Zoning Clearance Permit remains valid as long as the land use business use, business operations, structure, and location do not change.

This will encourage and allow the businesses to change the structure to be ADA compliant and ensure that the businesses can continue to occupy the structure/building/parcel when the "land use" is changed and the monies spent on tenant improvements was not for nothing.

The reason for a Zoning Clearance Permit was to confirm that the "business use" is permitted at the specific location the business intends to occupy, not to then place restrictions on the business. Any changes in the structure will require a Building Permit and require the businesses to comply with the current codes.

Thank you,
Julie Gorman
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 16, Packet Page 939 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 17, Packet Page 940 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 18, Packet Page 941 City Attorney’s Office • 512 Pierce Street • Monterey • California • 93940 • [email protected] ___________________________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
831-646-3915 (TEL)
April 29, 2025
Ms. Julie Gorman
[email protected]
Ms. Gorman:

This confirms receipt of your multiple letters and emails disapproving of the City’s proposed Zoning Clearance ordinance.

On April 21, 2025, I let you know that City staff will propose replacing the word “structure” with “building occupancy classification” to address your concerns with the draft ordinance being misinterpreted as prohibiting a business owner from making Americans with Disabilities Act improvements.

Thereafter, your grounds for dissatisfaction with the proposed ordinance have changed.

You now request that the word “land use” be replaced with the word “business use” because you contend that the proposed ordinance could prohibit non-conforming uses when a parcel’s zoning designation changes. I disagree with your analysis for the reasons stated below.

First, you suggest that “land use” is not a “business use.” To the contrary, California Government Code section 65850 authorizes the City to regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land for various purposes, including business uses. Monterey City Code, Chapter 38, Article 4, Use Classifications, does precisely this by describing the types of uses allowed on real property depending on its zoning classification. The term “land use” encompasses the range of activities for which land may be utilized, including but not limited to “business use.”
Next, you confuse a change in a parcel’s zoning designation with a change in use classification. The proposed ordinance does not apply when a parcel’s zoning designation changes. By its own terms the draft ordinance applies to “new or expanded uses of a site,” “new businesses to the City,” and existing businesses that change the ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 19, Packet Page 942 type of business or the location. It does not apply to an existing business operating on a parcel with a new zoning designation.

The proposed ordinance is unrelated to, and has no impact on, legally established existing uses. In other words, should a parcel’s zoning designation change after the adoption of this ordinance, rendering a current use of the property as non-conforming, that non-conforming use may continue to operate as allowed under the City Code or other applicable laws. For example, if an industrial use business is lawfully operating on a property that is subsequently rezoned such that the industrial use is disallowed, the proposed ordinance never comes into play. This is because an industrial use on this parcel is not a “new or expanded use of the site,” “new business to the City” or an existing business that changes the type of business or location. The change in this hypothetical is with the zoning designation, not the business use. The draft Zoning Clearance ordinance applies to new or changes in uses not new or changed parcel zoning designations.

Implementing a zone clearance process will help avoid situations where a business owner invests a lot of time and money making improvements to real property only to find out later (e.g., when the City shuts it down) that the use of the property is not allowed by the parcel’s zoning designation. This is not a unique concept; there are similar ordinances or processes in effect in other cities such as Alameda, Fresno, Oakland, Berkeley, Camarillo, etc.

In response to your multiple threats to sue the City over this proposed ordinance based on your mistaken interpretation of the application of the proposed law, I hope the foregoing alleviates your concerns. If not, please call me or schedule a meeting with me by contacting Legal Secretary, Alicia Salas, at (831) 646-3915. I am also happy to speak with your attorney.

Sincerely,
Christine Davi
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 20, Packet Page 943 From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 6:58 PM
To: Chris�ne Davi <[email protected]>
Cc: Tyller Williamson <[email protected]>; Ed Smith <[email protected]>; Gino Garcia <[email protected]>; Kim Barber <[email protected]>; Jean Rasch <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Zoning Clearance Permit
Ms. Davi,
Can you please confirm this statement to be true and correct.

A business is issued a Zoning Clearance Permit to occupy my property (Zoned: C-2 Land Use:

Commerical) for an Office use and two years from now the land use is changed from Commerical to Parks & Open Space, will that business be permitted to continue to occupy my property or is the Zoning Clearance Permit invalid?
The reason the Ordinance is confusing is because it is the business that is being issued the Zoning Clearance Permit which is valid as long as the land use does not change. Land Use implies more than just the business use.

Thank you,
Julie Gorman
On Tuesday, April 29, 2025 at 03:00:03 PM PDT, Christine Davi <[email protected]> wrote:

Ms. Gorman - please find the attached response to your letter.

Christine Davi
City Attorney
City of Monterey
(831) 646-3915 (main)
(831) 646-1562 (direct)
Confidentiality and Privilege Notice: This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2025 2:23 PM
To: Chris�ne Davi <[email protected]>
Cc: Tyller Williamson <[email protected]>; Ed Smith <[email protected]>; Gino Garcia <[email protected]>; Kim Barber <[email protected]>; Jean Rasch <[email protected]> Subject: Zoning Clearance Permit
Please see the attached letter.
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open a�achments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
www.monterey.gov
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Monterey mail system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open a�achments unless you are sure the content is safe.] ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 21, Packet Page 944 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 22, Packet Page 945 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 23, Packet Page 946 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 24, Packet Page 947 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 25, Packet Page 948 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 26, Packet Page 949 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 27, Packet Page 950 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 28, Packet Page 951 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 29, Packet Page 952 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 30, Packet Page 953 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 31, Packet Page 954 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 32, Packet Page 955 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 33, Packet Page 956 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 34, Packet Page 957 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 35, Packet Page 958 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 36, Packet Page 959 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 37, Packet Page 960 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 38, Packet Page 961 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 20., Item Page 39, Packet Page 962 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№08/22

SIDEWALK VENDING ORDINANCE UPDATE
(MONTEREY CITY CODE CHAPTER 32, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3)
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, since 1936, Monterey City Code section 32-3 has generally prohibited the use of public property for transacting commercial business. Senate Bill (“SB”) 946 was signed into law on September 17, 2018, prohibiting local agencies from regulating sidewalk vendors except in accordance with its provisions, which are codified in Government Code sections 51038 and 51039;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3606 on December 3, 2019, recognizing that sidewalk vending provides important entrepreneurship and economic development opportunities to low-income and immigrant communities, contributes to a dynamic public space and increases access to desired goods and culturally significant food and merchandise. The findings set forth in the recitals in Ordinance 3606 are affirmed and incorporated herein by reference;
WHEREAS, in January 2023, SB 972 took effect and updated the California Retail Food Code to exempt some sidewalk vending operations from the requirement to obtain a health permit and the City Code needs to be updated to reflect this change; WHEREAS, since the enactment of Ordinance 3606, the City has observed health and safety issues related to sidewalk vending, and it has received complaints regarding safety, aesthetics, congestion of public spaces, among other complaints, resulting from sidewalk vending activity. In particular, concerns with sidewalk vending operations interfering with the flow of runners, bikers, and pedestrians on the recreation trail, which is a Class I multiuse path, and obstructing oceanfront views and coastal access. Given this, there is a need for additional regulation of sidewalk vendors on public property that are directly related to objective health, safety, and welfare concerns created by competing uses of sidewalks by residents, visitors, and sidewalk vendors. The Council further finds and declares that regulations on sidewalk vending in City parks, open spaces, and beach access areas are necessary to ensure the public’s use and enjoyment of natural resources and recreational opportunities, and are necessary to prevent an undue concentration of commercial activity that unreasonably interferes with the scenic and natural character of the parks, open spaces, and beach access areas; WHEREAS, the area from the City’s Harbor Master’s Office located at 250 Figueroa Street north to Wharf 1 is less than 1/2 mile long and is a major tourist area receiving approximately four million visitors each year. This area is adjacent to the beach, the marina, the recreation trail, state owned property where sidewalk vending is prohibited, and the City’s waterfront parking lot. This area offers residents and visitors a clear view of the scenic Monterey Bay and the marina. offers scenic vistas and wildlife viewing, including harbor seals, sea otters, sea lions, birds, and sometimes whales. California State Historic Landmark #1 Date: 5/6/2025
Item No.: 21.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 21., Item Page 1, Packet Page 963 2 (Custom House) is located adjacent to this congested area and it draws additional people to the vicinity. Users of the waterfront parking lot, which has 433 regular spaces, 10 ADA spaces, 11 bus/RV spaces and 1 compact space, must be afforded access to the wharf, the beach, and the bay. Sidewalk vending must be regulated because the equipment and actives that accompany vending, including tables, displays, and interacting with pedestrians is incompatible with the confines of this space and poses a risk of accidents and injury to walkers, runners, bicycle riders, and visitors as they attempt to navigate the path congested with vendors; WHEREAS, the City Council determines that this ordinance is a matter of City-wide importance and necessary for the preservation and protection of the public peace, health, safety and/or welfare of the community, is a valid exercise of local police power and is in accordance with the public purposes and provisions of applicable State and local laws and requirements; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) because the project consists of a Municipal Code amendment to modify sidewalk vending regulations in areas with existing sidewalk vending regulations, which would not result in any changes in population density or traffic patterns. Furthermore, the project does not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; Exception a - Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. No significant impact will occur because this is a minor change to land use limitations.

Exception b - Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. No cumulative impact will occur because this is a minor change to land use limitations.

Exception c - Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. No significant effect will occur because this is a minor change to land use limitations.

Exception d - Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). No impact will occur because there would be no improvements or damage to a scenic highway.

Exception e - Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Hazardous waste sites will not be impacted because no construction is proposed.

Exception f - Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No impact Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 21., Item Page 2, Packet Page 964 to historical resources will occur because no construction is proposed.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

SECTION 2: 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.

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code section 32-3.01, Sidewalk Vending – Definitions, is hereby amended to insert the following definitions in alphabetical order, and the existing definitions are to be re-lettered in alphabetical order:
“Above-ground structure” means any structure affixed to a sidewalk, including a streetlight, tree well, parking meter, utility structure, utility box, bike rack, mailbox, trash can, elevator, kiosk, newspaper rack, picnic shelter, bench, table, wall, sign pole, traffic signal pole, signal pushbutton pole, planter, and stairs.” “Beach access point” means public stairways, ramps, and other physical access points to the beach.
“School” means an institution of learning that offers instruction in those courses of study required by the California Education Code or that is maintained pursuant to standards set by the State Board of Education. This definition does not include a vocational or professional institution or an institution of higher education, including a community or junior college, college, or university.”
SECTION 4: Monterey City Code section 32-3.02(b)(4) is hereby amended as follows:
“If the applicant will vend food products and if required by the California Retail Food Code, a valid Monterey County Health Department permit issued to the vendor and, if applicable, to the transport vehicle.”
SECTION 5: Monterey City Code section 32-3.03(b)(6) is hereby amended as follows:
“Proof of a policy or policies of comprehensive general liability insurance insuring the sidewalk vendor and naming the City as an additional insured against loss by reason of injury or damage that may result to persons or property from the negligent operation or defective construction of the sidewalk vending device, or from violation of this chapter or of any other law of the State or the United States. The insurance policy shall be in the sum as determined adequate by the City’s Finance Director, or designee, which said sum shall be listed on the sidewalk vending permit application. Such insurance shall further provide that the policy shall not terminate or be canceled without 30 calendar days’ advance written notice to the City.”
SECTION 6: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(f) is amended as follows:
“Sidewalk vendors shall not display any goods for sale on the ground. Displays may not be less than 28 inches or more than 34 inches off the ground.”
SECTION 7: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(g) is amended as follows:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 21., Item Page 3, Packet Page 965 4 “Sidewalk vendors shall not connect to an external source of power, water, or any other utilities located on public property.” SECTION 8: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(j) is amended as follows:
“Sidewalk vendors shall not leave vending equipment or goods unattended at any time. Any equipment or objects used for sidewalk vending purposes must be removed from public property at 10:00 p.m. or by the hours of operation imposed on other businesses or uses on the same street, whichever is least restrictive. Any equipment or objects used for sidewalk vending purposes left on City property outside of permitted sidewalk vending hours will be considered discarded and may be
immediately seized or disposed of by the City.”
SECTION 9: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(k) is amended as follows:
“To facilitate the enforcement of this chapter, every sidewalk vendor must display their City-issued sidewalk vending permit on their pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other nonmotorized conveyance when
operating. Every sidewalk vendor must possess proof of
insurance required by this chapter when operating.”
SECTION 10: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07(s) is amended as follows:
“No sidewalk vendor shall occupy a space exceeding 32 square feet, greater than eight feet in length, or four feet in width, including vending equipment but excluding the space the sidewalk vendors own person occupies.”
SECTION 11: Monterey City Code section 32-3.07 Sidewalk vending- General regulations, subsections (t) through (y) are added as follows:
t. No sidewalk vendor shall use or display any item, equipment, or structure greater than eight feet in height or that extends or overhangs more than four inches.
u. Sidewalk vending customer seating is prohibited.
v. No vending equipment may be attached to or contact any above ground structure.
w. Sidewalk vending hours limitations in areas zoned for nonresidential use will be between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. or the hours of operation imposed on other businesses or uses on the same street, whichever is least restrictive.
x. Roaming sidewalk vending is limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. for areas that are exclusively residential.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 21., Item Page 4, Packet Page 966 y. Sidewalk vendors shall not use portable generators, outdoor wood burning ovens, charcoal barbecues, or gasoline or
kerosene.

SECTION 12: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08 Sidewalk vending- Specific regulations, is retitled as Monterey City Code section 32-3.08, Sidewalk Vending- Location regulations.

SECTION 13: Monterey City Code sections 32-3.08(a) and (b) are amended as follows:
“a. Stationary sidewalk vending shall not be located:

1. within 10 feet of any:

A. other sidewalk vendor;
B. driveway;
C. marked crosswalk; or
D. fire escape.

2. within 15 feet of any:

A. intersection;
B. building entrance;
C. loading zone, parking space or access ramp designed for individuals with disabilities;
D. fire hydrant;
E. red curb marking (no parking);
F. public restroom;
G. any decorative fountain, statute, monument, memorial, or art installation; or
H. curb ramp.

3. within 25 feet of:

A. outdoor dining or patio area;
B. any beach access point;
C. Municipal Wharf No. 1; or
D. Municipal Wharf No. 2.

4. within 100 feet of any:

A. vehicle entrance to any Fire Station, Police Department, Hospital, or any other structure dedicated to health and safety emergency matters; or
B. street or sidewalk closure.

5. within 500 feet of:

A. the property line of any school between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the days the school is in session;
B. a permitted certified farmers’ market or any area subject to a special event permit for the duration of the permit; or C any freeway on-ramp or off-ramp as defined in the California Vehicle Code.
b. Stationary sidewalk vendors are prohibited from:

1. vending in areas that are exclusively residential; or

2. vending within five feet of any above ground structure.” SECTION 14: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(c) is amended as follows:
“(c) Sidewalk Vending Location Allocation Process

1. Sidewalk Vending locations are available on a first-come first-served basis.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 21., Item Page 5, Packet Page 967 6 2. Notwithstanding subsection (c)(1), the Community Development Director, or designee, is authorized to develop and implement a lottery or registration process and guidelines to allocate vending locations for the area between the Harbor Master’s office at 250 Figueroa to Wharf 1.”
SECTION 15: the first sentence of Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(d) is amended as follows:
“In addition to the other applicable requirements of this chapter, sidewalk vending in City parks is subject to the following regulations, and in the event of a conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions of this chapter, this section shall govern sidewalk vending in City parks:”
SECTION 16: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(d)(2) is amended as follows:
“Sidewalk vending in City parks may only occur during the park’s normal open hours.

Sidewalk vending is permitted between 8:00 a.m. and sunset in parks where there is no designated closing time.”
SECTION 17: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(d)(5) is added as follows:
“Sidewalk vendors shall not vend within 50 feet of another sidewalk vendor.” SECTION 18: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(e) is amended as follows:
“e. Sidewalk vending is prohibited on the sidewalk between the Harbor Master Office located at 250 Figueroa Street and Wharf 1 within 12’ of the walkway railing or rock causeway.

SECTION 19: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(g) is amended as follows:
“No sidewalk vending shall be allowed in, on, along, or within 25 feet on either side of the centerline of Monterey Bay Coastal Recreation Trail within the City of Monterey.” SECTION 20: Monterey City Code section 32-3.08(i) is added as follows:
“No sidewalk vending shall be allowed in, on, along, or within Simoneau Transit Plaza.” SECTION 21: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

SECTION 22: If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions to be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 23: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 21., Item Page 6, Packet Page 968 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 21., Item Page 7, Packet Page 969 From: Mira the Montessorian
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2025 1:46 PM
To: City Clerk's Office Team <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment for May 6th City Council Meeting You don't often get email from
why this is important
Attn: May 6th general city council meeting
Monterey City Council Public Comment Speech - 2nd reading of proposed Street Vending Ordinance
Good evening, Mayor and City Councilmembers,
My name is Mira Nissim, and I'm writing today on behalf of the Monterey Sidewalk Vendor Association and the many vendors whose livelihoods are now under threat. Our association was formed on April 17th, 2025 after the approval of the first reading of a new sidewalk vending ordinance for the Fisherman's Wharf area in an attempt to oppose this harmful ordinance and protect our livelihoods and families' well being. We are writing because the Council has moved forward with an ordinance restricting sidewalk vending near the Wharf, based not on safety or health risks-but on complaints from business owners and the Wharf Association. With all due respect, this violates Senate Bill 946, which was enacted in 2018 to protect vendors from exactly this kind of discriminatory and economically motivated regulation.

The law is clear: local governments may only restrict sidewalk vending when there are objective concerns related to health, safety, or public welfare. Business preferences, economic competition, and community complaints-no matter how loud-are not valid grounds for such an ordinance.

There is no record of vendor-related safety issues in the Wharf area. In fact, the most pressing public safety concern is the City's failure to regulate bike traffic in a crowded pedestrian zone. There are no clear speed signs, no designated lanes, and no visible enforcement. That's a genuine safety risk-and one that should take priority. Also, as the city manager stated in his Youtube recap on April 16th, 2025, the wharf itself poses a safety risk due to much needed structural repairs.

We are not here to disrupt the community. We are here to contribute to it. Many of us are long-time residents, immigrants, artists, and entrepreneurs who have built our businesses with integrity and respect. Vending is how we pay rent, feed our families, and build a future.

We've begun organizing as a formal Association. We are seeking legal counsel. And we have already started collecting hundreds of signatures from residents and tourists who value the color and culture we bring to the streets of Monterey. We are also preparing to file for an injunction to prevent the new ordinance from passing because it is in direct violation of SB946.

So today, we respectfully ask the City to:

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 21., Item Page 8, Packet Page 970 • Halt this ordinance and reconsider its legal foundation; • Work with vendors to create guidelines that comply with state law; • And most importantly, redirect the City's focus toward real safety concerns, not scapegoating hard-working people who are just trying to survive.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration.

Sincerely,
Mira Nissim
On Behalf of the Monterey Sidewalk Vendor Association
Monterey county resident, Currently permitted Monterey Sidewalk Vendor (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
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 21., Item Page 9, Packet Page 971 Council
Agenda Report
№08/22
FROM: Rafaela T. King, Finance Director
SUBJECT: 1st Reading of Proposed Ordinance Amendment, Including Findings Demonstrating Need, to Increase Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers Effective January 1, 2027 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council pass a first reading of an
ordinance amendment, including findings demonstrating
need, to increase compensation for the Mayor and City
Councilmembers effective January 1, 2027.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Serve as stewards of the City’s financial resources
through sound economic vitality efforts, streamlining
operations, reasonable revenue enhancements,
visionary long-term planning, fiscal transparency, and
community partnerships.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City Charter does not require a 4/5 vote to increase the compensation for City Councilmembers. Rather, a
majority vote is required. Charter Article 5, City Manager and Administrative Department, pertains to officers and employees and not to the City Council. Therefore, the
4/5 vote requirement in Charter section 5.3 does not
apply to this item. Charter Article 4, City Council,
governs City Councilmember compensation. It does not
have a 4/5 vote requirement.

According to California State Senator Bill Dodd, DNapa, the author of SB 329 (effective January 1, 2024):

City Councilmembers have one of the hardest
jobs in California government. They deal with a
wide range of issues, from street maintenance to
emergency response duties. And all too often,
they do this job with very little financial
compensation. No one runs for City Council in
order to make money. But the low levels of pay
make it much harder for them to balance their
careers and personal obligations with the calling
Agenda Report Highlights
 The City Council is considering a
proposed ordinance amendment to
increase compensation for the
Mayor and City Councilmembers.
 The proposed increase aims to
address the need for fair
compensation due to the demanding
nature of the roles and the rising
cost of living.
 The new compensation rates,
effective January 1, 2027, would be
$1,562.79 per month for the Mayor
and $1,064.20 per month for City
Councilmembers.
 The increase is based on a formula
allowing up to 5% per year from the
last adjustment, as authorized by
Government Code section 36516.
 The cost of the proposed increase in
compensation is $6,492.60 per year.
 The increase in compensation is
intended to attract qualified
candidates, promote diversity, and
improve public service and
governance.

Date: 5/6/2025
Item No.: 22.

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 22., Item Page 1, Packet Page 972 to serve their community. The Legislature has not raised the base pay amounts for City Councilmembers since 1984. It's time those amounts caught up to the present economic reality, especially with the rapid increase in inflation we've seen recently. Raising the pay will also make it easier for members of marginalized communities to serve. City Councils should be reflective of the communities they represent and I believe raising their compensation is an important step to achieving that equitable outcome.

This bill was supported by the League of California Cities because:

Lengthy time commitments and limited pay discourage many, especially lowincome residents, single parents, people of color, and young people, from running for public office. For many, being a council member is a full-time commitment with part-time pay. Cal Cities is proud to sponsor this important legislation that lessens barriers for those interested in governing at the local level. This overdue reform is another tool communities can choose to use that can help ensure our city councils are reflective of the residents who live, work, and play in their communities.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost to increase compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers is $6,492.60 per year.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”) Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action has no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Ultimately, the City Council could choose not to increase City Council compensation, or it could increase compensation by a lesser amount than the amount proposed in the draft ordinance.

Differing from state law, the City’s Charter authorizes an increase in compensation to be effective during the term of office. (Charter section 4.1(d).) However, during the discussion of this item on April 15, 2025, it was clear that the City Council wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest and preferred to delay the increase until after the next election. Therefore, an alternative would be to have the increase implemented concurrently with the effective date of the ordinance or some other date. The Fair Political Practices Commission has advised that generally a public official is not disqualified from voting on decisions affecting their compensation. In addition, a charter city has the authority to adopt an ordinance to increase Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 22., Item Page 2, Packet Page 973 compensation for city council members which would become effective at a time different from that provided by state law. (57 Op.Atty.Gen. 11, 1-10-74.) DISCUSSION:

On June 29, 2023, the Governor signed SB 329 into law, allowing for city councilmember pay to increase in general law cities. The Legislature last adjusted these amounts in 1984. This state law applies to the City of Monterey because City Charter section 4.1 authorizes the City Council to be compensated in an amount permitted by state law for general law cities of the same population, with extra compensation for the Mayor.

In September 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance 3668 increasing City Councilmember monthly compensation to $965.25 and the Mayor’s monthly compensation to $1,417.50, effective January 1, 2024. Amounts paid for retirement, health, and other benefits are not included for purposes of determining salary provided that the same benefits are available and paid by the city for its employees.

The proposed new amount of compensation may be determined according to one of two formulas set forth in Government Code section 36516. The amount of the increase allowed under the Government Code shall not exceed the greater of either of the following: (1) an amount equal to 5% for each calendar year from the last adjustment (not compounded pursuant to an Attorney General opinion); or (2) an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024 based on the California Consumer Price Intex, which shall not exceed 10% for each calendar year.

Here, the 5% for each calendar year from the last adjustment formula has been used, resulting in the following monthly salaries:

Mayor: $1,562.79
City Councilmember: $1,064.20
The need to increase city council and mayor salaries revolves around attracting qualified candidates, ensuring fair compensation for the demanding work, promoting diversity, improving public service, and boosting overall governance. As the cost-of-living increases, the salaries of city council members and mayors should keep pace. If salaries are not adjusted for inflation, they can effectively decrease in real value, making it more difficult for elected officials to meet the demands of the role.

Pursuant to Government Code section 36516.5, any council salary increase may take effect only when at least one member of the council commences a new term, however, the City’s Charter provides that it may be effective earlier. Given the City Council’s discussion on this item, the proposed ordinance follows state law and implements the increase after the election.

Therefore, if approved, the increase in compensation would be effective January 1, 2027.

Attachments: 1. Ordinance
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on this matter within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, will be made available at the following link:
https://monterey.gov/Submitted-Comments
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 22., Item Page 3, Packet Page 974 ORDINANCE NO. ____ C.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№07/19
AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2-1.06 OF THE MONTEREY CITY CODE TO

INCREASE COMPENSATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2027
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY DOES ORDAIN, as follows:

SECTION 1:

WHEREAS, City Charter section 4.1 authorizes the City Council to be compensated in an amount permitted by state law for general law cities of the same population, with extra compensation for the Mayor;
WHEREAS, City Councilmembers are currently paid $965.25 and the Mayor $1,417.50 (effective January 2024);
WHEREAS, the current policy regarding City Councilmember benefits (e.g. health insurance) was established in 1989 with the adoption of Ordinance 2913 and updated with the adoption of Ordinance 3223 on October 7, 1997. This action codifies Ordinance 3223 in City Code section 2-1.06 and makes only minor technical changes to that section; WHEREAS, under Government Code section 36516, Councilmember salary may be increased if the increase does not exceed: (1) an amount equal to 5% for each calendar year from the last adjustment (not compounded pursuant to an Attorney General opinion); or (2) an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024 based on the California Consumer Price Index, in an amount not to exceed 10%;
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the author of SB 329, Senator Bill Dodd-DNapa, that:

City Councilmembers have one of the hardest jobs in California government.

They deal with a wide range of issues, from street maintenance to emergency response duties. And all too often, they do this job with very little financial compensation. No one runs for City Council in order to make money. But the low levels of pay make it much harder for them to balance their careers and personal obligations with the calling to serve their community. The Legislature has not raised the base pay amounts for City Councilmembers since 1984. It's time those amounts caught up to the present economic reality, especially with the rapid increase in inflation we've seen recently. Raising the pay will also make it easier for members of marginalized communities to serve. City Councils should be reflective of the communities they represent and I believe raising their compensation is an important step to achieving that equitable outcome.

WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the League of California Cities, which supported SB 329 for the following reasons:

Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 22., Item Page 4, Packet Page 975 2 Lengthy time commitments and limited pay discourage many, especially lowincome residents, single parents, people of color, and young people, from running for public office. For many, being a council member is a full-time commitment with part-time pay. Cal Cities is proud to sponsor this important legislation that lessens barriers for those interested in governing at the local level. This overdue reform is another tool communities can choose to use that can help ensure our city councils are reflective of the residents who live, work, and play in their communities.

WHEREAS, the need to increase City Councilmember and Mayor salaries revolves around attracting qualified candidates, ensuring fair compensation for the demanding work, promoting diversity, improving public service, and boosting overall governance. As the cost of living increases, the salaries of elected officials should keep pace. If salaries are not adjusted for inflation, they can effectively decrease in real value, making it more difficult for elected officials to meet the demands of the role;
WHEREAS, this ordinance was presented to the City Council with findings demonstrating the need for the increased compensation on April 15, 2025 consistent with the requirement set forth in Government Code section 36516(g)(2); WHEREAS, the City Charter does not require a 4/5 vote to increase the compensation for City Councilmembers. Charter Article 5, City Manager and Administrative Department, pertains to officers and employees and not to the City Council. Therefore, the 4/5 vote requirement in Charter section 5.3 does not apply to this item. Charter Article 4, City Council, governs City Councilmember compensation and it does not have a 4/5 vote requirement; WHEREAS, differing from state law, the City’s Charter authorizes an increase in compensation to be effective during the term of office. (Charter section 4.1(d).) A charter city has the authority to adopt an ordinance to increase compensation for city council members which would become effective at a time different from that provided by state law. (57 Op.Atty.Gen. 11, 1-10-74.) However, during the discussion of this item on April 15, 2025, it was clear that the City Council wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest and preferred to delay the increase until after the next election;
WHEREAS, a first reading of the ordinance was held on May 6, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey determined that the proposed action is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”) Article 20, Section 15378). In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed action has no potential to cause any effect on the environment, or because it falls within a category of activities excluded as projects pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, this matter is not a project. Because the matter does not cause a direct or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change on or in the environment, this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

NOW THEREFORE, the Monterey City Council declares as follows:

SECTION 2: The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 22., Item Page 5, Packet Page 976 adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 3: Monterey City Code, Chapter 2, Article 1, Section 2-1.06 is amended as follows:
2-1.06 Compensation and Benefits for the Mayor and City Councilmembers a. Compensation. Effective January 1, 2027, Compensation for the Mayor and City Councilmembers shall be as follows:

1. Compensation for the Mayor is hereby established in the sum of $1,562.79 per month.

2. Compensation for City Councilmembers is hereby established in the sum of $1,064.20 per month.

3. The compensation set forth in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) is exclusive of any amounts paid by the City for retirement and health benefits under subsection (b); provided, that the same benefits are available and paid by the City for its employees.

4. This section does not and shall not provide for automatic future increases in compensation.
b. Benefits. The Mayor and City Councilmembers may, by individual election and subject to the rules and regulations of the provider, receive any non-cash benefit granted by Resolution to non-sworn members of the Monterey Executive Management Employee’s Association. `Non-Cash benefits' include those that are not limited to retirement and health insurance where the City pays the provider directly. Cash or cash in lieu payments to a Council Member are not authorized.

SECTION 4: All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed effective January 1, 2027.

SECTION 5: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this _____ day of _______, 202_, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 5/6/2025, Item No. 22., Item Page 6, Packet Page 977