Agenda packet — Monterey City Council, March 17, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

Council Chamber
580 Pacific St.

Monterey, California

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Council Regular Meeting and
Closed Session
Tuesday, March 17, 2026
4:00 PM
Afternoon Session Only
Mayor
Tyller Williamson
Councilmembers
Kim Barber, District 1
Ed Smith, District 2
Jean Rasch, District 3
Gino Garcia, District 4
Interim City Manager
Lew Bauman
City Attorney
M. Christine Davi
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING:
• In-Person: At the meeting location listed above.
• Remotely via ZoomGov webinar:
o On a computer or smartphone: https://monterey-org.zoomgov.com/j/1607729333 Zoom software must be up-to-date. For help, please use our Zoom Meeting Instructions. o By telephone dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (CA) or 646-828-7666 (NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another. Enter Webinar ID: 160 772 9333 # If asked for participant ID, press #. To raise your hand (or lower it), dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute.
• This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (~10 second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90 second delay). • Written comment: Emailed comments to [email protected] sent no later than ½ hour before the start of the meeting (sooner preferred) are not read aloud but are made available to the Council and public at monterey.gov/submitted-comments.

PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES AND TIME LIMITS:

The total amount of time allocated for public comment on a particular issue and for each individual speaker is generally as follows:

1. Up to three minutes per speaker.

2. For regular City Council meetings, there are two 15-minute public comment periods, one in the afternoon and one in the evening. Speakers may only comment during one session.

3. The total time allocated for public comment:
a. 30 minutes per item – Public Appearance and Public Hearing items b. 15 minutes per item – All other items (including, but not limited to, Consent, Closed Session, Presentations, and Requests to Agendize)
At the time an item is considered, the Mayor will ask those attending the meeting in person to line up at the podium or raise their hands, and for remote participants to use *9 on the telephone or the “raise hand” function in Zoom, if they wish to address the City Council. The maximum amount of time for each person to speak and the total amount of time allotted for each item will be determined based on the number of people indicating an interest in speaking and the amount of business to be conducted on the agenda. In exceptional circumstances and when necessary to ensure a full opportunity for public input, the Mayor may, with the legislative body’s consent, adjust the amount of time allowed for public input and/or the time allotted for each speaker.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt. Code §84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official. Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made.

March 17, 2026 4:00 PM
2 Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m.

Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Recognize March 2026 as Women’s History Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

2. Receive Presentation from Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

3. Recognition of March 2026 as American Red Cross Month (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) General Public Comments
The public may speak to any item that is not on the agenda and that is in the City of Monterey’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Consent Agenda
All matters listed under Consent Agenda are routine and will be adopted by one motion unless a member of the City Council or the public requests discussion or a separate vote.

Consent: Approval of Minutes

4. March 3, 2026 Regular Meeting (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Consent: Resolutions
A resolution is an expression of opinion or evidence of a decision made by the City Council and often relates to administrative business of the City. Resolutions generally become effective immediately upon adoption.

5. Authorize Purchase of 25 Motorola Solutions Mobile Radios for Police Patrol Vehicle Fleet for $271,323.77 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

6. Adopt Guidelines for Mailed Ballot Elections Pursuant to Article XIII D, Section 6, Subdivision (c) of the California Constitution and Authorize the City Manager to Vote Yes on the Ballots for City Owned Parcels (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

7. Authorize the City to Enter a Memorandum of Understanding to Formalize the Working Relationship for a Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group (RCPWG) and Authorizing $5,000 from Planning Office Professional Services Budget to Support the Work Effort (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Consent: Other

8. Recognize Monterey Peninsula College’s Dress for Success Program (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
End of Consent Agenda
March 17, 2026 4:00 PM
3 Afternoon Session Items
Public Hearing (Afternoon)
Public Hearings are held to receive a staff presentation and public comment on certain items prior to City Council action. NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you challenge the City Council’s zoning, planning, or land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing on the matter, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at the time of or prior to the public hearing. (Government Code section 65009.)

9. Resolution to Modify the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) Management District Plan to Add the City of Sand City to the District (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Public Appearance (Afternoon)
Public Appearance items are on non-routine issues that might stimulate public interest and comments.

10. Receive Subcommittee Recommendations; Appoint Applicants to Positions on the Appeals Hearing Board, Building and Housing Appeals Board, Measure P & S Oversight Committee; and Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter Recommending Appointment of a Representative to the City on the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

11. Authorize the City to Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Santa Cruz to Coordinate the Funding and Administration of the Local Government Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Coordination Program, Appoint a Councilmember to Represent the City, and Authorize $1,000 from Planning Office Professional Services Budget to Support the Work Effort (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

12. Amend Resolution 25-060 to Include the Vasquez Adobe Repairs and Gordon House Repairs Projects in the FY 25-26 Capital Improvement Program and Authorize the Finance Director to Appropriate Funds from the Facility Reserve Fund to the Capital Projects Fund in the Amount of $1,093,000 (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)

13. Receive the Rental Inventory Program Annual Report (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

14. Receive the 2025 General Plan Annual Report for Review and Comment (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

15. Deny a Request for a License Agreement for the Pecos League of Baseball, LLC at Frank E. Sollecito, Jr. Ballpark for Dates in May through July 2026 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Council Comments
Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on their activities. In addition, Councilmember or the City Council may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information. (Government Code section 54954.2(a)(3).)
March 17, 2026 4:00 PM
4 City Manager Reports
The City Manager may make a brief report on their activities or a brief announcement. They may also ask for clarification or direction regarding scheduling of Council meetings and study sessions.

Adjourn to Closed Session
The City Council will take public comments on closed session items before convening to closed session.

Closed Session (Afternoon)
Part or all of a meeting may be closed to the public under special conditions. Council can consider only matters covered in the agenda descriptions.

16. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 601 Wave Street, Suite 500
Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Adam Silverstein (Silverstein's Deli Delights, LLC) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for New Lease Agreement (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)

17. Conference with Legal Counsel: Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2), (e)(2): One Case - Dispute re: Purchase of City-Owned Affordable Housing Unit at 300 Glenwood Circle #189, Nancy Mello, Applicant (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Adjournment
Writings distributed for discussion or consideration on these matters within 72 hours prior to the meeting, pursuant to Government Code § 54957.5, are available at: monterey.gov/submitted-comments and in the City Manager’s Office at 580 Pacific St., Room 1, Monterey, CA 93940 during regular business hours. All comments and materials provided to the Council become part of the public record. Members of the public who comment in any fashion on an agenda item may be subject to the Levine Act which requires disclosure of campaign contributions of more than $500 to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months.

INTERPRETATION: The Monterey City Council invites and encourages public participation at its meetings.

Requests for language interpretation may be made by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 831-646-3935. The City Clerk will make every effort to accommodate requests for interpreter assistance.

Requests should be made as soon as possible in advance of any meeting of the City Council. The City is committed to addressing language interpretation requests swiftly in order to maximize public participation.

ACCESSIBILITY: The City of Monterey is committed to including people with disabilities in all of its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, including to coordinate the use of a hearing device, please contact [email protected] or (831) 646-3935. Notification 30+ hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-

35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communication-related assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS offers free text-tospeech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

CITY OF MONTEREY 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES: (831) 646-3799 or [email protected] Upcoming city meetings are listed at monterey.gov/agendas For more information, call (831) 646-3935 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Recognize March 2026 as Women’s History 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 March 2026 as Women’s
History 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:

It is within the City Council’s purview to recognize
contributions to Monterey, which includes celebrating
Women’s History Month.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is
recommended to recognize
March 2026 as Women’s History
Month. The 2026 theme, Leading
the Change: Women Shaping a
Sustainable Future, highlights
women’s roles in fostering
systems that support people and
the planet.
• The City of Monterey celebrates
the achievements of women,
including Angustias de la Guerra,
Julia Platt, and Julie Packard, for
their impactful contributions to
civic engagement and
sustainability.
• Recognizing Women’s History
Month aligns with the City’s
commitment to preserving and
promoting its diverse historical
and cultural resources.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 1.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 1, Packet Page 5 №10/24
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

City Council could choose not to recognize March 2026 as Women’s History Month; however, that is not recommended.

DISCUSSION:

Women’s History Month celebrates women’s societal contributions, which are innumerable and crucial. The theme for Women’s History Month 2026, declared by the National Women’s History Alliance, is Leading the Change: Women Shaping a Sustainable Future, because “whether developing green technologies, advancing economic justice, strengthening education systems, or building civic power – women are designing blueprints for sustainable transformation. This theme affirms that shaping a sustainable future means fostering systems that support both people and the planet.”
The City of Monterey recognizes and celebrates the achievements of generations of women who have been an integral part of the fabric of the Monterey region for thousands of years, dating back to the native Rumsen, Esselen, and Salinan peoples to the Sicilian women who made up a third of cannery workers in the 1930s and 1940s and to the present day when many local business, non-profit, City staff and political leaders are women.

In recognition of Women’s History Month and the designated theme for 2026, the City of Monterey is proud to share brief details of the accomplishments of the following women, leaders in civic engagement and sustainability, for their contributions to Monterey, the state of California, and the United States:
• Angustias de la Guerra, who advocated for women’s property rights during the drafting of California’s constitution at the Monterey Constitutional Convention of 1849 in Monterey. Her efforts helped influence provisions in the new constitution that allowed married women to retain ownership of property, which was unusually progressive for the time.
• Julia Platt, a marine biologist, civic leader, and one of California’s early conservation advocates. In the early 20th century, she pushed to protect coastal waters and marine ecosystems in Monterey Bay. Her work helped to pave the way for modern marine conservation efforts in the region.
• Julie Packard, a marine biologist who helped create the Monterey Bay Aquarium and has been its Executive Director since it opened in 1984. She also chairs the Board of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI), a world leader in deep-ocean science and technology. Under her leadership, Monterey Bay has become one of the world’s most recognized centers for marine research and environmental stewardship.

We recognize those women who came before us, and we continue to work to promote humanitarian and sustainable systems, in Monterey and throughout the United States. “The success of one woman should be the inspiration for the next.” – Serena Williams 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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 2, Packet Page 6

ATTACHMENT
Proclamation declaring
March 2026
Women’s History Month
WHEREAS, Women’s History Month celebrates women’s societal contributions, which are innumerable and crucial, and
WHEREAS, the theme for Women’s History Month 2026, declared by the National Women’s History Alliance, is Leading the Change: Women Shaping a Sustainable Future, because “whether developing green technologies, advancing economic justice, strengthening education systems, or building civic power – women are designing blueprints for sustainable transformation. This theme affirms that shaping a sustainable future means fostering systems that support both people and the planet,” and WHEREAS, the City of Monterey recognizes and celebrates the achievements of generations of women who have been an integral part of the fabric of the Monterey region for thousands of years dating back to the native Rumsen, Esselen, and Salinan peoples to the Sicilian women who made up a third of cannery workers in the 1930s and 1940s and to the present day when many local business, non-profit, City staff and political leaders are women; and,
WHEREAS, labor and civil rights leader, Dolores Huerta once said, “We do need women in civic life. We do need women to run for office, to be in political office. We need a feminist to be at the table when decisions are being made so that the right decisions will be made”; and, WHEREAS, as a community, we celebrate Women’s History Month and recognize the incredible achievements of women throughout Monterey, the state of California, and all across the United States; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT I, Tyller Williamson Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of the City Council and citizens, hereby proclaim the month of March 2025 as Women’s History Month.

Dated: March 2026 _______________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 1., Item Page 3, Packet Page 7 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ted Terrasas, REHS, Sustainability Manager SUBJECT: Receive Presentation from Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive a presentation from 3CE.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Protect and preserve our natural environment by
addressing climate change through ecologically
responsible and pragmatic solutions.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

As a member agency of 3CE, it is important for the City to remain up to date with the policies and programs of
3CE. In addition, the operation of 3CE aligns with the
implementation of the City’s Climate Action Plan and the associated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with
receiving this presentation.

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
Agenda Report Highlights
• The City of Monterey is a founding
member of Central Coast
Community Energy (3CE), a
Community Choice Aggregator
established to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and provide local
control over energy decisions.
• 3CE serves over 1.2 million
customers across 35 communities in
five counties, with 94% of customers
opting for 3CE power.
• The City of Monterey is eligible for
3CE funding for projects like electric
vehicle charging stations, electric
vehicle purchases, and building
electrification initiatives.
• The City Council is recommended to
receive a presentation from 3CE to
stay informed about its priorities,
programs, and accomplishments.
• 3CE aims to maintain competitive
electricity rates while using
revenues for rebate and incentive
programs.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 2.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 1, Packet Page 8 №12/25
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 accept the presentation or to request additional information from City or 3CE staff.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey is a founding member agency of 3CE (2017), which is a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) that purchases electricity on behalf of their member agencies and provides energy to all ratepayers in their service area. The service area has expanded over the past several years and now includes thirty-five communities in the counties of Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Benito, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara. 3CE serves over 1.2 million customers, with 94% of customers electing to receive power from 3CE rather than the local investor-owned utility.
3CE was founded as a way for local municipalities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide local control of energy decisions and use revenues to create rebate and incentive programs all while maintaining competitive electricity rates.

The City of Monterey is also eligible to apply for funding from 3CE for projects such as installing electric vehicle charging stations, purchasing electric vehicles and working to adopt codes that promote building electrification.

Due to ongoing organizational and program updates, it is the recommendation of staff that the City Council receive a presentation from 3CE to remain up to date on their current priorities and accomplishments.

KC/tjt
Attachment: 1. Presentation
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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 2, Packet Page 9 3CE Annual Update
City of Monterey
March 17th, 2026
1 ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 3, Packet Page 10 Together,
Power for Good
2 ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 4, Packet Page 11 Renewable Energy Progress Megawatts
(Oct.) 3

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 5, Packet Page 12 • Balances intermittent renewables
• Supports stability
• Reduces reliance on fossil fuels
• Drives affordability
• Empowers customers
Battery Energy Storage Systems
Support the Renewable Transition

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 6, Packet Page 13 Supply Trend September 2022
• Labor Day Weekend
2022
• Flex Alert
• Text message from
Governor's Office
5 ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 7, Packet Page 14 Supply Trend July 2024
• Independence Day
holiday weekend
2024
6 ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 8, Packet Page 15 Utility Scale Battery Safety
7 ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 9, Packet Page 16 Willow Rock Energy Storage Center
• Utilizes compressed air to generate power on demand
• Largest compressed air energy storage project in the world • 200 megawatts for 3CE customers
Energy Storage Innovation
Advanced Compressed Air Energy Storage (A-CAES)
8 ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 10, Packet Page 17 Our Energy Future
New Renewable Energy Projects
9 Aratina Solar + Storage
● 120 MW to power 90,000 homes
Atlas Solar + Storage
● 150 MW to power 105,100 homes
Victory Pass Solar + Storage – ONLINE
● 100 MW to power 68,000 homes

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 11, Packet Page 18 Community Engagement
• Ongoing outreach through events, webinars, and
workshops
• Added bilingual staff and expanded translated
materials
• Adopted Underserved Communities Action Plan
• Increased access with interpreters and bilingual
promotion
10 ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 12, Packet Page 19 Community Programs
Up to
$3,500 (EV)
Up to
$100,000 (Charger)
Electrify Your
Ride
Electrify
Your Home
New Construction
Electrification
Program
$5,000
per ADU
$3,000
per Affordable Unit
$2,000
per Market Rate Unit
$15,000
per SFH Disaster Rebuild
Agricultural
Electrification
Program
50% up to $10,000
Tier 1 Equipment
50% up to $50,000
Tier 2 Equipment
(+$5,000-$25,000)
Income-Qualified Small
Businesses
Residential
Battery Rebate
Program
Up to
$13,000
$300 per kWh of Battery
Storage, up to 26 kWh
11 Up to
$3,000
per project
Heat Pump Water Heater
Heat Pump HVAC
Induction Cooktop/Range
Portable Heat Pump HVAC
(Renters)

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 13, Packet Page 20 Member Agency Programs
No-Cost Technical
Assistance Program
Plan Your
Fleet
Electric Bus
Program
50% up to
$200,000
per E Bus
+$50,000
Per additional E Bus
up to $400,000
Charge Your
Fleet
Up to
$150,000
Electrify
Your Fleet
Up to
$150,000
Reach Codes
Program
No-Cost Technical
Assistance Program
12 ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 14, Packet Page 21 Community Investment
Rebates & Incentives
City of Monterey All-Time 3CE Investment:
• $46,000 – Plan Your Fleet
• $241,000 – Electrify Your Home
• $395,000 – Electrify Your Ride
• $20,000 – Residential Battery Rebate
13 ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 15, Packet Page 22 Legislative Update
AB 1761
Asm. Chris Rogers
SB 1138
Sen. Stephen Padilla
Allows electric load serving entities to
transact energy compliance products
on an hourly basis to align with new
regulatory frameworks. Providing this
flexibility will improve reliability and
lower costs for California energy
consumers by better matching
available supply to demand.

Requires disclosure of any data used
by an investor-owned utility or the
California Public Utilities Commission
to calculate the Power Charge
Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) and
other cost recovery mechanisms to
allow for a fair assessment of their
cost-effectiveness

ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 16, Packet Page 23 Thank You!
Contact Us:
• Northern Region: Sophia Schwirzke ([email protected]) • Senior Advisor for Policy and Legislative Affairs: Das Williams ([email protected])
Learn more & apply for programs at 3Cenergy.org
15 ATTACHMENT
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 2., Item Page 17, Packet Page 24 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Lew Bauman, Interim City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognition of March 2026 as American Red Cross 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 March 2026 as
American Red Cross Month in Monterey.

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:

There are no policy implications.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Agenda Report Highlights
• The recommendation to City Council
is to recognize March 2026 as Red
Cross Month.
• The recognition is designated as an
opportunity to honor the
accomplishments and work of the
local American Red Cross of the
Central Coast chapter.
• In 2025, 181 Red Cross volunteers
helped 49 families affected by 30
home fires, collected 2,141 blood
donations, provided CPR training to
2,423 residents, and assisted 112
families in our armed forces.
• There are no fiscal or environmental
implications associated with this
recognition.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 3.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 1, Packet Page 25 №11/25
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to recognize March 2026 as American Red Cross Month.

DISCUSSION:

The proclamation honors the volunteers, staff, and donors who support the American Red Cross mission. The community depends on these local heroes to deliver assistance, shelter, food, and hope during emergencies, including the coronavirus pandemic.

The American Red Cross has a long history of helping our neighbors in need in Monterey. The Central Coast Chapter assisted households affected by home and wildfires, helped collect blood donations from our generous community blood donors, provided training services, and assisted families of our armed forces, among many other vital efforts.

The Red Cross partnered with the City of Monterey on numerous Disaster Relief Operations, Blood Drives, and training for Preparedness, Health, and Safety. The contributions of local Red Cross volunteers (181 in the county) give hope to the most vulnerable in their darkest hours.

Last year in Monterey County, volunteers helped 49 families affected by 30 home fires by addressing their urgent needs like food and lodging, as well as providing recovery support. In addition, they installed 682 smoke alarms, collected 2,141 blood donations, provided first aid and CPR training to 2,423 residents, and assisted 112 families of our armed forces.

In 2025, the American Red Cross partnered with the City of Monterey to offer 11 blood drives at the Hilltop Park Center and helped collect 330 pints of blood. The City is a Premier Blood Partner of the American Red Cross, which is designated exclusively for the organization’s highest contributing sponsors and blood drive partners.

On March 9, 2026, the tragic Casanova Plaza Apartments fire resulted in eight hospitalizations and one death, and the displacement of nearly 90 residents. The American Red Cross swiftly responded to the event, supporting the Housing Authority for Monterey County to provide support to those affected.

The City of Monterey dedicates the month of March to those who support the American Red Cross’ mission to prevent and alleviate human suffering in the face of emergencies. Our community depends on the organization which relies on volunteers and the public’s generosity to perform its essential mission.
[LB/hg]
Attachments: 1. Proclamation
e: American Red Cross, Central Coast Chapter, [email protected] Michele Averill, Chief Executive Officer, American Red Cross, [email protected]
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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 2, Packet Page 26 Proclamation Declaring
March 2026
American Red Cross Month
WHEREAS, March is American Red Cross Month, a special time to celebrate the humanitarian spirit of Monterey County and reaffirm their commitment to help ensure no one faces a crisis alone in Monterey County, across the United States, and around the world. Their dedication touches millions of lives each year as they carry out the organization’s 140-year mission of preventing and alleviating suffering; and,
WHEREAS, caring for one another is at the heart of our community and exemplified by the people of Monterey, whose simple acts of kindness through the Red Cross provide help and hope in people’s most difficult moments — continuing the lifesaving legacy of Clara Barton, who founded the organization more than 140 years ago to prevent and alleviate human suffering; and, WHEREAS, Central Coast Chapter volunteers (181 in the county) give hope to the most vulnerable in their darkest hours. Last year in Monterey County, volunteers helped 49 households affected by 30 home fires by addressing their urgent needs like food and lodging, as well as providing recovery support. In addition, they installed 682 smoke alarms, collected 2,141 blood donations, provided first aid and CPR training to 2,423 residents, and assisted 112 families of our armed forces; and,
WHEREAS, the Central Coast Chapter’s support, volunteerism, and generous donations are critical to our community’s resilience. We hereby recognize this month of March in honor of all those who fulfill Clara Barton’s noble words, “You must never think of anything except the need and how to meet it,” and ask everyone to join in this commitment; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Tyller Williamson Mayor of the City of Monterey, on behalf of the City Council and citizens, hereby proclaim the month of March 2026 as American Red Cross Month. I encourage all Americans to support this organization and its noble humanitarian mission.

Dated: March 2026 _____________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 3., Item Page 3, Packet Page 27

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF MONTEREY
Tuesday, March 3, 2026
4:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 580 PACIFIC ST.

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Councilmembers

Present: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson

Absent: None
City Staff

Present:

Interim City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director, Community Development Director, Police Chief, Human Resources Director, Library & Museums Director, Public Works Director, Parks and Recreation Director, City Clerk, Property Manager, Assistant Fire Chief, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer, Police Lieutenant, Recreation Manager, Senior Engineer, Acting Division Chiefs (x2), Fire Captains (x4), Parking Superintendent, Fleet Manager, Senior Administrative Analyst (Fire), Management Analyst (City Manager's Office/Recreation), Environmental Regulations Analyst, Finance Analyst, Police Officer, Legal Secretary, Lead Custodian, Fire Engineers (x2), Acting Fire Engineer, Firefighters (x3), Administrative Assistant (Fire) Call to Order
Mayor Williamson called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. City Clerk Klein called the roll with the Council present as indicated above.

AFTERNOON SESSION: 4:00 p.m.

Presentations (Afternoon)

1. Recognize City Employees for Milestone Anniversaries in 2026 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Recognized employees
Mayor Williamson honored City Attorney Davi for her 20 years of service with the City; Public Works Director Renny honored Parking Services Representative Pipes for her 20 years of service; Fire Chief Moore honored Fire Captains Sheldon and Tilly for their 25 years each of service; Police Chief Hober honored Police Officer Zook for her 20 years of service; Public Works Director Renny honored Lead Custodian Garcia for his 25 years of service; and Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira honored Monterey Conference Center Facility Attendant Solis for his 25 years of service. City Attorney Davi, Parking Services Representative Pipes, Fire Captain Sheldon, and Lead Custodian Garcia each made brief remarks.

Public comment was received from: Bryan Rosen, who remarked negatively on the recognition; and Esther Malkin, who praised City employees for their dedication, professionalism, and character.

General Public Comments
Public comment on non-agendized matters was limited to two minutes per speaker and was received from: Justin Loza of Veterans for Peace, Dan Turner, Sherna Stewart, James MacFarlane, Lorna Moffat, and Bryan Rosen.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 4.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 1, Packet Page 28 City Council Minutes March 3, 2026
2 Consent Agenda
Public comment on the Consent Items was solicited but not received.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Smith, and carried by the following vote, the City Council approved the Consent Agenda except Item 4:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Consent: Resolutions

2. Authorize an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Mar Jang Design for the Fire Station 12 Renovations to Increase the Not-to-Exceed Amount from $73,760.00 to $131,484.80 ***NCIP*** (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-033 C.S.

3. Award a Contract for Bulk Gasoline, Diesel and Red Dye Diesel Fuel to Merrimac Petroleum, Inc. DBA Merrimac Energy Group, in an Amount Not to Exceed $500,000 per Year for the Term of the Contract (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-034 C.S.

Consent: Other

4. Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Comment Letter to the United States Army Garrison Presidio (USAG Presidio) about the Lower Presidio Historic Park Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact for Implementing Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Measures (Not a project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Pulled from Consent; Authorized letter
On question from the Council about potential road closures, Library & Museums Director Edwards explained that City staff had not yet been involved in discussions about road closures and had requested the Presidio communicate clearly about closures, limit them, and time them reasonably as much as possible. Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira and Public Works Director Renny said that this was a first step toward a project that the U.S. Army would fully fund and design with the Army Corps of Engineers.

Public comment was received from Lauren Sullivan of the Presidio of Monterey, who confirmed City staff's explanation and said that more information would come to the City as the project proceeded.

On a motion by Councilmember Barber, seconded by Councilmember Rasch, and carried by the following vote, the City Council authorized the letter:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
End of Consent Agenda
Adjourn to Ocean View Community Services District Meeting The Council adjourned to the Ocean View Community Services District meeting.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 2, Packet Page 29 City Council Minutes March 3, 2026
3 Ocean View Community Services District Meeting: Consent Agenda

5. Receive Ocean View Community Services District Quarterly Report (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Received report
City Attorney Davi informed the Ocean View Community Services District board that there was no report to provide other than that in the agenda report. Public comment was solicited but not received.

Adjourn to City Council Meeting
The Ocean View Community Services District directors adjourned to the City Council meeting.

Afternoon Session Items
Public Appearance (Afternoon)

6. Suspend the City’s Special Event Support Program for Events Taking Place in Fiscal Years 2026-27 and 2027-28 and Direct Staff to Design a Fiscally Sustainable Special Event Approval and Funding Policy (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 26-035 C.S., as amended to suspend the program for events taking place in FY 2026-27 (funded in FY 2025-26) only Management Analyst Ackermann gave the staff presentation about the Special Event Support Program (SESP) and answered Councilmembers' questions together with Recreation Manager Leon and Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira.

Public comment was received from: Antoinette Saylor and Wendy Brickman of Whalefest Monterey, who said the City should support local events; and Justin Loza of Veterans for Peace, who noted that this was an example of governments cutting services to balance their budgets.

The Council discussed the matter. It was stressed that while these events were important to the community, their importance was not what the Council's proposed action was about and that the Council had the responsibility to carefully examine the City’s budget and make difficult choices. It was noted that non-profits and public agencies alike were currently in the position of needing to adjust to doing more with less. It was noted that City staff had been charged with finding ways to reduce expenditures and that they had done so with this proposal. It was suggested that perhaps the SESP could be paused for the upcoming cycle only, with the Council observing how ballot measures play out and reevaluating the program for the following cycle. It was noted that the intent of the SESP was to help newer organizations and events establish themselves, and that organizations were not intended to become dependent on the City's budget. City staff was encouraged to consider this concept as they worked on the future iteration of the program.

On a motion by Councilmember Smith, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26-035 C.S., as amended to suspend the program for events taking place in FY 2026-27 (funded in FY 2025-26) only:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 3, Packet Page 30 City Council Minutes March 3, 2026
4 7. Cancel the City’s December 1, 2025 Request for Waitlisted Cannabis Storefront Retail Business Permits Pursuant to City Code Section 7-7.09(f) and Approve a 180-Day Pause on Processing Additional Applications (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Directed staff to bring back the waitlisted permittees for future action and not pause the program
Management Analyst Ackermann gave a verbal staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: Justin Loza, Jenna Patton of Monterey Organic LLC, and Chris Hester of Infinity Assets Monterey LLC, who all urged the Council not to approve the staff recommendation.

The Council discussed the matter.

On question from the Council, Management Analyst Ackermann said that the City's revenues from cannabis were about $200,000 for the current fiscal year. He provided further context about cannabis businesses being unsuccessful in finding proper locations. Community Development Director Cole provided a brief answer confirming that cities have the ability to review land uses.

City Attorney Davi explained the process regarding issuing invitations to waitlisted applications and said that the staff recommendation was a lawful option within the code and had been made clear to applicants as part of the request for proposal process.

It was stated by the Council that no safety or zoning concerns had led to the staff's recommendation, and that predictions were not enough to merit a pause. It was urged that the Council should support the waitlisted businesses within the Council's approved process, and it was stated that the businesses should be able to make their own professional judgments about market conditions and risk. It was asserted that keeping application processing moving forward (not instituting a pause) would allow the waitlisted businesses to compete with dispensaries in the City of Pacific Grove.

On the other hand, it was stated that staff's concerns and recommendation for the pause were valid, noting that the Pacific Grove dispensaries could heavily impact the proposed dispensary on Wave Street, and that this needed to be considered, along with the complications of the industry, and the fact that sales have not been what was expected. It was stated that if applications were paused, in six months City staff would have more data to present to the Council for a decision.

A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to direct staff to bring back the waitlisted permittees for future action and not pause the program.

On question from the Council, City Attorney Davi explained the code requirements that had been completed prior to the expiration of the waitlist. She explained that the City would need to proceed with considering permits for the current wait listed business unless the Council opted to pause the process.

Comments were made in favor of the motion as a policy, but against cannabis as an industry, and members of the public were urged to educate themselves on the dangers of marijuana.

The motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 4, Packet Page 31 City Council Minutes March 3, 2026
5 Adjourn to Closed Session
Public comment on the closed session was received from: Cathy Giammanco re: closed session Item 8, who spoke about and asked for help with the condition of Lake El Estero.

The Council adjourned to closed session at 6:25 p.m.

Closed Session (Afternoon)

8. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 798 Del Monte Avenue
Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Anthony Giammanco (El Estero Boating) Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment for Lease Amendment (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a unanimous roll-call vote, confidential direction was given to property negotiators

9. Conference with Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1): City of Monterey v. Leslie J. Flores, Trustee (Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 24CV000750) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Heard in the evening; On a unanimous roll call vote, confidential direction was given to legal counsel

10. Conference with Legal Counsel: Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2), (e)(3): Café Fina and Domenico’s Re: Trash Porter Services (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: On a unanimous roll-call vote, confidential direction was given to legal counsel

11. Closed Session Conference with Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 886 Cannery Row
Agency Negotiators: Kimberly Cole and Janna Aldrete
Negotiating Parties: Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation
Under Negotiation: Review of Rent
(Not a Project Under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Heard in the evening; No reportable action taken

12. Conference with Legal Counsel, Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2), (e)(1) (One Case) (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Heard in the evening; No reportable action taken The Council recessed at 7:01 p.m. and reconvened at 7:08 p.m.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 5, Packet Page 32 City Council Minutes March 3, 2026
6 EVENING SESSION AGENDA
Pledge of Allegiance
Councilmember Barber led the Pledge.

General Public Comments, Continued
Continued public comment on non-agendized matters was received from Esther Malkin and Nina Beety.

Announcements from Closed Session
City Attorney Davi reported out from the closed session as indicated in the actions recorded for closed session Items 8 and 10, above, and reported that the remaining items would be taken up at the end of the evening session.

Evening Session Items
Public Appearance (Evening)

13. Ask the Voters to Approve a Proposed Parking Lot Tax at the Rate of 8% at the June 2, 2026 Special Election (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Directed staff to review questions that were posed and prepare for more discussion to be held about a potential parking tax for November ballot Finance Director King gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions with additional input provided by City Attorney Davi and Interim City Manager Bauman.

Public comment was received from: Marta Kraftzeck, who provided public outreach suggestions; Tom Gowing, who shared his thoughts regarding taxation; Mike Zimmerman of the Cannery Row Company, who said that the revenue projected by staff was inaccurate; Janine Chicourrat of the Portola Hotel & Spa, who echoed the concern about estimated revenue and spoke about alternative ways to raise revenue; Vince Balestreri of the Cannery Row Company, who spoke against the proposed tax; Daniel Armendariz, who expressed concern about impacts on disabled people; Tom Reeves, who said that in fairness any parking tax should affect both private and public lots; and Esther Malkin, who echoed public outreach suggestions and said residents should pay a lower rate.

On question from the Council, Management Analyst Ackermann, Finance Director King, Interim City Manager Bauman, and City Attorney Davi provided information on estimated revenues, issues such as special events and educational facilities, how auditing would be conducted, the legality of fees for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant parking, and the use of parking fees to offset operating costs and provide for infrastructure repairs.

The Council discussed the matter. It was agreed that there would be a significant need for voter education. Concern was expressed about there being too many questions and not enough data about issues such as parking spaces and revenue projections, public parking lots, special events, and educational facilities such as Monterey Peninsula College. Equity was cited as a concern, specifically relating to fairness between private and public parking lots. Parking rates in the City's public lots were discussed, including the potential for local discounts, and State law that limited the City's ability to set higher rates.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 6, Packet Page 33 City Council Minutes March 3, 2026
7 Comments were made in favor of waiting and considering the matter more in the lead-up to the time period for potentially placing a parking tax onto the November 2026 ballot, rather than the June 2026 ballot, stating that more time was needed to collect information and create a clearer message for voters. Concern was also expressed about overwhelming voters with multiple tax measures in November.

On a motion by Mayor Williamson, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the City Council directed staff to review questions that were posed and prepare for more discussion to be held about a potential parking tax for November ballot:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: (None)
The Council recessed at 8:23 p.m. and reconvened at 8:39 p.m.

14. Reauthorize Initiation of a Proceeding to Obtain Voter Approval for the City's Stormwater Fee at a Lower Rate to Mitigate Flood Risks and Reduce Pollutants in Stormwater Runoff into the Monterey Bay and Adopt Ballot Procedures for the Submission and Tabulation of Protests in Connection with Rate Hearings Conducted Pursuant to the California Constitution (Proposition 218) (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
Action: Adopted Resolution Nos. 26-036 and 26-037 C.S. (3-2, Councilmember Garcia and Mayor Williamson voting no)
Environmental Regulations Analyst Baggott gave the staff presentation and answered Councilmembers' questions.

Public comment was received from: Daniel Armendariz, who asked about pollutants in the City's stormwater; and Esther Malkin, who said that it seemed that Prop 218 processes did not get a lot of resident engagement.

On question from the Council, Environmental Regulations Analyst Baggott; Chris Coulter, consultant with SCI Consulting Group; and City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Easterling provided information about pollutants in the City's stormwater, the polling on the subject of stormwater fees that was conducted in late 2025, the intended use of stormwater fees for regular operations and maintenance of the storm drain program, and how improvement projects could be funded in the future.

The Council discussed the matter. It was stressed that due to the City's current financial situation, the staff's recommendation of a lower fee could sell the City short and result in a lower rate of cost recovery. On the other hand it was posited that putting the higher rate on the ballot could result in a lack of voter support.

A motion was introduced by Mayor Williamson, and seconded by Councilmember Garcia, to return to the previous (higher) fee and make any revisions needed to the fee report to document returning to the previous (higher) fee.

In opposition to the motion, it was noted by the Council that it was important to be cautious with asks of the public, and it was stated that the Council was making good decisions overall to address the City's deficit but that there was some concern in the public about overreach.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 7, Packet Page 34 City Council Minutes March 3, 2026
8 On a substitute motion introduced by Councilmember Rasch, seconded by Councilmember Barber, and carried by the following vote, the Council approved the staff recommendation and adopted Resolution Nos. 26-036 and 26-037 as presented:

AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Rasch, Smith
NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Garcia, Williamson
City Manager Reports
Interim City Manager Bauman noted that the second First City Academy for residents would begin later in the week and that participants were included in a University of North Carolina study about public engagement. He thanked City staff for their efforts relating to the recent Panetta lecture. He said that the Laguna Grande Park JPA would sponsor an event in the park on April 19, 2026.

Council Comments
Councilmember Garcia invited all to an upcoming Community Human Services outreach event at Custom House Plaza.

Councilmember Rasch reported on a legislative affairs breakfast put on by the Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce and shared that she had learned that public high school enrollment had gone down from 78,000 to 72,000. She said that Monterey High School had added beach volleyball as a team sport and had upcoming games scheduled at Del Monte Beach. She announced that there was still time to comment on the federal government's outer shelf oil and gas proposal for the California coast.

Mayor Williamson reported from Monterey One Water (M1W), saying that the board of directors had voted in support of an updated cost rate structure, and that General Manager Paul Sciuto would attend an upcoming Council meeting. He said that everyone remained hopeful in anticipation of an upcoming decision by the State Water Resources Control Board regarding condition two of the cease-and-desist order prohibiting California-American Water from diverting water from the Carmel River.

Adjournment
The Council adjourned at 10:28 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Clementine Bonner Klein Tyller Williamson
City Clerk Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 4., Item Page 8, Packet Page 35 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: David J. Hober, Chief of Police
Prepared By: Alma A. Murphy, Senior Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase of 25 Motorola Solutions Mobile Radios for Police Patrol Vehicle Fleet for $271,323.77 (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 City Manager to
purchase from Motorola Solutions 25 mobile radios for
the police vehicle fleet, at a cost of $271,323.77.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

Provide sufficient resources and support to develop,
retain, and recruit a high-quality city workforce.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This purchase is consistent with the City’s past practice of implementing mature, efficient, and effective technical capabilities to assist staff in their support of our
community and the City Council’s mission to provide a
safe, healthy, and economically vibrant community.

It is within Council’s purview to authorize the City
Manager to execute a purchase agreement for police
radios for the patrol vehicle fleet at a cost exceeding $75,000.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Monterey City Code section 28-14 allows for an exemption from formal bidding requirements in cases where the contract or purchase is capable of being performed through purchasing contracts negotiated by another governmental agency that utilized acceptable bidding Agenda Report Highlights
• The Monterey Police Department
seeks authorization to purchase 25
Motorola mobile radios for its patrol
fleet at a total cost of $271,323.77.
• Existing patrol radios are over ten
years old and have reached end-oflife status with no remaining replacement parts available.
• New hardware is required to meet a
county mandate for transitioning to a
simulcast-compatible radio
infrastructure.
• Failing to upgrade would result in a
total loss of communication between
officers and emergency dispatch or
neighboring agencies.
• Funding for this procurement was
previously approved during the midyear budget adjustments and is included in the current fiscal year
budget.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 5.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 1, Packet Page 36 №11/25
procedures. Known as “piggyback” agreements, this process and approved programs are discussed in § C of Chapter 3 of the City of Monterey Purchasing Manual. The HoustonGalveston Area Council Buy (H-GAC Buy) Program is one of the approved programs. The Finance Director, or her designee, approved the piggyback request on February 19, 2026.

This acquisition will be from Motorola Solutions, utilizing the H-GAC Buy Cooperative Agreement #RA05-21, and the pending purchase will total $271,323.77, which includes 25 radios and the radio management licenses. The additional funding needed for this procurement was approved in Reso #25-058, Mid-Year budget adjustments and is included in the current FY 26 Police Department budget.

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:

Should Council decline to authorize the purchase of these patrol vehicle radios, the Department’s patrol vehicles will be rendered unable to communicate with County Communications and neighboring law enforcement agencies. This technical incompatibility creates immediate officer safety risks, compromises emergency coordination, and increases the City’s liability exposure. Without this equipment, officers remain isolated from the real-time data and mutual aid required to maintain public safety.

DISCUSSION:

The Monterey Police Department’s (MPD) current fleet of Harris mobile vehicle radios was purchased over ten years ago and has reached "end-of-life" status. This designation means the manufacturer no longer supports the hardware, provides software updates, or produces replacement parts.

To maintain operational readiness over the last several years, the Department has relied on "cannibalizing" equipment, removing functioning radios from decommissioned or secondary vehicles to replace failing units in primary patrol vehicles. This internal inventory is now exhausted. The Department no longer has the mechanical or technical means to sustain the current fleet's communication capabilities.

The Monterey County radio system will be transitioning to a simulcast-compatible infrastructure.

The County has mandated that all member agencies complete their equipment upgrades to meet these new system requirements.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 2, Packet Page 37 №11/25
The Department’s existing mobile radios are incapable of operating within a simulcast environment. Failure to transition to compatible hardware will result in a total loss of "interoperability", which is the ability for MPD officers to communicate with County Communications (Dispatch) and neighboring law enforcement agencies.

If the purchase is not authorized, the Department’s police vehicles and motorcycles will be unable to transmit or receive on the county-wide radio system. This technical gap would:
• Compromise Officer Safety
• Hinder Emergency Response
• Increase City Liability
MPD strategically deferred this request until the mid-year budget process to align with fiscal planning; however, given the County’s year-end compliance deadline, this upgrade is now an operational necessity.

DJH/aa
Attachments: 1. Resolution
e: Rafaela King, Finance Director
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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 3, Packet Page 38 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AUTHORIZING PURCHASE FROM MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS OF 25 MOTOROLA

SOLUTIONS RADIOS AND RADIO MANAGING LICENSES FOR POLICE PATROL VEHICLE FLEET FOR $271,323.77
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey desires to provide its employees with the appropriate resources to provide excellent service to the community; WHEREAS, the current police patrol vehicle fleet radios have reached end-of-life status; WHEREAS, Monterey City Code section 28-14 allows for an exemption from formal bidding requirements in cases where the contract or purchase is capable of being performed through purchasing contracts negotiated by another governmental agency that utilized acceptable bidding procedures, known as “piggyback” agreements; WHEREAS, this acquisition will be purchased from Motorola Solutions utilizing the Houston-Galveston Area Council Buy (H-GAC Buy), and the Finance Director, or their designee, approved the piggyback request on February 19, 2026, and the pending purchase will total $271,323.77; 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 authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to purchase from Motorola Solutions 25 mobile radios and radio managing licenses for the police patrol vehicle fleet for the amount of $271,323.77.

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

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 4, Packet Page 39 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 5., Item Page 5, Packet Page 40 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Christine Davi, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Adopt Guidelines for Mailed Ballot Elections Pursuant to Article XIII D, Section 6, Subdivision (c) of the California Constitution and Authorize the City Manager to Vote Yes on the Ballots for City Owned Parcels (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt guidelines for mailed ballot elections pursuant to Article XIII D, Section 6,
subdivision (c) of the California Constitution and
authorize the City Manager to vote “yes” on the ballots for City owned parcels.

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 proposed guidelines implement state law policies.

Additionally, implementing clear procedures for mail
ballot proceedings fosters a local government that is
transparent and collaborative; and solicits, welcomes
and appreciates input from all.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with the adoption of this resolution, which provides guidelines on how to conduct mail ballot elections.

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 Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is recommended
to adopt guidelines for mailed
ballot elections to implement state
law policies.
• Proposition 218 requires mailed
ballot elections for adopting or
increasing certain property-related
fees to ensure taxpayer consent.
• Local procedures are proposed to
address gaps in state law,
ensuring transparency and
consistency in the mailed ballot
process.
• The guidelines aim to streamline
operations, enhance fiscal
transparency, and foster
community collaboration.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 6.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 1, Packet Page 41 №10/24
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) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the so-called “common sense” exemption. Further, none of the exceptions to exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City Council could choose not to implement the procedures for mail ballot proceedings or implement other procedures.

DISCUSSION:

Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, was enacted by the voters in 1996 to provide procedural and substantive requirements for the imposition of property-related fees. (Cal. Const. art. XIIID, § 6(a), (b).) The intent of Proposition 218 is, in part, to enhance taxpayer consent.

Article XIIID, section 6, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution requires the City to conduct a mailed ballot election prior to adopting or increasing certain property-related fees. This constitutional provision does not offer specific guidance as to who is allowed to vote, how ballots are to be submitted, or how the City is to tabulate ballots.

The adoption of local procedures is recommended to establish the rules before notice of a mail ballot election is given. Otherwise, the City will be in the unenviable position of appearing to make up the rules as it goes. The proposed rules address the lack of detailed statutes governing the mailed ballot process such as the procedure for issuing duplicate ballots (when a ballot is lost or spoiled); proportional ballots (when joint property owners cast separate ballots); ballot tabulation, and treatment of unsigned or incomplete ballots.

The proposed local procedures fill in the gaps in state law and establish the rules for a ballot proceeding at the outset to ensure consistent application of the rules and transparency with the mailed ballot process.

Attachment: 1. Draft Resolution
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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 2, Packet Page 42 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

ADOPTING GUIDELINES FOR MAILED BALLOT ELECTIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII D, SECTION 6, SUBDIVISION (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO VOTE ‘YES’ ON BALLOTS

FOR CITY-OWNED PARCELS
WHEREAS, Article XIIID, section 6, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution requires the City of Monterey to conduct a mailed ballot election before adopting or increasing certain property-related fees;
WHEREAS, this constitutional provision does not offer specific guidance as to who is the “property owner” authorized to vote, how ballots are to be submitted, or how the City is to tabulate ballots. Monterey City Code section 1-4.00 sets forth exhaustion of administrative remedies procedures for challenges to fees, charges, and assessment on real property; WHEREAS, this resolution provides additional detail to the procedures set forth in the California Constitution and the Monterey City Code. In the event of a conflict, the provisions of the California Constitution and Monterey City Code shall control in that order of precedence;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that the City Manager is authorized to vote “yes” on the ballots for City-owned parcels.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that when a mailed ballot election regarding adoption or increase of propertyrelated fee is conducted by the City pursuant to Article XIII D, Section 6, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution, the following shall apply:

SECTION 1: Definitions. Unless the context plainly indicates another meaning was intended, the following definitions shall apply in construction of these guidelines.

A. “Parcel” means a County Assessor’s parcel the owner of which is subject to the proposed charge that is the subject of the hearing.

B. “Record owner” or “parcel owner” means ”record owner” as that term is defined in Government Code section 53750, subdivision (j).

SECTION 2: Mailing of Ballot. Election materials, including a ballot with instructions and a ballot return envelope shall be mailed via U.S. mail to all record owners of property subject to the property-related fee at least 45 days before the date of the mailed ballot election.

SECTION 3: Ballot Contents.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 3, Packet Page 43 A. The ballot shall include:

1. The name of the record owner;

2. An identification of the parcel;

3. The amount chargeable to the record owner’s parcel;

4. A place where the person submitting the ballot may print his, her, or its name and execute a statement under penalty of perjury that he or she is an owner of the parcel identified on the ballot or a person legally authorized to submit a ballot on behalf of the record owner;

5. The date and time by which the ballot must be returned;

6. The address for return of ballots; and

7. The date, time, and place where the ballots will be tabulated.

B. The ballot shall be in substantially the following form:

Parcel No. [city fills in from assessor roll]
Record owner: [city fills in from assessor roll]
Address: [city fills in from assessor roll]
___________Yes, I approve of the proposed property related fee or charge [or increase] of $ ___________ [preprinted] on the parcel identified in this ballot. ___________No, I do not approve of the proposed property related fee or charge [or increase] on this parcel.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the owner of the parcel identified on the ballot or a person legally authorized to submit a ballot on behalf of the record owner:
________________________________
Signature of record owner or authorized representative of owner entity This ballot is to be returned to: City Clerk, City of Monterey, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940-2806, sealed in the envelope included, within thirty (30) days, that is on or before the following date:__________ (to be filled in).

SECTION 4: Completion of Ballots.

A. A ballot may be completed by an owner of the parcel subject to the fee, or person legally authorized to submit a ballot on behalf of the record owner. If the owner of the parcel is a partnership, joint tenancy, or tenancy in common, a ballot may be completed by any of the general partners, joint tenants, or tenants in common. Except as set forth below, only one ballot may be completed for each parcel. If an owner who submits the ballot is not the record owner or a representative of the record owner, they shall also submit evidence of his, her, or its ownership interest in the parcel.

B. To complete a ballot, one must (1) mark the appropriate box supporting or opposing the proposed fee, and (2) sign, under of penalty of perjury, the statement on the ballot that the Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 4, Packet Page 44 person completing the ballot is an owner of the parcel or a person legally authorized to submit a ballot on behalf of the record owner.

C. Ballots must be completed in ink and include the original wet signature of the signer.

SECTION 5: Proportional Ballots.

A. If a parcel has multiple owners, any owner may request a proportional ballot. If the ownership interest of the owner is not shown on the last equalized property tax assessment roll, such request must include evidence, satisfactory of the City Clerk, of the owner’s proportional rights in the parcel. The City Clerk will provide the proportional ballot to the owner at the address shown on the assessment roll. Any request for a ballot to be mailed to another location must be made in writing and must include evidence, satisfactory to the City Clerk, of the identity of the person requesting the ballot. Each proportion ballot will be marked to show the date on which the ballot was provided, to identify it as a proportional ballot, and to indicate the owner’s proportional rights in the parcel. The City Clerk will keep a record of each proportional ballot provided to an owner.

B. If the Clerk has sufficient information to do so, they shall cancel any ballot issued as to the whole parcel and mail proportional ballots to all who hold proportional rights in the parcel.

C. If both a ballot issued as to the whole parcel and a proportional ballot are received, they shall count as a vote for the whole parcel if they agree. If they disagree, the Clerk shall accept all of them.

SECTION 6: Duplicate Ballots.

A. If a ballot is lost, withdrawn, destroyed, or never received, the City Clerk shall mail or otherwise provide a duplicate ballot to the owner upon receipt of a written request to do so. The duplicate ballot shall be marked to show the date on which it was mailed or provided and to identify it as a duplicate ballot, duplicate proportional ballot, or duplicate provisional ballot. The City Clerk will keep a record of each duplicate ballot issued. The same procedure applies to duplicate ballots, duplicate proportional ballots, or duplicate provisional ballots that are lost, withdrawn, destroyed, or never received.

B. If the ownership interest of the owner requesting a duplicate ballot is not shown on the latest equalized property tax assessment roll (as, for example, when a parcel has been acquired after the assessment roll is equalized), the duplicate ballot request must include evidence, satisfactory to the City Clerk, of the requestor’s rights in the parcel. In this case, the duplicate ballot shall indicate the name of the owner who requested it.

C. The City Clerk will provide the duplicate ballot to the owner at the address shown on the latest equalized property tax assessment roll. Any request for a ballot to be mailed to another location must be made in writing and must include evidence, satisfactory to the City Clerk, of the identity of the person requesting the ballot.

SECTION 7: Provisional Ballots. If a person requests a duplicate ballot, and that person does not provide the City Clerk evidence sufficient to demonstrate to the City Clerk that the person is an owner of a parcel subject to the proposed fee, the City Clerk will issue that person a Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 5, Packet Page 45 provisional ballot. Each provisional ballot shall be marked to show the date on which it was mailed or provided, to identify the person to whom it was issued, and to identify the parcel it which the ballot relates. The City Clerk will keep a record of each provisional ballot issued.

SECTION 8: Return of Ballots. Ballots may be mailed or hand-delivered during normal business hours to the Office of the City Clerk at the address indicated on the ballot. To be counted, ballots must be received by the City Clerk before the time and date indicated in the ballot materials. Only ballots mailed or otherwise provided to owners by the City will be counted.

SECTION 9: Withdrawal of Ballots.

A. Any person who submits a ballot may withdraw it by submitting to the City Clerk a signed written request that the ballot be withdrawn. The request shall contain sufficient information to identify the affected parcel and the name of the person who submitted both the ballot and the request that it be withdrawn or, if the person withdrawing the ballot is other than the person submitting, evidence of his or her legal authority to act for the record owner of the parcel.

B. When ballots are tabulated, the City Clerk shall segregate withdrawn ballots from all other returned ballots. The City Clerk shall retain all withdrawn ballots and indicate on the face of each that it has been withdrawn.

C. If any ballot has been withdrawn, the person withdrawing the ballot may request a duplicate ballot.

SECTION 10: Tabulation of Ballots.

A. Emailed, faxed, and photocopied ballots shall not be counted.

B. Only ballots that are completed and returned in compliance with these procedures will be counted. Ballots received by the City Clerk after the deadline for return of ballots will not be counted. Ballots that are not signed by an owner or an owner’s legally authorized representative will not be counted. Ballots with no boxes marked, or with more than one box marked, will not be counted. Ballots withdrawn in accordance with these procedures will not be counted.

C. The City will keep a record of each proportional, duplicate, or provisional ballot mailed or otherwise issued and ensure that only one vote is tabulated per parcel, except as otherwise provided in Section 5. above as to proportional ballots.

D. Provisional ballots shall not be counted unless, by the deadline for returning ballots, the City Clerk has received sufficient evidence of ownership as would have been required for the issuance of a duplicate ballot. All provisional ballots that have been returned to the City Clerk shall be retained along with other ballots so returned.

E. The City Clerk, or other impartial designee who does not have a vested interest in the outcome of the election, shall tabulate the ballots at the place and time designated for such purpose by the City Clerk, which shall be stated in the ballot materials. Ballots will be tabulated in public view. Ballots will not be removed from their return envelopes until tabulation begins unless it was necessary to do so to determine that the envelope contained a ballot. If a return envelope is opened for this reason, inadvertently, or for any other reasons, the City Clerk shall reseal it and annotate the envelope to indicate they have done so, unless the City Clerk has Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 6, Packet Page 46 reason to doubt the authenticity of the ballot, in which case the City Clerk shall send a duplicate ballot to the record owner, explaining the need to recast the vote.

F. Ballots may be counted by hand, by computer, or by any other reliable tabulating method.

G. Each ballot, other than a proportional ballot, will count as one vote. Proportional ballots will be counted as a fraction of a vote, weighted in accordance with the respective ownership interests of each proportional ballot submitted. If one or more proportional ballots are returned for a parcel and a non-proportional ballot is also returned for the parcel, the non-proportional ballot will be disregarded. In no event may more than one whole vote be tallied for a parcel.

SECTION 11: Results of Tabulation.

A. The results of tabulation will be announced at a meeting of the City Council, certified by the City Clerk, and confirmed by resolution of the City Council.

B. Property owners will be deemed to have approved the proposed fee if the number of votes cast in favor of the proposed fee exceeds the number of votes cast in opposition to the proposed fee.

SECTION 12: City Clerk’s Decisions Final. The City Clerk’s decision that a ballot is or is not valid shall constitute a final action of the City and shall not be subject to any internal appeal but shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.

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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 6., Item Page 7, Packet Page 47 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Authorize the City to Enter a Memorandum of Understanding to Formalize the Working Relationship for a Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group (RCPWG) and Authorizing $5,000 from Planning Office Professional Services Budget to Support the Work Effort (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:
- Authorize the City to enter a Memorandum
of Understanding to formalize the working
relationship for a Monterey Bay Regional
Climate Project Working Group (RCPWG)
on a form approved by the City Attorney’s
Office; and
- Authorize $5,000 from Account #101-400-
4400-0000-4240 to support the work effort.

VALUE DRIVERS:

The City Council is dedicated to protecting and
preserving our natural environment. The Council
recognizes the necessity of bold, pragmatic, and
thoughtful solutions to protect our natural environment for future generations. The proposed regional
collaboration could help the City attain larger regional grants to address climate change.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Climate change is a priority issue for organizations
across the Monterey Bay Area region. A focused and
coordinated approach to pursuing competitive funding
and resources is required to unite the region in
achieving equitable and resilient outcomes. Access to
large-scale, transformative grant opportunities has the potential to accelerate implementation of climate
change mitigation and adaptation projects and
programs across the tri-county Monterey Bay Area
region.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is recommended to
adopt a resolution to join the
Monterey Bay Regional Climate
Project Working Group (RCPWG)
and allocate $5,000 to support its
efforts.
• The RCPWG aims to secure
regional grants for climate
mitigation, adaptation, and
resilience projects across Monterey,
San Benito, and Santa Cruz
counties.
• Since 2022, the RCPWG has
successfully secured over $33
million in grants for regional climate
initiatives.
• Formalizing the RCPWG will
enhance collaboration, funding
allocation, and policy alignment to
address climate equity challenges in
the region.
• The City of Monterey has the option
to participate as an observing
member but would not be eligible for
combined grant applications.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 7.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 1, Packet Page 48 №10/24
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The RCPWG will be funded by annual member contributions, set for a period of two years, based on a recommended sliding scale of $5,000 to $30,000. Local agency member contributions are individually determined based on each member’s ability to contribute to the RCPWG. Regional agency members contribute a recommended minimum of $75,000, unless otherwise approved by the Strategy Team, to support RCPWG operations and specific outcomes identified by the regional agency in collaboration with the Chair, Vice Chair, and Fiscal Sponsor.

Annual RCPWG member contributions for FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 are as follows:

MEMBER AGENCY ANNUAL DUES
City of Capitola $5,000
City of Monterey $5,000
City of Salinas $7,500
City of Santa Cruz $20,000
City of Watsonville $5,000
County of Monterey $30,000
County of San Benito $15,000
County of Santa Cruz $30,000
The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments $75,000 For FY 2025-26 (current fiscal year), $5,000 would be funded. Additional funding for $5,000 would be planned for FY 2026-27.

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, Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 2, Packet Page 49 №10/24
this matter is not a project. Any subsequent discretionary projects resulting from this action will be assessed for CEQA applicability.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The City could choose not to join the work group and continue to participate as an observing member. However, that is not recommended, as the City would not be eligible for coordinated grant applications which are often more competitive submitted regionally.

DISCUSSION:

Several local governments are considering the option to formalize a working relationship to create a Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group.

Background
The RCPWG emerged as a concept in 2021-2022 when a group of local government and nonprofit representatives across the Monterey Bay Area, encompassing Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties, began meeting informally on a monthly basis. Through these meetings, the group recognized an opportunity to pursue large regional grants for decarbonization and climate resilience by working collaboratively as a region, both to overcome individual capacity constraints and compete with larger, better-resourced metropolitan regions.

In February 2022, City of Santa Cruz, City of Watsonville, County of Monterey, County of San Benito, County of Santa Cruz, and Ecology Action, a regional nonprofit organization, each made an initial contribution to fund start-up activities to support regional collaboration on grant applications. The Community Foundation of Santa Cruz served as the RCPWG’s initial fiscal sponsor and in 2023, fiscal sponsorship transitioned to the County of Santa Cruz. The City of Monterey participated as an “observing member” during this initial work effort.

Since 2022, the RCPWG was successfully awarded the following grants to support the development of RCPWG’s governance structure and implement regional climate projects, totaling over $33 million:
• $15,713,981 award from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to pioneer the Monterey Bay Municipal Fleet Electrification and Workforce Accelerator with member jurisdictions.
• $14,346,751 award from the U.S. Department of Transportation to install 6 solar/battery microgrids and 252 public EV chargers in “disadvantaged” and low-income communities and implement workforce training. While RCPWG’s application was awarded, disbursement has been paused due to federal administration changes. • $2 million award from the Department of Energy (DOE) for residential decarbonization, electrification, and weatherization improvements.
• $649,335 award from the California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) to develop the Monterey Bay Area Climate Adaptation and Resilience Implementation and Funding Roadmap.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 3, Packet Page 50 №10/24
• $250,000 award from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to secure funding to implement priority projects identified in the Monterey Bay Area Climate Adaptation and Resilience Implementation and Funding Roadmap. • $100,000 award from Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) to develop RCPWG’s interim charter and an initial grant strategy and to support grant writing for electrificationfocused funding proposals. • $15,000 award from the Urban Sustainability Directors’ Network (USDN) to explore governance options and develop strategies for engaging community-based organizations.

Proposal
Several local governments are considering the option to formalize a working relationship to create a Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group (RCPWG).

The RCPWG’s mission is to collaborate among organizations in the Monterey Bay Area, including Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey counties, to develop, prioritize, secure funding for, and effectively and equitably implement regionally beneficial climate mitigation, adaptation, and hazard mitigation projects and programs. The RCPWG will work with its members and regional partners to secure funding for regional grants that individual members may not have the ability to secure on their own; effectively and equitably allocate funding for ambitious climate action and resilience projects; establish more effective collaboration mechanisms to align policies and projects to best address our region’s most pressing climate equity challenges; and activate working groups to support deeper coordination amongst RCPWG members and nonmember agencies, foundations, and nonprofits to advance specific project priorities.

In conclusion, the proposal is to formalize the formation of the Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group.

Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution authorizing the City to Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding and $5,000 from Planning Office Professional Services Budget to Support the Work Effort
e: All neighborhood associations
All business associations
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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 4, Packet Page 51 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO

FORMALIZE THE WORKING RELATIONSHIP FOR A MONTEREY BAY REGIONAL CLIMATE PROJECT WORKING GROUP (RCPWG) AND AUTHORIZING $5,000

FROM THE PLANNING OFFICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUDGET TO

SUPPORT THE WORK EFFORT
WHEREAS, several local governments are considering the option to formalize a working relationship to create a Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group (RCPWG); WHEREAS, the RCPWG’s mission is to collaborate among organizations in the Monterey Bay Area, including Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey counties, to develop, prioritize, secure funding for, and effectively and equitably implement regionally beneficial climate mitigation, adaptation, and hazard mitigation projects and programs; WHEREAS, the RCPWG will work with its members and regional partners to secure funding for regional grants that individual members may not have the ability to secure on their own; effectively and equitably allocate funding for ambitious climate action and resilience projects; establish more effective collaboration mechanisms to align policies and projects to best address our region’s most pressing climate equity challenges; and activate working groups to support deeper coordination amongst RCPWG members and non-member agencies, foundations, and nonprofits to advance specific project priorities; 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 FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 5, Packet Page 52

1. Authorizes the City Manager to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to formalize the working relationship for a Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group (RCPWG); and

2. Authorizes $5,000 to support the work effort.

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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 7., Item Page 6, Packet Page 53 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Lew Bauman, Interim City Manager
Prepared By: Hayley Goodwein, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Recognize Monterey Peninsula College’s Dress for Success Program (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council recognize Monterey Peninsula
College’s (MPC) ‘Dress for Success’ Program.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The City of Monterey recognizes Monterey Peninsula
College’s ‘Dress for Success’ Program that gives
students the opportunity to have professional attire, free of cost, for interviews for future careers.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

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

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

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 Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is recognizing
Monterey Peninsula College’s
‘Dress for Success’ Program, which
provides free professional attire to
students for interviews and future
careers.
• The program includes a clothing
drive and pop-up event to empower
students and boost their confidence
and professionalism.
• Donations of gently used or new
professional clothing are collected at
MPC’s Marina and Monterey
campuses.
• The ‘Dress for Success’ Pop-up
event was held on March 12th at the
MPC Library on the Monterey
Campus.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 8.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 1, Packet Page 54 №11/25
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 to not recognize MPC’s ‘Dress for Success’ Program.

DISCUSSION:

For the last seven years, Monterey Peninsula College has hosted the ‘Dress for Success’ clothing drive and pop-up event, which provides the opportunity for students who may not be able to purchase professional attire to pick our professional clothing for free. The event is designed to empower MPC’s students by providing them with professional attire to feel confident for interviews and future careers. Professional attire not only boosts confidence but shows commitment and professionalism to the interviewers and potential employers.

Beginning in January and running through February, MPC hosts the ‘MPC Lobo Closet CleanOut Clothing Drive’. The clothing drive calls for donations of gently used or new professional clothing for men and women. Donations were accepted at the two MPC locations: the Marina Campus and the Monterey Campus. The ‘Dress for Success’ Pop-up event took place on Thursday, March 12th from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the MPC Library at the Monterey Campus. [LB/hg]
Attachments: 1. Certificate of Recognition
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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 2, Packet Page 55

ATTACHMENT
The Mayor, City Council and Citizens of Monterey
take great pride in recognizing
Dress for Success Program
at
Monterey Peninsula College
In recognition of 7th Annual Dress for Success Program in which Monterey Peninsula College empowers students by
providing them with professional attire, free of cost, to boost confidence, succeed in interviews, and prepare for future careers.

Congratulations on a successful event and best wishes for success in the future of the program!
Dated: March 17, 2026 _____________________
Tyller Williamson, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 8., Item Page 3, Packet Page 56 Council
Agenda Report
FROM: Nat Rojanasathira, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution to Modify the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) Management District Plan to Add the City of Sand City to the District (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

Hold a final public hearing to modify the MCTID
Management District Plan (Attachment 2) and declare
results of majority protest proceedings and adopt
resolution.

VALUE DRIVER:

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

It is within the City Council’s purview to consider
modifying the MCTID boundary to include the City of
Sand City. The MCTID requested this change to the
Management District Plan to further the MCTID’s efforts to increase demand for overnight tourism and to
promote Monterey County as a tourist, meeting, and event destination. The City of Monterey initiated the formation of this district in 2018 with the adoption of Resolution 18-147 and is the designated lead agency in the adopted Management District Plan. The City has subsequently adopted Resolution No. 26-010 C.S. declaring the intention to modify the MCTID.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

No immediate fiscal impact. The City will continue to receive one percent (1%) of the amount collected within the City of Monterey to cover its costs of administration. Because the MCTID programs are intended to continue to increase visitation to the City, there may be an increase in transient occupancy tax and sales tax collections.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The MCTID aims to increase
overnight tourism and promote
Monterey County as a destination.
• The proposed change will allow
assessments to be collected in
Sand City starting on April 1,
2026, shortly after the recent
opening of a new 215-room hotel.
• The City of Monterey will continue
to receive 1% of collected
assessments for administrative
costs.
• The modification process includes
public hearings, notices to
affected businesses, and
opportunities for protests before
final approval.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 9.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 1, Packet Page 57 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 City Council could choose not to adopt the Resolution. Staff does not recommend this option, since the MCTID has requested this change to the Management District Plan.

DISCUSSION:

Background
The MCTID is a benefit assessment district designed to fund marketing and sales promotion efforts for lodging businesses such as hotels and motels within the district’s participating jurisdictions. The success of lodging businesses is beneficial to the participating jurisdictions, both directly through the collection of business license and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues and indirectly through collection of sales tax generated by visitors. The current MCTID includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, and Seaside. The City of Monterey serves as the lead public agency for the MCTID pursuant to the Management District Plan.

On February 21, 2023, the Monterey City Council adopted a resolution declaring results of majority protest proceedings and renewed the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (MCTID) for a 10-year term.

The Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code §36600 et seq., allows for the Owners’ Association to request the City to modify the Management District Plan (MDP). The MCTID Owners’ Association, the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. See Monterey (formerly the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau) has provided a written request to the City Council to modify the MCTID to authorize the inclusion of the City of Sand City within the boundary of the MCTID. The proposed modification would allow the MCTID to begin collecting assessments in the City of Sand City on April 1, 2026. The MCTID requested this change to the MDP to advance its mission of increasing overnight visitation and promoting Monterey County as a leading destination for tourism, meetings, and events. The 215-room Courtyard by Marriott and Residence Inn by Marriott opened in Sand City in January 2026.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 2, Packet Page 58 MCTID Management District Plan Modification Process
January 28, 2026 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION HEARING (COMPLETED) Upon the written request by the MCTID, the Council may adopt a resolution of intention which states the proposed modification to the MCTID MDP. The MCTID provided a written request for the proposed modification to the Council dated October 15, 2025. Receipt of this written request allows the Council to initiate proceedings for MCTID MDP modification at the January 28, 2026 meeting.

January 30, 2026 NOTICE TO PROPOSED NEW LODGING BUSINESSES (COMPLETED)
The 1994 Law requires the City to mail written notice to the owners of all businesses proposed to be within the MCTID. Mailing the notice begins a mandatory forty-five (45) day period prior to the public hearing in which owners may protest MCTID modification. The notice is a joint notice of both the public meeting and the public hearing, and must be mailed at least 10 days before the public meeting.

February 17, 2026 PUBLIC MEETING AND INTRODUCTION (COMPLETED) Allow public testimony on the modification of the MCTID and levy of assessments. No City Council action is required.

No later than
March 6 & 10, 2026 NOTICE TO CURRENTLY ASSESSED LODGING BUSINESSES (COMPLETED)
The Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 requires the City to mail a complete copy of the Resolution of Intention to each lodging business owner affected by the proposed modification at least ten (10) days before the public hearing (by Friday, March 6, 2026) and to publish the Resolution of Intention in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least seven (7) days before the public hearing (by March 10, 2026). The City mailed the resolution to the business owners and published the resolution of intention in the Monterey Herald, and will be reimbursed for these expenses by See Monterey.

March 17, 2026 PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION OF MODIFICATION The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed MCTID MDP modifications. If the City Council, following the public hearing, decides to modify the MCTID MDP, the City Council shall adopt a Resolution of Modification.

Consistent with Street & Highways Code section 36623(b), a protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Every written protest shall be filed with the clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The city council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 3, Packet Page 59 contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the city as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business or the authorized representative. A written protest that does not comply with this section shall not be counted in determining a majority protest.

If written protests are received from the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the proposed district that will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such businesses, as contained in the resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the city council.

Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Proposed Modified Management District Plan
c: Rob O’Keefe, MCTID Executive Director, c/o See Monterey City Administrator of Sand City
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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 4, Packet Page 60 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

DECLARING RESULTS OF MAJORITY PROTEST PROCEEDINGS

AND MODIFYING THE MONTEREY COUNTY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MCTID) TO INCLUDE THE CITY OF SAND CITY
WHEREAS, the City of Monterey initially created the Monterey County Tourism Improvement District (“MCTID”) in 2006 under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 by Ordinance No. 3376. This district was disestablished on December 20, 2018 pursuant to Ordinance No. 3587;
WHEREAS, the existing MCTID was established effective January 1, 2019 under Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 by Resolution No. 18-207 for a five (5) year term; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey renewed the MCTID with a new Management District Plan (“MDP”) on February 21, 2023 that was effective July 1, 2023; WHEREAS, the Property and Business Improvement Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code § 36600 et seq., authorizes the City of Monterey (“City”) to modify business improvement districts upon petition by a weighted majority of the business owners located within the boundaries of the district;
WHEREAS, the MCTID owners’ association, the Monterey County Destination Marketing Organization, Inc. d.b.a. See Monterey (formerly the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau) has requested modification of the MDP;
WHEREAS, a modified MDP has been prepared, and the proposed modifications are to include the City of Sand City within the boundaries of the MCTID; WHEREAS, lodging business owners who will pay more than fifty percent (50%) of the proposed assessment, as weighted according to the amount of the assessment to be paid by the petitioner, within the boundaries of the MCTID have petitioned the City Council of the City of Monterey (“Council”) to modify the MCTID;
WHEREAS, the modified MCTID includes all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy within the boundaries of the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City and Seaside;
WHEREAS, consent to include lodging businesses within the jurisdiction has been received from the City of Sand City;
WHEREAS, included with the petitions was a summary of the modified MDP that describes the assessment to be levied on all lodging businesses within the modified boundaries of the MCTID to pay for group business development and marketing communications activities, and other improvements and activities set forth in the MDP; WHEREAS, the assessed lodging businesses within the MCTID will receive a specific benefit from the activities and improvements set forth in the MDP; Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 5, Packet Page 61 №011/24
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers located at 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940, the Council adopted a Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 26-010 C.S.;
WHEREAS, the public meeting and public hearing to consider the modification of the MCTID have been properly noticed in accordance with Property and Business Improvement Law of 1994 Streets and Highways Code §36600 et. seq.;
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers located at 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940, the Council held a public meeting regarding the modification of the MCTID, and the Council opened public comments to hear and receive objections and protests, if any, to the modification of the MCTID and the levy of the proposed assessment, and the only comment made was in favor;
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2026 at 4:00 PM at the City Council Chambers located at 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, CA 93940, the Council held a public hearing regarding the modification of the MCTID, and the Council heard and received all objections and protests, if any, to the modification of the MCTID consistent with Street & Highways Code section 36623; WHEREAS, the City Clerk has determined that there was no majority protest. A majority protest is defined as written protests received from owners of businesses in the modified MCTID which would pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessments proposed to be levied. Protests are weighted based on the assessment proposed to be levied on each lodging business; WHEREAS, the City Council finds:
a) The activities funded by the assessment will provide a specific benefit to assessed businesses within the MCTID that is not provided to those not paying the assessment. b) The assessment is a charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payors that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.
c) The assessment is a charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payors that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.
d) Assessments imposed pursuant to the MCTID are levied solely upon the assessed business, and the business owner is solely responsible for payment of the assessment when due. If the owner chooses to collect any portion of the assessment from a transient, that portion shall be specifically called out and identified for the transient in any and all communications from the business owner as the “MCTID Assessment” or “Tourism Assessment” as specified in the Plan.

WHEREAS, the City 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 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 6, Packet Page 62 №011/24
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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY THAT:

1. The recitals set forth herein are adopted by the City Council as findings and they are true and correct.

2. The MDP dated January 20, 2026 is hereby adopted and approved.

3. The Council hereby modifies the MDP to include the City of Sand City within the boundaries of the MCTID as shown on the Boundary Map attached as Exhibit A.

4. The MCTID modified pursuant to this Resolution will be subject to any amendments to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (California Streets and Highways Code §36600 et. seq.).

5. The City Clerk, or his or her designee, is directed to take all necessary actions to complete the modification of the MCTID and to levy the assessments.

6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Council.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 17th day of March, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST: Approved as to Form:

City Clerk City Attorney
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 7, Packet Page 63 №011/24

EXHIBIT A
Boundary Map
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 8, Packet Page 64 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 9, Packet Page 65 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 10, Packet Page 66 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 11, Packet Page 67 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 12, Packet Page 68 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 13, Packet Page 69 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 14, Packet Page 70 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 15, Packet Page 71 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 16, Packet Page 72 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 17, Packet Page 73 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 18, Packet Page 74 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 19, Packet Page 75 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 20, Packet Page 76 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 21, Packet Page 77 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 22, Packet Page 78 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 23, Packet Page 79 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 24, Packet Page 80 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 25, Packet Page 81 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 26, Packet Page 82 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 27, Packet Page 83 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 28, Packet Page 84 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 29, Packet Page 85 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 30, Packet Page 86 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 31, Packet Page 87 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 32, Packet Page 88 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 33, Packet Page 89 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 34, Packet Page 90 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 35, Packet Page 91 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 36, Packet Page 92 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 37, Packet Page 93 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 38, Packet Page 94 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 39, Packet Page 95 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 40, Packet Page 96 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 41, Packet Page 97 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 42, Packet Page 98 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 43, Packet Page 99 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 44, Packet Page 100 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 45, Packet Page 101 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 46, Packet Page 102 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 47, Packet Page 103 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 48, Packet Page 104 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 49, Packet Page 105 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 50, Packet Page 106 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 51, Packet Page 107 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 52, Packet Page 108 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 53, Packet Page 109 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 54, Packet Page 110 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 55, Packet Page 111 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 56, Packet Page 112 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 57, Packet Page 113 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 58, Packet Page 114 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 59, Packet Page 115 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 60, Packet Page 116 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 61, Packet Page 117 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 62, Packet Page 118 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 63, Packet Page 119 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 64, Packet Page 120 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 65, Packet Page 121 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 66, Packet Page 122 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 67, Packet Page 123 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 68, Packet Page 124 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 69, Packet Page 125 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 70, Packet Page 126 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 71, Packet Page 127 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 72, Packet Page 128 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 73, Packet Page 129 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 74, Packet Page 130 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 75, Packet Page 131 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 76, Packet Page 132 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 77, Packet Page 133 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 78, Packet Page 134 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 79, Packet Page 135 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 80, Packet Page 136 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 81, Packet Page 137 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 82, Packet Page 138 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 83, Packet Page 139 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 84, Packet Page 140 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 85, Packet Page 141 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 86, Packet Page 142 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 87, Packet Page 143 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 88, Packet Page 144 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 89, Packet Page 145 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 90, Packet Page 146 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 91, Packet Page 147 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 92, Packet Page 148 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 93, Packet Page 149 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 94, Packet Page 150 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 95, Packet Page 151 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 96, Packet Page 152 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 97, Packet Page 153 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 98, Packet Page 154 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 99, Packet Page 155 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 100, Packet Page 156 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 9., Item Page 101, Packet Page 157 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Clementine Bonner Klein, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Receive Subcommittee Recommendations; Appoint Applicants to Positions on the Appeals Hearing Board, Building and Housing Appeals Board, Measure P & S Oversight Committee; and Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter Recommending Appointment of a Representative to the City on the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:
• receive and consider the recommendations from
the Council Subcommittee for Board, Commission,
and Committee Nominations,
• make appointments to fill various seats on City
bodies, and
• authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
(TAMC) recommending the appointment of a
representative from the City of Monterey.

VALUE DRIVERS:

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

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This action to appoint members to City bodies is compliant with the Council’s Governance Policy, which provides that the Council receives appointment nominations from the
standing Subcommittee, and makes the final appointments by majority vote of the full Council in accordance with the City Charter. The action to recommend a TAMC
appointment is compliant with the Council’s Governance
Policy and the bylaws of the Transportation Agency for
Monterey County (TAMC) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no fiscal impacts related to filling these positions.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council will consider
recommendations from the
Subcommittee to appoint applicants
to various City boards,
commissions, and committees, and
to authorize the Mayor to sign a
letter recommending a new
representative for the TAMC Bicycle
and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory
Committee.
• The Subcommittee prioritized
enthusiasm, interest, experience,
and inclusivity when making its
recommendations.
• Vacancies were advertised
according to law and policy, and
interviews were conducted publicly
on March 9 and 11, 2026.
• Remaining unfilled positions will be
publicized by the City Clerk’s Office
following the Council’s
appointments.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 10.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 1, Packet Page 158 №11/25
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

The Council could make alternate appointments from those recommended by the Subcommittee or could decline to make appointments.

DISCUSSION:

Background
Due to various unscheduled vacancies, positions on the City of Monterey’s boards, commissions, and committees have been posted as required by the California Maddy Act and are available to be filled.

In addition, the current representative to the City of Monterey on the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee, Councilmember Gino Garcia, wishes to step down and have another individual represent the City. The TAMC Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee bylaws require a letter of recommendation from the Mayor or other official of the jurisdiction being represented. Pursuant to the Council’s governance policy rules for appointments, the City Clerk therefore advertised the Bike & Pedestrian Committee representative position, seeking Monterey residents who wish to be considered for recommendation to TAMC for appointment.

Applications for these positions from qualified, willing applicants were received.

Interviews and Recommendations
On March 9 and 11, 2026, the Subcommittee consisting of the Mayor and Vice Mayor conducted public interviews of all qualified applicants. In the remainder of the meeting on March 11, 2026, the Subcommittee discussed the interview process and applicants, deliberated, and formulated its recommendations.

Discussing its selections, the Subcommittee outlined various factors influencing its selections.

These included: the need to balance how many people had applied for certain positions with the number of seats available and which applicants had expressed interest in multiple bodies; applicants’ diversity of experience, background, and Council district representation; the enthusiasm expressed by applicants; the depth and thoroughness of applicants’ answers; Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 2, Packet Page 159 №11/25
applicants’ thoughtfulness and temperament; and applicants’ understanding of and experience with the subject matters in question.

Attachment 1 to this report outlines: the boards, commissions, and committees with available positions; details for each body, including any relevant qualification requirements, and Council district representation details as required by the Governance Policy; names of qualified applicants with individual time-stamped links to video recordings of each public interview; and the Subcommittee’s recommendations for appointment. In the case of the TAMC position, the Subcommittee did not reach consensus and instead provided two recommendations for the one position.

Attachment 2 to this report contains all application materials provided by all qualified applicants, in alphabetical order by last name.

Note: Appointment is not limited to the body(s) that an applicant checked on their application, but the Subcommittee’s recommendations do all coincide with the applicants’ expressed appointment interests. Members may serve on only one body at a time, per City Code, except that those who serve on Measure P & S Oversight Committee and the Appeals boards may also serve on another City body.

Following the Council’s appointments, the City Clerk’s Office will contact all applicants, and will post and publicize any remaining unfilled positions.

The Subcommittee gratefully acknowledges all applicants for their enthusiasm, contributions to the process, and willingness to volunteer on behalf of the community, and thanks the community for its participation at the Subcommittee’s public meetings.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council receive and consider the Subcommittee’s recommendations, make appointments to fill the available City positions, and authorize the Mayor to sign a letter recommending a resident to represent the City of Monterey on the TAMC Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee.

CBK
Attachments: 1. Outline of vacancies, qualified applicants, and recommended appointments

2. Applications

3. Draft letter
e: Applicants
Boards and Commissions Interest List
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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 3, Packet Page 160 ATTACHMENT 1
1 Appeals Hearing Board:
• City Code: https://monterey.municipal.codes/Code/2_Art9 • One (1) alternate (recent unscheduled vacancy)
• Applicants who expressed interest in being appointed to the BHAB:

Name Council District Interview (Timestamped Link)
Baum, Michael 1 Interview
Chell, Charley 2 Interview
Cobb, Chris 1 Interview
• Current District representation of AHB members is:

District 1: 2 members
District 2: no members
District 3: no members
District 4: 1 member
• Subcommittee Recommendation: Appoint Charley Chell
Building and Housing Appeals Board:
• City Code: https://monterey.municipal.codes/Code/2_Art10 • One (1) alternate (vacant since 2024).
• Applicants who expressed interest in being appointed to the BHAB:

Name Council District Qualification Interview (Timestamped Link) Cobb, Chris 1 Not qualified Interview
• A qualified individual could be appointed.
• No regular meeting schedule.
• Qualification: Must have experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction. Experience in residential or commercial construction projects, the building trades, code enforcement, or building inspection is preferred. • Current District representation of BHAB members is:

District 1: 1 member
District 2: 1 member
District 3: no members
District 4: 1 member
• Subcommittee Recommendation: N/A - Lack of consensus on Mr. Cobb; Building Official to determine whether qualified. The Building Official has determined that Mr. Cobb failed to demonstrate qualifications or experience in residential or commercial construction projects, the building trades, code enforcement, or building inspection.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 4, Packet Page 161 ATTACHMENT 1
2 Measure P & S Oversight Committee:
• City Code: https://monterey.municipal.codes/Code/2_Art12 • One (1) seat (unscheduled vacancy).
• Meets quarterly.
• Applicants who expressed interest in being appointed to Measure P & S:

Name Council District Interview (Timestamped Link)
Baum, Michael 1 Interview
Cobb, Chris 1 Interview
• Current District representation of Measure P & S members is:

District 1: 1 member
District 2: 1 member
District 3: 1 member
District 4: 1 member
• Subcommittee Recommendation: Appoint Michael Baum
Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program (NCIP) Committee:
• Charter: https://monterey.municipal.codes/Charter/6.6(d) and City Code:
https://monterey.municipal.codes/Code/2_Art13
• Vacancies as outlined below.
• Meeting schedule adopted for each NCIP cycle.
• Deer Flats Alternate (unscheduled vacancy created in Nov. 2025 when previous alternate was appointed as representative)
o No application received at the time of this report’s publication. • Oak Grove Alternate (vacant since 2024)
o No application received at the time of this report’s publication. • Villa Del Monte Alternate (vacant since prior member’s term expiration in June 2025) o No application received at the time of this report’s publication. • Subcommittee Recommendation: N/A - No applications received from residents in these neighborhoods.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 5, Packet Page 162 ATTACHMENT 1
3 Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee
• Info: https://www.tamcmonterey.org/bicycle-pedestrian-committee • Current City of Monterey representative wishes to step down, leaving this vacancy. • Bylaws: https://www.tamcmonterey.org/files/fcaf7715b/2024+BPC+Bylaws.pdf “The purpose and duties of the Committee are as follows:

A. Advise the Transportation Agency for Monterey County on safety, community needs, concerns, goals, and objectives with respect to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and travel. Special reports related to the bicycle and pedestrian planning effort may be made to the TAMC at any time.

B. Review local bicycle and pedestrian facility planning documents.

C. Review bicycle and pedestrian project funding applications submitted to TAMC and recommend a priority project list in each funding cycle.

D. Advocate bicycle use and walking as viable alternative means of transportation.

E. Identify future areas for short and long-term improvement strategies for the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

F. Operate as a forum for communication between public and private agencies, users, and providers.”
• Applicants who expressed interest in being appointed to represent the City of Monterey on the TAMC Bike & Pedestrian Committee:

Name Council District Interview (Timestamped Link)
Bryan, Susie 2 Interview
Egerton, Katherine 2 Interview
Gsell, Diane 1 Interview
Osorio, Luis 2 Interview
• Subcommittee Recommendation: Lack of consensus; Appoint either Susie Bryan or Katherine Egerton.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 6, Packet Page 163 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 7, Packet Page 164 Name:
2 NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (NCIP) COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) and directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Eligibility: each representative and alternate must reside within the boundaries of the specific neighborhood, refer to neighborhood map at monterey.gov/ncip  Aguajito Oaks  Alta Mesa  Casanova-Oak Knoll  Deer Flats  Del Monte Beach  Del Monte Grove–Laguna Grande  Downtown  Fisherman Flats  Glenwood  Monterey Vista  New Monterey  Oak Grove  Old Town  Skyline  Villa Del Monte PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC) meets the 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m. and advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) meets 2nd and 4th Tues. of ea. month at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., plus field trips, and implements the General Plan and specific and area plans; reviews the Capital Improvement and Neighborhood and Community Improvement Programs; develops community development programs; administers zoning and subdivision ordinances and recommends revisions to City Council; hears appeals on development, zoning, and architectural review issues; reviews projects to ensure orderly development, harmonious design, and the visual character of the City; reviews and oversees architectural review submittal requirements; and reviews and acts on applications for development approval, including use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, open space regulations, parking requirements, etc.

Please answer the following questions.

Optional: you may attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to more fully describe your interest and qualifications or provide a longer answer to any of the below questions.

Why do you want to be appointed to serve on the body(s) that you selected above, and what motivates you to become involved at this time?
If appointed, what unique perspective would you bring to the body(s) that you selected above? * Applicants for BHAB, DAAB, HPC and/or MCAC:

Explain how you meet the specific eligibility requirements of the board/commission as described on page 1.

Building and Housing Appeals Board qualifications: Disabled Access Appeals Board qualifications:

Historic Preservation Commission qualifications: Museums and Cultural Arts Commission qualifications:

City Clerk’s Office Only: Residence is in specified neighborhood’s boundaries:  Yes  No Docusign Envelope ID: 2E5034C7-DC79-467F-86A5-3F8935474B8B N/A
Michael Baum
I have lived in the city of Monterey for several years and wish to serve my community in whatever way I can. I understand that there is currently (as of February 2026) an opening for an alternate member on the Appeals Hearing Board and a member on the Measure P and S Oversight Committee. I would be delighted to serve on either committee. I have also selected the NCIP Committee option above, even though I understand that there is not currently a vacancy for my neighborhood (Old Town). If one should open up in the near future, I wish to be considered for that opening.

X
My background is in education (both secondary and post-secondary), and I am currently on the psychology faculty at Hartnell College.

I believe I would bring a thoughtful, measured, logical, and analytical perspective to any board or committee I might serve on. I am highly deliberative and comfortable approaching an issue from many different perspectives. I am also good at decision-making and weighing options.

N/A N/A
N/A
X
X
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 8, Packet Page 165 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 9, Packet Page 166 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 10, Packet Page 167 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 11, Packet Page 168 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 12, Packet Page 169 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 13, Packet Page 170 Name:
2 NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (NCIP) COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) and directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Eligibility: each representative and alternate must reside within the boundaries of the specific neighborhood, refer to neighborhood map at monterey.gov/ncip  Aguajito Oaks  Alta Mesa  Casanova-Oak Knoll  Deer Flats  Del Monte Beach  Del Monte Grove–Laguna Grande  Downtown  Fisherman Flats  Glenwood  Monterey Vista  New Monterey  Oak Grove  Old Town  Skyline  Villa Del Monte PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC) meets the 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m. and advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Please answer the following questions.

Optional: you may attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to more fully describe your interest and qualifications or provide a longer answer to any of the below questions.

Explain how you meet the specific eligibility requirements of the board/commission as described on page 1.

Building and Housing Appeals Board qualifications: Disabled Access Appeals Board qualifications:

Historic Preservation Commission qualifications: Museums and Cultural Arts Commission qualifications:

City Clerk’s Office Only: Residence is in specified neighborhood’s boundaries:  Yes  No Docusign Envelope ID: 7AAFEB1C-EDAA-4456-9755-58C5132DFE31 N/A
Charley Chell

N/A N/A
N/A
Since moving here six years ago I have become increasingly involved in local affairs. I have the time, it's a way to "give back." I have been active in the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association and am currently serving as president of that group..

I research issues carefully and have the ability to weigh facts dispassionately.

I am a Monterey resident who both values the community, environment and generally way of life here, but I also understand the need to balance this with the necessity to accommodate change due to factors like increased housing density and climate change.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 14, Packet Page 171 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 15, Packet Page 172 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 16, Packet Page 173 Name:
2 NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (NCIP) COMMITTEE (meets seasonally) and directs tourist-generated NCIP dollars directly back into the City's residential neighborhoods by considering all submitted projects and recommending projects to Council. Eligibility: each representative and alternate must reside within the boundaries of the specific neighborhood, refer to neighborhood map at monterey.gov/ncip  Aguajito Oaks  Alta Mesa  Casanova-Oak Knoll  Deer Flats  Del Monte Beach  Del Monte Grove–Laguna Grande  Downtown  Fisherman Flats  Glenwood  Monterey Vista  New Monterey  Oak Grove  Old Town  Skyline  Villa Del Monte PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC) meets the 2nd Wed. of ea. month at 5:30 p.m. and advises the City Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance and development of the City's parks and recreation programs, and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Please answer the following questions.

Optional: you may attach a cover letter, resume, and/or additional pages to more fully describe your interest and qualifications or provide a longer answer to any of the below questions.

Explain how you meet the specific eligibility requirements of the board/commission as described on page 1.

Building and Housing Appeals Board qualifications: Disabled Access Appeals Board qualifications:

Historic Preservation Commission qualifications: Museums and Cultural Arts Commission qualifications:

City Clerk’s Office Only: Residence is in specified neighborhood’s boundaries:  Yes  No Docusign Envelope ID: CDE6AA73-3BE1-484D-A65C-8EE45DDAE695 N/A
X
X
What to be involved with local politics. Have lived in Monterey for 37 years.

X
My long time of living in Monterey and raising two daughters here.

Law Degree
Law Degree
X
Law Degree plus minor in History in college
Christopher Cobb
X
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 17, Packet Page 174 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 18, Packet Page 175 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 19, Packet Page 176 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 20, Packet Page 177 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 21, Packet Page 178 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 22, Packet Page 179 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 23, Packet Page 180 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 24, Packet Page 181 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 25, Packet Page 182 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 26, Packet Page 183 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 27, Packet Page 184 L U I S A . O S O R I O
- Monterey, CA 93940 - - (

PROFILE
Academic training in land use planning practice and architecture design principles. Extensive expertise in governmental and private sector administrative procedures. Regulatory code interpretations as well as review, analysis and processing of applications for land use development projects. Multi-level coordination with local agencies to achieve compliance with project development requirements. Environmental impact assessments consistent with applicable State and local regulations. History of successful customer service practice. Capacity to work in different roles fostering a collaborative work environment with staff and management. Extensive volunteer experience as member of the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee in the City of Monterey.

EXPERIENCE
LAND USE PLANNER - JRG ATTORNEYS AT LAW –
Salinas, CA. 2016 - 2023
Within the Land Use Division of the firm, successfully assisted clients in preparing applications and obtaining land use entitlements for development projects in Monterey County, cities in the Central Coast and other jurisdictions in California. Coordinated with consultants the completion of required technical background reports. Provided proactive communication and coordination with staff in different governmental agencies.

LAND USE PLANNER – RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY.

Monterey County - Salinas, CA. 1990 - 2016
Assisted and advised property owners in the preparation and submittal of applications for land use development projects at different levels of complexity, assuring compliance with applicable regulations. Led and coordinated the inter-agency review of development projects. Successfully prepared staff reports for development proposals and presented same at public hearings before the County Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and other land use review boards.

Implemented State laws applicable to land use development. Completed environmental impact assessments pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

EDUCATION

CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
San Luis Obispo, CA. 1987 – 1990
City and Regional Planning Department. College of Environmental Design. Completed all major-related course work of the City and Regional Planning program leading to the Bachelor of Science Degree. Academic work completed included all major-related course work, including the senior graduation project.

Docusign Envelope ID: 31B6EE6B-D35E-4CEF-9B17-A3CA6C99D3A1 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 28, Packet Page 185

ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Chicago, IL. 1981 – 1982
Architecture Department - Completed three semesters and 39 semester units of the program leading to the Bachelor of Science degree.

DIABLO VALLEY COLLEGE
Pleasant Hill, CA. 1979 – 1981

General Education. Architectural design and history. Completed 47 semester units of the Associate Degree program.

CERTIFICATIONS

LEADERSHIP MONTEREY PENINSULA
Leadership Skills - Monterey County Regional Issues - June 2012

MANDELL - GISNET CENTER FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION -

MONTEREY COLLEGE OF LAW
Mediation Skills Training - Land Use Issues and Neighborhood Disputes - June 2009

STRAUSS INSTITUTE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION -

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
Mediation Skills - April 2008

VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE

PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Monterey, CA - 2006 – 2015
During my time as Planning Commissioner, the Commission was tasked with completion of several land use plans to implement directives from the City’s General Plan. I participated actively and proactively in the policy design and overall construction of the documents, specifically the North Fremont Street and the Downtown Plans. As Commissioner, I strived to facilitate productive, orderly and efficient meetings. My professional background in land use planning provided added perspective to project review.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
City of Monterey, CA. - 2003 -2006

NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE
City of Monterey, CA - 1995 -2000
Docusign Envelope ID: 31B6EE6B-D35E-4CEF-9B17-A3CA6C99D3A1 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 29, Packet Page 186 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 30, Packet Page 187 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 31, Packet Page 188 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 32, Packet Page 189 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 33, Packet Page 190 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 34, Packet Page 191 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY HALL • MONTEREY • CALIFORNIA • 93940 • Web Site: Monterey.gov March 12, 2026
Janneke Strause
Senior Transportation Planner
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
55 B. Plaza Circle
Salinas, CA 93901
Via email to: [email protected]
Dear Janneke Strause,
Pursuant to the recommendation requirement in the bylaws for the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee, I am writing to strongly recommend the appointment of Nominee to the Committee as a representative for the City of Monterey. Please find Nominee’s application enclosed for your review.

Nominee’s personal experience, knowledge, and commitment to community engagement, will make them an invaluable contributor to TAMC’s efforts to enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety, accessibility, and connectivity for all residents.

I am confident that Nominee will serve with insight and professionalism, and I wholeheartedly support their appointment to the Committee.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Tyller Williamson
Mayor, City of Monterey
Enclosure: Application
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 10., Item Page 35, Packet Page 192 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Ted Terrasas, Sustainability Manager
SUBJECT: Authorize the City to Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Santa Cruz to Coordinate the Funding and Administration of the Local Government Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Coordination Program, Appoint a Councilmember to Represent the City, and Authorize $1,000 from Planning Office Professional Services Budget to Support the Work Effort (Not a Project under CEQA Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

1. Adopt a Resolution to:
- Authorize the City to enter into an
Memorandum of Understanding with the
County of Santa Cruz to coordinate the
funding and administration of the Local
Government Outer Continental Shelf
Coordination Program on a form approved
by the City Attorney’s Office;
- Appoint a councilmember to represent the
City of Monterey and authorize the City
Clerk to administratively amend the 2026
Representatives to Outside Agencies and
City Boards and Committees roster
approved by City Council on December 16,
2025 to reflect this appointment; and
- Authorize $1,000 from Account #101-400-
4400-0000-4240 to support the Local
Government Outer Continental Shelf
Coordination Program.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Protect and preserve our natural environment by
addressing climate change through ecologically
responsible and pragmatic solutions.

Agenda Report Highlights
• The City of Monterey plans to join
the Local Government Outer
Continental Shelf Coordination
Program to oppose offshore oil
drilling and deep-sea mining along
the California coast.
• A council member will be appointed
to represent the City in the coalition,
and staff recommends a $1,000
allocation to support the program.
• The coalition provides resources,
advocacy, and coordination to
strengthen local government efforts
against federal offshore drilling
proposals.
• Offshore drilling poses risks to
California’s fishing, tourism, and
coastal economies, as well as the
marine environment.
• Participation in the coalition ensures
a unified local government voice in
federal decision-making and
reduces costs through collaborative
funding.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 11.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 1, Packet Page 193 №10/24
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

The federal government is considering leasing offshore oil drilling along the California coastline.

The proposed staff report proposes joining a coalition to ensure timely engagement in federal and state processes affecting offshore drilling and deep-sea mining.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The City is not required to pay to join the coalition. However, other jurisdictions are contributing.

Examples include: Santa Cruz County $29,000, Sonoma County $30,000, the City of Santa Cruz $29,000, and Monterey County $15,000 to support the effort. The attached resolution includes a $1,000 City contribution to the coalition.

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 City could choose not to join the coalition, appoint a council member or provide funds.

DISCUSSION:

Background
Efforts to lease offshore oil drilling sites in California waters have surfaced periodically since the 1970s. In response, the Local Governments Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Coordination Program was established to oppose these activities and protect our coastal environments (Attachment 2). The group’s original membership consisted of the counties of Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino, and Humboldt, and the City and County of San Francisco, along with several cities including Santa Cruz, Laguna Beach, and Newport Beach, and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Mr. Richard Charter was hired to coordinate and represent the group, which existed from 1980 - 1994.

Through this effort the Local Government OCS Coordination Program successfully opposed those efforts, working closely with federal and state partners, which resulted in the protection of our coastal ecosystems and economies.

Today, similar threats have re-emerged. With the signing of the executive order Unleashing Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 2, Packet Page 194 №10/24
American Energy Act in January of 2025, the signing of the “Unleash America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources” executive order, and now the Department of the Interior’s announcement to re-open the California coast to offshore oil leases, it is critical to ensure that local governments are taking a stance against these efforts. Additionally, on November 24, 2025, the comment period opened on the 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Draft Proposal Program, which proposes 6 leases for oil drilling and exploration off the coast of California; three in Southern California, two in Central California, and one in Northern California. The City of Monterey provided public comments on these proposals in January and February 2026 (Attachment 3).

These proposals threaten California’s fishing, tourism, and visitor-serving industries—the backbone of local coastal economies—and increase the risks of climate change and marine pollution. As a result, Santa Cruz County has initiated the re-establishment of the Local Governments OCS Coordination Program, with Supervisor Justin Cummings serving as the lead board member, and Santa Cruz County has allocated an initial $29,000 to retain Richard Charter to help coordinate their efforts to protect our coast and coastal economies. It is estimated that the annual costs for the coordination efforts will be approximately $250,000,which would be shared across participating jurisdictions to help reduce the cost burden on individual jurisdictions. However, no jurisdiction will be denied participation if they are unable to commit funding at this time.

Analysis
Individual local governments often lack the staff capacity to monitor fast-moving federal actions, review complex technical documents, and engage directly with Congress and federal agencies.

Additionally, without coordinated participation, the local government perspective is often diminished in federal decision making.

The Local Government OCS Coordination Program provides the infrastructure to address these challenges by offering shared resources, timely updates, and direct representation. The coalition builds on decades of successful local coordination, led by experienced coastal advocate Richard Charter, who has a proven track record of helping local governments mount effective opposition to offshore drilling.

What the Coalition Provides to Participating Jurisdictions:
● Regular Briefings & Alerts: Real-time updates on federal offshore oil and gas leasing and deep-sea mining proposals, tailored for local officials. ● Draft Materials: Comment letters, resolutions, testimony, talking points, and media templates that jurisdictions can adapt and adopt.
● Direct Advocacy: Representation of local government interests in meetings with Members of Congress, federal agencies, and stakeholders. ● Regional Coordination: Sessions to align efforts across jurisdictions, amplify messaging, and strengthen collective influence.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 3, Packet Page 195 №10/24
● Communication Tools: Fact sheets and outreach materials grounded in science to inform the public and local decisionmakers, and a website and social media for a digital presence.
● Futureproofing: Continuous monitoring of emerging offshore threats, ensuring local governments are prepared to respond.

Benefits of Participation:
● Ensures local jurisdictions are ready, resourced, and represented without having to dedicate significant local staff time.
● Strengthens California’s bipartisan local government voice in defending our clean-coast economy.
● Protects critical local industries—fishing, tourism, recreation—and the marine environment from preventable harm.
● Demonstrates local leadership in safeguarding the California coast for future generations.
● Timely submission of comments on federal permitting proposals. ● Reduced cost due to a collaborative funding model
Joining the Local Government OCS Coalition is a timely and strategic step to protect our community, our economy, and our environment. By participating, the City will benefit from expert coordination, shared resources, and a unified presence in federal processes assuring that California’s local governments continue to play a decisive role in protecting our coast.

As of January 13, 2026, the counties of Humboldt, Sonoma, Marin, Mendocino, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, San Diego and Ventura, and the City of Santa Cruz, have joined the Local Government OCS Coordination Group. Santa Cruz County has allocated $29,000, Sonoma County has allocated $30,000, the City of Santa Cruz has allocated $29,000, Monterey County has allocated $15,000, and San Mateo has allocated $20,000 to support the effort. Other cities in Monterey County are in the process of considering joining this coalition as well. The attached resolution would provide $1,000 of City funding to support this effort.

For these reasons, staff is requesting that Council adopt a resolution to join the Local Governments OCS Coordination Program by entering into an MOU with Santa Cruz County, appoint a Council member to serve as the City representative on this body, and authorize $1,000 to support the Local Government Outer Continental Shelf Coordination Program..

Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution authorize the City to Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Santa Cruz to Coordinate the Funding and Administration of the Local Government Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Coordination Program, Appoint a Council Person to the Represent the City, Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 4, Packet Page 196 №10/24
Authorize $1,000 from Planning Office Professional Services Budget to Support the Work Effort

2. Historic Article - Local Governments Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Coordination Program

3. Resolution 26-025 Opposing New and Existing Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling and Deep Seabed Mining and Resolution 26-007 Opposing the U.S.

Department of the Interior’s Proposed Program for Offshore Oil and Gas Leases off the California Coast
e: All neighborhood associations
All business associations
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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 5, Packet Page 197 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH

THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ TO COORDINATE THE FUNDING AND ADMINISTRATION

OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (OCS) COORDINATION

PROGRAM, APPOINT A COUNCILMEMBER TO THE REPRESENT THE CITY AND AUTHORIZE $1,000 FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

BUDGET TO SUPPORT THE WORK EFFORT
WHEREAS, the City is home to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, which covers 276 miles of coastline and was established in 1992 to protect marine ecosystems such as the kelp forests, rocky shores, beaches, estuaries, seamounts and canyons that it contains; WHEREAS, offshore drilling has the potential to cause severe impacts including oil spills, habitat destruction, harm to marine life, air/water pollution, shutting down or severely damaging local fishing and tourism, elevated risk of respiratory issues and cancer for those living nearby, and a potential taxpayer burden if and when the wells are abandoned; WHEREAS, over the past 20 years, the City has prioritized a shift to renewable energy and reduction of greenhouse emissions through energy retrofits, transitioning fleet vehicles to electric and hybrid alternatives, and adopting a Climate Action Plan, all of which are in direct contradiction to the expansion of fossil fuel drilling and exploration; WHEREAS, the City is facing increasing threats from climate change, most significantly through sea level rise and the increased frequency and intensity of fires, which will be exacerbated by the continued extraction, production and usage of fossil fuels; WHEREAS, participating in the Local Government OCS will provide the City with updates on offshore drilling and leasing proposals, regional response coordination, communication tools and the ability to ensure the City is educated and ready to respond without investment of significant staff time;
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.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:

1. Authorizes the City Manager to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County of Santa Cruz to coordinate the funding and administration of the Local Government Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Coordination Program on a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office.

2. Appoints _______________________ to represent the City in the OCS Coordination Program and authorizes the City Clerk to administratively amend the 2026 Representatives to Outside Agencies and City Boards and Committees roster approved by City Council on December 16, 2025 to reflect this appointment.

3. Authorize $1,000 to be contributed from the Planning Office - Professional Services budget to the OCS Coordination Program.

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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 7, Packet Page 199 l
The Cllifomia ocs
Local Government Coordination Program
Facilitating the Local Role in Offshore Drilling Decisions Why Local Governments
Need to be Involved In
Offshore Drllllng Decisions:

Local communities bear the primary impacts of offshore drilling, even though the drilling activities occur on the Outer Continental Shelf IOCSj under the federal jurisdiction of me Department of Interior. Air pollution from drilling operations inevitably blows ashore. the commercial fishing industry is displaced tJj drilling rigs, oilspills close recreational beaches. and onshore industrial facilities are needed to support petroleum development offshore. For mese reasons. local government agencies were granted a role in federal OCS leasing decisions when Congress adopted the OCS Lands Act Amendments in 1978. Post-lease decisions relevant to offshore drilling come under local jurisdiction through the Local Coastal Programs adopted pursuant to me Coastal Zone Management M.. as well as through other local land-use and planning policies.

In spite of a clearly-defined legislative mandate for local participation in the OCS decisionmaking process. experience in California over the past decade has demonstrated that local agencies must protect their interests with an assertive. coordinated. and high-profile strategy. Balanced against the considerable economic power and lobbying clout of the oil industry. rocal communities have found it necessary to diligently pursue their legitimate role in this dialog or be largely left out of the process. The protection of local interests. such as regional economies based on commercial fishing and coastal-dependent tourism. requires an ongoing effort. An effective local role relies on a constant fiow of information between local agencies and the Congress. me Governor, and the Department of Interior. City Councils and County Boards of SupeNisors need to remain constantly in close contact with one another, with their Congressional Delegation, with the State Legislature. and with their own constituents. The periodic opportunities for local input need to be met with an appropriate and timely local response. In California. for the past eight years. this critical city and county role in OCS decisions has been effectivery facilitated tJj the Local Government Coordination Program.

The Local Government Coordination ProgramStaff Suppon and Lobbying Services for Local Agencies Statewide
Californians place a very high priority on coastal protection. This fact is evidenced by the extensive system of parklands which grace our coastline, as well the intensive public use which these park /ands enjoy. While California remains the fourth largest producer of domestic petroleum nationwide, the public has grown increasingly concerned over how and where new offshore drilling will occur. This intense public concern Mr coastal dnlling has created increasing responsibilities for local governments which must respond to federal OCS leasing proposals and also address plans for creation or expansion of onshore facilities to support offshore drilling. Local elected officials in coastaljurisdictions nrm find themselves on the front lines of a controversy which pits major multinational corporate interests against public policies favoring coastal protection. Frequently. staff support on OCS issues at the local level is unavailable or overburdened.

Eight years ago. local agencies along the California coast came up with a cost-effective solution to the need for Joca! expertise by creating the Local Government Coordination Program. Since that time. the Local Government Coordination Program, directed by Richard Charter. has responded to the needs of local officials statewide wim a proven track record of legislative successes. timely information. and technical expertise on OCS matters. This program has successfully addressed the many facets of the OCS leasing dialog throughout the terms of two federal Administrations. four Interior Secretaries, and two California Governors. The Coordination Program 11\-0rkS on an ongoing basis with the California Congressional Delegation in a bipartisan fashion. The results of this cooperative intergMrnmental effort speak for themselves.

A Winning Track Record:

The Local GMrnmem Coordination Program operates according to a well-defined work program administered by the County Administrative Office at the County of Santa Cruz. This \/\-Ork program emphasizes interagency coordination among participating loca! governments as welt as close cooperation with Congressional representatives. The Local Government Coon:lination Program does not formulate policy, but @ther develops suggested position papers which are made available to local officials for consideration as appropriate OCS decision points present themselves. Local agencies. acting with the staff support provided by the Program. adopt their rmn resolutions as determined by constituent participation and local concerns. The Coordination Program then works to translate these local positions into legislative policy. This involves coordination with the responsible federal agendes and with the Congress. Frequently. interests shared in common with other coastal states permit multi-state legislative strategies which facilitate major Congressional actions addressing local concerns.

Attachment 2
Historic Document
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 8, Packet Page 200 CriUcal Senices Provided by the Local Govemment Coordination Program:
lnteragency Coordination:

Your agency needs to know when it is time to take action on behalf of your coastline. You need to know what comprises an appropriate response in a given situation. You need to know where to direct your views. Important deadlines appear quickly. blr par· ticipation in the Coordination Program ensures that key actions are taken by your agency in time to meet these deadlines in concert with other local governments. You will receive regular "OCS Action Alerts" as well as the popular new publication, "On the Coast". These publications make it easy to stay up to date.

Staff Suppon:

The Program provides timely technical information and legisla· tive analysis which is tailored to the needs of local governments.

Clear. concise action alerts let you know what's going on, how to influence decisions, and when you need to act. Your decisions and actions will benefit from the perspective provided by a national overview. Your agency will benefit from a comprehensive knowledge of the legal precedents, the legislative history, the Congressional agenda, and a careful analysis of political strategy.

Tracking Leglslatlan and State and Federal Agencies:

What's going on along your coastline? What is the Depart· ment of Interior doing right now? What is the Congress doing and when will they aa7 What is going on in the State· legisla· ture? Where does the Governor stand? How does the Environ� mental Protection Agency influence the clecision at hand? What authority does the California Coastal Commission have? The OCS issue is moving rapidly on myriad fronts. When something is happening in Washington, D.C. or in Sacramento which affects your coastline. you'll know about it and you will be a participant.

Lobbying Activities:

When the time comes for a group of local officials to engage in direct lobbying in Congress. you wiff be able to join in the effort.

Legislative target lists, talking points, and access to key players is provided. There is no legislative tactic which is more successful than going to the decisionmakers in person, at the appropriate time, to make your case. Legislative action has proven to be one of the geatest successes attributable to the Coon:lination Program.

Media Relatlons:

The print media. television, and radio are primary tools utilized by the Program on behalf of local governments. The public wants to know what is happening with regard to federal plans for offshore drilling on the California coast. The Coordination Program provides an educated response to local, regional, and national press whenever OCS news is breaking. Reporters nationwide call the Program every day for OCS infoITTJation. The news media is constantly seeking basic background, an informed quote for a dead· line story, or a list of news sowces for detailed research. Because the Coordination Program has been consistent in providing reliable information, it enjoys a long-term credibility with reporters. The Coordination Program maintains state-of-th�art telecommunications contaa with news services such as United Press International, Associated Press. and the Washington Post. as well as traditional clipping services which track local papers and the petroleum uade publications. Relevant news items are forwarded to Coordination Program participants as necessary. The Coordi· nation Program has produced successful press events for local offrcials visiting Washington, DC. as well as conduaed numerous press conferences held in California. The Program maintains a membership in the PR Newswire in Washington. DC. enabling instant dissemination of local news items to the national media via computer when needed.

Public Refatlons Services:

Generating broad public awareness of the concerns of local governments ielevant to the OCS issue comprises one of the major work tasks for the Program. Professional graphic arts and video production services are provided by the Coordination Program. based on twenty-two years of public relations experience seNing major comme,cial dients. Newslette/5. brochures. posters. and radio and television commen:ials have been designed and produced for participating focal agencies. An aware and educated public is frequently the most import:ant element in determining the outcome of key decisions affecting the coast. Turnout for public hearings. written comments in response to document review periods, or draft .letters in support of important legislation have all been provided through the outreach services of the Program. The results of this outreach program have been extremely successful in elevating the OCS controversy in the public consciousness.

A number of the publications which have been designed and distributed by the Local Government Coordination Program.

Attachment 2
Historic Document
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 9, Packet Page 201 Attachment 2
Historic Document
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 10, Packet Page 202 Attachment 2
Historic Document
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 11, Packet Page 203 Attachment 2
Historic Document
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 12, Packet Page 204 Attachment 2
Historic Document
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 13, Packet Page 205 Attachment 2
Historic Document
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 14, Packet Page 206 Attachment 2
Historic Document
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 15, Packet Page 207 RESOLUTION NO. 26-025 C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY

OPPOSING NEW AND EXISTING OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS DRILLING

AND DEEP SEABED MINING
WHEREAS, the ocean covers roughly 70% of the Earth’s surface, produces half the oxygen we breathe through its plant life, serves as a major highway for global trade, provides food, absorbs excess carbon from climate change, and plays a critical role in shaping weather patterns;
WHEREAS, offshore drilling carries countless negative effects including air pollution from toxic emissions known to cause asthma, lung cancer, and other diseases; the constant threat of oil spills that harm wildlife and their habitats; and damage to the fishing and tourism industries, which are vital to California’s coastal economy; WHEREAS, past oil spill disasters, such as the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico (2010), and the Refugio Spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, California (2015), have caused catastrophic impacts to human life, wildlife, coastal ecosystems, and local economies; WHEREAS, an analysis by Oceana found that protecting all unleased federal waters from offshore drilling in the United States could prevent over 19 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions—the equivalent of taking every car in the nation off the road for 15 years; WHEREAS, on January 20, 2025 President Trump signed the Unleashing American Energy executive order, which encourages energy exploration and production on Federal lands and waters, including on the Outer Continental Shelf;
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2025, President Trump signed the Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources executive order to permit deep seabed mining, which would have significant negative impacts on marine ecosystems, fisheries, and local coastal economies;
WHEREAS, California’s marine sanctuaries—including the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary, Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and others along the coast—protect unique ecosystems and cultural resources, but significant areas of the Pacific remain vulnerable to offshore oil and gas development;
WHEREAS, the threat of future leasing proposals persists in the absence of a permanent nationwide prohibition on new offshore drilling; WHEREAS, protecting California’s coastlines from the impacts of oil and gas development is essential to safeguarding the environment, public health, Tribal cultural resources, climate resilience, and coastal economies; 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

Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 16, Packet Page 208 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.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby opposes all new and existing offshore oil and gas drilling and deep seabed mining and authorizes submitted of this opposition to the Federal Register.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 17th day of February, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof

Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 17, Packet Page 209 RESOLUTION NO. 26-007 C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
OPPOSING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR’S PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR

OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASES OFF THE CALIFORNIA COAST
WHEREAS, on November 26, 2025, the United States Department of the Interior announced a Secretary’s Order directing the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to take the necessary steps to terminate the 2024-2029 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program and replace it with a new, expansive 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program;
WHEREAS the program includes 34 potential offshore lease sales across the existing Outer Continental Shelf planning areas which covers over 1.27 billion acres, including six along the Pacific coastline;
WHEREAS, in 1981, Secretary of the Interior James Watt proposed a similar program to sell coastline of the continental shoreline of the United States for offshore drilling. ThenRepresentative Leon Panetta and Representative Don Clausen drafted a ‘moratorium amendment’ that was passed by the Senate continuously for 20 years and led to the formation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary;
WHEREAS, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary was established 34 years ago in 1992 through the collaborative effort of politicians on both sides of the aisle, marine researchers, business owners, fisheries, tourism professionals, community leaders, and concerned citizens; and
WHEREAS, offshore drilling poses a threat to our coastal recreation, tourism, and fishing industry, industries that depend on a clean and healthy ocean environment. The City of Monterey’s tourism is dependent on a pristine and healthy coastline; WHEREAS, the Monterey Bay is home to endangered species of marine mammals, birds, and fish - some of which are not found anywhere else in the world – all which would be heavily impact by the construction of new offshore drilling facilities and an inevitable oil spill; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey previously passed Resolution No. 13.133 (June 1978), Resolution No. 86-134 (November 1986), Resolution No. 186-197 (November 1986), Resolution No. 87-08 (January 1987), Resolution No. 87-14 (January 1987), and Resolution No. 88-189 (December 1988), all opposing leases for the purpose of offshore oil drilling along the California Central Coast Shoreline and the Outer Continental Shelf; WHEREAS, Measure G was approved as a ballot proposition on August 5, 1986 that proposed that “the people of the City of Monterey adopt an ordinance opposing offshore drilling for oil and gas off the Coast of Central and Northern California. . . [and] make certain findings relating to the potential adverse efforts thereof. . .[and to] defin(e) and prohibit onshore support facilities and requir(e) the City Council to urge State and Federal authorities to exclude said water from the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program”. Measure G was passed in November 1986 with 76% of the vote;
Docusign Envelope ID: 8C4A6DC1-5BA8-4A3F-BC84-05083D964051 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 18, Packet Page 210 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.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby opposes the proposed 11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, including any and all new or expanded offshore oil and gas off the California Coast.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY this 20th day of January, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Barber, Garcia, Rasch, Smith, Williamson NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor of said City
City Clerk thereof
Docusign Envelope ID: 8C4A6DC1-5BA8-4A3F-BC84-05083D964051 Attachment 3
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 11., Item Page 19, Packet Page 211 Council
Agenda Report
№12/25
FROM: Andrea Renny, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Chris Dwight, General Services Superintendent Megan Beckman, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Amend Resolution 25-060 to Include the Vasquez Adobe Repairs and Gordon House Repairs Projects in the FY 25-26 Capital Improvement Program and Authorize the Finance Director to Appropriate Funds from the Facility Reserve Fund to the Capital Projects Fund in the Amount of $1,093,000 (Exempt from CEQA, Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution;

1. Amending resolution 25-060 to include the
Vasquez Adobe Repairs and Gordon House
Repairs Projects in the FY 25-26 Capital
Improvement Program;

2. Authorizing the Finance Director, or their
designee to appropriate $640,000 from the
Facility Reserve Fund to the Capital Projects
Fund, Vasquez Adobe Repairs Project; and,

3. Authorizing the Finance Director, or their
designee, to appropriate $453,000 from the
Facility Reserve Fund to the Capital Projects
Fund, Gordon House Repairs Project.

VALUE DRIVERS:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

On March 10, 2026, the Planning Commission
determined the projects to be consistent with the
Agenda Report Highlights
• The City Council is recommended to
approve $1,093,000 from the
Facility Reserve Fund for critical
repairs to the Vasquez Adobe and
Gordon House.
• Both buildings are historic
landmarks and require immediate
structural, electrical, HVAC, and
accessibility improvements to
address safety concerns and
prevent further deterioration.
• The repairs include a historic
preservation study to ensure
compliance with federal standards
for treating historic properties.
• Vacating the buildings due to
deferred repairs would result in
operational disruptions, increased
costs, and potential loss of
historically significant assets.
• The funding request will deplete the
Facility Reserve Fund, leaving only
$7,000 for future facility
emergencies for this fiscal year.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 12.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 1, Packet Page 212 №12/25
General Plan, Area Plans, Master Plans, Coastal Plans, Traffic Calming Plans, and Move Monterey Multimodal Plan.

This action is consistent with Council policy to approve all budget amendments.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Based on a formal Facility Condition Assessment completed in 2024 and ongoing evaluations performed by City staff, the initial estimated cost of repairs for the Vasquez Adobe and Gordon House are $640,000 and $453,000, respectively. These are preliminary estimates and additional costs may be identified later during the project development as the project advances.

These cost estimates represent the most critical repairs needed to address immediate health and safety concerns and maintain continued occupancy and include funding for a required historic preservation study to provide guidance on the treatment and maintenance of historic properties consistent with the Code of Federal Regulations Part 68. Because the buildings are historic resources, completion of the preservation study is necessary to inform repair methods and ensure compliance with applicable preservation standards prior to undertaking any physical improvements.

While these improvements stabilize the facilities in the near term, additional investment will be required to fully rehabilitate the structures and ensure the long-term preservation of these historically significant City assets. Furthermore, addressing these structural failures is a prerequisite for any future sale should the Council decide to vacate these buildings, as maintaining the buildings' integrity preserves their multi-million dollar market potential. Selling them in their current "as-is" condition would likely result in a significant loss of potential revenue The Facility Reserve Fund is an appropriate source of funding for these repairs, and sufficient funding is available to approve this request. However, the reserve fund balance is currently at $1,100,000 and this funding request will result in insufficient balance of $7,000 for future emergencies. Staff believe use of the Facility Reserve Fund for this very purpose, urgent repairs to City buildings, is exactly what the fund was intended for. Should urgent needs in other facilities arise this fiscal year, other funding sources would need to be utilized. It is recommended for the FY 2026-27 to consider replenishing this important fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed action involves basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities for the Vasques Adobe and Gordon House Repairs, which may include but are not limited to replacement of the roof, repair/replacement of deck, raise the foundation, and completion of related repairs (these may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded).

Furthermore, the exempt projects do not qualify for any of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found at CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 2, Packet Page 213 №12/25
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 have 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. The proposed action involves basic data collection; therefore, would not have any impacts on the environment.

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. The proposed action is basic data collection; therefore, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

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 unusual circumstances are anticipated to be found at the project sites. The proposed action would not have a significant effect due to their limited scope and distinct locations.

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). The proposed action would involve basic data collection; therefore, no impacts to scenic highways would occur.

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. None of these projects would be located on hazardous waste sites listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

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. The proposed action would involve basic data collection, which would not result in an impact to historic or cultural resources.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

Council could choose not to approve funding for the proposed repairs given the City’s current structural budget deficit. Under this alternative, Council could direct staff to vacate the affected buildings rather than proceed with necessary improvements. While this approach would avoid near-term capital expenditures, it would result in the loss of functional office space for City operations. Additionally, deferring repairs would likely accelerate the deterioration of these historic structures, potentially increasing future rehabilitation costs and creating a greater longterm financial obligation for the City. Continued disinvestment may also compromise the preservation of historically significant assets owned by the City.

Vacating the affected buildings would not only result in potential increased costs of deteriorating facilities, but it would necessitate the City to lease office space to accommodate staff needs in the short and long-term, which could have a greater long-term cost to the City.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 3, Packet Page 214 №12/25
Renting is not a viable long-term strategy because it forces the City to pay significant annual rent and escalating operating costs for properties it does not own, rather than building equity in public assets. Recent evaluations of potential building leases have shown that even when a location seems like a "natural fit," the terms can require the City to fund substantial one-time improvements and take on structural maintenance risks for a private asset. Ultimately, these costs create a much higher financial burden over time compared to the one-time investment required to stabilize and preserve City-owned facilities.

A historic preservation study update and conceptual design is necessary to obtain Planning and Building permits. The staff recommendation to complete the emergency repair work on Vasquez Adobe and Gordon House for $1,093,000 includes the cost for the historic preservation study update and conceptual design. An alternative is for the City to take a two-step approach, and only fund the first phase, estimated at $300,000, which would include only the historic preservation study, temporary shoring and other urgent stabilization measures. Under this twostep approach, staff would need to return to the City Council at a later date to request the remainder of the reserve fund appropriations to complete the construction step. While this alternative would provide a more refined project scope and cost estimates, staff does not recommend it because it would delay implementation of critical repairs and increase the risk of additional damage should another significant storm event occur.

DISCUSSION:

Vasquez Adobe
Historic Overview and City Use
The Vasquez Adobe is a historic two-story adobe structure originally constructed circa 1834 during the Mexican period of California history. The property was purchased in 1834 by María Guadalupe Cantúa de Vásquez and is recognized as the birthplace and childhood home of Tiburcio Vásquez, a well-known figure in early California history. The structure was designated California Historical Landmark No. 351 in 1939 in recognition of its historical significance.

The City of Monterey authorized purchase of the property on June 22, 1949, acquiring it for $20,000. Following acquisition, the City rehabilitated the structure, and it has been used continuously for municipal administrative purposes since approximately 1951. Over time, the building has undergone modifications and seismic retrofitting while retaining its historic character.

The building is currently occupied by Public Works staff, including Engineering Division (Public Works Inspectors, Environmental Regulations staff) and Parks and Recreation Administration (Parks and Recreation Director and Management Analyst) personnel.

Current Building Conditions
Vasquez Adobe has experienced progressive deterioration over time, resulting in conditions that now threaten structural integrity, building performance, and preservation of this historic asset.

The roof is leaking in multiple locations and has reached a condition where spot repairs are no longer viable, resulting in ongoing water intrusion and accelerated deterioration of the building, specifically the interior walls and flooring. Exterior structural supports serving the upper deck Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 4, Packet Page 215 №12/25
and roof system show visible bowing and sagging, indicating potential structural compromise.

Interior finishes and structural elements have sustained damage in several areas due to age, deferred maintenance, and prolonged water infiltration. Collectively, these conditions represent both a safety concern and a risk to the long-term preservation of the facility, necessitating timely evaluation, design, and corrective action. The current repair needs reflect the progression of deferred structural issues and aging building systems rather than newly emerging conditions.

Proposed Scope of Critical Repairs
Immediate priority items for the Vasquez Adobe include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Structural reinforcement of the exterior stairs, second-floor exterior deck, second-floor framing system, and roof framing. $345,000 estimate
• Full replacement and upgrade of the electrical distribution system. $45,000 estimate • Critical repairs of HVAC controls and air distribution systems. $25,000 estimate • ADA accessibility improvements in accordance with the 2024 Transition Plan. $95,000 estimate
• Interior wall repairs and restoration. $45,000 estimate • Complete roof replacement. $85,000 estimate
Gordon House
Historic Overview and City Use
The Gordon House, constructed in 1850, represents an early American-period residential structure in Monterey and is notable as one of two prefabricated wood houses imported from Australia, introducing milled lumber construction to the community. The house was erected by Philip Roach, Monterey’s last alcalde and first mayor under American governance. Ownership passed through several prominent Monterey residents, including civic leader Samuel B. Gordon, for whom the building is named.

The City of Monterey acquired the Gordon House in 1995, along with the adjacent Ketcham House, to support municipal administrative functions. Since that time, the structure has been used as office space for City staff. It is currently occupied by the Community Development Department (Property Management Office) and Library and Museums Department (Museums Division) staff.

In FY 2006/07, the City appropriated $50,000 through the Capital Improvement Program for investigation, design, and temporary structural repairs at the Gordon House, intended to stabilize existing structural deficiencies. As required by the National Historic Preservation Act, a Historic Preservation Study (Attachment 2) was prepared before any of the improvements were performed. These improvements were implemented as interim measures pending more comprehensive rehabilitation and only included a new roof and minor repairs. The majority of the repairs were deferred and not completed, such as the foundation issue. The current repair needs reflect the progression of deferred structural issues and aging building systems rather than newly emerging conditions.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 5, Packet Page 216 №12/25
Current Building Conditions
The Gordon House is exhibiting clear signs of foundation settlement and structural movement, resulting in the building being measurably out of level. This movement has caused interior floors and rooms to become noticeably uneven and, if left unaddressed, will continue to worsen over time. The exterior deck has been closed to public access due to advanced deterioration, including rot and termite damage. Foundation movement has also contributed to damage to windows, casings, and other interior finishes. In addition, several roof leaks have resulted in water intrusion, causing further deterioration and localized rot within portions of the structure.

Taken together, these issues affect the building’s safety, functionality, and accessibility. These items should be addressed through timely evaluation and coordinated corrective action to prevent further deterioration.

Proposed Scope of Critical Repairs
Immediate priority items for the Gordon House include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Foundation leveling, structural repairs, and architectural evaluation. $180,000 estimate • Exterior deck replacement. $75,000 estimate
• Roof replacement. $30,000 estimate
• Interior repairs and restoration. $18,000 estimate
• Window and casework repairs. $25,000 estimate
• HVAC system upgrades and improved building air distribution. $15,000 estimate • ADA accessibility improvements in accordance with the 2024 Transition Plan. $110,000 estimate
Vasquez Adobe and Gordon House
Historic Preservation Requirements
The Gordon House and Vasquez Adobe properties are designated with an H-1 Landmark Overlay Zoning classification. This overlay is intended to identify and preserve the most historic resources in the City. Any alterations or repairs within the H-1 Landmark zone requires approval of a Historic Permit. As part of the permit application, a Historic Preservation Report must be submitted. The report must demonstrate how the proposed work complies with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. Both the Historic Permit and the associated Historic Preservation Report are subject to review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission.

Operational Impacts
At present, the buildings serve as City office space for Community Development, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, and Library & Museums staff. City employees require safe, functional, and habitable work environments to effectively carry out public services; however, the City’s existing inventory of office space is extremely limited, and there is no available alternative location to accommodate staff. As a result, the condition of these facilities directly affects workplace safety and operational continuity. Should the buildings be vacated as an alternative to undertaking Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 6, Packet Page 217 №12/25
repairs, the City would face immediate challenges in relocating staff, leasing office space at expense to the City, and maintaining service delivery.

Financial Considerations
This appropriation will essentially use all of the Facility Reserve fund currently appropriated, leaving a balance of $7,000. Staff is always looking into funding alternatives outside of General Fund such as grants. Unfortunately, the current opportunities do not present as a reliable funding approach and delaying repair will lead to further decay of the two historic structures and the need to move staff out of those buildings. The yearly state of the infrastructure presented by Public Works on a yearly basis since 2024 has highlighted these critical needs and delays in repairs and maintenance challenges that the city currently faces.

AR/cd/mb
Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. Gordon House Historic Preservation Study (2008)
e: Rafaela King, Finance Director
Kim Cole, Community Development Director
Brian Edwards, Library and Museums Director
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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 7, Packet Page 218 RESOLUTION NO. __-___ C.S.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY
№011/24
AMENDING RESOLUTION 25-060 TO INCLUDE THE VASQUEZ ADOBE REPAIRS AND GORDON HOUSE REPAIRS PROJECTS IN THE FY 25-26 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS

FROM THE FACILITY RESERVE FUND TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,093,000
WHEREAS, the Vasquez Adobe is a historic two-story adobe structure originally constructed circa 1834 during the Mexican period of California history. The City purchased the property in 1949 and it has been used continuously for municipal administrative purposes since 1951;
WHEREAS, Vasquez Adobe has experienced progressive deterioration over time, resulting in conditions that now threaten structural integrity, building performance, and preservation of this historic asset;
WHEREAS, the Gordon House, constructed in 1850, represents an early Americanperiod residential structure in Monterey and is notable as one of two prefabricated wood houses imported from Australia, introducing milled lumber construction to the community. The City purchased Gordon House in 1995 and since that time it has been used as office space by City staff;
WHEREAS, the Gordon House is exhibiting clear signs of foundation settlement and structural movement, affecting the building’s safety, functionality, and accessibility; WHEREAS, in FY 2006/07, the City appropriated $50,000 through the Capital Improvement Program for investigation, design, and temporary structural repairs at the Gordon House, intended to stabilize existing structural deficiencies. These improvements were implemented as interim measures pending more comprehensive rehabilitation and only included a new roof and minor repairs;
WHEREAS, the Gordon House and Vasquez Adobe properties are designated with an H-1 Landmark Overlay Zoning classification. This overlay is intended to identify and preserve the most historic resources in the City;
WHEREAS, based on a formal Facility Condition Assessment completed in 2024 and ongoing evaluations performed by City staff, the initial estimated cost of repairs for the Vasquez Adobe and Gordon House are $640,000 and $453,000, respectively. While these improvements stabilize the facilities in the near term, additional investment will be required to fully rehabilitate the structures and ensure the long-term preservation of these historically significant City assets; WHEREAS, the City of Monterey Planning Office determined that the following action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6) because the proposed action involves basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities for the Vasques Adobe and Gordon House Repairs, which may include but are not limited to replacement of the roof, repair/replacement of deck, raise the foundation, and completion of related repairs (these may Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 8, Packet Page 219 be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded).

Furthermore, the exempt projects do 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 have 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. The proposed action involves basic data collection; therefore, would not have any impacts on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY that it hereby:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 9, Packet Page 220

1. Amends resolution 25-060 to include the Vasquez Adobe Repairs and Gordon House Repairs Projects in the FY 25-26 Capital Improvement Program;

2. Authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee to appropriate $640,000 from the Facility Reserve Fund to the Capital Projects Fund, Vasquez Adobe Repairs Project; and,

3. Authorizes the Finance Director, or their designee, to appropriate $453,000 from the Facility Reserve Fund to the Capital Projects Fund, Gordon House Repairs Project.

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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 10, Packet Page 221

FINAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT

GORDON HOUSE
526 PIERCE STREET, MONTEREY, CA
Prepared by:

AUGUST 2008
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 11, Packet Page 222

FINAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT

GORDON HOUSE
526 PIERCE STREET, MONTEREY, CA
Prepared for:

CITY OF MONTEREY
Pacific & Madison Streets
Monterey, CA 94940
Prepared by:

PMC
585 Cannery Row, Suite 304
Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 644-9174
August 2008
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 12, Packet Page 223

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Gordon House Final Historic Preservation Report
526 Pierce Street, Monterey August 2008
-i1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................1

2.0 Historic Overview..........................................................................................................2

3.0 Architectural History .....................................................................................................3

4.0 Historic Significance ......................................................................................................6

5.0 Proposed Project............................................................................................................9

5.1 Character-Defining Features................................................................................9

5.2 Treatment Standard .......................................................................................... 10

5.4 Recommended Rehabilitation Program ........................................................... 11

6.0 Ongoing Repair and Preservation of Historic Materials ............................................ 13

7.0 Recommended Implementation of Phasing................................................................ 14

8.0 Sources Cited and Consulted ...................................................................................... 15 Appendices
Appendix A: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
Appendix B: 1976 Floor Plan – Francis Palms
Appendix C: 2002 Project Plans – Fletcher & Hardoin Architects Appendix D: Photographs - 2008
.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 13, Packet Page 224 Gordon House Final Historic Preservation Report
526 Pierce Street, Monterey August 2008
-1-

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Historic Preservation Report was prepared for the City of Monterey as part of the planning process to record existing conditions and provide recommendations for the repair, replacement, stabilization and retention of individual materials and features of the Gordon House. This report will be used to determine both the degree of restoration necessary and to provide a methodology for the repair and/or replacement of materials and the permanent stabilization of the building.

The Gordon House is located within the Monterey Old Town Historic District at 526 Pierce Street in Monterey, California at the northwest corner of King and Pierce Streets (APN: 001-523-003) (Figure 1). The building was constructed between 1849 and 1850.

The Gordon House is currently listed as a contributor to the Monterey Old Town Historic District. The residence is listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a contributor to a historic district.

The project is part of the City of Monterey’s Capital Improvement Program. Because of the historic status of the building, the project must be evaluated for impacts to historic materials and features to ensure that the project is performed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the City of Monterey’s Historic Preservation Program. The project, as proposed by the City of Monterey (hereafter ‘City’) includes the permanent stabilization of the building, leveling of the floor and other maintenance and restoration recommended by this evaluation.

This report recommends a phased approach for the stabilization and restoration of the building. Phasing is necessary to incorporate the necessary reports and findings of specialists, such as structural engineering and pest and fungal control and abatement, into the overall project. The project should be broken into three phases:

Phase I Identify and record existing conditions and character-defining features of the building, provide recommendations for further analysis (covered by this report);
Phase II Obtain reports and programs of implementation by qualified specialists for pest, fungus and water intrusion abatement and structural engineering; and Phase III Review of reports and programs of implementation by a qualified architectural historian for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

Phase I
PMC prepared an assessment of the Gordon House and proposed project (hereafter “the project”) utilizing standards established by the Secretary of the Interior. The conclusions in this report are based on fieldwork and archival research performed January through June of ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 14, Packet Page 225 Final Historic Preservation Report Gordon House
August 2008 526 Pierce Street, Monterey
-2-
2008. Research was completed at
repositories including the Monterey Public
Library California Room, Colton Hall
Museum and the City of Monterey Planning
and Building Departments. This phase of
the overall project utilized the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties, The Historic
Preservation Element of the City of
Monterey General Plan, the City of
Monterey Historic Master Plan, and the
City of Monterey’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance (City of Monterey Municipal
Code Chapter 38, Article 15).

2.0 HISTORIC OVERVIEW
The Gordon House was constructed in 1849-1950 by Philip Roach, the last alcalde (chief administrator) and first mayor of Monterey, from Australian eucalyptus which was shipped to England for milling and then reshipped around Cape Horn to Monterey. i The house is heralded as being one of the first milled lumber buildings in California.

In 1850 Roach sold the property to William S. Johnson, the Sindico (trustee) of the Ayuntamiento (city council).ii Johnson originated from England and came to Monterey in 1847 with Colonel Stevenson’s New York Regimen where he served as casaque and also chief clerk to the alcalde. Johnson was later elected the first Recorder of Monterey County and later County Clerk. In 1875, when the county seat was changed from Monterey to Salinas, Johnson moved to Salinas and organized the Salinas City Bank where he served as cashier. Johnson’s son, R.F. Johnson, was elected mayor of Monterey in 1897.

Prior to Johnson’s move to Salinas, he sold the property to John Burke Phillips, an attorney who arrived in California in 1847 with Company-D New York Volunteers. Burke owned the house from 1853 until 1871 when he sold the property to Samuel B. Gordon, for whom the residence is named.

Gordon was born in Pendleton, South Carolina in 1828. While he was still an infant, his parents, Thomas F. and Lovina Gordon, moved the family just outside of Clarksville, Georgia where his father established a farm. Gordon left home at the age of 21, journeyed around Cape Horn and settled in San Francisco in 1850 to pursue gold mining. He worked in Yuba mines for one year before turning his attention to farming near San Jose.

After two years, he moved to Redwood City in San Mateo County where he operated a lumber business. In 1857, Gordon, a democrat, was the first Representative elected to the FIGURE 1

VIEW OF GORDON HOUSE
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 15, Packet Page 226 Gordon House Final Historic Preservation Report
526 Pierce Street, Monterey August 2008
-3-
California State Legislature from San Mateo County. He also served as ex-officio Superintendent of Public Schools of his county, and as County Assessor.

Gordon came to Monterey County in 1859 where he raised livestock and eventually acquired 5,000 acres of land. He was married December 11, 1859 to Miss Nancy J.

Whisman, daughter of John Whisman.iii In 1871, Gordon bought the house at 526 Pierce Street and moved to Monterey. There, Gordon became “well known in civic affairs and was president of the Board of Trustees [from] 1877 – 1883.”iv Gordon sold the house to a Monterey banker, Thomas A. Work, in 1900 and moved to Pacific Grove, where he died June 5, 1902.v
The Gordon House changed hands several more times from 1900 to c. 1939. The owners during that period were:
1902 - C.D. Casper, owner of the Casper Hotel (later called the Mission Inn); 1902 – 1903 - Bert Guidotti
1903 - J.A. Davis
Deed dated 1903 but not recorded until 1912 – Mary C. Davis 1925 - 1937 - Julia C. Stohr
1937 – c. 1938 – Mr. and Mrs. M.A. Antoncich
1939 (est.) - Mr. and Mrs. Neville M.J. Cramaer
The property continued to change hands until the mid-1960s when it was purchased by Francis Palms, a well known architect and painter. Palms and his wife, actress Cornelia “Connie” Palms, maintained and preserved the house until it was purchased by cartoonist Hank Ketcham, creator of the “Dennis the Menace” comic strips. Written into the purchase agreement was the provision that Connie Palms be able to reside in the house until her death, which occurred in 1992. In 1995, Ketcham sold the property to the City of Monterey. The house was leased to private tenants for a time, before the City began using it for municipal offices.

The site is a contributor to the Monterey Old Town Historic District which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on April 15, 1970.

3.0 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
Existing Conditions
The Gordon House is a single-story wood framed building that rests on a combination of mud sills, wood posts, stones and concrete blocks. The site consists of the main residence (Gordon House) at the front property line on the corner of King and Pierce Streets and a two story carriage house at the corner of King and Dutra Streets at the rear property line.

The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by a collection of historic residential and civic buildings, including the Colton Hall complex and several historic adobes.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 16, Packet Page 227 Final Historic Preservation Report Gordon House
August 2008 526 Pierce Street, Monterey
-4-
The Gordon House is roughly L-shaped in
plan with horizontal wood beveled
siding. The moderately-pitched crossgabled roof extends at a lower pitch at the south and east elevations to create a
covered porch supported by chamfered
wood posts. The front (east) façade is
nearly symmetrical with a centered door
flanked by 6/6 double hung wood
windows with louvered shutters (Figure
2). The covered porch wraps around and
continues the length of the south
elevation. Three windows, identical to
those on the front façade exist at this
elevation, although the far left window is
missing shutters. Toward the rear of the
residence is a single wood 15-lite door
that leads into the “dressing room”, now
an office. A single painted brick chimney
is visible toward the peak of the roof.

At the gable end of the west (rear)
elevation is a small shed roofed addition
(bathroom) with two windows and
beveled horizontal siding of a wider
profile than the siding on the original
building (Figures 3 and 4). To the left of
the shed roofed addition is a second
(office) addition with a low pitched shed
roof, a 6-lite wood door and two 6/6
double hung wood shutterless windows
similar to those on the east and south
elevations. To the far left of the west
elevation is a third (kitchen) addition with
a shed roof, a lower plate height, a 6-lite
wood door and a pair of 4-lite wood casement windows. Both the second and third additions are clad in horizontal wood siding of a similar profile as the original building. A triple multi-lite wood window exists at the north elevation of the kitchen addition.

Centered on the gable end of this elevation is an original fixed 35-pane window.

FIGURE 2

FRONT ELEVATION FROM PIERCE STREET
FIGURE 3

ORIGINAL SIDING
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 17, Packet Page 228 Gordon House Final Historic Preservation Report
526 Pierce Street, Monterey August 2008
-5-
Alterations and Additions
The original residence was constructed in
1850. Physical evidence and the Sanborn
Fire Insurance Map from 1888 (See
Appendix A for Sanborn Maps) indicate
that the structure was L-shaped in plan
with a cross gable roof and a covered
porch at the east and south elevations.

These features still exist today. The 1888
and 1892 maps show the building with a
rectangular protrusion to the north of the
rear gable end. This addition appears to
have been removed or decreased in size
by 1905. The 1926 Sanborn indicates
further alteration at the rear of the
residence including the removal of the
small protrusion, and the construction
of the bathroom at the rear gable and
linear addition to the north of the rear
gable end. A photograph taken in 1936,
and on file at the Library of Congress
(Figure 5) shows the kitchen addition as
it appears today. The “office” addition
occurred in 1976. A drawing by Francis
Palms, dated September 4, 1976
displays the addition (Appendix B).

Building records also indicate that the
roof was replaced in 1986.

All of the windows and doors on the
1850 structure appear original, save the
rear portions of the building that have
been altered by the construction of additions. The kitchen addition, constructed between 1912 and 1926, is an alteration to the original residence that has gained historic significance in its own right. It does not appear that the remaining portion of this addition has been altered from its original construction.

Several repairs and alterations occurred in 2002 by the City of Monterey including an upgrade to the handicap accessible bathroom; replacement of deteriorated portions of the porch decking; installation of new porch supports to replace historically incorrect posts; consolidation of deteriorated railing; and the installation of a new concrete walk and ADA compliant ramp to the rear of the building (Appendix C).

FIGURE 4

BATHROOM ADDITION AT REAR GABLE
FIGURE 5
1936 PHOTOGRAPH (HABS, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS)
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 18, Packet Page 229 Final Historic Preservation Report Gordon House
August 2008 526 Pierce Street, Monterey
-6-

4.0 HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE
The following section examines the current historic status of the Gordon House and provides an evaluation of the building’s significance according to the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and the guidelines established by the City of Monterey.

National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.

Typically, determination of eligibility for listing in the National Register applies to resources over fifty years of age; however, resources under fifty years of age can be eligible if it can be demonstrated that they are of “exceptional importance,” or if they are contributors to a potential historic district.

According to the National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, a property qualifies for the National Register by: 1) “Being associated with an important historic context”; and 2) “Retaining historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance.” The four criterion under which a structure, site, building, district, or object can be considered eligible for listing in the National Register are as follows:

Criterion A (Event): Resources associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
Criterion B (Person): Resources associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
Criterion C (Design/Construction): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction; and Criterion D (Information Potential): Resources that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to qualifying for listing under at least one of the National Register criteria, a property must be shown to have sufficient historic integrity. The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and hence, in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.” The seven aspects of integrity are defined by the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation as follows:

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 19, Packet Page 230 Gordon House Final Historic Preservation Report
526 Pierce Street, Monterey August 2008
-7-
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed.

Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure and style of the property.

Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s).

Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property.

Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history.

Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

The Gordon House is included as a contributing resource within the Monterey Old Town Historic District, which was added to the National Register in 1970. The building has retained sufficient integrity since its initial review and inclusion.

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California.

Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-eligible properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. This includes properties identified in historical resource surveys with Status Codes of “1” to “5,” and resources designated as local landmarks through city or county ordinances. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. Resources eligible for the National Register are automatically listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.

Like the National Register, a property must be found significant within a historic context and retain sufficient historic integrity. In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 20, Packet Page 231 Final Historic Preservation Report Gordon House
August 2008 526 Pierce Street, Monterey
-8-
Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values.

Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

The process of determining integrity is similar for both the California Register and the National Register. As specified above, the same seven aspects that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The critical distinction between the two registers, however, is the degree of integrity that a property can retain and still be considered eligible for listing. According to the California Office of Historic Preservation:

It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant or historical information or specific data.

As a contributor to a district listed in the National Register, the Gordon House is also eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.

Monterey Preservation Planning and Regulation
The preservation of historic structures and districts in Monterey is accomplished through its planning documents and municipal code. The 2005 City of Monterey General Plan, which represents the city’s official land use policy, includes a Historic Preservation Element with a primary goal of “[p]reserv[ing] historic and cultural resources in Monterey, including buildings, sites, landscapes, artifacts, and memories.”vi The Historic Preservation Element sets out a number of specific programs for achieving the goal of historic preservation, including designating historic structures, sites and districts, promoting the retention of historic resources through a variety of incentives, and the continued maintenance of a Historic Master Plan.

The preservation policies set forth in the general plan are implemented through the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. A seven-member Historic Preservation Commission acts on all matters pertaining to promotion, restoration, and protection of City of Monterey historic buildings, sites, artifacts and related items, in accord with City ordinances or instruction from the City Council. Pursuant to the ordinance, the Historic Preservation Commission may initiate H-1 Landmark zoning.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 21, Packet Page 232 Gordon House Final Historic Preservation Report
526 Pierce Street, Monterey August 2008
-9-
City of Monterey H-1 Landmark Overlay Zoning
The Gordon House is one of 55 resources in the City of Monterey with H-1 landmark overlay zoning. The Historic Preservation Ordinance describes H-1 zoning as follows:

H-1 zoning is intended to identify and protect the most important historic resources in the City, generally including properties with statewide, national, or international historic significance where that significance would be recognized outside of the City, and the City is steward of those resources are preserved for its citizens and a larger public. The City recognizes its responsibility for preserving these resources for a national and international public, and the H-1 zone may be established without owner consent in order to fulfill that responsibility. The H-1 zone includes a strong series of incentives to support and encourage preservation of the historic resources.vii H-1 Landmark zoning is applied only to properties which meet National Register of Historic Places criteria and the property is the first, last, only, rare, or most significant resource of its type in the region.

5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
The following section provides a description of the proposed project and programmatic recommendations to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to the historic resource throughout the remaining project phases. The proposed project includes permanent stabilization of the building, leveling of the floor and other maintenance and restoration recommended by this evaluation. Temporary stabilization of the southern portion of the floor has occurred through the installation of a beam below the existing floor.

5.1 Character-Defining Features
The City has requested that PMC identify, as part of the evaluation for the current project, the character defining features, or those physical portions of the building that express the building’s history and character, of the interior and exterior of the Gordon House so that future projects will provide for the protection, retention and rehabilitation of these features and reduce or eliminate the need for professional evaluation as repairs or replacement or alteration become necessary. The identification of character defining features also serves as a guide by which to assess the impacts of the proposed project upon the historic resource.

The character-defining features of the Gordon House include (See Appendix D for current photographs) :

Exterior
Massing of the original building including the kitchen addition at the northwest corner;
Moderately-pitched cross-gable roof with shake shingles; including open eaves, exposed rafters and purlins, and wide wood fascia;
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 22, Packet Page 233 Final Historic Preservation Report Gordon House
August 2008 526 Pierce Street, Monterey
-10-
Beveled horizontal wood siding;
Original fenestration, including fenestration on kitchen addition; Double-hung wood windows (inclusive of frames, trim, hardware, shutters, etc.); Original door openings at the east (front), south and west façade at kitchen addition; and
Wrap-around porch at east and south elevations, inclusive of decking, railing, and chamfered posts (reconstructed in 2002); and
Original timber framing.

Interior
Original L-shaped floor plan, including kitchen addition only; Fireplaces and surrounds in original bedroom, living room and dressing room; Crown molding and baseboard in original bedroom;
Interior bi-fold louvered wood shutters;
Carved wood door leading from bedroom to dressing room (including applied wood floral details at dressing room side);
Closet doors in dressing room;
Boxed beams in living room;
Original wood plank floor (existing in bedroom, dressing room, and living room); and
Stucco wall treatment in original portions of building.

5.2 Treatment Standard
The primary goal of this evaluation is to address the potential impacts that the permanent stabilization of the floor of the Gordon House will have on the historic integrity of the building. The permanent floor stabilization should occur through the application of the Rehabilitation standard from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, 1995.

Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural or architectural heritage.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation When a proposed project has the potential to affect a historic resource, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (hereinafter “Standards”) are used to provide guidance to review the potential impacts to the historic structure.viii The Standards are used by Federal agencies in ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 23, Packet Page 234 Gordon House Final Historic Preservation Report
526 Pierce Street, Monterey August 2008
-11-
evaluating work on historic properties and have also been adopted by numerous local municipal agencies for use as a guide to evaluating proposed rehabilitation work on historic properties under local preservation ordinances. The Standards are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of substantial alterations to historic resources.

The Standards provide for the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction of a historic property. In this case, the Standards are the most appropriate treatment to apply to the proposed project because they are generally used when a building will undergo alterations or additions.

5.3 Recommended Rehabilitation Program
Overall, the Gordon House has been well maintained and preserved. However, the lack of a stable foundation has caused the building to “sink” at north and south ends producing a visible slope in the floor at the south east corner of the building and a “bowed” appearance to the front façade (See Figure 1). The City of Monterey has identified the stabilization of the building as a priority to continue its efforts to preserve the building. In addition, this rehabilitation program includes methods for the future preservation and rehabilitation of significant interior and exterior features of the building.

Existing Conditions
The current foundation consists of a partial perimeter mud sill with posts, rocks, bricks and concrete block supporting the floor. The flooring appears to rest upon perimeter wood sill to the interior of the stud walls. Moss and wet rot are visible at the south west corner of the house, indicating water intrusion at this area.

Floor Retrofit
In the interest of public safety, the floor of the Gordon House was temporary stabilized in the early spring of 2008. The temporary retrofit included the non-invasive installation of a beam at the underside of the flooring at the south end of the house to brace the floor from further movement. However, the building will require further retrofit to stabilize and level the floor.

Prior to the implementation of any recommended program to permanently stabilize and level the building, a structural engineer with demonstrated experience working with historic properties, must be retained to provide structural drawings and a program for stabilization. The engineer shall explore whether:
a. The building must be lifted and a new foundation poured; or b. The building can be leveled and stabilized in place; or c. A new foundation may be poured through excavation.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 24, Packet Page 235 Final Historic Preservation Report Gordon House
August 2008 526 Pierce Street, Monterey
-12-
Preservation/Protection of Character Defining Features
Throughout the stabilization of the floor, the following character-defining features must be preserved and/or protected:
The wood flooring at the bedroom (south east office), dressing room (southwest office), entry hall, and living room (northwest office); The porch decking and upper portions of the railings; and The original wood siding.

In the event that features must be removed to implement the project (i.e. the porch or features of the porch must be removed to lift the house), all features must be labeled, removed, stored and reinstalled under the supervision of a qualified engineer and architectural historian. Any features damaged during the retrofitting process must be repaired rather than replaced.

Insect, Water and Fungal Damage
A site visit conducted on February 6,
2008 revealed damage to the building as
the result of termites, water intrusion and
possible fungus. The damage is such that
immediate measures must be taken to
prevent further damage to the building.

Termite damage was observed at the
original siding on the east elevation
(Figure 6). The extent of the damage is
unknown at this time and should be
inspected by a qualified exterminator and
architectural historian prior to repair or
replacement. In the short term the
building should be tented to prevent
further damage.

Following tenting, the building should be inspected for areas of deterioration due to termite damage. Any of wood members and features may be affected and should be checked for damage using a probing method with a small ice pick. This method will also test the wood members and features for rot due to fungus or water.

Water damage was observed at the southwest corner of the building where the sill rests directly on the ground. Water appears to pool at this corner and may have caused damage to the corner of the building. Measures should be taken prior to extensive watering or rain to redirect surface water away from the building.

FIGURE 6

TERMITE DAMAGE AT ORIGINAL SIDING
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 25, Packet Page 236 Gordon House Final Historic Preservation Report
526 Pierce Street, Monterey August 2008
-13-

6.0 ONGOING REPAIR AND PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC MATERIALS Periodic repair, consolidation and replacement of deteriorated or missing historic materials is necessary as features age and deteriorate. The following repairs, replacement and maintenance may be reviewed and approved by Planning Staff and are exempt from further historic review:

Windows
Repair of deteriorated frames, sills, mullions, trim and shutters, including the utilization of epoxy injection where necessary. Replacement should be utilized as a last resort and only if repair is infeasible due to severe deterioration. Replacement of broken glazing is permitted.
Installation of laminated glazing for energy efficiency. Original mullions shall be retained.

Siding and Porch Features
Repair of deteriorated siding, decking, porch supports and railing, including the utilization of epoxy injection where necessary. Replacement should be utilized as a last resort and only if repair is infeasible due to severe deterioration. Replacement shall occur only with like material.

Roof and Chimney
Repair of deteriorated roof members, eaves, fascia and roofing material, including the utilization of epoxy injection where necessary. Replacement should be utilized as a last resort and only if repair is infeasible due to severe deterioration.

Replacement shall occur only with like material.
Repointing of chimneys is permitted with the use of like mortar. Portland cement is not an acceptable material for the repointing of historic masonry.

Flooring and Interior Finishes
Staff may approve any repair, replacement or alteration of materials and finishes on the interior of the building, with exceptions noted below. Although characterdefining features remain, the interior, overall, has been significantly altered from its original design and appearance. However, the floor plan of the original living room, bedroom, hall and dressing room should remain in its original configuration. It is recommended that the original flooring be retained and repaired and consolidated as necessary.

Any repairs, alterations, additions, or demolition beyond the items listed above shall be evaluated by a qualified architectural historian for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards prior to City approval.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 26, Packet Page 237 Final Historic Preservation Report Gordon House
August 2008 526 Pierce Street, Monterey
-14-

7.0 RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION OF PHASING
Following the adoption of this evaluation, Phase II of the project should proceed. Judging from the termite damage exhibited by the siding at the east elevation, the building should be tented immediately to prevent further damage.

A structural engineer with demonstrated experience with historic properties should be retained to:
Record existing conditions of the building’s structural system, including, but not limited to, roof and wall framing and foundation; and
Provide a program for the permanent stabilization of the building, including method of stabilization and protection of the resource before, during and after stabilization.

Based on the current scope of the project, a historic structures report does not appear necessary. However, if major issues are identified by the engineer that would require the removal of historic materials (i.e. siding, porch, etc.) the project should be reevaluated for impacts to the building.

A pest and fungal control specialist should be retained to eliminate immediate biological and insect threats to the building and recommend additional control programs to prevent further damage to the structure.

Upon receipt of the recommended reports by the City, a qualified architectural historian shall review the reports and provide an evaluation of the methods for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 27, Packet Page 238 Gordon House Final Historic Preservation Report
526 Pierce Street, Monterey August 2008
-15-

8.0 SOURCES CITED AND CONSULTED
Barrows, Henry D. & Ingersoll, Luther A. 1893. A Memorial & Biographical History of the Coast of Central California. Chicago, Lewis Publishing Co.

City of Monterey Historic Master Plan.

City of Monterey Zoning Ordinance.

Guinn, J.M. History of the State of California and Biographical Record of Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. Chapman Publishing Co.: Chicago, 1903.

Howard, Donald. Key to the City. Monterey: Monterey Peninsula Historiography Press, 2002.

Morton, W. Brown III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D. Weeks, and H. Ward Jandl, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance Division, 1992.

O’Donnell, Mayo Hayes, Early Monterey Home. Monterey Peninsula Herald, Tuesday, September 28, 1948.

Property Building Records, City of Monterey Building Department.

Property Subject Files, California History Room, Monterey Public Library.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, City of Monterey.

i
The type of lumber used to build the Gordon House was identified as eucalyptus by Francis Palms, who lived in the house from the mid 1960s until the mid-1980s. (Burke, Contemporary Architect Lives in House of the Past. The Herald Weekend Magazine, 16.) The 1982 Historic Building Survey prepared for the City of Monterey indicates that the Gordon House is possibly constructed of Australian eucalyptus or Lara wood. No reference is cited in either source to substantiate the identification of the wood species. ii The first meeting of the ayuntamiento was at Colton Hall on January 2, 1850. iii Barrows, A Memorial & Biographical History of the Coast of Central California, 384-385. iv O’Donnell, Early Monterey Home. Monterey Peninsula Herald, Tuesday, September 28, 1948. v Guinn, History of the State of California and Biographical Record of Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, 366.
vi City of Monterey General Plan (2005), p. 112. vii City of Monterey Municipal Code, Chapter 38, Article 15, Section 38-15. viii Morton, W. Brown III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D. Weeks, and H. Ward Jandl, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Preservation Assistance Division, 1992).

ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 28, Packet Page 239

APPENDICES
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 29, Packet Page 240 Appendix A
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps – 1888, 1892, 1905, 1912, 1926 & 1962 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 30, Packet Page 241 1888 Footprint 1
2 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 31, Packet Page 242 1892 Footprint 1
2 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 32, Packet Page 243 1905 Footprint 1
2 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 33, Packet Page 244 1 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 34, Packet Page 245 1926 Footprint
1 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 35, Packet Page 246 1962 Footprint
1 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 36, Packet Page 247 Appendix B
1976 Floor Plan drawn by Francis Palms
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 37, Packet Page 248 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 38, Packet Page 249 Appendix C
2002 Project Plans – Fletcher & Hardoin Architects
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 39, Packet Page 250 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 40, Packet Page 251 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 41, Packet Page 252 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 42, Packet Page 253 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 43, Packet Page 254 Appendix D
Photographs - 2008
ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 44, Packet Page 255 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 45, Packet Page 256 ATTACHMENT 2
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 12., Item Page 46, Packet Page 257 №11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared By: Anastacia Wyatt, Housing Manager
SUBJECT: Receive the Rental Inventory Program Annual Report (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive the 2025 Rental Inventory Program Annual Report.

VALUE DRIVERS:

Support efforts and policies that provide equitable
access to affordable housing in Monterey and the
region.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Maintaining and increasing access to affordable housing supports the City’s ongoing housing efforts, including
those intended to serve extremely low, very low, and
low-income residents.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Rental Inventory Program costs are declining as the program matures (Refer to Table 1). In 2024, the
program cost $285,672 to operate, and this cost
decreased to $235,455 in 2025. Cost recovery has
slightly increased as the result of program efficiencies being realized and additional units being registered.

It is also important to note that the ordinance exempts owners with less than four units from paying a registration fee. If the owners of exempt units paid a registration fee, full cost recovery would be realized, and the registration cost per unit could be reduced to cover program costs.

Council
Agenda Report
Agenda Report Highlights
• The Rental Inventory Program
captured 6,205 rental units in
Monterey, providing more
comprehensive data than other
sources like CoStar and Yardi
Matrix.
• Monthly rents increased by 9% from
2024 to 2025, with additional fees
significantly impacting renters'
costs.
• Small landlords own 80% of rental
units, with single-family homes
commanding the highest rents.
• The program tracks rental
assistance applications, affordable
housing inventory, and properties
accepting housing vouchers.
• The program's costs decreased by
$50,217 in 2025 due to improved
efficiencies and increased unit
registration.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 13.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 1, Packet Page 258 Table 1: Rental Inventory Program Expenditures and Revenues Year 1
(2024)
Year 2
(2025)
Difference
Expenditure
Staff Costs $234,354 $192,709 -$41,645
Software Costs $35,000 $30,000 -$5,000
Outreach Materials $11,318 $747 -$10,570
EPS Report $5,000 $11,999 $6,999
Subtotal $285,672 $235,455 -$50,217
Revenue
Fee Collection $195,169 $211,990 $16,821
Net Difference $90,503 $23,465 -$67,038
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 City Council could choose not to receive a report on the Rental Inventory.

DISCUSSION:

The City of Monterey's Rental Inventory Program is now in its third year of operation, providing comprehensive rental market data about the city. This Annual Report summarizes program administration, compliance data, and key findings from the Program’s second year. Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) was hired to prepare a study evaluating the program’s progress (Attachment 1).

Key Findings in EPS 2025 Study
The city’s rental inventory provides insights into the rental market unavailable from larger data aggregators like Zillow, CoStar, Redfin, and the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). Examples include:
• Comprehensive property-level coverage: The city’s rental inventory captures 6,205 rental units in the City (80 percent of ACS estimates and 42 percent more than CoStar), Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 2, Packet Page 259 with strength in small properties that larger aggregators miss. The platform continues to grow, with an 11 percent year-over-year increase in registered units, an addition of 637 units.
• Precise cost data beyond rent: Unlike other sources that rely on estimates, the city’s rental inventory reports exact rent, deposit, security deposit, and Ratio Utility Building (RUBS) charges for all properties, indicating that the City’s renters' true monthly costs can range from paying base rent only to $1,237+ in additional utility charges (this can include electricity, garbage, gas, and water).
• Ownership and management transparency: The City’s rental inventory uniquely tracks landlord categories (small/medium/large landlords; locally residing and out-of-town landlords; city- and Housing-Authority-Owned properties); business types (trusts, individuals, LLCs, partnerships, corporations, limited, and associations), and the number of properties owned. This level of detail enables analysis that indicate LLC-owned units charge 10 percent higher costs despite the LLC-owned unit sizes measuring about 11 percent smaller than the citywide average (LLC-owned units average 893 square feet, while the Citywide average unit is 1,011 square feet).
• Locally relevant geographic analysis: The City’s rental inventory reports data by neighborhoods, coastal zones, council districts, and fire hazard zones— boundaries more locally relevant than census tracts and of which are not available in larger data sources—revealing significant rent variations across neighborhoods. • Market stability with marginal rent increases: Monthly rents increased by about 9 percent from 2024 to 2025, with reported rents in Slate (the software used by the City to manage the Rental Inventory) showing a $169 monthly increase (9 percent increase; from $1,966 to $2,135), CoStar showing a $55 increase, and Yardi (50+ unit properties only) showing a $31 decrease. The rental market has remained steady over the last decade, moving in lockstep with the County's market. The City’s rents are consistently about $400 higher than the countywide average (20 percent higher).
• Ownership patterns shape rental costs: Nearly half of rental units (44 percent or 2,711 units) are owned by trusts, with 23 percent (1,442 units) owned by individuals and 16 percent (1,008 units) owned by LLCs. LLC-owned units charge 10 percent higher annual housing costs ($3,107 more over a full year, including monthly rent and fees, and deposit fees) than the citywide average, despite measuring about 11 percent smaller than average (105 square feet smaller). Of landlord types, large out-of-town landlords charge the highest rents, while Medium out-of-town landlords charge the lowest, with no meaningful differences among other landlord types after controlling for structure age.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 3, Packet Page 260 Figure 1: Residential Owner Type
• Property age and type drive rental characteristics: About 25 percent of units were built before 1960 (mostly owned by small landlords), 37 percent between 1960-1979, and only 2 percent in the 21st century. Single-family homes command the highest rents (average $2,759/month), followed by duplexes (average $2,480/month), while apartments (average $2,093/month) and condominiums (average $1,973/month) rent for significantly less. Rental inventory data did not indicate that fees contribute significantly to costs for most renters in apartments and condominiums, but they tend to add cost for renters in single-family homes, duplexes, and other unit types. There is not an apparent direct correlation between unit age and rent.
• Small landlords dominate the market: Small landlords own 80 percent of all rental units (4,987 units), and charge rents in line with the citywide average ($2,184 per month; the Citywide average is $2,136). Single-family rentals comprise 23 percent (1,315 units), while 60 percent of inventory (3,722 units) is in properties with 9 or fewer units. About 13 percent of units (834 unit) are in 50+ unit structures; over a third of those are in Monterey Pines Apartments (286 units).
• Data consistency demonstrates platform maturity: Unit mix by bedroom count has not changed appreciably year-over-year, suggesting consistency in Slate data. For units with significant sample sizes (studios through three bedrooms), there were no significant changes in rental costs or unit sizes, indicating a stable market and reliable data collection.
• Property compliance and status tracking: The City’s rental inventory captures registration/exemption status, code enforcement data, permit reports, and affordable housing designations. Currently, about 82 percent of rental units in the City are Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 4, Packet Page 261 compliant with the rental registration ordinance (6,099 units of 7,426 units) and of those compliant units, 93 percent are required to pay the registry fee (5,719 fee-paying units is 93 percent of the 6,205 compliant units analyzed in this analysis), with the remainder considered fee exempt. Military units (of which the City has 708) are exempt from registering for the rental inventory.

How Does City Data Compare to Other Data Sources?
There are two major companies that collect data on rental units – CoStar and Yardi Matrix.

These data sets report different data than gathered through the City’s Rental Inventory Program.

CoStar Data: CoStar sends people into the field to conduct surveys and does not capture most smaller rental properties. CoStar identifies only 81 properties with 5 or fewer units (322 units) in the City of Monterey, while the City’s rental inventory captures 1,912 such properties (2,980 units).

Yardi Matrix: Yardi Matrix takes a primarily software-integrated and partnership-based approach to data acquisition. The platform collects and verifies rental data monthly, covering metrics such as average rents, occupancy rates, and rent growth trends. Yardi leverages its position as a property management software provider to gather operational data directly from clients using their platform, then combines this with strategic partnerships and third party data sources. Yardi primarily captures data from properties with at least 50 units, therefore, missing smaller landlords and rental data.

City Rental Inventory: The city inventory captures actual rental data for all units including RUBS and other fees. It is more comprehensive than CoStar or Yardi Matrix data.

What is the Benefit of a Rental Inventory Program?
• The EPS report showed that citywide, monthly rents increased year-over-year between 2024 to 2025 by an average of 9 percent or $169 per month with rents increasing from about $1,966 to $2,135, per the City’s rental inventory data. In addition, the City tracked additional fees charged to renters in the City.

An important way to make progress on the homeless crisis and protect renters in the City of Monterey is to continue tracking rents, their increases, and educating landlords and tenants about fair housing issues consistent with the City’s Housing Element requirements.
• The City tracks its Rental Assistance Program in the same computer database as the Rental Inventory. This cross-reference tool helps the City identify fraudulent rental assistance applications. It is also possible to spatially analyze where rental assistance is most requested by landlord type.
• The City is starting to use the computer Rental Inventory software system to track its affordable housing inventory. There are 531 deed restricted units in the city, 199 Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 5, Packet Page 262 inclusionary and former redevelopment rental units, 100 Inclusionary ownership units, and 232 affordable units built by non-profit housing developers.

Figure 2: Affordable Housing Inventory (In Development) • The City is using the Rental Inventory software to track properties that are accepting Housing Vouchers.

Figure 3: Housing Voucher Inventory (In Development)
In summary, staff recommends that the City Council accept this annual report.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 6, Packet Page 263 Attachments: 1. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. City of Monterey 2025 Rental Inventory Analysis Update
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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 7, Packet Page 264

CITY OF MONTEREY
2025 RENTAL INVENTORY

ANALYSIS UPDATE

FINAL REPORT
Prepared for: Prepared by:

City of Monterey Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

February 17, 2025
EPS #252048
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 8, Packet Page 265 Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Summary of Findings 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Data Acquisition ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Slate Platform ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2. Rental Market Inventory 8
Comparison of Data Sources ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Number of Rental Units per Property ........................................................................................................................... 11 Rental Property Information by Landlord Type ........................................................................................................ 15 Rental Property Information by Property Owner Business Type ....................................................................... 18 Rental Property Information by Structure Age and Landlord Type ................................................................... 18 Rental Property Information by NCIP Neighborhood ............................................................................................ 25 Rental Property Information by Unit Type .................................................................................................................. 25 Property Fee-Paying/Fee-Exempt Information by Owner Business Type ...................................................... 30 Rental Unit Information by Bedroom Count............................................................................................................... 35 Ratioed Utility Billing System (RUBS) ........................................................................................................................... 40 Properties with 50+ Units (Yardi) ................................................................................................................................... 40 CoStar Market Summary.................................................................................................................................................... 40 Appendix A
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 9, Packet Page 266 List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison Summary of Data Sources, City of Monterey Rental Units (2025) .............................. 10 Table 2. Number of Rental Units per Property, Comparison (Slate, ACS, and CoStar) ................................... 14 Table 3. Rental Property Information by Landlord Type (2024-2025 Change) (Slate)................................... 17 Table 4. Rental Property Information by Property Owner Business Type (Slate, 2025) ............................... 20 Table 5. 2025 Share of Units Owned Landlord Type and Structure Age (Slate) ................................................ 22 Table 6. 2025 Rental Payment Information by Landlord Type and Structure Age (Slate) ............................. 24 Table 7. Rental Property Information by NCIP Neighborhood (Slate, 2024 vs. 2025) ................................... 27 Table 8. 2025 Rental Information by Unit Type (Slate) .............................................................................................. 29 Table 9. Property Registration/Exemption Information by Owner Business Type (Slate, 2025) ............... 32 Table 10. Rental Unit Information by Bedroom Count (Slate, 2024 vs. 2025) (Page 1 of 3) ........................... 37 Table 11. Average RUBS Charge by Utility Type (Slate, 2025)................................................................................... 41 Table 12. Properties with 50+ Units (Yardi, 2024 vs 2025)......................................................................................... 42 Table 13. Multifamily Housing Market Summary (2000-2025, CoStar) ................................................................. 43 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 10, Packet Page 267 List of Figures
Figure 1. Total Rental Units by Number of Units per Property, Comparison (Slate, ACS, and CoStar) ...... 13 Figure 2. Rental Unit Ownership Share by Landlord Type (2024-2025 Change) (Slate) ................................. 16 Figure 3. Annual Housing Cost by Unit Size and Property Owner Type (Slate, 2025) ...................................... 19 Figure 4. Share of Units Owned Landlord Type and Year Built (Slate, 2025) ....................................................... 21 Figure 5. Monthly Rent by Landlord Type and Structure Age (Slate, 2025) ......................................................... 23 Figure 6. Monthly Rent by NCIP Neighborhood (Slate, 2024 vs. 2025) ................................................................. 26 Figure 7. 2025 Monthly Housing Cost by Unit Type (Slate) ....................................................................................... 28 Figure 8. Rental Property Information by Registration Status (Slate) .................................................................... 31 Figure 9. Monthly Rental Cost by Bedroom Count (Slate) .......................................................................................... 36 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 11, Packet Page 268 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 Introduction and Summary of Findings

1. Introduction and Summary of Findings
Introduction
At the request of the City of Monterey (City), Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) was retained to update to the analysis EPS conducted in 2024 (City of Monterey Rental Inventory Analysis, January 2025; “Prior Study”). The objectives of this Study are to analyze the existing economic conditions of the City’s residential rental market and socioeconomics of the renters in comparison with the findings from the Prior Study, as well as to assess the potential advantages/disadvantages of the City’s residential rental inventory platform in comparison to other data sources.

The key findings are summarized later in this chapter with an important key finding indicating that citywide monthly rents increased year-over-year between 2024 to 2025 by an average of 9 percent or $169 per month with rents increasing from about $1,966 to $2,135, per the City’s rental inventory.

Study Overview
This study analyzes data from the City’s Rental Inventory platform: Slate, administered by Tolemi. The technical analysis comprises the following key analytic elements using data from Slate, the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS), CoStar, and Yardi.
 Residential Rental Market Overview. Examines the rental housing market and residential market trends in the City, including unit size, rents, property ages, and more, categorized by the following traits:
- Landlord category
- Property owner business type
- Neighborhood
- Structure type (single-family, townhomes, apartments, etc.) - Registered vs. Exempt units
- Number of bedrooms per unit
- Ratioed utility billing system (RUBS)
 Renter Socioeconomic Profile. Identifies trends in household income compared to rents, cost burden, household age, and race & ethnicity, comparing year-over-year changes in ACS estimates.

This Study builds on the understanding of the dynamics of socioeconomic and rental residential market trends developed in the Prior Study through analysis of data from Slate, ACS, CoStar, and Yardi and to provide guidance in terms of ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 12, Packet Page 269 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Introduction and Summary of Findings potential future policy. Supporting data tables underlying the findings and figures presented herein are included in appendices at the end of this study.

Data Acquisition
This Study gathered data from multiple sources, including Tolemi (who administers Slate, the City’s rental inventory), CoStar, Yardi, and the ACS. These data sources are detailed below and referenced throughout the report.

Slate
Tolemi's Slate is a rental registration portal that allows cities to collect and aggregate custom data about units, properties, owners and property managers. The system gives cities the ability to cross reference submitted data with data coming directly from various city and county sources. Slate allows the city to not only understand its full registered and non registered rental inventory but also understand those properties in the greater context of the city and housing landscape.

CoStar
CoStar employs thousands of researchers who physically inspect properties through extensive field research, driving millions of miles annually and conducting hundreds of thousands of on-site building inspections. Field researchers use customized vehicles equipped with GPS tracking, high-resolution cameras, and laser measurement instruments to photograph buildings, measure dimensions, capture tenant information, and assess property conditions. The company combines this hands-on verification with automated and non-automated quality control systems that run daily data integrity checks,1 while also cultivating relationships with industry professionals who proactively report property information and transactions.

Yardi
Unlike CoStar's field-based approach, Yardi takes a primarily software-integrated and partnership-based approach to data acquisition. The platform collects and verifies rental data monthly, covering metrics such as average rents, occupancy rates, and rent growth trends Indeed. Additionally, Yardi leverages its position as a property management software provider to gather operational data directly from clients using their platform, then combines this with strategic partnerships and thirdparty data sources. 1 Including the use of planes (e.g. Cessnas) and unmanned drones to gather and verify property data.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 13, Packet Page 270 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Introduction and Summary of Findings American Community Survey (ACS)
The American Community Survey (ACS) is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and randomly samples approximately 3.5 million housing unit addresses annually, with each address having about a 1-in-480 chance of selection in any given month. Data collection occurs through three sequential phases: first via mail and internet survey, followed by computer-assisted telephone interviews for non-respondents with available phone numbers, and finally in-person interviews for a random subset of remaining non-respondents. The survey covers over 40 topics including demographics, income, education, employment, and housing characteristics to provide communities with current annual data for planning and resource allocation.

ACS survey data is used to make estimates for each geography. ACS estimates are time-lagged, meaning the 2024 estimates are released near the end of 2025, and so forth. ACS data is useful for big-picture analysis but does not have the ability to provide real-time estimates like Slate, CoStar, and Yardi, and lacks precision because estimates are made from a sample, rather than the universe of actual properties that Slate/CoStar/Yardi survey and collect data from.

Slate Platform
In 2024, the City established a rental inventory platform, Slate, to track the City’s rental inventory, to help “increase certainty, stability and fairness within the rental market.”2 In 2024, property owners who owned and managed three (3) or fewer rental units were considered exempt from the $50-per-unit registration fee and had less comprehensive registration requirements.

The Ordinance was updated in 2025, and as of July 1, 2025, ALL rental property owners must register their rental unit(s), and landlords who own 4 or more units must pay a $50-per-unit registration fee. Any owner who owns and manages three (3) or fewer rental units is exempt from the fee.

Ordinance No. 3671 requires the following information for registrations:
 The landlord’s name, address, and phone numbers, as well as those of any on-site or off-site property manager or property management company.  The street numbers and/or Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) of each rental unit.  The year the property was built and the number of rental units on the property.  The number of bedrooms and bathrooms, including square footage. 2 City of Monterey. (2024). Ordinance No. 3671 C.S.: An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Monterey Establishing a Rental Inventory and Requiring Registration of All Residential Rental Properties Within the City of Monterey Beginning January 1, 2024.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 14, Packet Page 271 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 Introduction and Summary of Findings  The occupancy status of each rental unit (e.g., vacant or occupied) and reason for vacancy, if applicable.
 For each occupied rental unit, the current amount and date of the monthly rent received for each rental unit, identifying whether the monthly rent includes utility charges and housing service charges.
 For a rental unit in a condominium or other common interest development, the amount of the homeowners’ association fees, regular and/or special assessments, or other similar charges paid to an association.
 Whether or not the tenant receives a housing voucher or other rental subsidy.  Any other information deemed necessary by the Community Development Director to implement the provisions of the Article.

Key Findings
Please note, while this Study identifies a total of 6,205 units based on November 2025 data, the City’s rental registry currently reflects 6,099 units as of January 2026. EPS maintains that this slight variance is immaterial to the Study’s findings and that the data relationships remain consistent.

Slate Platform
The city’s rental inventory in the Slate system delivers local rental market data that empowers the City with insights unavailable from larger data aggregators like Zillow, CoStar, RedFin, and the ACS. Standout examples include:
 Comprehensive property-level coverage: The city’s rental inventory captures 6,205 rental units in the City (80 percent of ACS estimates and 42 percent more than CoStar), with particular strength in small properties and mom-andpop landlords that larger aggregators miss. The platform continues to grow, with an 11 percent year-over-year increase in registered units, an addition of 637 units.
 Precise cost data beyond rent: Unlike other sources that rely on estimates, the city’s rental inventory reports exact rent, deposit, security deposit, and RUBS charges for all properties, indicating that the City’s renters' true monthly costs can range from paying base rent only to $1,237+ in additional utility charges (this includes electricity, garbage, gas, and water).  Ownership and management transparency: The City’s rental inventory uniquely tracks landlord categories (Small/Medium/Large Landlords; Locallyresiding and Out-of-Town Landlords; City- and Housing-Authority-Owned properties); business types (Trusts, Individuals, LLCs, Partnerships, ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 15, Packet Page 272 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Introduction and Summary of Findings Corporations Companies, Limited, and Associations), and the number of properties owned. This level of detail enables analyses that indicate LLCowned units charge 10 percent higher costs despite the LLC-owned unit sizes measuring about 11 percent smaller than the citywide average (LLC-owned units average 893 square feet, while the Citywide average unit is 1,011 square feet).
 Locally relevant geographic analysis: The City’s rental inventory reports data by neighborhoods, coastal zones, council districts, and fire hazard zones— boundaries more locally relevant than census tracts and of which are not available in larger data sources—revealing significant rent variations across neighborhoods.
 Property compliance and status tracking: The City’s rental inventory captures registration/exemption status, code enforcement data, permit reports, and affordable housing designations. Currently, about 82 percent of rental units in the City compliant with the rental registration ordinance (6,099 units of 7,426 units) are, and of those compliant units, 93 percent are required to pay the registry fee (5,719 fee-paying units is 93 percent of the 6,205 compliant units analyzed in this analysis), with the remainder considered feeexempt.4 Military units (of which the City has 708) are exempt from registering for the rental inventory.

To prevent incomplete data, the Slate software does not allow the Rental Registry user to submit their data until all the required data fields are completed. A City of Monterey staff member is then assigned to review the information prior to approval. As Slate’s usage has progressed over the first two years and the above validation steps have been deployed, there have been significant increases in registration. In the First Year’s EPS Study completed in 2024 that focused on the first year of the City’s usage of the Slate platform, EPS tracked 5,568 total units within the platform, though there were 5,962 registered units at the end of 20245—this discrepancy may exist because EPS obtained data in early November of 2024, and additional units were registered after EPS obtained Slate data.

This analysis covers 6,205 units, an increase of over 11 percent (637 units) in just under a year. This increase is likely attributable to the change in the City’s code requiring ALL property owners to register regardless of the number of units within the property compared with the prior registry requirement for only properties 4 Rental properties are exempt from the registration fee if they are any of the following: subsidized rental units, mobile homes, ADUs, owner-occupied residences, owned by a person who owns and manages three or fewer rental units in the City. Per the City’s Municipal Code https://monterey.municipal.codes/Code/8-2.03. 5 Per the City.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 16, Packet Page 273 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Introduction and Summary of Findings with 4 or more units. Additionally, City staff conducted outreach to property managers and rental property owners, held in-person workshops in the City’s library three days per week from May to July, and assisted with walk-in registration in the office and via phone calls.

Throughout this report, data from Slate, ACS, and other subscription-based sources such as CoStar are presented to show areas of strength for each data source and how they can be used together to understand the City’s rental market.

Rental Market Data
The data incorporated in this analysis appear much more robust than those used in the prior Study and provide a more complete picture of the rental market. Note that total units and average rents may not exactly match across 2024 Slate data in this report, but the trends observable in the data suggest similar values across analytical elements such that they can be compared apples-to-apples with 2025 data. In the prior Study the reported total number of units differs in some of the analytical tables after filters were applied to the data. The filters may have caused the data to yield incomplete datasets of properties, which was not an issue in this 2025 updated analysis.6
Key rental market findings from the analysis are listed below and described further in the body of this report. All analysis of ACS socioeconomic data can be found in Appendix A.
 Market stability with marginal rent increases: Monthly rents increased by about 9 percent from 2024 to 2025, with reported rents in Slate showing a $169 monthly increase (9 percent increase; from $1,966 to $2,135), CoStar showing a $55 increase, and Yardi (50+ unit properties only) showing a $31 decrease.7 The rental market has remained steady over the last decade, moving in lockstep with the County's market. The City’s rents are consistently about $400 higher than the countywide average (20 percent higher).  Ownership patterns shape rental costs: Nearly half of rental units (44 percent or 2,711 units) are owned by trusts, with 23 percent (1,442 units) owned by individuals and 16 percent (1,008 units) owned by LLCs. LLC-owned units charge 10 percent higher annual housing costs ($3,107 more over a full year, including monthly rent and fees, and deposit fees) than the Citywide average, despite measuring about 11 percent smaller than average (105 square feet 6 In the 2024 analysis, EPS pulled data directly form the Slate rental inventory platform. This data pull may have extracted certain subsets of filters that may not have yielded a complete list of the properties entered into the rental inventory. This updated 2025 analysis uses data provided directly by Tolemi, administrators of Slate, and thus is likely more complete in nature. 7 Values reported here are in nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 17, Packet Page 274 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Introduction and Summary of Findings smaller). Of landlord types, Large out-of-town landlords8 charge the highest rents, while Medium out-of-town landlords9 charge the lowest, with no meaningful differences among other landlord types after controlling for structure age.
 Property age and type drive rental characteristics: About 25 percent of units were built before 1960 (mostly owned by small landlords), 37 percent between 1960-1979, and only 2 percent in the 21st century. Single-family homes command the highest rents (average $2,759/month), followed by duplexes (average $2,480/month), while apartments (average $2,093/month) and condominiums (average $1,973/month) rent for significantly less. Rental inventory data did not indicate that fees contribute significantly to costs for most renters in apartments and condominiums, but they tend to add cost for renters in single-family homes, duplexes, and other10 unit types. There is not an apparent direct correlation between unit age and rent.  Small landlords dominate the market: Small landlords11 own 80 percent of all rental units (4,987 units) and charge rents in line with the citywide average ($2,184 per month; the Citywide average is $2,136). Single-family rentals comprise 23 percent (1,315 units) of units in Slate's data, while 60 percent of inventory (3,722 units) is in properties with 9 or fewer units. About 13 percent of units (834 unit) are in 50+ unit structures; over a third of those are in Monterey Pines Apartments (286 units).
 Data consistency demonstrates platform maturity: Unit mix by bedroom count has not changed appreciably year-over-year, suggesting consistency in Slate data. For units with significant sample sizes (studios through threebedrooms), there were no significant changes in rental costs or unit sizes, indicating a stable market and reliable data collection. 8 Large Landlords are defined as owning 20 or more residential properties. 9 Medium Landlords are defined as owning 10 to 19 residential properties. 10 Units categorized as ‘Other’ include those in the properties with the following use types: Shopping Centers; Multi Story Office Buildings; Commercial Shell Type Buildings; Churches; Vacant Commercial; Auto Sales, Repairs, and Storage; Misc. Buildings; Retail Nurseries, TV and Radio Towers; Medical & Dental Buildings; Pet Hospitals; and Restaurants. 11 Small Landlords are defined as owning 9 or fewer rental properties.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 18, Packet Page 275 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 Rental Market Inventory

2. Rental Market Inventory
Comparison of Data Sources
Table 1 compares key rental property attributes across Slate, ACS, CoStar, and Yardi data. Note that the City’s rental inventory data (via Slate) are current as of November 2025 (and are constantly updated) and were provided to EPS by Tolemi; ACS data reflect the 2023 set of 5-Year estimates, released December 12, 2024; CoStar data are also updated live and were obtained in November 2025; and Yardi data are current as of October 2025.

All Rental Properties
Rental inventory data on Slate contains approximately 46 percent more units than CoStar's data contains (6,205 units in the City’s rental inventory12 compared to 4,255 units in CoStar), and less than that of the ACS because ACS data is time-lagged (data used in this study represents 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates), is an estimate based on a sample of the population, and includes units not in the rental inventory such as military units.

The City’s rental inventory shows an average unit size that is approximately 5 percent larger than the average unit size reported by CoStar (816 square feet compared to 776 square feet) and indicates that units are about 11 years older than the CoStar data shows. Additionally, the City’s rental inventory shows an average rent of $2,136, approximately 15 percent lower than CoStar's reported average rent of $2,511.

These significant discrepancies are due to the type of data captured by CoStar, which does not track single-family rental units as they are geared more towards larger corporate investment properties.

Rental Properties with 50+ Units Only
When examining rental properties with 50+ units only, City rental inventory data outnumber ACS estimates by 11 percent (834 units in properties with 50+ units per Slate, 752 such units per the ACS). However, the City’s rental inventory captures only 48 percent of the units reported by CoStar (834 vs. 1,729 units)13 and 74 percent of Yardi's inventory (834 vs. 1,131 units) in this segment.14 For larger 12 As noted, this reflects data from November 2025, as of January 23, 2026, the City reports that the rental inventory contains 6,099 units.
13 CoStar contains various properties with a mix of owner-occupied and renter-occupied units. As the breakdown of renter/owner tenure cannot be determined from CoStar data, all units were left in this analysis. 14 Yardi data includes properties with 50+ units only.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 19, Packet Page 276 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Rental Market Inventory properties, the City’s rental inventory indicates an average unit size of 669 square feet, which is significantly smaller than both CoStar's average of 787 square feet and Yardi's average of 758 square feet. The average year built across sources is relatively consistent, ranging from 1972 to 1975 across all data sources. Average rent for properties with 50+ units is $1,583 in the City’s rental inventory, which is on par with CoStar's $1,595 but 43 percent lower than Yardi's $2,762.

Key Takeaway
 The City’s rental inventory on Slate provides more local context than large aggregators and is quickly building an inventory of the City’s rentals; notably:

The City’s rental inventory is quickly catching up to the ACS estimates of total rental inventory in the City.
 The City’s rental inventory’s housing cost data for larger properties is similar to that reported by CoStar, but not Yardi.
 ACS data provide helpful estimates but do not have the ability to provide the property-by-property granularity or “real time” data that is available from the City’s rental inventory, CoStar, and Yardi.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 20, Packet Page 277 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Rental Market Inventory Table 1. Comparison Summary of Data Sources, City of Monterey Rental Units (2025) Item/Source [1]
Rental
Units
Average
sq. ft.

Average
Year Built
Average
Rent
All Rental Properties
Slate [2] 6,205 816 1958 $2,136
ACS (2023 5-Year Estimates) [3] 7,716 N/A 1970 -
CoStar 4,255 776 1969 $2,511
Rental Properties with 50+ Units Only
Slate 834 669 1975 $1,583
ACS (2023 5-Year Estimates) 906 N/A N/A N/A
CoStar [4] 1,729 787 1972 $1,595
Yardi 1,131 758 1972 $2,762
Source: Tolemi; ACS; CoStar; Yardi; EPS.
[1] Data current as of:

Slate: November 2025
ACS: 2023 5-Year Estimates (renter-occupied units only) CoStar: November 2025
Yardi: October 2025; 50+ unit properties only
[3] ACS data includes the City's 708 military-occupied rental units which are excluded from the City's rental inventory on Slate.
[4] CoStar contains various properties with a mix of owner-occupied and renter-occupied units. As the breakdown of renter/owner tenure can not be determined from CoStar data, all units were left in this analysis.
[2] This reflects data from November 2025, the City reports that the rental inventory comprises 6,099 units as of January 2026.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 21, Packet Page 278 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Rental Market Inventory Number of Rental Units per Property
The City’s rental inventory from Slate data show that just under a quarter of the units captured in the rental inventory comprises single-family homes (1,399 units), while 60 percent is encompassed by units in properties of 9 units or fewer, owned by small landlords. About 12 percent of the City’s rental units are in 50+ unit structures, over a third of which are in Monterey Pines Apartments (286 units).

City’s Rental Inventory vs CoStar: The City’s rental inventory and CoStar's data are relatively consistent for larger properties, but CoStar does not capture most smaller rental properties. CoStar picks up only 81 properties with 5 or fewer units (322 units), while the City’s rental inventory captures 1,912 such properties (2,980 units).

Single-family rentals dominate the City’s rental inventory with 1,399 properties (23 percent of units), while CoStar does not usually track single-family units, they do list 3 properties in the City. CoStar focuses on professionally managed multifamily assets with an average size of 16 units per property compared to 2.94 in the City’s rental inventory. This segmentation explains part of the disparities in rent and unit characteristics from the previous table—the City’s rental inventory captures the entire rental market as input by landlords, property owners and property managers, catching the largest proportion of rental unit inventory in the City, which are small landlords, while CoStar focuses on larger apartment complexes.

City’s Rental Inventory vs ACS: The City’s rental inventory captures 6,205 units,15 representing 80 percent of the 7,716 units reported in ACS 2023 5-Year estimates, with the 1,511-unit gap distributed unevenly across property types. When removing the City’s 708 units occupied by military members from the ACS total,16 the City’s rental inventory contains 89 percent of the ACS total.17 The largest absolute gaps are in single-family rentals, where the City’s rental inventory captures fewer 878 units fewer than ACS, and in 3–4-unit properties (City’s rental inventory contains 1,113 fewer units than ACS). It is likely that a significant portion of this discrepancy is explained the relative precision of the two data sources: the City’s rental inventory captures actual, global data reported by property managers and landlords, while the ACS data is based on estimates from a smaller dataset. The City’s rental inventory data contains far more units in larger properties than ACS estimates show—3,510 units in properties with 5 units or more (City data) compared to 3,30 such nits in ACS data. 15 See footnote 12.
16 Military units are not subject to the rental registration and are thus not included in the City’s 6,205 units. 17 The City inventory’s 6,205 units is 89 percent of 708 units, which is derived from 7,716 ACS-reported rental units less 708 Military units.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 22, Packet Page 279 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Rental Market Inventory The data shown above are shown in Figure 1 and Table 2, below ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 23, Packet Page 280 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Rental Market Inventory Figure 1. Total Rental Units by Number of Units per Property, Comparison (Slate, ACS, and CoStar) Source: Tolemi; EPS.
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Slate ACS CoStar Total Units
Units per Property
1 2 3 4 5-9 10-19 21-49 50-250 286
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 24, Packet Page 281 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 Rental Market Inventory Table 2. Number of Rental Units per Property, Comparison (Slate, ACS, and CoStar) Item Units Properties
% of
Total Units
Units
[2]
% of
Total Units
Units
[3] Properties
% of
Total Units
Units
[2]
% of
Slate Units Units
% of
Slate Units
Number of Rental Units per Property
1 1,399 1,399 22.5% 2,277 36.7% 3 3 0.0% (878) (14.1%) 1,396 22.5% 2 378 189 6.1% 702 11.3% 24 12 0.4% (324) (5.2%) 354 5.7% 3 [2] 450 150 7.3% 854 13.8% 18 6 0.3% (404) (6.5%) 432 7.0% 4 [2] 468 117 7.5% 854 13.8% 92 23 1.5% (386) (6.2%) 376 6.1% 5-9 Units 1,027 161 16.6% 911 14.7% 777 122 12.5% 116 1.9% 250 4.0% 10-19 Units 745 56 12.0% 618 10.0% 720 23 11.6% 127 2.0% 25 0.4% 21-49 Units 904 32 14.6% 749 12.1% 892 29 14.4% 155 2.5% 12 0.2% 50-250 Units [2] 548 8 8.8% 752 12.1% 1,443 17 23.3% (204) (3.3%) (895) (14.4%) 286 286 1 4.6% N/A N/A 286 1 4.6% N/A N/A 0 N/A
Total 6,205 2,113 100.0% 7,716 100.0% 4,255 266 100.0% (1,797) (26.8%) 1,950 61.2% Average Per Property 2.94 - - - - 16.00 - - - - - - Source: Tolemi; ACS Table B25032; CoStar; EPS. [1] Slate and CoStar data are current as of November 2025. ACS data is the 2023 5-Year Estimate for renter-occupied units. [2] ACS data does not differentiate between 3-4 units properties, so above numbers are evenly split of the 3-4-unit-property total. Similarly, ACS data does not differentiate between units per property for 50+-unit-properties. [3] CoStar data on a property-by-property basis does not match the Citywide CoStar estimates (which are shown in Table 1).

Difference
Slate ACS [1] CoStar (Slate - ACS) (Slate - CoStar)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 25, Packet Page 282 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Rental Market Inventory Rental Property Information by Landlord Type
This section analyzes the City’s rental inventory with consideration to the owner of each property. All data in this section are sourced from the City’s rental inventory and are shown in Figure 2 and Table 3.

When comparing current (November 2025) data to that of the Prior Study at the end of 2024, it is clear that compliance in registering units has improved significantly, with more units reported in each landlord category except for those owned by Large out-of-town landlords (57-unit decrease). It is possible that one or multiple of these landlords sold properties that they owned, moving them to a different ownership category in Slate’s system and therefore shifting units across categories (but not removing them from Slate’s database). Rents appear to have increased by nearly 9 percent ($169 per month), but it is important to note that the 2024 data included 28 percent of the units captured in 2025 (1,718 units in 2024 compared to 6,205 units in 2025—see footnote 12) when filtering to this level of detail.18 Changes in total units in the City’s rental inventory form 2024 to 2025 are also driven by now requiring all units to register—previously, owners of three or fewer properties were exempt from paying the registration fee and were required to input significantly less information into the rental inventory than owners of more properties. Now the smaller property owners must register with full property information but are still exempt from paying the $50 per-unit, per-year fee associated with it.

Overall, small landlords own the vast majority of rentals—80 percent of all rental units (4,987 units)—and charge rents in line with the Citywide average. The deposit fees charged by small landlords and the sizes of the units they rent are also in line with the City’s average. Their units trend significantly larger than the units owned by landlords who own more properties, suggesting most small landlords may be renting out single-family homes.
18 In the Prior Study, applying more search terms/data filters to the City’s rental inventory platform led to fewer units being yielded by EPS’s research.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 26, Packet Page 283 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16
Figure 2. Rental Unit Ownership Share by Landlord Type (2024-2025 Change) (Slate)19 19 In 2025, the City delineated its affordable housing stock, including Housing Authority, CHISPA units, and its Inclusionary Housing stock.

Small Local
Landlord

44.9%
Small Out-OfTown Landlord

35.5%
Medium Local
Landlord

8.1%
Medium Out-OfTown Landlord

0.6% Large
Local
Landlord,

7.5%
Large Out-OfTown Landlord

1.5%
Housing
Authority

1.3%
City Owned

0.6%
Source: Tolemi; EPS.

Small Out-OfTown Landlord

17.9%
Medium Local
Landlord

12.5%
Medium Out-OfTown Landlord

0.6%
Large Local
Landlord

4.9%
Large Out-OfTown Landlord

8.9%
2025 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 27, Packet Page 284 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 Rental Market Inventory Table 3. Rental Property Information by Landlord Type (2024-2025 Change) (Slate) % of Average Average % of Average Proportion of
Item Properties Units Total Rent Deposit Properties Units Total Units Rent Total Units Total % Change Landlord Type
Small local landlord 1 to 9 1,022 2,784 44.9% 1,064 $2,184 $1,862 329 947 55.1% $1,958 (18.6%) $226 11.6% Small out-of-town landlord 1 to 9 830 2,203 35.5% 1,119 $2,167 $1,958 95 308 17.9% $1,923 98.0% $244 12.7% Medium local landlord 10 to 19 79 503 8.1% 872 $2,150 $1,998 60 215 12.5% $1,939 (35.2%) $211 10.9% Medium out-of-town landlord 10 to 19 6 37 0.6% 931 $1,769 $1,413 6 10 0.6% $1,800 2.4% ($31) (1.7%) Large local landlord 73 465 7.5% 880 $2,011 $2,099 40 85 4.9% $2,008 51.5% $3 0.1% Large out-of-town landlord 96 96 1.5% 773 $2,584 $1,584 110 153 8.9% $2,132 (82.6%) $453 21.2% Housing Authority [1] 4 82 1.3% 797 $580 $550 - - - - - - - City Owned [1] 3 35 0.6% 727 $546 $548 - - - - - - - Total/Weighted Average 2,113 6,205 100.0% 1,043 $2,136 $1,893 640 1,718 100.0% $1,966 0.0% $169 8.6% Source: Tolemi; EPS.
[1] In 2025, the City delineated its affordable housing stock, including Housing Authority, CHISPA units, and its Inclusionary Housing stock. 20+
20+
N/A
N/A
Properties Compliant Rental
Owned
Average Rent
2025 Data 2024 Data
Compliant Rental
Change: 2024 - 2025 Data
Average
sq. ft.

Range of
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 28, Packet Page 285 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 Rental Market Inventory Rental Property Information by Property Owner Business
Type
A new addition since EPS’s Prior Study, Slate now identifies the type of ownership that owns each rental unit, including Trusts, LLCs, individuals, corporations, associations, and partnerships. Nearly half (45 percent; 2,715 units) of rental units are owned by trusts. The next largest ownership category is individuals, who own just under a quarter of all units (24 percent; 1,475 units), then LLCs, which own 16 percent of rental units (1,008 units).

As Figure 3 and Table 4 show, there is no clear difference in structure age and just a small difference in annual housing costs20 between units owned by trusts and those owned by individuals after accounting for unit size. Trust-owned units cost $1 more per square foot over a year than units owned by individuals, considering rent, monthly fees, and deposit fees; $26.43 per square foot for Trust-owned units compared to $25.13 per square foot for units owned by individuals.

Units that are larger tend to command higher rents, as expected, but units owned by LLCs have 10 percent higher annual housing costs than the overall average ($30,473 per year for the average LLC-owned unit compared to $27,723 on average Citywide) despite being 11 percent smaller than the City’s typical rental unit (893 square feet vs. 1,011 square feet).

Rental Property Information by Structure Age and
Landlord Type
About a quarter of the City’s rental units were built before 1960, most of which are owned by small landlords, suggesting that ownership of many of the rental properties may have been passed down through families over time. The plurality of all units that have a structure age input in the Slate dataset were built between 1960 and 1979, making up 37 percent (3,896 units) of rental housing stock, though more may have been built in this period, as the age of 21 percent of rental units is not listed. Only 2 percent of rental units were built in the 21st century. See Figure 4 and Table 5.

There does not appear to be a direct correlation between monthly rent and the age of the rental unit. There may be a small premium for units built before 1960, but that is likely a reflection of a larger concentration of older rentals being single-family homes. While rents for units built from 2010 to 2015 appear higher than the rest of rentals and rentals built in the last decade (2015 to 2025) appear to have the lowest rents, the sample of units built in each period is small and outliers or data entry issues may contribute to the differences in rent seen here as compared to the overall average. See Figure 5 and Table 6. 20 Accounts for 12 months of rent and any additional fees charged plus a one-time deposit fee. See Table 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 29, Packet Page 286 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 Rental Market Inventory Figure 3. Annual Housing Cost by Unit Size and Property Owner Type (Slate, 2025) Trust
Individual
LLC
Partnership
Corporation
Company
Limited
Association
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 Annual Housing Cost Unit Square Feet
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 30, Packet Page 287 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 Rental Market Inventory Table 4. Rental Property Information by Property Owner Business Type (Slate, 2025) Item Properties Units Unit sq. ft. Year Built
Owner Business Type
Trust 1,122 2,715 43.8% 1,111 1960 $2,268 $10 $2,278 $2,017 $29,355 Individual 665 1,475 23.8% 1,077 1959 $2,101 - $2,101 $1,863 $27,077 LLC 168 1,008 16.2% 893 1944 $2,390 $4 $2,394 $1,739 $30,473 Partnership 117 227 3.7% 776 1969 $2,217 $3 $2,220 $1,642 $28,284 Corporation 18 100 1.6% 703 1964 $1,500 $75 $1,575 $1,587 $20,489 Company 17 242 3.9% 1,048 1964 $2,007 - $2,007 $2,116 $26,204 Limited 4 436 7.0% 606 1960 $1,008 $151 $1,159 $1,652 $15,559 Association 2 2 0.0% 1,050 1982 $2,750 - $2,750 $1,300 $34,300 Total/Weighted Average 2,113 6,205 100.0% 1,011 1958 $2,136 $17 $2,152 $1,893 $27,723 Source: Tolemi; EPS.
[1] Based on 12-month lease with upfront security deposit. Does not account for return of deposit to renter.

Compliant Rental
Weighted Average
% of Total
Units
Additional
Monthly Fees
Total Rent
and Fees
Deposit
Rent Fee
Average Annual Cost
[1]
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 31, Packet Page 288 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 Rental Market Inventory Figure 4. Share of Units Owned Landlord Type and Year Built (Slate, 2025) ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 32, Packet Page 289 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 Rental Market Inventory Table 5. 2025 Share of Units Owned Landlord Type and Structure Age (Slate) % of
Item Properties Units Total Units pre 1960 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000-2015 2015-2025 Unkown % of Total Owner
Small Local Landlord 1 to 9 1,022 2,784 44.9% 57.0% 40.1% 41.2% 16.0% 50.0% 42.9% 44.9% Small Out-Of-Town Landlord 1 to 9 830 2,203 35.5% 33.3% 39.6% 34.2% 12.0% 14.3% 34.2% 35.5% Medium Local Landlord 10 to 19 79 503 8.1% 4.8% 8.8% 10.3% 51.0% 35.7% 5.6% 8.1% Medium Out-Of-Town Landlord 10 to 19 6 37 0.6% 0.1% 0.8% - 17.0% - - 0.6% Large Local Landlord 73 465 7.5% 4.9% 6.1% 3.4% 4.0% - 16.5% 7.5% Large Out-Of-Town Landlord 96 96 1.5% - 4.2% - - - - 1.5% Housing Authority 4 82 1.3% - - 7.9% - - 0.8% 1.3%
City Owned 3 35 0.6% - 0.4% 3.0% - - - 0.6%
Total Units 2,113 6,205 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Units Built in Period as Share of Total Units 26.0% 36.8% 14.6% 1.6% 0.5% 20.5% 100.0% Source: Tolemi; EPS.

N/A
Properties Owned
% of units built, by period, by landlord type
N/A
Compliant Rental
20+
20+
Range of Share of Units by Landlord Type and Period Built ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 33, Packet Page 290 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 Rental Market Inventory Figure 5. Monthly Rent by Landlord Type and Structure Age (Slate, 2025) Small Local Landlord, $2,281 Small Local Landlord, $2,212 Small Local Landlord, $2,096 Small Local Landlord, $2,536 Small Local Landlord, $1,318 Small Local Landlord, $2,033 Small Out-Of-Town Landlord, $2,405 Small Out-Of-Town Landlord, $1,806 Small Out-Of-Town Landlord, $2,349 Small Out-Of-Town Landlord, $4,500 Small Out-Of-Town Landlord, $1,875 Small Out-Of-Town Landlord, $2,427 Medium Local Landlord, $2,067 Medium Local Landlord, $2,120 Medium Local Landlord, $2,076 Medium Local Landlord, $2,438 Medium Local Landlord, $2,850 Medium Local Landlord, $2,120 Medium Out-Of-Town Landlord, $3,400 Medium Out-Of-Town Landlord, $1,923 $0Medium Out-Of-Town Landlord, $1,414 $0$0 Large Local Landlord, $2,134 Large Local Landlord, $1,784 Large Local Landlord, $2,263 Large Local Landlord, $2,750 Large Local Landlord, $2,064 Large Out-Of-Town Landlord, $2,584 Housing Authority $502 Housing Authority, $1,140 City Owned, $894 City Owned $443 Average:
$2,306
Average:
$2,025 Average:
$2,011
Average:
$2,540
Average,
$1,945
Average,
$2,171
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
pre 1960 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000-2015 2015-2025 Unknown Average Rent per Unit Source: Tolemi; Economic & Planning Systems. Structure Build Year and and Landlord Category ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 34, Packet Page 291 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 Rental Market Inventory Table 6. 2025 Rental Payment Information by Landlord Type and Structure Age (Slate) % of All Average
Item Properties Units Total pre 1960 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000-2015 2015-2025 Unkown Units Deposit Owner
Small Local Landlord 1 to 9 1,022 2,784 44.9% $2,281 $2,212 $2,096 $2,536 $1,318 $2,033 $2,184 $1,862 Small Out-Of-Town Landlord 1 to 9 830 2,203 35.5% $2,405 $1,806 $2,349 $4,500 $1,875 $2,427 $2,167 $1,958 Medium Local Landlord 10 to 19 79 503 8.1% $2,067 $2,120 $2,076 $2,438 $2,850 $2,120 $2,150 $1,998 Medium Out-Of-Town Landlord 10 to 19 6 37 0.6% $3,400 $1,923 - $1,414 - - $1,769 $1,413 Large Local Landlord 73 465 7.5% $2,134 $1,784 $2,263 $2,750 - $2,064 $2,011 $2,099 Large Out-Of-Town Landlord 96 96 1.5% - $2,584 - - - - $2,584 $1,584 Housing Authority 4 82 1.3% - - $502 - - $1,140 $580 $550 City Owned 3 35 0.6% - $894 $443 - - - $546 $548
Total/Weighted Average 2,113 6,205 100.0% $2,306 $2,025 $2,011 $2,540 $1,945 $2,171 $2,136 $1,893 Source: Tolemi; EPS.

Units Owned
N/A
N/A
Compliant Rental
20+
20+
Range of Average Rent by Period Built and Landlord Category ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 35, Packet Page 292 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 Rental Market Inventory Rental Property Information by NCIP Neighborhood
Rents have changed the most year-over-year in the Skyline, Deer Flats, and Alta Mesa neighborhoods (see Figure 6 and Table 7), though the sample sizes of registered units in these areas are small, leading to more potential for variance in the data. Neighborhoods with newer units tend to have higher rents, and the same pattern extends to neighborhoods that tend to have larger rental units. Units in Skyline and Glenwood are charged the highest fees beyond monthly rent and security deposits, at $197 and $146 per month, respectively, with no other neighborhood seeing an average above $24 per month.

Rental Property Information by Unit Type
As expected, single-family homes command the highest rents in the City, averaging $2,759 per month in 2025, followed by duplexes at $2,480. Apartments, condominiums/townhomes, and units categorized as ‘other’ rent for significantly less than the single-family homes (and are also smaller). The units categorized as ‘other’ in Figure 7 and Table 8 include uses categorized in Slate as the following: shopping centers; multi-story office buildings; commercial shell type buildings; churches; vacant commercial; auto sales, repairs and storage; misc. buildings; retail nurseries, TV and radio towers; medical & dental buildings; pet hospitals; and restaurants.

Figure 7 compares the annual housing cost of units of each type, including rent, additional monthly fees, and a one-time security deposit.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 36, Packet Page 293 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 Rental Market Inventory Figure 6. Monthly Rent by NCIP Neighborhood (Slate, 2024 vs. 2025) $2,129 $2,768 $2,370 $2,768 $3,162 $1,640 $1,596 $2,768 $2,170 $2,159 $2,168 $1,852 $1,888 $2,242 $2,342 $1,800 $3,641 $2,051 $3,779 $3,025 $2,240 $1,923 $2,803 $1,532 $2,481 $2,255 $1,881 $2,099 $3,306 $2,005 - $500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
Aguajito Oaks Alta Mesa Casanova Oak
Knoll
Deer Flats Del Monte
Beach
Del Monte
Grove Laguna
Grande
Downtown Fishermans
Flats
Glenwood Monterey
Vista
New Monterey Oak Grove Old Town Skyline Villa Del
Monte Average Monthly Rent
2024 2025
Source: Tolemi; Economic & Planning Systems. Neighborhood ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 37, Packet Page 294 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 Rental Market Inventory Table 7. Rental Property Information by NCIP Neighborhood (Slate, 2024 vs. 2025)

Neighborhood Properties Units
Average
sq. ft.

Monthly
Rent
Additional
Monthly
Fees
Total
Rent
and Fees
Deposit
Fee
Annual
Cost [1]
% of
Average
Registered
Units
Average
Monthly
Rent [2]
Registered
Units
Average
Monthly
Rent [2]
Pct.

Change
(Rent) [2]
Aguajito Oaks 1 2 0.0% 600 N/A $1,800 - $1,800 $1,800 $23,400 84.2% 31 $2,129 (29) ($329) (18.3%) Alta Mesa 13 18 0.3% 1,776 1961 $3,641 - $3,641 $3,369 $47,066 169.4% 4 $2,768 14 $873 24.0% Casanova Oak Knoll 110 486 7.8% 1,071 1965 $2,051 $2 $2,053 $1,540 $26,182 94.2% 375 $2,370 111 ($319) (15.5%) Deer Flats 33 34 0.5% 1,820 1979 $3,779 $16 $3,795 $3,989 $49,525 178.2% 39 $2,768 (5) $1,011 26.7% Del Monte Beach 69 138 2.2% 1,137 1982 $3,025 $24 $3,049 $2,326 $38,918 140.1% 144 $3,162 (6) ($137) (4.5%) Del Monte Grove Laguna Grande 86 146 2.4% 976 1957 $2,240 $3 $2,244 $1,902 $28,827 103.8% 127 $1,640 19 $600 26.8% Downtown 42 212 3.4% 875 1943 $1,923 $2 $1,925 $1,869 $24,969 89.9% 154 $1,596 58 $327 17.0% Fishermans Flats 20 21 0.3% 1,569 1964 $2,803 $7 $2,810 $2,544 $36,267 130.5% 25 $2,768 (4) $35 1.3% Glenwood 193 478 7.7% 746 1970 $1,532 $146 $1,678 $1,568 $21,705 78.1% 475 $2,170 3 ($638) (41.7%) Monterey Vista 278 499 8.0% 1,340 1959 $2,481 $23 $2,504 $2,176 $32,224 116.0% 513 $2,159 (14) $323 13.0% New Monterey 536 1,505 24.3% 1,002 1954 $2,255 $7 $2,262 $2,001 $29,146 104.9% 1,409 $2,168 96 $87 3.9% Oak Grove 192 764 12.3% 811 1955 $1,881 $7 $1,888 $1,786 $24,438 88.0% 639 $1,852 125 $29 1.5% Old Town 329 1,018 16.4% 1,035 1950 $2,099 $11 $2,110 $1,791 $27,110 97.6% 888 $1,888 130 $212 10.1% Skyline 64 104 1.7% 1,803 1975 $3,306 $197 $3,503 $1,972 $44,007 158.4% 114 $2,242 (10) $1,063 32.2% Villa Del Monte 147 780 12.6% 954 1961 $2,005 $3 $2,008 $1,934 $26,026 93.7% 631 $2,342 149 ($337) (16.8%) Total/Weighted Average 2,113 6,205 100.0% 1,011 1957 $2,136 $22 $2,158 $1,893 $27,784 100.0% 5,568 $2,126 637 [2] $10 [2] 0.4% Source: Tolemi; EPS.
[1] Based on 12-month lease with upfront security deposit. Does not account for return of deposit to renter. [2] Average rent in 2024 differs from other places in this report due to differences in data availability between datasets used in the 2024 analysis.

Compliant Rental 2024 Data
% of
Total
Units
Average
Year
Built
Weighted Average (2025 Data) Change (2024 - 2025)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 38, Packet Page 295 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 Rental Market Inventory Figure 7. 2025 Monthly Housing Cost by Unit Type (Slate) $0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Single Family Condiminiums and
Townhomes
Duplex Apartment Other Average Monthly Housing Cost
Unit Type Rent Additional Fees
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 39, Packet Page 296 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 Rental Market Inventory Table 8. 2025 Rental Information by Unit Type (Slate)
Item Properties Units
Unit
sq. ft. Year Built Rent
Additional
Fees
Deposit
Fee
Annual
Cost [2]
% of Single
Family Cost
Unit Type [1]
Single Family 1,089 1,315 1,194 1954 $2,759 $37 $2,452 $36,012 100.0% Condiminiums and Townhomes 189 1,441 679 1964 $1,973 $5 $1,827 $25,564 71.0% Duplex 397 401 869 1975 $2,480 $24 $2,101 $32,158 89.3% Apartment 330 1,137 768 1955 $2,089 $3 $1,711 $26,817 74.5% Other 108 1,911 678 1951 $1,784 $36 $1,622 $23,455 65.1% Total/Weighted Average 2,113 6,205 816 1957 $2,136 $22 $1,893 $27,784 77.2% Source: Tolemi; EPS.
[1] Unit types were inferred by EPS based on Slate data, using the 'Current Use' column. Uses that are categorized as 'other' include, but are not limited to, those categorized as:

Shopping Centers; Multi Story Office Buildings; Commercial Shell Type Buildings; Churches; Vacant Commercial; Auto Sales, Repairs, and Storage; Misc. Buildings; Retail Nurseries, TV and Radio Towers; Medical & Dental Buildings; Pet Hospitals; and Restaurants. [2] Based on 12-month lease with upfront security deposit. Does not account for return of deposit to renter.

Average
2025 Rental Information
Compliant Rental
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 40, Packet Page 297 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30 Rental Market Inventory Property Fee-Paying/Fee-Exempt Information by Owner
Business Type
Of the 6,168 units that have a fee-paying/fee-exempt status in Slate’s dataset,21 just under 93 percent are fee-payers. Of the 449 fee-exempt units, just over half (235 units) are owned by a trust and 43 percent (192 units) are owned by individuals. Of the remaining fee-exempt units, 18 are owned by LLCs, 2 are owned by a corporation, and another company and a partnership each own a single fee-exempt unit.

Overall, the fee-exempt units charge higher rents, have larger security deposits, and tend to charge more in monthly fees than registered units. But fee-exempt units trend much larger—468 square feet larger than registered units, on average. This is likely because property owners who own fewer properties tend to rent out single-family homes.

It is important to note that this small sample exposes a few areas where additional scrutiny may be applied to incoming data in future years; for example, the corporate-owned exempt units are listed as charging $3,500 in monthly fees on top of $3,075 in rent. See Figure 8 and Table 9 for more information.
21 Does not include ten properties (37 total units) that did not have a registration status in the dataset. Of the ten properties, eight are owned by the same owner, a Large Local Landlord.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 41, Packet Page 298 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 Rental Market Inventory Figure 8. Rental Property Information by Registration Status (Slate) Source: Tolemi; EPS.
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
Fee-Paying Fee-Exempt Average Annual Housnig Cost Year Built and Unit Sqaure Feet Unit Registration Status
Annual Housing Cost Unit Square Feet Year Built
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 42, Packet Page 299 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 Rental Market Inventory Table 9. Property Registration/Exemption Information by Owner Business Type (Slate, 2025) (Page 1 of 3) Item Properties Units Properties Units
Average
Year Built Rent
Additional
Fees
Rent and
Fees Deposit
Total Annual
Cost
Owner Business Type
Trust 1,120 2,711 938 2,476 91.3% 43.3% 1,062 1959 $2,241 $15 $2,256 $2,003 $29,071 Individual 657 1,442 505 1,250 86.7% 21.9% 1,042 1959 $2,061 $55 $2,115 $1,819 $27,202 LLC 168 1,008 154 990 98.2% 17.3% 853 1946 $2,394 $10 $2,404 $1,733 $30,581 Partnership 117 227 116 226 99.6% 4.0% 692 1964 $2,198 $1 $2,200 $1,621 $28,015 Corporation 18 100 16 98 98.0% 1.7% 642 1966 $1,468 $32 $1,500 $1,551 $19,557 Company 17 242 16 241 99.6% 4.2% 855 1968 $1,989 - $1,989 $2,104 $25,969 Limited 4 436 4 436 100.0% 7.6% 632 1960 $1,008 $58 $1,066 $1,652 $14,439 Association 2 2 2 2 100.0% 0.0% 1,050 1982 $2,750 - $2,750 $1,300 $34,300 Total/Weighted Average 2,103 6,168 1,751 5,719 92.7% 100.0% 958 1958 $2,109 $25 $2,134 $1,870 $27,475 Source: Tolemi; EPS.
[1] Does not include ten properties (37 total units) that did not have a registration status in the dataset. Of the ten properties, eight are owned by the same owner, a Large Local Landlord.

All Compliant
Rentals
% of Units of
Owner Type
% of
Fee-Paying
Units
Weighted Average
Fee-Paying Units
Average
sq. ft.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 43, Packet Page 300 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33 Rental Market Inventory Table 9. Property Registration/Exemption Information by Owner Business Type (Slate, 2025) (Page 2 of 3) Item Properties Units
Average
sq. ft. Rent
Additional
Fees
Rent and
Fees Deposit
Total Annual
Cost
Owner Business Type
Trust 182 235 8.7% 52.3% 1,783 1960 $2,563 $28 $2,591 $2,180 $33,275 Individual 152 192 13.3% 42.8% 1,014 1958 $2,466 $12 $2,478 $2,262 $31,999 LLC 14 18 1.8% 4.0% 1,084 1955 $2,170 $6 $2,175 $2,098 $28,201 Partnership 1 1 0.4% 0.2% 2,461 1981 $6,500 - $6,500 $6,500 $84,500 Corporation 2 2 2.0% 0.4% 1,185 1956 $3,075 $3,350 $6,425 $3,350 $80,450 Company 1 1 0.4% 0.2% 1,959 1955 $6,500 - $6,500 $5,000 $83,000 Limited - - 0.0% 0.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Association - - 0.0% 0.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total/Weighted Average 352 449 7.3% 100.0% 1,426 1959 $2,526 $35 $2,561 $2,233 $32,961 Source: Tolemi; EPS.
[1] Does not include ten properties (37 total units) that did not have a registration status in the dataset. Of the ten properties, eight are owned by the same owner, a Large Local Landlord. % of Units of
Owner Type
% of
Fee-Exempt
Units
Weighted Average
Fee-Exempt Units
Average
Year Built
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 44, Packet Page 301 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 34 Rental Market Inventory Table 9. Property Registration/Exemption Information by Owner Business Type (Slate, 2025) (Page 3 of 3) Item
Average
sq. ft.

Average
Year Built Rent
Additional
Fees
Rent and
Fees Deposit
Total Annual
Cost
Owner Business Type
Trust 722 1 $323 $13 $336 $177 $4,205
Individual (28) (2) $406 ($43) $363 $443 $4,797
LLC 231 9 ($225) ($4) ($229) $365 ($2,380)
Partnership 1,769 17 $4,302 ($1) $4,300 $4,879 $56,485
Corporation 542 (10) $1,607 $3,318 $4,925 $1,799 $60,893 Company 1,104 (13) $4,511 - $4,511 $2,896 $57,031
Limited N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Association N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total/Weighted Average 468 1 $561 $49 $610 $563 $7,884
Source: Tolemi; EPS.
[1] Does not include ten properties (37 total units) that did not have a registration status in the dataset. Of the ten properties, eight are owned by the same owner, a Large Local Landlord.

Weighted Average
Difference (Exempt - Registered)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 45, Packet Page 302 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 35 Rental Market Inventory Rental Unit Information by Bedroom Count
For rental unit types with significant sample sizes in the dataset (studios, one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms, and three-bedrooms), there were no significant year-over-year changes in rental cost or unit sizes on the market. Though significant changes were seen in rental rates among larger units (five- and eight-bedroom rental units), there are only two of each such units available on the City’s rental market, per Slate data. Note, however, that the dataset analyzed in 2024 was much smaller and likely skewed the results. Forn this reason, EPS believes that $169 increase in Citywide rents discussed earlier in this Report is the true change See Figure 9 and Table 10 for more information.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 46, Packet Page 303 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 36 Rental Market Inventory Figure 9. Monthly Rental Cost by Bedroom Count (Slate)22 22 It is possible that some of the larger units shown (5-8 bedrooms) are mis-registered by property owners, given the housing costs entered into the rental inventory by owners do not seem to track with the unit sizes/capacities. For example, a duplex of 4-bedroom units may have been entered as an eight-bedroom unit. $1,566 $1,569 $1,801 $1,961 $2,362 $2,717 $3,204 $3,416 $3,623 $3,959 $6,409 $3,265 $6,493 $6,075 $9,850 $9,850 $6,865 $4,795 $0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Average Monthly Cost (Includes Fees)
Bedrooms per Unit
2024 Monthly Cost
2025 Monthly Cost
2024 Average Monthly
Cost, All Unit Types
2025 Average Monthly
Cost, All Unit Types
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 47, Packet Page 304 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 37 Rental Market Inventory Table 10. Rental Unit Information by Bedroom Count (Slate, 2024 vs. 2025) (Page 1 of 3) Bedrooms [1] Total % of Total
0 325 6.8% $1,568 $1.34 - $1,569 427 $3.68
1 2,199 46.1% $1,842 $22.22 $96.37 $1,961 600 $3.27
2 2,018 42.4% $2,434 $8.04 $274.64 $2,717 864 $3.14
3 193 4.1% $3,388 $28.12 - $3,416 1,417 $2.41
4 23 0.5% $3,898 $60.82 - $3,959 1,969 $2.01
5 2 <0.1% $3,265 - - $3,265 1,851 $1.76
6 2 <0.1% $6,075 - - $6,075 2,413 $2.52
7 1 <0.1% $9,850 - - $9,850 2,631 $3.74
8 2 <0.1% $4,795 - - $4,795 3,580 $1.34
Total/Weighted Average 4,765 100.0% $2,152 $15.18 $160.79 $2,328 743 $3.20 Source: 2025 Analysis by Tolemi; EPS.
[1] It is possible that some of the larger units shown (5-8 bedrooms) are mis-registered by property owners, given the housing costs entered into the rental inventory by owners do not seem to track with the unit sizes/capacities. For example, a duplex of 4-bedroom units may have been entered as an eight-bedroom unit.

Registered Rental Units (2025 Data)
Average
Rent
Average
Additional
Fees
Average
Unit Sq. Ft.

Average
Cost per
Sq. Ft.

Number of Units
Average
Association
Fees
Average
Monthly
Cost
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 48, Packet Page 305 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 38 Rental Market Inventory Table 10. Rental Unit Information by Bedroom Count (Slate, 2024 vs. 2025) (Page 2 of 3) Bedrooms [1] Total % of Total
0 173 7.5% $1,566 $22.14 $1,588 428 $3.71
1 996 43.2% $1,801 $21.67 $1,823 592 $3.08
2 1,005 43.5% $2,362 $34.69 $2,396 882 $2.72
3 113 4.9% $3,204 $32.05 $3,236 1,355 $2.39
4 13 0.6% $3,623 $4.00 $3,627 1,782 $2.04
5 2 <0.1% $6,409 - $6,409 2,947 $2.17
6 3 0.1% $6,493 - $6,493 2,658 $2.44
7 1 <0.1% $9,850 - $9,850 2,631 $3.74
8 2 <0.1% $6,865 - $6,865 1,442 $4.76
Total/Weighted Average 2,308 100.0% $2,125 $27.71 $2,123 756 $2.94 Source: 2024 Analysis by EPS.
[1] It is possible that some of the larger units shown (5-8 bedrooms) are mis-registered by property owners, given the housing costs entered into the rental inventory by owners do not seem to track with the unit sizes/capacities. For example, a duplex of 4-bedroom units may have been entered as an eight-bedroom unit.

Registered Rental Units (2024 Data)
Average
Rent
Average
Additional
Fees
Average
Monthly
Cost
Average
Unit Sq. Ft.

Average
Cost per
Sq. Ft.

Number of Units
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 49, Packet Page 306 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 39 Rental Market Inventory Table 10. Rental Unit Information by Bedroom Count (Slate, 2024 vs. 2025) (Page 3 of 3) Bedrooms Total % of Total
0 152 6.2% $2 ($21) ($19) (1) ($0.04)
1 1,203 49.0% $41 $97 $138 8 $0.19
2 1,013 41.2% $73 $248 $321 (18) $0.43
3 80 3.3% $184 ($4) $180 62 $0.02
4 10 0.4% $275 $57 $332 187 ($0.02)
5 0 - ($3,144) - ($3,144) (1,096) ($0.41)
6 (1) <0.1% ($418) - ($418) (245) $0.07
7 0 - - - - 0 $0.00
8 0 - ($2,070) - ($2,070) 2,138 ($3.42)
Total/Weighted Average 2,457 100.0% $28 $149 $206 (1) $0.27 Source: 2025 Analysis by Tolemi and 2024 Analysis by EPS. [1] It is possible that some of the larger units shown (5-8 bedrooms) are mis-registered by property owners, given the housing costs entered into the rental inventory by owners do not seem to track with the unit sizes/capacities. For example, a duplex of 4-bedroom units may have been entered as an eight-bedroom unit.

Change, Registered Rental Units, 2024 - 2025 Data
Average
Rent
Average Additional/
Association Fees
Average
Monthly
Cost
Average
Unit Sq. Ft.

Average
Cost per
Sq. Ft.

Number of Units
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 50, Packet Page 307 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 40 Rental Market Inventory Ratio Utility Billing System (RUBS)
Units in the City that are charged RUBS, rather than metered utilities, tend to be charged for garbage and water only (347 of the 400 units billed for RUBS see this charge type). These units pay $292 per month on average. RUBS charges Citywide range from $30 per unit (1 unit, water only) to $1,237 per unit (7 units that charge for electricity, garbage, gas, and water).

These charges can range from about 2 percent to nearly half of the unit’s rent, averaging one-sixth of monthly rent (16.7 percent). RUBS data is only available via the City’s rental inventory, and not via CoStar, Yardi, or the ACS. See Table 11 for more information.

Properties with 50+ Units (Yardi)
According to Yardi data, which covers properties with 50 units or more, not much has changed in the past year for larger properties. The inventory has remained the same, with marginal decreases in rent across all units. See Table 12.

CoStar Market Summary
CoStar data, which are skewed towards larger, corporate-owned properties, show that the rental market has remained steady over the last decade and has moved in relative lockstep with the County’s rental market. Rents in both the City and County have remained constant in 2025, inflation-adjusted dollars since 2000, with the City’s rents remaining about $400 higher than the Countywide average. In both the City and the County, rents have risen similarly each year, up an average of 2.6 percent year-over-year in the City since 2000, and up 2.8 percent on average in the County. See Table 13.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 51, Packet Page 308 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 41 Rental Market Inventory Table 11. Average RUBS Charge by Utility Type (Slate, 2025) Item
Units
Charged
Average
Charge [1]
Average Pct. of
Unit Rent [2]
Utility Type
Water 1 $30 1.6%
Gas 1 $75 5.0%
Garbage 6 $44 2.8%
Garbage and Water 347 $292 15.7%
Gas, Water 2 $484 23.1%
Electricity and Water 2 $367 11.0%
Garbage, Gas, and Water 22 $291 20.0%
Electricity, Gas, and Water 12 $650 29.0%
Electricity, Garbage, Gas, and Water 7 $1,237 47.7%
Total/Weighted Average, All Utilities 400 $316 16.7%
Source: Tolemi; EPS.
2] Based on the rent of the unit being charged RUBS. Various outlier values, such as the final two rows, may be due to erroneous inputs by property owners. [1] Average charge for units who are charged RUBS of each type. 2025 (Slate)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 52, Packet Page 309 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 42 Rental Market Inventory Table 12. Properties with 50+ Units (Yardi, 2024 vs 2025) Unit Type
Properties With
Unit Type
Total
Units
Average
Unit sq. ft.

Average
Rent
Properties With
Unit Type
Total
Units
Average
Unit sq. ft.

Average
Rent
Studio 5 69 488 $1,941 5 69 488 $1,995 $54
1 Bed 9 425 671 $2,565 9 425 671 $2,472 ($93)
1 Bed/1 Bath Townhouse 1 2 690 $2,523 1 2 690 $2,806 $283 2 Bed/1 Bath 11 292 921 $2,995 11 292 921 $3,149 $153
2 Bed/2 Bath 2 25 922 $3,527 2 25 922 $3,479 ($48)
2 Bed/1.5 Bath 2 74 939 $3,367 2 74 939 $3,186 ($181)
2 Bed/1 Bath Townhouse 1 28 850 $3,397 1 28 850 $3,115 ($282) 2 Bed/1.5 Bath Townhouse 2 55 940 $3,315 2 55 940 $3,091 ($224) 3 Bed/2 Bath 1 1 1,250 $2,280 1 1 1,250 $2,334 $54
3 Bed/1.5 Bath Townhouse 1 9 1,290 $3,627 1 9 1,290 $3,140 ($487) 4 Bed/2 Bath 1 1 1,300 $2,777 1 1 1,300 $2,762 ($15)
Total/Average 11 981 786 $2,810 11 981 786 $2,779 ($31) Source: Yardi; EPS.
2024 2025
City of Monterey Rental Market for Properties with 50+ Units (Yardi) Change in
Average
Rent
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 53, Packet Page 310 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 43 Rental Market Inventory Table 13. Multifamily Housing Market Summary (2000-2025, CoStar) Year
2000 $1,346 - - $2,629 - 1.8% $1,031 - - $2,013 - 2.5% $315 30.6% 2001 $1,450 7.7% 7.7% $2,732 3.9% 2.3% $1,090 5.7% 5.7% $2,053 2.0% 3.3% $360 33.0% 2002 $1,424 (1.8%) (1.7%) $2,632 (3.7%) 3.3% $1,070 (1.8%) (1.6%) $1,978 (3.7%) 4.2% $354 33.1% 2003 $1,407 (1.2%) (1.2%) $2,547 (3.2%) 3.4% $1,058 (1.1%) (1.3%) $1,915 (3.2%) 4.0% $349 33.0% 2004 $1,418 0.8% 0.8% $2,508 (1.5%) 3.8% $1,063 0.5% 0.5% $1,880 (1.8%) 4.1% $355 33.4% 2005 $1,467 3.5% 3.4% $2,518 0.4% 3.0% $1,104 3.9% 3.7% $1,895 0.8% 3.7% $363 32.9% 2006 $1,537 4.8% 4.7% $2,551 1.3% 2.2% $1,160 5.1% 5.0% $1,925 1.6% 3.3% $377 32.5% 2007 $1,596 3.8% 3.8% $2,567 0.6% 2.0% $1,207 4.1% 4.1% $1,941 0.9% 3.0% $389 32.2% 2008 $1,669 4.6% 4.7% $2,594 1.0% 2.9% $1,229 1.8% 1.9% $1,910 (1.6%) 3.6% $440 35.8% 2009 $1,521 (8.9%) (8.8%) $2,373 (8.5%) 3.7% $1,160 (5.6%) (5.6%) $1,810 (5.3%) 4.2% $361 31.1% 2010 $1,543 1.4% 1.5% $2,381 0.4% 3.6% $1,171 0.9% 0.9% $1,807 (0.1%) 4.0% $372 31.8% 2011 $1,553 0.6% 0.7% $2,330 (2.1%) 3.7% $1,181 0.9% 0.9% $1,772 (1.9%) 4.2% $372 31.5% 2012 $1,578 1.6% 1.6% $2,318 (0.5%) 3.9% $1,204 1.9% 1.9% $1,769 (0.2%) 4.2% $374 31.1% 2013 $1,608 1.9% 1.9% $2,328 0.4% 3.6% $1,235 2.6% 2.6% $1,788 1.1% 3.9% $373 30.2% 2014 $1,655 2.9% 3.1% $2,352 1.0% 3.3% $1,263 2.3% 2.3% $1,795 0.4% 3.5% $392 31.0% 2015 $1,762 6.5% 6.2% $2,475 5.2% 3.2% $1,341 6.2% 6.1% $1,884 5.0% 3.1% $421 31.4% 2016 $1,813 2.9% 3.0% $2,498 0.9% 3.7% $1,412 5.3% 5.5% $1,946 3.3% 3.4% $401 28.4% 2017 $1,895 4.5% 4.4% $2,539 1.6% 2.8% $1,496 5.9% 5.8% $2,005 3.0% 3.5% $399 26.7% 2018 $1,975 4.2% 4.3% $2,561 0.8% 3.3% $1,566 4.7% 4.6% $2,031 1.3% 2.9% $409 26.1% 2019 $2,081 5.4% 5.2% $2,628 2.6% 2.8% $1,627 3.9% 3.7% $2,054 1.2% 3.0% $454 27.9% 2020 $2,153 3.5% 3.5% $2,672 1.7% 2.8% $1,696 4.2% 4.3% $2,105 2.5% 2.8% $457 26.9% 2021 $2,210 2.6% 2.6% $2,624 (1.8%) 2.2% $1,822 7.4% 7.4% $2,163 2.8% 2.3% $388 21.3% 2022 $2,324 5.2% 5.1% $2,555 (2.6%) 2.5% $1,882 3.3% 3.4% $2,069 (4.4%) 2.8% $442 23.5% 2023 $2,383 2.5% 2.6% $2,512 (1.7%) 3.0% $1,964 4.4% 4.3% $2,070 0.1% 2.7% $419 21.3% 2024 $2,456 3.1% 3.2% $2,518 0.2% 2.6% $2,040 3.9% 3.9% $2,092 1.0% 2.9% $416 20.4% 2025 $2,511 2.2% 3.2% $2,511 (0.3%) 3.4% $2,044 0.2% 0.7% $2,044 (2.3%) 3.3% $467 22.8% Average/
Total Change $1,782 2.6% 2.6% $2,517 (0.1%) 3.0% $1,389 2.8% 2.8% $1,950 0.1% 3.4% $393 29.2% Source: CoStar; Bureau of Labor Statistics; EPS.
[1] The average effective rents reported by CoStar are inflation-adjusted to 2025 dollars via the BLS-CPI West Region for all Urban Consumers.

City minus County
% Change,
Effective Rent
(2025$)
Vacancy
Rate
Difference
Monthly
Effective
Rent
% Difference,
Effective Rent
Monterey County (CoStar)
Monthly
Effective
Rent
% Change,
Effective Rent
% Change,
Rent Asked
Monthly
Effective Rent
(2025$) [1]
City of Monterey (CoStar)
Monthly
Effective
Rent
% Change,
Rent Asked
Vacancy
Rate
Monthly
Effective Rent
(2025$) [1]
% Change,
Effective Rent
% Change,
Effective Rent
(2025$)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 54, Packet Page 311 Appendix
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 55, Packet Page 312 List of Tables
Table A-1. Housing Supply: City of Monterey (2022 and 2023 ACS) ...................................................... A-2 Table A-2. Tenure by Age of Structure: City of Monterey (2022 and 2023 ACS) ............................. A-3 Table A-3. Tenure by Units In Structure (2012, 2022, and 2023 ACS) (Page 1) ................................. A-7 Table A-4. Vacant Housing Units by Usage Category (2022 and 2023 ACS) ...................................... A-9 Table A-5. Rental Housing Proportion of Total Housing Inventory (2022 and 2023 ACS)............. A-9 Table A-6. Total Vacancy Rate (2010-2025 DOF) ....................................................................................... A-10 Table A-7. Household Income by Range (2012, 2022, and 2023 ACS) ................................................. A-11 Table A- 8. Household Income, Size, and Per Capita Income by Tenure (2022 and 2023 ACS) ... A-15 Table A-9. Rental Affordability (2011-2025, ACS, CoStar, and BLS) .................................................... A-17 Table A-10. Overall Rent Burden (2012, 2022, and 2023 ACS) ................................................................ A-18 Table A-11. Years Lived in Unit (2022 and 2023 ACS) .................................................................................. A-19 Table A-12. Ethnicity and Tenure: City of Monterey (2022 and 2023 ACS) ......................................... A-20 Table A-13. Householder Age: City of Monterey (2022 and 2023 ACS) ................................................ A-21 List of Figures
Figure A-1. City of Monterey, Household Income by Range (2012, 2022, and 2023 ACS) ............ A-12 Figure A- 2. Year-Over-Year Percentage Change in Median Renter Occupied Household Income versus Average Multifamily Rent: City of Monterey: 2012-2023/2025 (ACS, CoStar, and BLS)....................................................................................................................... A-16 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 56, Packet Page 313 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-1 Rental Market Inventory Appendix A
Preface
This section investigates year-over-year changes in U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) estimates for the City of Monterey, focusing on residential rental market information and renter socioeconomics. The main points of comparison are between ACS 5-Year Estimates for 2022 and 2023. These estimates cover 2018-2022 and 2019-2023, respectively.

In some cases, ACS estimates suggest changes that may or may not have occurred, such as a decrease in certain aspects of the City’s housing stock. It is important to note that these are estimates based on a limited sample of residents that is intended to be representative of the City as a whole, so ACS figures are not to be taken as precise data points but rather estimates of general trends.

Key Findings
ACS data indicate that the City’s renter socioeconomics were similar in 2022 and 2023, as expected. Some key takeaways include:
 Housing stock composition remains stable: Nearly half of the City's 14,000-unit housing inventory consists of detached single-family units, with 21 percent in 2-4-unit structures and 28 percent in 5+ unit buildings. Half of all units were built before 1970, with just over 40 percent built from 1970 to 2000 and slow growth in the 21st century.
 High occupancy with declining vacancy: Of Monterey's 13,760 housing units, 90 percent were occupied in 2023, with 62 percent of occupied units being renteroccupied. Vacancy declined slightly from 2022 to 2023 (62 fewer vacant units), primarily due to fewer for-sale units and seasonal/recreational units. This trend continues through 2025 per DOF estimates.
 Income growth concentrated among homeowners: Median household income reached $104,000 in 2023, but growth was driven primarily by homeowners (up $6,700) compared to renters (up $1,300). Average household income grew 13 percent year-over-year, with the highest growth in the $150,000-$200,000 and $200,000+ brackets (each up 15 percent), while the $35,000-$50,000 and under $15,000 brackets each declined by nearly 25 percent.
 Affordability issues persist: Renter-occupied households earn 37 percent less than homeowners despite larger household sizes. Average rents for multifamily units have consistently outpaced renter income growth. Just over half of renter households are rent-burdened (paying 30 percent+ of income on housing), with 22 percent severely burdened (paying 50 percent+ of income on housing), though this improved from 25 percent in 2022.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 57, Packet Page 314 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-2 Rental Market Inventory  Demographic disparities in renter population: Renters skew younger and are disproportionately people of color. Residents under 35 account for nearly 40 percent of renters, while those over 65 represent only 15 percent. While 55 percent of white householders rent, 80 percent of householders of color rent.  Long-term tenancy patterns: Approximately 66 percent of renters moved into their current unit between 2010 and 2020, with renters averaging 6.7 years of tenancy compared to homeowners' 18.3 years (nearly three times longer).  Population shifts suggest outmigration: ACS estimates indicate nearly 400 fewer renters in 2023, primarily those under 44 years of age. While this group also saw the largest increase in homeownership, the data suggest approximately 130 households in that age range left the City.

Housing Supply and Occupancy Trends
ACS data suggest that nearly half of the City’s overall housing nearly 14,000-unit housing inventory (both owner- and renter-occupied) is made up of detached single-family units, with attached units making up about 7 percent of the total. Just under 21 percent of units are in 2-4 unit-structures, with the remaining 28 percent in 5+ unit buildings. ACS data suggest a decline in units in larger structures as well as attached single-family units, but it is unclear whether this decline materialized.

Housing Tenure by Structure Age
ACS data indicate a similar trend to Slate data for the age of the City’s residential structures, with half of all units being built before 1970, just over 40 percent built from 1970 to 2000, and slow growth in the 21st century.

Table A-1. Housing Supply: City of Monterey (2022 and 2023 ACS) Item Units % of Total Units % of Total Units % of 2022 Total Type of Unit
Single Detached Units 6,059 43.3% 6,121 44.5% 62 1.0%
Single Attached Units 1,029 7.4% 972 7.1% (57) (5.5%)
2-4 Units 2,732 19.5% 2,829 20.6% 97 3.6%
5+ Units 4,168 29.8% 3,838 27.9% (330) (7.9%)
Mobile Homes 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 - Total Housing Units 13,988 100.0% 13,760 100.0% (228) (1.6%) Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Tables B25024; EPS. 2022 2023 Change
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 58, Packet Page 315 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-3 Rental Market Inventory Table A-2. Tenure by Age of Structure: City of Monterey (2022 and 2023 ACS) (Page 1 of 3) Item Total % Total % Total % Total %
Year
Built 2020 or later 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Built 2010 to 2019 23 0.5% 352 4.3% 375 3.0% 490 3.5%
Built 2000 to 2009 136 3.0% 407 5.0% 543 4.3% 624 4.5%
Built 1990 to 1999 195 4.4% 640 7.9% 835 6.6% 921 6.6%
Est. of units built between 1990 and 1994 74 1.6% 241 3.0% 315 2.5% 347 2.5% Built 1980 to 1989 573 12.8% 1,258 15.5% 1,831 14.5% 2,060 14.7% Built 1970 to 1979 578 12.9% 1,945 24.0% 2,523 20.0% 2,798 20.0% Built 1960 to 1969 659 14.7% 1,041 12.8% 1,700 13.5% 1,831 13.1% Built 1950 to 1959 1,408 31.4% 1,134 14.0% 2,542 20.2% 2,807 20.1% Built 1940 to 1949 324 7.2% 346 4.3% 670 5.3% 729 5.2%
Built 1939 or earlier 585 13.1% 982 12.1% 1,567 12.5% 1,728 12.4% Total 4,481 100.0% 8,105 100.0% 12,586 100.0% 13,988 100.0% Built Before 1995 4,201 93.7% 6,947 85.7% 11,148 88.6% 12,300 87.9% Built 1995 or Later 280 6.3% 1,158 14.3% 1,438 11.4% 1,688 12.1% Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25034 and B25036; CoStar; EPS. [1] ACS data only provides data within 10-year timeframes; the number of units estimated to be built between 1990 and 1994 is based on development data from CoStar. 2022 ACS [1]
Tenure of Occupied Housing Units
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total Total Housing Units ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 59, Packet Page 316 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-4 Rental Market Inventory Table A-2. Tenure by Age of Structure: City of Monterey (2022 and 2023 ACS) (Page 2 of 3) Item Total % Total % Total % Total %
Year
Built 2020 or later 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Built 2010 to 2019 79 1.7% 330 4.3% 409 3.3% 568 4.1%
Built 2000 to 2009 97 2.1% 430 5.6% 527 4.2% 612 4.4%
Built 1990 to 1999 218 4.6% 577 7.5% 795 6.4% 883 6.4%
Est. of units built between 1990 and 1994 82 1.7% 218 2.8% 300 2.4% 333 2.4% Built 1980 to 1989 630 13.4% 1,148 14.9% 1,778 14.3% 2,055 14.9% Built 1970 to 1979 540 11.5% 1,926 25.0% 2,466 19.9% 2,712 19.7% Built 1960 to 1969 604 12.8% 1,048 13.6% 1,652 13.3% 1,758 12.8% Built 1950 to 1959 1,476 31.4% 1,073 13.9% 2,549 20.5% 2,757 20.0% Built 1940 to 1949 407 8.7% 379 4.9% 786 6.3% 837 6.1%
Built 1939 or earlier 653 13.9% 805 10.4% 1,458 11.7% 1,578 11.5% Total 4,704 100.0% 7,716 100.0% 12,420 100.0% 13,760 100.0% Built Before 1995 4,392 93.4% 6,597 85.5% 10,989 88.5% 12,030 87.4% Built 1995 or Later 312 6.6% 1,119 14.5% 1,431 11.5% 1,730 12.6% Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25034 and B25036; CoStar; EPS. [1] ACS data only provides data within 10-year timeframes; the number of units estimated to be built between 1990 and 1994 is based on development data from CoStar. 2023 ACS [1]
Tenure of Occupied Housing Units
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total Total Housing Units ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 60, Packet Page 317 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-5 Rental Market Inventory Table A-2. Tenure by Age of Structure: City of Monterey (2022 and 2023 ACS) (Page 3 of 3) Item Total % of Change Total % of Change Total % of Change Total % of Change Year
Built 2020 or later 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Built 2010 to 2019 56 25.1% (22) 5.7% 34 (20.5%) 78 (34.2%) Built 2000 to 2009 (39) (17.5%) 23 (5.9%) (16) 9.6% (12) 5.3% Built 1990 to 1999 23 10.3% (63) 16.2% (40) 24.1% (38) 16.7% Est. of units built between 1990 and 1994 9 3.9% (24) 6.1% (15) 9.1% (14) 6.3% Built 1980 to 1989 57 25.6% (110) 28.3% (53) 31.9% (5) 2.2% Built 1970 to 1979 (38) (17.0%) (19) 4.9% (57) 34.3% (86) 37.7% Built 1960 to 1969 (55) (24.7%) 7 (1.8%) (48) 28.9% (73) 32.0% Built 1950 to 1959 68 30.5% (61) 15.7% 7 (4.2%) (50) 21.9% Built 1940 to 1949 83 37.2% 33 (8.5%) 116 (69.9%) 108 (47.4%) Built 1939 or earlier 68 30.5% (177) 45.5% (109) 65.7% (150) 65.8% Total 223 100.0% (389) 100.0% (166) 100.0% (228) 100.0% Built Before 1995 192 86.0% (351) 90.2% (159) 95.8% (270) 118.6% Built 1995 or Later 31 14.0% (38) 9.8% (7) 4.2% 42 (18.6%) Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25034 and B25036; CoStar; EPS. [1] ACS data only provides data within 10-year timeframes; the number of units estimated to be built between 1990 and 1994 is based on development data from CoStar.

Change (2022-2023 ACS) [1]
Tenure of Occupied Housing Units
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total Total Housing Units ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 61, Packet Page 318 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-6 Rental Market Inventory Tenure by Units in Structure
As shown in Table A-3, similar tenures by unit type are observed in 2012, 2022, and 2023. As is typically found, homeowner occupancy is highest in detached single-family homes, and tends to progressively decrease as the number of units in a structure increases.

There were no major changes from 2022 to 2023 except for an 11 percent reduction in the number of renters who occupy single-family detached units and a reduction in the number of units in 5+-unit buildings that the ACS estimates as a whole (leading to a decline in both owner- and renter-occupants).

Occupancy/Vacancy
Of Monterey’s 13,760 housing units, 90 percent were occupied in 2023 (12,420 occupied units).

More than half of the City’s occupied units were renter-occupied (56 percent). Of the City’s total vacancy of 10 percent (1,340 vacant units) as of 2023, about 30 percent of the vacant units were rental units, 55 percent were characterized as ‘Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use,’ 4 percent are shown as ‘For-Sale’,’ and 11 percent are characterized as ‘Other.’ See Table A-4. It appears that a similar share of the total housing units are renter-occupied as were a year before, if not a slight decline (estimated at 58 percent in 2022, 56 percent in 2023). See Table A-5.

There was a slight decline in the total number of vacant units estimated by the ACS since 2022 (62 fewer vacant units in 2023), explained by fewer vacant for-sale units and seasonal/recreational/occasional use units. The County saw similar trends, except it also saw an increase in units vacant that are characterized as being used by migrant workers. DOF estimates (Table A-6) show the same trend from 2022 to 2023 and further decreases in vacancy from 2023- 2024 that have held steady into 2025. These trends are also seen Countywide.

Rental Housing Affordability
After a 23 percent increase in median household income from 2012-2022 and a 2 percent increase from 2022-2023,23 the median household made just over $104,000 in 2023. The largest declines in population share were seen in the $35,000-$50,000 income bracket and the under- $15,000 bracket each declining by nearly 25 percent in absolute amount of households earning those incomes. The highest two income brackets tracked, households earning $150,000 to $200,000 and $200,000+, grew by about 15 percent each from 2022 to 2023.

With the top two income brackets growing significantly in their share of total households, the average household income grew by more than the median, up 13 percent year-over-year after growing by 37 percent from 2010-2022 (average annual growth of 3.7 percent). See Table A-7 and Figure A-1.
23 All figures inflation-adjusted to 2023$ via the BLS-CPI West Region for all Urban Consumers.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 62, Packet Page 319 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-7 Rental Market Inventory Table A-3. Tenure by Units In Structure (2012, 2022, and 2023 ACS) (Page 1 of 2) Item OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupiedShare RenterOccupied% of Unit Type
OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupiedShare RenterOccupied% of Unit Type
OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupiedShare RenterOccupied% of Unit Type
Unit Type
Detached Single-Family 3,504 2,046 36.9% 44.3% 3,684 1,858 33.5% 44.0% 4,025 1,655 29.1% 45.1% Attached Single-Family 265 461 63.5% 5.8% 263 614 70.0% 7.0% 185 622 77.1% 6.4% Duplex 63 709 91.8% 6.2% 103 692 87.0% 6.3% 120 702 85.4% 6.5% 3 to 4 unit building 115 1,417 92.5% 12.2% 60 1,686 96.6% 13.9% 62 1,707 96.5% 14.1% 5 + unit building 263 3,655 93.3% 31.2% 371 3,255 89.8% 28.8% 312 3,030 90.7% 26.6% Other [1] 41 0 0.0% 0.3% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
Total 4,251 8,288 66.1% 100.0% 4,481 8,105 64.4% 100.0% 4,704 7,716 62.1% 98.7% Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25032; EPS. [1] Includes mobile homes, boats, vans, RVs, etc.
2012 ACS 2022 ACS 2023 ACS
City of Monterey
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 63, Packet Page 320 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-8 Rental Market Inventory Table A-3. Tenure by Units In Structure (2012, 2022, and 2023 ACS) (Page 2 of 2) Item Total % Total % Total % Total %
Unit Type
Detached Single-Family 180 5.1% (188) (9.2%) 341 9.3% (203) (10.9%) Attached Single-Family (2) (0.8%) 153 33.2% (78) (29.7%) 8 1.3% Duplex 40 63.5% (17) (2.4%) 17 16.5% 10 1.4%
3 to 4 unit building (55) (47.8%) 269 19.0% 2 3.3% 21 1.2% 5 + unit building 108 41.1% (400) (10.9%) (59) (15.9%) (225) (6.9%) Other [1] (41) (100.0%) - 0.0% - - - - Total 230 5.4% (183) (2.2%) 223 72.2% (389) (100.0%) Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25032; EPS. [1] Includes mobile homes, boats, vans, RVs, etc.

Owner-Occupied
2012-2022 Change
Renter-Occupied
2022-2023 Change
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 64, Packet Page 321 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-9 Rental Market Inventory Table A-4. Vacant Housing Units by Usage Category (2022 and 2023 ACS) Table A-5. Rental Housing Proportion of Total Housing Inventory (2022 and 2023 ACS) Item Units % of Total Units % of Total Units % of Total Units % of Total Total % of 2022 Total % of 2022 Vacant Housing Units
For Rent 326 23.3% 1,589 12.4% 318 23.7% 1,502 11.9% (8) 2.5% (87) 5.5% Unoccupied Rentals 98 7.0% 302 2.4% 82 6.1% 278 2.2% (16) 16.3% (24) 7.9% For-Sale - - 565 4.4% 53 4.0% 545 4.3% 53 - (20) 3.5%
Unoccupied Sold Units - - 501 3.9% - - 502 4.0% - - 1 0.2% Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use 821 58.6% 6,290 49.3% 734 54.8% 6,282 49.8% (87) 10.6% (8) 0.1% For Migrant Workers - - 95 0.7% - - 203 1.6% - - 108 113.7% Other 157 11.2% 3,428 26.8% 153 11.4% 3,301 26.2% (4) 2.5% (127) 3.7% Total Vacant 1,402 100.0% 12,770 100.0% 1,340 100.0% 12,613 100.0% (62) 4.4% (157) 1.2% Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Tables B25004; EPS. 2022-2023 Change
Monterey County City of Monterey Monterey County
2022 ACS
City of Monterey
2023 ACS
City of Monterey Monterey County
Item Total Total Total
Residential Units [1]
Total Units 13,988 100.0% 60.3% 13,760 100.0% 58.4% (228) (1.6%) Total Rental Inventory 8,431 60.3% 100.0% 8,034 58.4% 100.0% (397) (2.8%) Total Renter-Occupied 8,105 57.9% 96.1% 7,716 56.1% 96.0% (389) (2.8%) Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Tables B25004, B25024, B25032; EPS. % of Total
Units in 2022
2022 2022-2023 Change
% of Total
Housing
Inventory
% that is
Rental
Housing
Inventory
2023
% of Total
Housing
Inventory
% that is Rental
Housing
Inventory
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 65, Packet Page 322 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-10 Rental Market Inventory Table A-6. Total Vacancy Rate (2010-2025 DOF)
Item City of Monterey Monterey County
Year
2010 10.3% 9.4%
2011 10.7% 9.6%
2012 10.6% 9.6%
2013 11.6% 9.9%
2014 11.8% 10.0%
2015 11.7% 10.0%
2016 11.7% 10.3%
2017 11.9% 10.3%
2018 12.0% 10.5%
2019 12.0% 10.6%
2020 10.1% 8.3%
2021 9.5% 8.3%
2022 9.2% 8.1%
2023 9.1% 8.1%
2024 8.9% 8.0%
2025 8.9% 7.9%
Source: California Department of Finance Table E-5; EPS.

Total Residential Vacancy Rate (DOF)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 66, Packet Page 323 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-11 Rental Market Inventory Table A-7. Household Income by Range (2012, 2022, and 2023 ACS) Item 2012 ACS [1] % 2022 ACS % 2023 ACS % 2012 - 2012 % Change 2022- 2023 % Change Income Range [1]
<$15,000 1,213 9.7% 610 4.8% 473 3.8% (604) (49.8%) (136) (22.4%) $15,000 - $24,999 1,115 8.9% 607 4.8% 672 5.4% (508) (45.5%) 65 10.7% $25,000 - $34,999 1,089 8.7% 682 5.4% 660 5.3% (407) (37.4%) (23) (3.3%) $35,000 - $49,999 1,278 10.2% 1,022 8.1% 771 6.2% (255) (20.0%) (251) (24.5%) $50,000 - $74,999 2,795 22.3% 1,626 12.9% 1,666 13.4% (1,168) (41.8%) 39 2.4% $75,000 - $99,999 1,917 15.3% 1,866 14.8% 1,740 14.0% (52) (2.7%) (125) (6.7%) $100,000 - $149,999 1,992 15.9% 2,482 19.7% 2,187 17.6% 490 24.6% (295) (11.9%) $150,000 - $199,999 575 4.6% 1,702 13.5% 1,951 15.7% 1,127 195.8% 249 14.7% $200,000+ 563 4.5% 1,991 15.8% 2,299 18.5% 1,429 253.8% 308 15.5% Total 12,539 100.0% 12,586 100.0% 12,420 100.0% 47 0.4% (169) (1.3%) $87,896 $102,209 $104,110 $14,313 $1,901
Average Household Income $63,231 $86,319 $97,451 $23,088 $11,132 Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S1901; Bureau of Labor Statistics; EPS. [2] The median household incomes reported by ACS are inflation-adjusted to constant dollars via the BLS-CPI West Region for all Urban Consumers.

Change [1]
Median Household Income
(Adjusted to 2023$) [2]
City of Monterey Households
[1] Income brackets do not account for inflation, so some of the upward-filtering effect seen over time is due to the change in value of the dollar. If a household earned $49,000 in 2012 and kept the same purchasing power in 2023, they would be earning $68,000 and reflect as having moved up an income bracket according to ACS Table S1901.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 67, Packet Page 324 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-12 Rental Market Inventory Figure A-1. City of Monterey, Household Income by Range (2012, 2022, and 2023 ACS)24 24 Income brackets do not account for inflation, so some of the upward-filtering effect seen over time is due to the change in value of the dollar. If a household earned $49,000 in 2012 and kept the same purchasing power in 2023, they would be earning $68,000 and reflect as having moved up an income bracket according to ACS Table S1901. 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25% Share of Total Households
Household Income Bracket 2012 2022 2023
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 68, Packet Page 325 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-13 Rental Market Inventory Most of the increase in household income has been driven by homeowners, whose median income rose by $6,700 from 2022 to 2023, while renter households made about $1,300 more year-overyear. Renter-occupied households in the City have significantly lower household incomes, about 37 percent less than households who own their homes, despite larger household sizes.

Average rents for multifamily units have continually increased at a higher rate than median income for renter-occupied households, as shown in Figure A-2 and Table A-9, except for in 2014 and 2021, when income gains slightly outpaced rent increases. However, both followed years with very large percentage increase gaps between rents and income.

Housing Cost Burden
With rents growing faster than incomes, just over half of the City’s renter-occupied households are considered rent-burdened, paying 30 percent or more of their household income on housing costs. About 22 percent of renter-occupied households face a severe rent burden, paying over half their income on housing costs, an improvement from 25 percent in 2022. Rent-burdened households have less money to spend on other essentials like food, transportation, healthcare, and childcare.

Tenancy Length
Table A-11 reflects the time that householders have spent in their current unit as of 2023.

Approximately 66 percent of renters moved into their current unit between 2010 and 2020, 23 percent moved in between 2021 and 2023, and the remainder (11 percent) have occupied their current unit for 14 years or more. Renters have a weighted average tenancy of 6.7 years, while homeowners, on average, have occupied their unit about three times longer, at 18.3 years. The most significant year-over-year change came in the ‘Moved in 2021 or later’ category, as expected, with an extra year of data leading to that category more than doubling in its share of total renters, and more than tripling for homeowners.

Tenure and Race
Communities of color are over-represented in the renter population. As shown in Table A-12, although the majority of City residents identify as white, far more people of color rent than own their homes. Latinx people make up the largest share of non-white renters in Monterey. About 55 percent of households with a white householder in Monterey rent, while 80 percent of households with a householder of color rent. There were no significant year-over-year changes for these statistics from 2022 to 2023.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 69, Packet Page 326 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-14 Rental Market Inventory Tenure and Age
Monterey’s renter population also skews younger than the City’s population overall. As indicated in Table A-13, residents under 35 account for almost 40 percent of the renter population, while residents above the age of 65 account for only 15 percent of the City’s renters. ACS estimates for 2023 indicate nearly 400 fewer renters in the City, mostly made up of people under 44 years of age. This group also had the largest increase in homeownership, but these data suggests that around 130 households in that age range left the City.25
25 Not accounting for households aging out of this age bracket. However, the next bracket, 45 to 54 years, also saw net loss of households year-over-year.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 70, Packet Page 327 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-15 Rental Market Inventory Table A- 8. Household Income, Size, and Per Capita Income by Tenure (2022 and 2023 ACS) Item
Household Tenure
Owner-occupied $135,872 2.03 $66,932 $142,602 2.04 $69,903 $6,730 0.01 $2,971 Renter-occupied $89,145 2.19 $40,706 $90,426 2.17 $41,671 $1,281 (0.02) $965 Total Households $102,209 2.13 $47,985 $104,110 2.12 $49,108 $1,901 (0.01) $1,123 Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table B25010 and Table B25119; Bureau of Labor Statistics; EPS. 2023 ACS
Median
Household
Income
Average
Household
Size
Income
per
Capita
Change
Median
Household
Income
Average
Household
Size
Income
per
Capita
[1] The 2022 median household incomes reported by ACS are inflation-adjusted to 2023 dollars via the BLS-CPI West Region for all Urban Consumers.

Median
Household
Income
Average
Household
Size
Income
per
Capita
2022 ACS
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 71, Packet Page 328 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-16 Rental Market Inventory Figure A-2. Year-Over-Year Percentage Change in Median Renter Occupied Household Income versus Average Multifamily Rent: City of Monterey: 2012-2023/2025 (ACS, CoStar, and BLS) Source: CoStar; American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table 25119; Bureau of Labor Statistics; EPS. (10%)
(8%)
(6%)
(4%)
(2%)
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Year-over-Year Change Average MFR Rent Median Renter HH Income
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 72, Packet Page 329 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-17 Rental Market Inventory Table A-9. Rental Affordability (2011-2025, ACS, CoStar, and BLS) Year
Average
Multifamily
Rent Change
Median Renter
Household
Income
Median Renter
Household
Income ($2023) Change
2011 $1,553 - $56,096 $79,855 -
2012 $1,578 1.6% $57,697 $80,405 0.7%
2013 $1,608 1.9% $53,416 $73,351 (8.8%)
2014 $1,655 2.9% $56,405 $76,040 3.7%
2015 $1,762 6.5% $56,950 $75,890 (0.2%)
2016 $1,813 2.9% $59,324 $77,556 2.2%
2017 $1,895 4.5% $61,185 $77,781 0.3%
2018 $1,975 4.2% $63,640 $78,282 0.6%
2019 $2,081 5.4% $67,128 $80,408 2.7%
2020 $2,153 3.5% $70,428 $82,917 3.1%
2021 $2,210 2.6% $75,772 $85,350 2.9%
2022 $2,324 5.2% $85,477 $89,145 4.4%
2023 $2,383 2.5% $90,426 $90,426 1.4%
2024 $2,456 3.1% - - - 2025 $2,511 2.2% - - - Source: CoStar; American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25119; Bureau of Labor Statistics; EPS.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 73, Packet Page 330 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-18 Rental Market Inventory Table A-10. Overall Rent Burden (2012, 2022, and 2023 ACS)

Item
Total
Renter
Households
% of Total
Renter
Households
Total
Renter
Households
% of Total
Renter
Households
Total
Renter
Households
% of Total
Renter
Households
Total
Renter
Households
% of Total
Renter
Households
Total
Renter
Households
% of Total
Renter
Households
Rent as a Percentage of Household Income [1]
Not Computed 421 5.1% 179 2.2% 206 2.7% (242) (57.5%) 27 15.1% Less than 30% of Income 3,994 48.2% 3,651 45.0% 3,419 44.3% (343) (8.6%) (232) (6.4%) Rent Burdened
30% to 50% of Income 2,173 26.2% 2,277 28.1% 2,361 30.6% 104 4.8% 84 3.7% More than 50% of Income 1,700 20.5% 1,998 24.7% 1,730 22.4% 298 17.5% (268) (13.4%) Subtotal Rent Burdened Households 3,873 46.7% 4,275 52.7% 4,091 53.0% 402 10.4% (184) (4.3%) Total Renter Households 8,288 100.0% 8,105 100.0% 7,716 100.0% (183) (2.2%) (389) (4.8%) City of Monterey
Change (2012 to 2022)
[1] The US Department of Housing and Urban Development defines a household spending more than 30% of their income on housing as "rent burdened." Households spending more than 50% of their income on housing are considered "severely rent burdened." 2012 ACS 2022 ACS
Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25070; EPS. 2023 ACS Change (2022 to 2023)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 74, Packet Page 331 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-19 Rental Market Inventory Table A-11. Years Lived in Unit (2022 and 2023 ACS)
Item Min Max Avg. Total % Total % Total % Total % Total % of 2022 Total % of 2022 Year Householder Moved Into Unit
Moved in 2021 or later 0 - 2 1 964 11.9% 86 1.9% 1,777 23.0% 298 6.3% 813 84.3% 212 246.5% Moved in 2018 to 2020 3 - 5 4 3,112 38.4% 438 9.8% 2,901 37.6% 586 12.5% (211) (6.8%) 148 33.8% Moved in 2010 to 2017 6 - 13 9.5 3,130 38.6% 1,342 29.9% 2,213 28.7% 1,223 26.0% (917) (29.3%) (119) (8.9%) Moved in 2000 to 2009 14 - 23 18.5 641 7.9% 934 20.8% 633 8.2% 849 18.0% (8) (1.2%) (85) (9.1%) Moved in 1990 to 1999 24 - 33 28.5 211 2.6% 514 11.5% 176 2.3% 625 13.3% (35) (16.6%) 111 21.6% Moved in 1989 or earlier 34 + 34 47 0.6% 1,167 26.0% 16 0.2% 1,123 23.9% (31) (66.0%) (44) (3.8%) Total 8,105 100.0% 4,481 100.0% 7,716 100.0% 4,704 100.0% (389) (4.8%) 223 5.0% Weighted Average Years Lived in Unit 6.8 18.2 6.7 18.3 (0.1) 0.0 Source: ACS 5-Year estimates Table B25038; EPS.
[1] Values shown for years lived in unit are calibrated to 2023 data. 2022 data for weighted average years lived in unit utilizes values calibrated to 2022, not shown in this table.

Years Lived
in Unit [1]
2023 ACS
Renter-Occupied Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Change
Renter-Occupied Owner-Occupied
2022 ACS
Owner-Occupied
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 75, Packet Page 332 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-20 Rental Market Inventory Table A-12. Ethnicity and Tenure: City of Monterey (2022 and 2023 ACS) Item
RenterOccupiedOwnerOccupied CitywideRenterOccupiedOwnerOccupied CitywideRenterOccupiedOwnerOccupied Citywide Householder Race
White Only 54.8% 76.5% 62.0% 50.2% 76.6% 59.3% (4.6%) 0.0% (2.7%) Black 3.2% 2.0% 2.8% 2.8% 1.9% 2.4% (0.4%) (0.1%) (0.3%) Latinx (Hispanic or Latino) 17.7% 8.8% 14.7% 19.6% 8.6% 15.8% 1.9% (0.2%) 1.1% Asian 5.7% 7.0% 6.2% 5.4% 5.5% 5.5% (0.3%) (1.5%) (0.7%) Indigenous (Native American and Alaksa Native) 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.9% 0.0% 0.6% 1.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% Some Other Race 10.0% 2.5% 7.5% 11.9% 2.6% 8.6% 1.9% 0.1% 1.2% Two or More Races 7.4% 3.2% 6.0% 8.6% 4.8% 7.3% 1.2% 1.6% 1.3% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table B25003 (variations B25003B, B25003C, B25003D, B25003E, B25003F, B25003G, B25003H, and B25003I); EPS. 2022 ACS 2023 ACS Change in Proportion
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 76, Packet Page 333 City of Monterey Rental Market Analysis
February 2026

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-21 Rental Market Inventory Table A-13. Householder Age: City of Monterey (2022 and 2023 ACS) Item Total % Total % Total % Total % Total % Total % Total % of 2022 Total % of 2022 Total % of 2022 Householder Age
Under 35 years 3,087 38.1% 173 3.9% 3,260 25.9% 2,980 38.6% 329 7.0% 3,309 26.6% (107) (3.5%) 156 90.2% 49 1.5% 35 to 44 years 1,675 20.7% 353 7.9% 2,028 16.1% 1,410 18.3% 437 9.3% 1,847 14.9% (265) (8.6%) 84 23.8% (181) (8.9%) 45 to 54 years 1,183 14.6% 408 9.1% 1,591 12.6% 1,202 15.6% 339 7.2% 1,541 12.4% 19 0.6% (69) (16.9%) (50) (3.1%) 55 to 64 years 942 11.6% 1,191 26.6% 2,133 16.9% 959 12.4% 1,109 23.6% 2,068 16.7% 17 0.6% (82) (6.9%) (65) (3.0%) Over 65 years 1,218 15.0% 2,356 52.6% 3,574 28.4% 1,165 15.1% 2,490 52.9% 3,655 29.4% (53) (1.7%) 134 5.7% 81 2.3% Total 8,105 100.0% 4,481 100.0% 12,586 100.0% 7,716 100.0% 4,704 100.0% 12,420 100.0% (389) (12.6%) 223 5.0% (166) (1.3%) Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Table S2502; EPS.

Renter-Occupied Owner-Occupied Citywide
2022 ACS
Renter-Occupied Owner-Occupied Citywide Renter-Occupied Owner-Occupied Citywide 2023 ACS Change
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 13., Item Page 77, Packet Page 334 Council
Agenda Report
№11/25
FROM: Kimberly Cole, AICP, Community Development Director Levi Hill, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared By: Christy Sabdo, AICP, Principal Planner
Matthew Buggert, Senior Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Receive the 2025 General Plan Annual Report for Review and Comment (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061)
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive the 2025 General Plan
Annual Report.

VALUE DRIVERS:

In partnership with our entire community, the Monterey
City Council provides visionary leadership ensuring a
safe, healthy, historic, economically vibrant, and
sustainable environment.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Government Code section 65400 requires the City to
prepare an annual report regarding the status of the
City’s General Plan and progress in its implementation
(General Plan Progress Report) and provide the General
Plan Progress Report to the Office of Land Use and
Climate Innovation (LCI) and the Housing Element
portion to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) by April 1, 2026. The attached
report fulfills this requirement.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT (LEVINE
ACT) APPLIES: No.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

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 2025 General Plan Annual
Report highlights significant
progress in implementing updated
Land Use, Housing, Safety, and
Circulation Elements.
• Water supply constraints due to a
State-issued Cease and Desist
Order remain a major challenge to
meeting housing development
goals.
• The City adopted ordinances in
2025 to expand housing
opportunities, including local density
bonuses and SB9 housing
provisions.
• The Monterey Fire Department
increased defensible space
inspections by 168% in response to
updated Fire Hazard Severity
Zones.
• The City initiated a comprehensive
update to its Climate Action Plan to
accelerate greenhouse gas
reductions and promote renewable
energy use.

Date: 3/17/2026
Item No.: 14.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 1, Packet Page 335 №10/24
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.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

This report is required by the State. There is no alternative.

DISCUSSION:

The City’s General Plan was last updated on July 16, 2024 by Resolution 24-118 which adopted new Land Use, Housing, Safety, and Circulation Elements in compliance with State law requirements. Most General Plan policies and related action items are implemented through the adoption of ordinances or resolutions, incorporated into the regular government activities of the applicable departments, or included in development proposals as they are reviewed for consistency with the City’s policies. In 2025, the City made significant progress implementing the General Plan. California law requires that local agencies submit an annual General Plan Progress Report (Attachment 1) to the State no later than April 1.

On March 10, 2026, the Planning Commission received the 2025 Report and provided an opportunity for public comment. As part of the Planning Commission review, the City received two comment letters – from Landwatch and Julie Gorman (Attachment 3). Public testimony was also received. Landwatch’s letter criticized the water policy adopted by the Council on November 18, 2025, in Resolution 25-118, and urged the Planning Commission to request that the City Council reconsider the issue of “postponing” water allocations so that housing development can move forward. Ms. Gorman’s letter requested that the City amend General Plan Policy a.2 (Window on the Bay and Beach Policy a.2 Develop for active park and beach use, but minimize parking and building intrusion into the park.). Verbal public comments expressed concerns about not releasing water for development from the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project. The Planning Commission discussion centered around the water issue as well and the general concern that water is not being released for development until the Cease and Desist Order is lifted or modified. Staff advised that reconsideration of the Council-adopted water policy was not part of the General Plan annual report review. Ultimately, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution accepting the 2025 General Plan Annual Report for review and public comment. The Planning Commission motion included a statement that the Commission is concerned about what the Commissioners characterized as the “hold-up” in the release of water allocations and directed staff to dialogue with the City Attorney about the issue.

The 2025 General Plan Progress Report is included as Attachment 1 and key points are summarized as follows:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 2, Packet Page 336 №10/24
Land Use Element
Policy a.4. Focus new development primarily in commercial districts and mixed use neighborhoods so as to support the vitality of existing businesses, optimize the use of utility infrastructure, and reduce vehicle trip frequency, length, and associated emissions.

Policy b.2. Promote context-sensitive design within mixed use neighborhoods, based on objective standards for height, bulk, scale, landscaping, parking, setbacks, streetscapes, alleys and other aspects of development.

Response: In 2024, three specific plan areas (Lighthouse, Downtown, North Fremont Specific Plans) were updated to allow for greater density, multi-modal improvements, and altered parking and design standards that would reduce vehicle trips and improve mixed use and commercial districts. Throughout 2025, the city has proactively engaged property owners to further facilitate development in these areas along with sites located in the expanded MultiFamily Residential Overlay.

The updated Specific Plans have been revised to incorporate the adopted amendments and are available on the City’s website.

Circulation Element
Goal c. A safe, reliable, connected and integrated bicycle transportation network that encourages bicycling as a primary mode of transportation for residents, employees and visitors.

Policy b. 1. Create and maintain a roadway system of “Complete Streets” that is safe and easy to use for all modes of transportation.

Response: Complete Streets policies were incorporated into the City’s Circulation Element in 2024.

Goal f. A transportation network which supports the reduction of transportation related greenhouse gas emissions through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled.

Policy f.1. Apply vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric to measure transportation environmental impacts for CEQA, in accordance with SB 743.

Policy f.2. Apply VMT thresholds of significance for proposed developments, land use plans, transportation projects, and any other plans or development projects in the Move Monterey Multimodal Plan.

Response: The City adopted a VMT policy in 2021 and applies it as applicable to new development, plans or projects whenever applicable.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 3, Packet Page 337 №10/24
Goal h. A transportation network supported by projects and programs that work towards zero collisions involving serious or fatal injuries.

Response: City staff continually monitors accident rates and trends. Staff includes projects which further the City’s vision zero goal into the Capital Improvement Program and Multimodal Plan as new projects develop.

Policy d.6. Continue to identify and prioritize projects which would improve accessibility for all pedestrians, such as ADA ramps, audible pedestrian signals, sidewalk widenings or any other transportation infrastructure improvement that could improve accessibility Response: The City approved a 2024 Update to its Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan to identify and prioritize disabled access projects, estimate project costs, establish an implementation schedule and funding strategy, and strengthen ongoing monitoring programs. This update builds upon and modernizes the existing transition Plan. In 2025, 56 curb ramps were constructed in accordance with the Transition Plan.

Housing Element
The State of California requires regions to address housing issues and needs based on future growth projections for the area. The Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department allocates regional housing needs to councils of government throughout the state. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) then allocates to each city and unincorporated county their “fair share” of the region’s projected housing needs by household income level. This distribution is commonly referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

The intent of the RHNA is to ensure that local jurisdictions address not only the needs of their immediate areas but also fill the housing needs for the entire region. Additionally, a major goal of the RHNA is to ensure that every community provides an opportunity for a mix of affordable housing to all economic segments of its population.

The City’s General Plan Housing Element includes programs and actions to be taken to meet these objectives and reflects the RHNA for the City of Monterey. For the 2023-2031 RHNA Cycle, the City of Monterey requirement was 3,654 new housing units. In 2025, construction of 96 housing units was completed, including 74 multi-family dwellings and 22 ADU’s. Table 1 below shows housing unit data for calendar year 2025.

Table 1: Housing Units in 2025 in the City of Monterey
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level 2025
Very Low Deed Restricted
Non-Deed Restricted
Low Deed Restricted 5
Non-Deed Restricted
Moderate Deed Restricted 5
Non-Deed Restricted
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 4, Packet Page 338 №10/24
Above Moderate 67
Total Units 77
Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals
Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed
SFA 0 0 0
SFD 4 2 0
2 to 4 11 5 10
5+ 77 47 64
ADU 24 23 22
MH 0 0 0
Total 116 77 96
For the 2023-2031 RHNA Cycle, the requirement is 3,654 new housing units, which must be planned to accommodate a variety of incomes (Table 2). The City is required to ensure that local zoning has sufficient capacity to meet the RHNA at all income levels throughout the period.

Table 2: 2023-2031 RHNA for the City of Monterey
Income Group Totals
Very Low Low Mod Above Mod
RHNA Total
City of Monterey 1,177 769 462 1,246 3,654
The number one constraint to housing development is water supply which is currently limited by a State issued Cease and Desist Order (CDO). Without resolving the City’s water supply issues, housing production will not meet State goals.

As such, the City has not satisfied Goal m - “Develop long-term water supplies and conservation methods so that there is sufficient water to implement General Plan goals.” While Goal m is not fully satisfied, the City Council adopted Resolution 25-118 on November 18, 2025 to establish priorities and procedures for the distribution of an approximately 141 af water allocation at the time the CDO is lifted. This resolution will ensure an efficient and timely allocation to potential housing projects at the earliest feasible date.

The following is a summary of zoning updates that were conducted in 2025 and their associated program progress, which are further elaborated on within the goals, policies, and program table included as Appendix A.

Housing Zoning Updates in 2025:

1. Ordinance No. 3713:
o 3-C Local Density Bonus. Expanded the City’s Local Density Bonus so that multi-family housing projects meeting the criteria of Government Code Section 65915(b)(1)(G) may obtain a 10 percent density bonus independent from, and additional to, the provisions of State Density Bonus Law.

2. Ordinance No. 3709:

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 5, Packet Page 339 №10/24
o 1-J SB9 Housing Ordinance: Added Urban Lot Splits in Single Family Zoning Districts by adding Article 7 to Chapter 33 of the Monterey City Code. The ordinance allows ministerial review of Urban Lot Split applications that subdivide an existing parcel in a Single-Family Zoning District to create no more than two new parcels as provided by Government Code Section 66411.7. The maximum of two dwelling units of any kind per lot, including but not limited to primary dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, and junior accessory dwelling units, unless an additional unit is approved as an affordable unit incentive pursuant to City Code section 38-26.1(g)(1)(A). Development options include a maximum of four units that may be developed without application of the affordability incentive.

3. Ordinance No. 3710:
o 1-J SB9 Housing Ordinance: Amended the Zoning Ordinance to authorize ministerial approval of two-unit housing development in single-family zoning districts given certain criteria are met. The ordinance would allow up to six units on what is currently a single-family parcel if the property owner commits to making at least one of the additional units affordable to households earning less than 50 percent of the Monterey County median income (AMI) through a longterm affordability agreement. This Ordinance allows for the maximum development of four units per parcel without application of the affordability incentive.

Overall, the City continues to make progress in implementing its Housing Element as demonstrated in the charts below.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 6, Packet Page 340 №10/24
Conservation Element
Goal e. Encourage the effective and efficient use of energy in all its critical forms by public and private users alike.

Policy e.1. Encourage energy sources, which provide part or all of the energy needed for buildings.

Program e.1.1. Consider aesthetically compatible independent energy sources in new public and private buildings.

Program e.1.2. Encourage energy retrofitting in existing residential and commercial structures.

Policy e.2. Educate the public about energy conservation.

Program e.2.1. Support public education activities that dramatize cost-saving benefits of energy conservation to local consumers.

Program e.2.2. Encourage the hotel, motel, and restaurant associations to maintain an energy conservation program on a continual basis.

Policy e.3. Work with other local, state and federal agencies, public utilities and community organizations to implement energy conservation and longer-range renewable energy development programs.

Response: In 2017, the City of Monterey was one of the key founders of Monterey Bay Community Power (now Central Coast Community Energy, or 3CE). 3CE is a Community Choice Energy agency established by local communities to source carbon-free electricity for Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties and now parts of San Luis Obispo County while retaining PG&E’s traditional role delivering power and maintaining electric infrastructure.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 7, Packet Page 341 №10/24
The City of Monterey is a member and a customer of Central Coastal Community (C3E) and has chosen the 3CPrime option for all City energy accounts. 3CPrime allows the City to receive 100% of its energy from renewable sources, predominantly wind and solar.

The City installed solar panels at the City Conference Center (1 Portola Plaza) and the Human Resources building (735 Pacific Street) to provide renewable energy and advance the City’s sustainability goals. The City is also expanding electric vehicle charging infrastructure for both public and municipal fleets, supporting the transition to 100% renewable electricity and lowering transportation-related emissions.

In 2025, the City initiated a comprehensive update to its 2016 Climate Action Plan to accelerate citywide greenhouse gas reductions with an emphasis on building decarbonization and decreasing reliance on natural gas. The updated Plan incorporates a new greenhouse gas inventory and establishes updated emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2045.

Open Space Element
Goal c. Preserve greenbelts to ensure an overall visual impression of open space on the hillsides above Monterey, between neighborhoods and along major transportation corridors.

Policy c.1. Maintain greenbelts as open space.

Policy c.2. Coordinate with the County to preserve greenbelts, which form the backdrop of Monterey.

Goal d. Preserve and improve lakes and waterways as important visual, habitat, flood protection, and recreation resources.

Policy d.1. Continue to preserve Lake El Estero, Del Monte Lake, Roberts Lake, Laguna Grande, Washerwoman’s Pond, and Lagunita Mirada as visual open space features.

Policy d.4. Protect native plants, animals, and native habitats in Lake El Estero, Del Monte Lake, and Laguna Grande.

Policy d.5. Continue to support and enhance the public use of the City's lakes. Manage nonnative wildlife such as Canadian Geese.

Policy d.6. Continue to allow active recreational use of the lakes.

Policy d.7. Work with the City of Seaside to preserve and enhance Roberts Lake and Laguna Grande.

Response: City staff has worked with the City of Seaside and Monterey Peninsula Regional Parks District under the Joint Powers Authority for maintenance of Laguna Grande Park, meeting throughout 2024. The project will implement maintenance strategies to create a more accessible, safe, and long-lasting park for the surrounding community and region. State and Federal permits and authorizations have been granted by the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, US Army Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 8, Packet Page 342 №10/24
Corps of Engineers, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional permits or permit amendment may be required in the future.

Safety Element
Policy a.33. Adopt and implement the Community Wildfire Protection Plan to guide the restoration and maintenance of landscapes, promote fire-adapted communities, and strengthen response to wildfire. Pursue funding to facilitate structural retrofits, roadway improvements, and abatement of vegetative hazards.

Response: With the increased severity and frequency of wildfires in California, community wildfire planning is increasingly important to help prepare for and adapt to wildfire. Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) are a tool to help reduce the severity and impact of wildfires and increase community resilience. In 2023, an updated CWPP was completed for the Cities of Monterey, Carmel-by-the-Sea, and Pacific Grove, with implementation efforts commencing in 2024. This plan was developed collaboratively, incorporating input from stakeholders, agency representatives, and community members to ensure a comprehensive and locally informed approach.

In 2025, the California State Board of Forestry issued updated Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) for adoption by each city, as required by resolution. The inclusion of the Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone resulted in a significant increase in designated acreage within Monterey.

Of the city’s 5,504 total acres, approximately 2,751 acres (50%) now fall within an FHSZ.

To comply with state mandates, Monterey substantially expanded defensible space inspections within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In 2025, the Monterey Fire Department conducted 1,319 inspections, representing an increase of 828 additional inspections compared to prior years—a growth of more than 168%. Additionally, AB 38 inspections are now performed for all properties sold within High and Very High FHSZs, ensuring compliance with wildfire safety requirements.

The City also developed a Draft Fire Defense Plan, documenting completed fuel mitigation projects aimed at reducing hazardous vegetation and fuel loads throughout the community.

Policy b.6. Install clear and comprehensive signage and wayfinding to facilitate smoother traffic flow and direct residents and visitors effectively to evacuation routes.

Response: Wayfinding signage, including sensors and message signs, are installed and periodically assessed for improvements.

Economic Element
Policy a.2. Encourage visitor uses which are based on Monterey’s natural setting and history, rather than generic visitor uses without a strong tie to Monterey’s unique features.

Policy a.4. Encourage small businesses and unique locally owned businesses.

Program b.2.1. Promote waterfront-related retail uses and recreational activities in Local Coastal Programs and Specific plans appropriate to the natural resources of each segment of the waterfront as identified in the Urban Design Element.

Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 9, Packet Page 343 №10/24
Response: The City is preparing an updated and consolidated Local Coastal Program (LCP); an LCP is a document that consists of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementing ordinances (Implementation Plan). The six chapters of the LUP were drafted in 2025 and continue to be edited by City staff. In 2026, the draft LUP will be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission. Public outreach was reinitiated in 2025, starting with a community survey completed in December 2025. The survey provided input on the community’s priorities for the coastal zone, including coastal access, amenities, land use types, and coastal resilience, etc.

Additional outreach will be conducted in 2026.

Program b.4.1. Investigate ways to support the Naval Postgraduate School and Defense Language Institute so that they remain in the City of Monterey, including provision of services to support the operation of the facilities.

Policy c.4. Support the military uses in the community with essential public services.

Response: The City of Monterey is home to multiple military facilities including the Presidio of Monterey, Naval Post Graduate School, and Fleet Numerical. These facilities are predominately education and research oriented and are a cornerstone of the City’s economy.

The City of Monterey continues to provide essential public works services to its military partners.

There is no boundary between the infrastructure systems and maintenance inside and outside the military bases.

Historic Preservation Element
Program a.1.7. Maintain and update the City’s historic incentive programs to support historic property owners, including grant programs, land use incentives, flexible zoning and parking standards, property tax relief, Historic Building Code, and expedited processing for historic resources.

Response: In 2025, the City continued to inspect Mills Act contract properties in the City to ensure compliance with each property’s respective maintenance schedule and investment. City staff continues to monitor Mills Act contracts to encourage preservation of historic properties.

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution accepting the 2025 General Plan Annual Report for review and comment.

LH/sab/mb
Attachments: 1. 2025 General Plan Report

2. Appendix B to 2025 General Plan Report

3. Public Comments Submitted to the Planning Commission 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, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 10, Packet Page 344 City of Monterey, California

MONTEREY MONTEREY
2025
General Plan Report
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 11, Packet Page 345

EXHIBIT A
2 1. Introduction
Purpose
Government Code section 65400(a)(2) requires the City to annually prepare a report regarding the status of the City’s General Plan and progress in its implementation (General Plan Progress Report) and provide the General Plan Progress Report to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

General Plan Background
California State law requires that each city adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the area under its jurisdiction. General plans must include seven elements that together compose an integrated set of goals, policies, and action programs.

These seven required elements are land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, safety, and noise. In addition, a city may adopt optional elements that relate to the physical development of the community. The City of Monterey General Plan contains the following elements:
• Urban Design (optional)
• Land Use (required)
• Circulation (required)
• Housing (required)
• Conservation (required)
• Open Space (required)
• Safety (required)
• Noise (required)
• Economic (optional)
• Social (optional)
• Historic Preservation (optional)
• Public Facilities (optional)
The General Plan is the City’s official policy that guides decisions affecting future physical development and change within the City. The General Plan was originally adopted in January 2005. A number of General Plan amendments have been adopted since 2005.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 12, Packet Page 346

EXHIBIT A
3 2. General Plan Amendment Status
Local governments are required to keep their General Plans current and internally consistent.

Although General Plans must be kept current, there is no specific requirement that a local government update its General Plan on a particular timeline, with the exception of the Housing Element, which is required to be updated every eight years. As of December 2025, the General Plan has been amended eleven times since its adoption. The Resolution #, date and summary of amendments are detailed below:
 Resolution No. 06-79 (June 6, 2006) – Amended the Safety Element policy regarding development on slopes.
 Resolution No. 07-182 (October 2, 2007) – Amended land use map to recognize a parcel as parks, recreation and open space
 Resolution No. 09-086 (June 2, 2009) – Amended the Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map to reflect the updated fire hazard zones.
 Resolution No. 09-105 (July 7, 2009) – Adopted new Housing Element  Resolution No. 10-161 (November 2, 2010) – Resolve mapping errors  Resolution No. 13-131 (August 6, 2013) – Amended various elements to address the Downtown, Lighthouse/Foam and North Fremont Specific Plans, updated flood information and incorporated the Mutli Modal Level of Service  Resolution No. 16-042 (March 23, 2016) - Adopted a new Housing Element  Resolution No. 19-093 (June 4, 2019) – Amended General Plan to allow multifamily residential uses in the Industrial land use designation and to include Garden Road as an area appropriate for workforce housing.
 Resolution 19-178 (November 5, 2019) – Amended the land use designation for the Old Capitol Site from Planned Community to Open Space
 Resolution 24-118 (July 16, 2024) – Adopted General Plan Amendments and Updates for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031), Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements (“Monterey 2031 General Plan Update”)
 Resolution 2 26-029 (February 17, 2026) – Adopted General Plan Amendment at 5 Mandeville Court (APN: 259-031-050-000) from Medium Density Residential to Employment to Correct a Clerical Error.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 13, Packet Page 347

EXHIBIT A
4 3. General Plan Update and Implementation Progress Report In 2024, the City completed a significant update to the General Plan and updated the Land Use, Circulation, Housing and Safety Elements. The General Plan update began in August 2022. In 2022 and 2023, the City conducted extensive community outreach, coordinated with agencies and military liaisons, and brought updates to decision makers. In 2024, a significant amount of the General Plan update and EIR was completed, public comments were received on the General Plan and EIR. Staff coordinated with the California Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) on various iterations of the Housing Element, and public hearings were held. The final submittal of the Housing Element adopted by the City Council was submitted to HCD on August 5, 2024. On October 4, 2024, HCD certified the City of Monterey 2023-2031 Housing Element.

In the City’s certified 2023-2031 Housing Element, part of the General Plan Update, the Housing Action Plan Chapter includes a total of 53 Housing Programs that the City will implement over the 2023-2031 planning period. Since 2024 and in 2025, the City has initiated, completed, or is actively advancing these programs.

General Plan Implementation Progress Report
The General Plan Annual Report analyzes the City’s progress in meeting its General Plan goals, policies, and programs. A comprehensive list is included as Appendix A. Many General Plan policies and related action items have been implemented through the adoption of ordinances or resolutions, incorporated into the regular government activities of the applicable departments, or included in development proposals as they are reviewed for consistency with the City’s policies.

In 2025, the City made significant progress implementing the General Plan.

Land Use Element
Policy a.4. Focus new development primarily in commercial districts and mixed use neighborhoods so as to support the vitality of existing businesses, optimize the use of utility infrastructure, and reduce vehicle trip frequency, length, and associated emissions.

The updated Specific Plans have been revised to incorporate the adopted amendments and are available on the City’s website.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 14, Packet Page 348

EXHIBIT A
5 Circulation Element
Goal c. A safe, reliable, connected and integrated bicycle transportation network that encourages bicycling as a primary mode of transportation for residents, employees and visitors.

Policy b. 1. Create and maintain a roadway system of “Complete Streets” that is safe and easy to use for all modes of transportation.

Response: Complete Streets policies were incorporated into the City’s Circulation Element in 2024.

Goal f. A transportation network which supports the reduction of transportation related greenhouse gas emissions through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled.

Policy f.1. Apply vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the metric to measure transportation environmental impacts for CEQA, in accordance with SB 743.

Policy f.2. Apply VMT thresholds of significance for proposed developments, land use plans, transportation projects, and any other plans or development projects in the Move Monterey Multimodal Plan.

Response: The City adopted a VMT policy in 2021 and applies it as applicable to new development, plans or projects whenever applicable.

Goal h. A transportation network supported by projects and programs that work towards zero collisions involving serious or fatal injuries.

Housing Element
The State of California requires regions to address housing issues and needs based on future growth projections for the area. The Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department allocates regional housing needs to councils of government throughout the state. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) then allocates to each city and unincorporated county their “fair share” of the region’s projected housing needs by household ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 15, Packet Page 349

EXHIBIT A
6 income level. This distribution is commonly referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Table 1: Housing Units in 2025 in the City of Monterey
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level 2025
Very Low Deed Restricted
Non-Deed Restricted
Low Deed Restricted 5
Non-Deed Restricted
Moderate Deed Restricted 5
Non-Deed Restricted
Above Moderate 67
Total Units 77
Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals
Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed
SFA
SFD
2 to 4 10
5+ 64
ADU 22
MH
Total 96
For the 2023-2031 RHNA Cycle, the requirement is 3,654 new housing units, which must be planned to accommodate a variety of incomes (Table 2). The City is required to ensure that local zoning has sufficient capacity to meet the RHNA at all income levels throughout the period.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 16, Packet Page 350

EXHIBIT A
7 Table 2: 2023-2031 RHNA for the City of Monterey
Income Group Totals RHNA Total
Very Low Low Mod Above Mod
City of Monterey 1,177 769 462 1,246 3,654
The number one constraint to housing development is water supply. Without resolving the City’s water supply issues, housing production will not meet State goals.

The City has not satisfied Goal m. “Develop long-term water supplies and conservation methods so that there is sufficient water to implement General Plan goals.” While Goal m is not fully satisfied, the City Council adopted Resolution 25-118 on November 18, 2025 to establish priorities and procedures for the distribution of an approximately 141-acre foot water allocation at the time the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) is lifted. This resolution will ensure an efficient and timely allocation to potential housing projects at the earliest feasible date.

Housing Zoning Updates in 2025:

1. Ordinance No. 3713:
o 3-C Local Density Bonus. Established a Local Density Bonus for multi-family housing projects meeting the criteria of Government Code Section 65915(b)(1)(G) may obtain a 10 percent density bonus independent from, and additional to, the provisions of State Density Bonus Law.

2. Ordinance No. 3709:
o 1-J SB9 Housing Ordinance: Added Urban Lot Splits in Single Family Zoning Districts by adding Article 7 to Chapter 33 of the Monterey City Code. The ordinance allows ministerial review of Urban Lot Split applications that subdivide an existing parcel in a Single-Family Zoning District to create no more than two new parcels as provide by Government Code Section 66411.7. The maximum of two dwelling units of any kind per lot, including but not limited to primary dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, and junior accessory dwelling units, unless an additional unit is approved as an affordable unit incentive pursuant to City Code section 38-26.1(g)(1)(A). Development options include a maximum of four units that may be developed without application of the affordability incentive.

3. Ordinance No. 3710:
o 1-J SB9 Housing Ordinance: Amended the Zoning Ordinance to authorize ministerial approval of two-unit housing development in single-family zoning districts given certain criteria are met. The ordinance would allow up to six units on what is currently a single-family parcel if the property owner commits to making at least one of the additional units affordable to households earning less than 50 percent of the Monterey County median income (AMI) through a long-term affordability agreement. This Ordinance allows for the maximum development of four units per parcel without application of the affordability incentive.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 17, Packet Page 351

EXHIBIT A
8 Housing Zoning Updates in 2024

1. Ordinance No. 3688:
o 1-B Multi-Family Residential Overlay Amendments: Expanded the Multi-Family Residential Overlay District to include the Pacific/Munras/Cass area and the County Courthouse site, increasing density to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and allowing ministerial permitting when affordable housing is included. o 1-L County Courthouse Site: Re-zoned the courthouse site at 1200 Aguajito Road to Medium Density Multifamily (R-3) with Multifamily Overlay to support housing development.
o 2-A By-Right Zoning Sites: Allowed ministerial permitting for qualifying nonvacant commercial sites designated for lower-income housing.

2. Ordinance No. 3689:
o 2-F Update Density Bonus Ordinance & 3-C Local Density Bonus: Updated the Density Bonus ordinance to comply with State law and established additional local incentives for projects with higher proportions of larger units or moderateincome units.

3. Resolution No. 24-188:
o 1-C Focused Specific Plan Updates:

1. North Fremont Specific Plan: Increased density and height limits, reduced parking requirements, and allowed ministerial permitting for affordable housing.

2. Downtown Specific Plan: Added development incentives and increased height limit in the Alvarado District.

3. Lighthouse Specific Plan: Allowed 100% residential development and parking flexibility for residential projects.

4. Resolution No. 24-154:
o 2-E Revise Parking Requirements: Amended the Downtown Specific Plan in September 2024 to eliminate minimum parking requirements for residential uses.

These programs focused on increasing housing development, especially affordable housing, through zoning changes, density increases, and incentives for developers.

Conservation Element
Goal e. Encourage the effective and efficient use of energy in all its critical forms by public and private users alike.

Policy e.1. Encourage energy sources, which provide part or all of the energy needed for buildings.

Program e.1.1. Consider aesthetically compatible independent energy sources in new public and private buildings.

Program e.1.2. Encourage energy retrofitting in existing residential and commercial structures.

Policy e.2. Educate the public about energy conservation.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 18, Packet Page 352

EXHIBIT A
9 Program e.2.1. Support public education activities that dramatize cost-saving benefits of energy conservation to local consumers.

Program e.2.2. Encourage the hotel, motel, and restaurant associations to maintain an energy conservation program on a continual basis.

Policy e.3. Work with other local, state and federal agencies, public utilities and community organizations to implement energy conservation and longer-range renewable energy development programs.

The City of Monterey is a member and a customer of Central Coastal Community (C3E) and has chosen the 3CPrime option for all City energy accounts. 3CPrime allows the City to receive 100% of its energy from renewable sources, predominantly wind and solar.

Open Space Element
Goal c. Preserve greenbelts to ensure an overall visual impression of open space on the hillsides above Monterey, between neighborhoods and along major transportation corridors.

Policy c.1. Maintain greenbelts as open space.

Policy c.2. Coordinate with the County to preserve greenbelts, which form the backdrop of Monterey.

Goal d. Preserve and improve lakes and waterways as important visual, habitat, flood protection, and recreation resources.

Policy d.1. Continue to preserve Lake El Estero, Del Monte Lake, Roberts Lake, Laguna Grande, Washerwoman’s Pond, and Lagunita Mirada as visual open space features.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 19, Packet Page 353

EXHIBIT A
10 Policy d.4. Protect native plants, animals, and native habitats in Lake El Estero, Del Monte Lake, and Laguna Grande.

Policy d.5. Continue to support and enhance the public use of the City's lakes. Manage nonnative wildlife such as Canadian Geese.

Policy d.6. Continue to allow active recreational use of the lakes.

Policy d.7. Work with the City of Seaside to preserve and enhance Roberts Lake and Laguna Grande.

Response: City staff has worked with the City of Seaside and Monterey Peninsula Regional Parks District under the Joint Powers Authority for maintenance of Laguna Grande Park, meeting throughout 2024. The project will implement maintenance strategies to create a more accessible, safe, and long-lasting park for the surrounding community and region. State and Federal permits and authorizations have been granted by the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, US Army Corps of Engineers, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional permits or permit amendment may be required in the future.

Of the city’s 5,504 total acres, approximately 2,751 acres (50%) now fall within an FHSZ.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 20, Packet Page 354

EXHIBIT A
11 The City also developed a Draft Fire Defense Plan, documenting completed fuel mitigation projects aimed at reducing hazardous vegetation and fuel loads throughout the community.

Policy b.6. Install clear and comprehensive signage and wayfinding to facilitate smoother traffic flow and direct residents and visitors effectively to evacuation routes.

Response: Wayfinding signage, including sensors and message signs, installed and periodically assessed for improvements.

Economic Element
Policy a.2. Encourage visitor uses which are based on Monterey’s natural setting and history, rather than generic visitor uses without a strong tie to Monterey’s unique features.

Policy a.4. Encourage small businesses and unique locally owned businesses.

Response: The City is preparing an updated and consolidated Local Coastal Program (LCP); an LCP is a document that consists of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementing ordinances (Implementation Plan). The six chapters of the LUP were drafted in 2025 and continue to be edited by City staff and consultant team (Rincon Consultants). In 2026, the draft LUP will be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission. Public outreach was reinitiated in 2025, starting with a community survey completed in December 2025. The survey provided input on the community’s priorities for the coastal zone, including coastal access, amenities, land use types, and coastal resilience, etc. Additional outreach will be conducted in 2026.

Policy c.4. Support the military uses in the community with essential public services.

The City of Monterey continues to provide essential public works services to its military partners.

There is no boundary between the infrastructure systems and maintenance inside and outside the military bases.

Historic Preservation Element
Program a.1.7. Maintain and update the City’s historic incentive programs to support historic property owners, including grant programs, land use incentives, flexible zoning and parking ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 21, Packet Page 355

EXHIBIT A
12 standards, property tax relief, Historic Building Code, and expedited processing for historic resources.

Appendix A – City of Monterey General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs Urban Design Element
Goal/Policy Progress
Goal a. Balance natural resources and public
use of the shoreline and Bay, based on
natural features, historic setting, maritime
activities, and public access (see Figure 1).

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed1
Policy a.1. Conserve and enhance the
environment of the beaches and sand dunes
as natural attractions, and improve public
access consistent with dune preservation
goals. Integrate the beaches and dunes into a
continuous natural setting.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Window on the Bay and Beach
Policy a.2. Develop for active park and beach
use, but minimize parking and building
intrusion into the park.

Completed.

The Window on the Bay and Beach have
active park uses (volleyball, tot lot) and
general beach use. Parking and buildings
have been minimized within the park.

Policy a.3. Retain active waterfront activities,
including commercial and sport fishing,
working wharves, boat access, and boat
repair, which show Monterey’s historic
interface with the Bay. Maintain a natural
appearance and maritime use of the water’s
edge.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
All active waterfront uses have been
retained.

Policy a.4. Keep random mooring concept
intact in the outer harbor because of its
special scenic value.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Random mooring concept has been
retained.

Policy a.5. Do not overcrowd the harbor with
boat slips and moorings. A limited number of
boat slips and moorings are appropriate where
they help maintain the visual qualities of the
maritime setting.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No boat slips or moorings have been
added in 2025.

Policy a.6. Maintain views, active park use,
and the rocky shoreline at San Carlos Beach
Park.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
1 Development proposals are we reviewed on a case-by-case basis for consistency with this policy ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 22, Packet Page 356

EXHIBIT A
13 Views, active park and rocky shoreline
have been maintained.

Policy a.7. Protect the rugged coastline and
open up the view to the water and rocky shore
as much as possible while also respecting
historic resources and building footprints over
the water, as noted in the Cannery Row Local
Coastal Program.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Coastline, views and rocky shore have
been protected. There has been no
change.

Policy a.8. Preserve and maintain the natural
environment of the Ed Ricketts underwater
park and tidelands.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Ed Ricketts underwater park and tidelands
have been preserved and maintained.

Policy a.9. Enhance the visual qualities of the
Monterey Bay Coastal Trail. Preserve and
enhance views from the Trail to natural
features as much as possible and encourage
access from the trail to the Bay.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No change to views has occurred.

Goal b. Preserve the wooded skyline and
foothills, which provide the southern and
eastern framework for the City, including areas
within and beyond the City limits.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
The City’s Tree Ordinance requires
extensive review and replacements for all
tree removals. The City places a high
priority on preserving the wooded skyline
and foothills.

Policy b.1. The visual skyline and foothills
beyond the city limits should be under the
City’s control. One method of achieving this
would be annexation. The City should engage
in active collaboration with other governmental
agencies and advocate for preservation of the
forested areas.

Background Information – County
proposals reviewed for consistency as
proposed
The County of Monterey refers
development proposals to the City for
review if they impact the scenic hillsides
and vegetation around Monterey.

Policy b.2. New development in the ridge
areas should be sensitively located to
preserve the forested setting. Development in
the ridge areas should not silhouette against
the skyline.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy b.3. Trees in forested areas should be
preserved, and denuded areas should be
reforested where feasible.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
The City’s Tree Ordinance requires
extensive review and replacements for all
tree removals.

Policy b.4. Foothill areas can be preserved by
allowing low-density development, or clustered
development with open space.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No developments proposed.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 23, Packet Page 357

EXHIBIT A
14 Policy b.5. Development in forested areas
should not create obvious holes in the forest.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
The City’s Tree Ordinance requires
extensive review and replacements for all
tree removals.

Policy b.6. Trails in forested areas are
encouraged to allow for passive public
enjoyment of the natural setting.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Goal c. Respect and retain the wooded
canyons as distinctive natural features, as the
natural separation of neighborhoods, as
locations for scenic roadways, and as
recreational opportunities.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy c.1. Maintain the canyons and their
native vegetation throughout their lengths.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Goal d. Maintain lakes and waterways, and
natural drainage.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy d.1. Discourage proliferation of surface
parking and other hard surface, man-made
improvements at Lake El Estero.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No changes proposed.

Policy d.2. Coordinate with the Naval
Postgraduate School to allow use of Del
Monte Lake as an historic public view and
recreation resource.

Several years ago, the Navy installed a
new metal open-slat fence allowing views
of the lake. Military facilities are closed for
safety and the City does not anticipate reopening of military bases to the general population.

Policy d.3. Coordinate with the City of
Seaside to assure that Roberts Lake and
Laguna Grande remain as marsh habitat and
scenic resources for both Seaside and
Monterey.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
The City has reinvigorated the Laguna
Grande Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to
enhance Laguna Grande Lake, and has
continued to coordinate with JPA member
agencies to develop a trails enhancement
and maintenance strategy to preserve and
enhance habitat and scenic resources. On
March 30, 2023, the Laguna Grande JPA
adopted the Laguna Grande Regional
Park Trail and Maintenance Strategy
Project.

State and Federal permits, and
authorizations have been granted by the
California Coastal Commission, California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional
Water Quality Control Board, US Army
Corps of Engineers, and US Fish and
Wildlife Service. Additional permits or
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 24, Packet Page 358

EXHIBIT A
15 permit amendments may be required in
the future.

Goal e. Historic buildings, gardens, districts,
and their settings should continue to be
protected and restored, keeping the flavor of
the past. (See also the Historic Preservation
Element.)
Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
City’s Historic Ordinance protects historic
sites.

Policy e.1. Protect and enhance the setting of
historic buildings.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
City’s Historic Ordinance protects historic
sites.

Policy e.2. Respect the scale of historic
buildings by careful design of adjacent
buildings
Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
City’s Historic Ordinance protects historic
sites.

Policy e.3. Maintain the downtown path of
history and develop additional paths of history
in areas like Cannery Row, Presidio of
Monterey and other historic areas.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Goal f. Maintain existing vistas and seek to
improve new vista points seen from roadways,
parks, and other public spaces. Collaborate
with other agencies to protect city vistas and
scenic amenities.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy f.1. Campuses: Maintain large
campuses as open space amenities within
Monterey (e.g., Monterey Peninsula College,
Naval Postgraduate School, Defense
Language Institute, Monterey Peninsula
Unified School District, and private school and
college sites). Fencing and walls on these
large sites should be screened by landscape
elements, rather than being placed between
landscape elements and streets or vistas.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy f.2. Monterey Bay Park: Complete
Monterey Bay Park.

No changes have been proposed.

Policy f.3. Wharf and Cannery Row: Maintain
and enhance vistas.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No changes have been proposed.

Policy f.4. Del Monte Lake at Navy School:

Open up and maintain the vista of Del Monte
Lake from Del Monte Avenue.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No changes have been proposed.

Policy f.5. Freeway: Preserve and enhance
the view of the bay, the dunes, Laguna
Grande, Roberts Lake, and wooded hillsides.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 25, Packet Page 359

EXHIBIT A
16 Policy f.6. Del Monte Avenue: Screen the
commercial area along Del Monte Avenue
from Seaside to Washington Street.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No changes have been proposed.

Policy f.7. Lighthouse Curve: Preserve and
enhance views of the Presidio and the Harbor.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Views have been preserved.

Policy f.8. Remove overhead wires. Background Information – Proposals reviewed for consistency as proposed
Monterey City Code Section 38-107
requires undergrounding utilities to new
buildings.

Policy f.9. Discourage high levels of ambient
light and maintain night skies where stars can
be seen.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy f.10. Encourage parking to be placed
underground or away from the street to
improve the pedestrian experience.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Goal g. Landscape elements should be
consistent and compatible within each area.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy g.1. Use landscaping for framing
vistas.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy g.2. Favor native species. Background Information – Proposals reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy g.3. Discourage noxious invasive
plants such as genista, pampas grass, ice
plant, and Kukui grass where appropriate by
direct action and educating the public that
these are not appropriate landscape materials.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy g.4. Use landscaping to screen parking
lots and structures, including Del Monte
Center, from freeway.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy g.5. Protect existing cypress, Monterey
pine, and coast live oak trees in urban and
historic contexts, replant when removal is
necessary, and retain the health of the stands.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
The City’s Tree Ordinance requires
extensive review and replacements for all
tree removals.

Policy g.6. Use trees to soften existing
parking structures.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy g.7. Use landscaping to screen parking
where appropriate.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy g.8. Encourage planting of trees on
public and private land throughout the City of
Monterey.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 26, Packet Page 360

EXHIBIT A
17 Goal h. Protect and enhance scenic
entrances shown on Figure 2, which follow a
parkway concept.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy h.1. Significant natural features within
scenic corridors should be preserved and
enhanced to the maximum extent possible in
the design and construction of scenic
entrances. These natural features include:
ridgelines, hilltops, rock outcroppings, stream
and creek beds, scenic vistas, wildlife habitats,
Monterey pine and oak groves, and other
significant natural vegetation.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy h.2. Highway construction grading
should not take place outside the roadway
right-of- way.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No changes proposed.

Policy h.3. Consideration should be given to
using bridges for crossing wooded canyons.

Highways should be designed to blend with
the natural topography and prevent large cutand-fill operations.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No changes proposed.

Policy h.4. Roadway lighting and signing
should be minimized, of low-profile design,
and designed to enhance the scenic character
of the corridor.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
City installed new community wayfinding
signs to reduce visual clutter and improve
the City’s scenic entrances.

No new roadway lighting has been
installed.

Policy h.5. Bridge abutments and drainage
structures should be blended into the natural
terrain as much as possible.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy h.6. Where feasible, direct driveway
access to scenic entrances should not be
permitted from individual properties. Most of
the scenic corridors run through wooded
canyons and create a rural feeling. This effect
will be destroyed if residences are permitted to
line the roadway in a manner similar to
Josselyn Canyon Road.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No changes proposed.

Policy h.7. Frontage roads should not parallel
scenic freeway lanes unless screened by
terrain or vegetation. Frontage roads detract
from the scenic qualities of an area and
should be located within an adjacent
development or screened by natural features
where possible.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No changes proposed.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 27, Packet Page 361

EXHIBIT A
18 Policy h.8. Landscaped greenbelt areas
should be established along the borders of
scenic entrances.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No changes proposed.

Policy h.9. Landscape buffers should be
provided at least 100 feet in width from the
ultimate planned right-of-way of Statedesignated scenic highways.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy h.10. Developments visible from
Scenic Entrances should blend into the natural
surroundings and not detrimentally impact
significant natural features such as the
wooded ridgeline, hilltops, etc.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Highway 1
Policy h.11. Maintain existing vistas of the
city, forest, bay and dunes.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Vistas have been maintained.

Policy h.12. Prohibit new commercial signing
which is oriented to freeways and phase out
existing commercial signing which is oriented
to freeways.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No changes proposed.

Policy h.13. Screen industrial elements. Background Information – Proposals reviewed for consistency as proposed
Policy h.14. Work with Caltrans to maintain or
reinforce native landscaping, with appropriate
planting.

Future project
Policy h.15. Encourage designation of all of
Highway 1 as a scenic highway.

Partially designated – need to pursue
Policy h.16. Reverse the visual degradation
of scenic forests.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
The City’s Tree Ordinance requires
extensive review and replacements for all
tree removals.

Policy h.17. Avoid further illumination from
Community Hospital of the Monterey
Peninsula.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
No changes proposed.

Policy h.18. Screen buildings close to the
Highway with native vegetation, such as
Monterey pines, oaks, and cypress.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed
Monterey Salinas Highway
Policy h.19. Reverse the visual degradation
of scenic forests.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 28, Packet Page 362

EXHIBIT A
19 The City’s Tree Ordinance requires
extensive review and replacements for all
tree removals.

Policy h.20. Avoid further illumination along
Ryan Ranch and Garden Road Business Park
areas.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy h.21. Screen buildings close to the
Highway with native vegetation, such as Coast
Live Oak.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy h.22. Maintain the scenic corridor.

Munras Avenue
Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy h.23. Encourage use of native trees on
the motel side of the street to be more
compatible with Don Dahvee Park.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Del Monte Avenue
Policy h.24. Enhance the excellent scenic
value in the central portion by the Naval
Postgraduate School, and make the scenic
resources more evident to the public.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy h.25. Enhance both ends by filling in
missing portions of landscaping and
eliminating clutter from signs, wires, poles, etc.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Park improvements continue to be made.

Aguajito, Jacks Peak, and Monhollan
Roads
Policy h.26. Maintain a low-speed scenic road
and retain the informal and natural quality.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Pacific Street
Policy h.27. Plant out the Heritage Harbor
parking structure using native trees such as
cypress.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy h.28. Maintain the natural setting of
upper Pacific Street and the street tree canopy
along lower Pacific Street.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Land Use Element
Goal/Policy Progress
Goal a. Establish a compact, sustainable
land use and development pattern with
boundaries defined by the Santa Lucia
Mountains and the Monterey Bay.

Land Use Plan Map is maintained.

Policy a.1. Foster an integrated mix of
employment, housing, educational, visitororiented, entertainment, recreational and open space uses throughout the city to
support a complete community.

In implementation.

Policy a.2. Balance levels of employment
and housing within the community to reduce
Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 29, Packet Page 363

EXHIBIT A
20 commute times, improve air quality, and
provide more opportunities for those who
work in Monterey to live locally.

Policy a.3. Promote a range of residential
densities throughout the community to
encourage a mix of housing types in varying
price ranges and rental rates.

In implementation; land use zoning allows
various mixed use, low density, and high
density residential patterns.

Policy a.4. Focus new development primarily
in commercial districts and mixed use
neighborhoods so as to support the vitality of
existing businesses, optimize the use of utility
infrastructure, and reduce vehicle trip
frequency, length, and associated emissions.

In 2024, the North Fremont, Downtown, and
Lighthouse Specific Plans were updated to
allow for greater density that would reduce
vehicle trips and improve mixed use and
commercial districts.

The updated Specific Plans have been
revised to incorporate the adopted
amendments and are now available on the
City’s website.

Policy a.5. Work with the County, the
Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
(MPUSD), and interested property owners to
integrate new housing onto key sites south of
Highway 1, including the 50-acre property
owned by MPUSD, and sites along the south
side of Garden Road.

The City has approved entitlements for
housing units on the south side of Garden
Road. These housing units were either
retrofits of existing buildings or new
construction. Concept and design review for
multiple sites were conducted in 2024 and
2025. Water supply continues to significantly
constrain all housing development.

Policy a.6. Use development agreements,
impact fees, benefits districts, and other
mechanisms to ensure the provision of
adequate infrastructure to serve new
development.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy a.7. Preserve the scale and character
of existing residential neighborhoods while
allowing and encouraging appropriate infill
development.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy a.8. Reinforce the visual, pedestrian,
and bicycle connection between City
neighborhoods and the Bay so that residents
have exceptional non-automobile access to
the Bay.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

City adopted Multimodal Mobility Plan, writes
grants, and implements as funding available.

Goal b. Create and nurture a series of
distinctive, walkable, mixed use
neighborhoods in Monterey.

In 2024, the City adopted focused specific
plan amendments to the North Fremont,
Downtown, and Lighthouse Specific Plans to
allow for greater density that would improve
walkability within mixed use districts.

Policy b.1. Develop and implement specific
plans and zoning to guide development in the
mixed use neighborhoods, recognizing that
each mixed use neighborhood is unique and
requires tailored development and design
In 2024, the City adopted focused specific
plan amendments to the North Fremont,
Downtown, and Lighthouse Specific Plans to
facilitate development within mixed-use
neighborhoods. Amendments include
updates to the development standards in
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 30, Packet Page 364

EXHIBIT A
21 standards, multi-modal improvements, and
infrastructure financing strategies.
these three specific plan areas, including
increased density, building height, reduced
parking, etc.

The updated Specific Plans have been
revised to incorporate the adopted
amendments and are now available on the
City’s website.

Policy b.2. Promote context-sensitive design
within mixed use neighborhoods, based on
objective standards for height, bulk, scale,
landscaping, parking, setbacks, streetscapes,
alleys and other aspects of development.

In 2024, the City adopted focused specific
plan amendments to the North Fremont,
Downtown, and Lighthouse Specific Plans,
including updates to development standards
related to density, height, and parking, etc.

The updated Specific Plans have been
revised to incorporate the adopted
amendments and are now available on the
City’s website.

Policy b.3. Use development standards to
ensure smooth transitions for areas that
border one another so that neighborhoods
and districts maintain their unique qualities
while being compatible with one another.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy b.4. Promote the retention of the
character of existing historic structures and
urban design elements that define the built
environment of the city's older
neighborhoods.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy b.5. Create an attractive, safe
environment for bicycles and pedestrians that
promotes "micro-mobility" and connectivity to
and within the mixed use neighborhoods.

The Multi-Modal Mobility Plan was adopted in
2021 to expand bicycle and pedestrian
needs; updated Circulation Element policies
as amended in 2024 will also encourage
connectivity.

Policy b.6. Encourage site designs that
create an active street frontage and screen
parking from the frontages of major
thoroughfares.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy b.7. Integrate public art and
community gathering spaces such as multipurpose plazas, green spaces, paseos, and parklets into mixed use neighborhoods.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Goal c. Minimize airport safety hazards and
promote compatibility with airport and military
operations.

Airport safety zone development standards
are integrated into the land use allowances,
proposals are reviewed for consistency.

Policy c.1. Require that new development be
consistent with the safety zone land use and
noise compatibility criteria established in the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)
for the Monterey Regional Airport. However,
proposed developments that are not
Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed and
referred to the ALUC as needed.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 31, Packet Page 365

EXHIBIT A
22 consistent with the ALUCP standards shall be
referred to the Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) for consistency review as provided by
law.

Policy c.2. Refer all projects that may
present airspace obstruction issues as
identified in the ALUCP or may impede
approach/departure visibility within the
Monterey Regional Airport Influence Area to
the ALUC for consistency review prior to
issuing local development permits.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed and
referred to the ALUC as needed.

Policy c.3. Minimize the potential for
development in the Airport Influence Area, as
identified in the ALUCP, to adversely affect
aircraft operations by reducing the potential
for bird strikes, electromagnetic interference,
glare, and other hazards to flight.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy c.4. Require real estate disclosures
for projects within the Monterey Regional
Airport Influence Area, consistent with State
law. Disclosures should notify the prospective
purchasers of the potential annoyances or
inconveniences associated with airport
operations.

Proposals reviewed for consistency as
proposed.

Policy c.5. Create an application checklist
identifying required information for
development projects proposed within 1,000
feet of a military installation and notify the
United States Armed Forces of any proposed
land use or zoning changes within 1,000 feet
of a military installation prior to project
approval.

Not yet implemented.

Policy c.6. Continue to explore strategic
partnerships that benefit the City, the
community, and military installations in
Monterey by providing for shared use of
facilities and cost savings.

Proposals reviewed for consistency as
proposed, projects are assessed for
partnership opportunities.

Circulation Element
Goal/Policy/Program Progress
Goal a. A transportation network that is
complemented by land uses that are easily
accessible by walking, bicycling, or utilizing
transit.

City adopted Multimodal Mobility Plan, writes
grants, and implements as funding available.

Policy a.1. Continue to apply land-use
planning tools and strategies that support the
City's circulation goals and direct growth to
areas best served by alternative modes of
transportation.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

City adopted Multimodal Mobility Plan, writes
grants, and implements as funding available.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 32, Packet Page 366

EXHIBIT A
23 Policy a.2. Continue to use land-use policies
to concentrate development within walking
distance of the transit system.

Specific plans have been adopted near
transit hubs/corridors to foster vibrant, mixeduse pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods within convenient walking distance of public
transportation.

Policy a.3. Encourage transit/pedestrianoriented (TOD/POD) designs in mixed-use neighborhoods.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy a.4. Update the parking and
transportation fund, which is used to fund
transportation improvement projects and noninfrastructure programs as outlined in the City’s multimodal plan.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Future project.

Policy a.5. Encourage mixed-use
development to maximize the shared use of
on-site parking spaces.

Ongoing. The City continues to implement
the residential parking permit program. The
City is updating parking garage technology
and has installed wayfinding signage
directing people to parking.

Policy a.6. Incorporate uses such as retail,
office, or residential into the design of public
parking structures.

Specific Plans require active ground uses.

Policy a.7. Do not support non-aviation uses
within the Monterey Peninsula Airport District
that create unnecessary traffic impacts in
adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Proposals are reviewed for compliance
and/or scheduled for Airport Land Use
Commission review. Background Information
– Proposals reviewed for consistency as
proposed.

Policy a.8. Respect the character and type of
surrounding land uses through the design
and use of streets.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy a.9. Limit direct access from private
property to State highways.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy a.10. Require proposed developments
to provide ADA improvements, sidewalks or
pedestrian connections, bicycle facilities, or
transit facilities which would provide active
transportation access to the development.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy a.11. Consider the compatibility of
proposed land use developments with the
establishment of future rail service into the
City of Monterey.

City adopted Multimodal Mobility Plan to
address this issue.

Goal b. A safe and well-maintained roadway
system that efficiently moves people and
goods across all modes of transportation.

City staff continually monitors accident rates
and trends. City Council adopted the Local
Road Safety Plan (LRSP) in 2025, which
utilizes a data driven approach to identify
collision rates and trends and proven
countermeasures to address the trends.

Policy b.1. Create and maintain a roadway
system of “Complete Streets” that is safe and
easy to use for all modes of transportation.

Complete Streets policies were incorporated
into the City’s Circulation Element in 2024.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 33, Packet Page 367

EXHIBIT A
24 Policy b.2. Consider the needs of buses,
bicyclists, and pedestrians when planning all
road improvements.

City adopted Multimodal Mobility Plan to
address this issue.

Policy b.3. Prioritize infrastructure projects
which optimize the existing street network
before investing in costly roadway and
parking expansion projects.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy b.4. Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian
mobility improvements over vehicle
convenience.

City adopted Multimodal Mobility Plan to
address this issue.

Policy b.5. Implement the City’s multimodal
plan to integrate and implement the
circulation element policies and update as
needed.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy b.6. Establish a list of guidelines and
considerations for Complete Streets in the
City’s multimodal plan, maximizing safety
through design.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy.b.7. Encourage the implementation of
transportation projects that optimize the traffic
operations along the arterial street network.

City staff continually monitors accident rates
and trends. Staff applied for grant funding
from the Safe Streets and Roads for All
Federal Grant to develop a local road safety
plan which will utilize a data driven approach
to identify rates and trends and proven
countermeasures to address the trends.

Policy b.8. Minimize the amount of signage
used to avoid driver confusion and sign
clutter, and instead utilize good design
principles and required signage.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy b.9. Through-traffic movement along
other principal arterials takes precedence
over access to adjacent land uses and traffic
access from side streets.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy b.10. Maintain capacity on minor
arterial streets to carry traffic along the fringe
of and around residential neighborhoods.

The City has implemented an Adaptive Traffic
Signal System on 6 of 7 arterial corridors.

Adaptive Traffic Signal Control systems
allows signalized intersections to adapt and
respond to changes in volumes that can
occur from special events, weather, or
construction.

Policy b.11. Discourage through-traffic on
local streets through residential
neighborhoods with the use of neighborhood
traffic calming plans.

This is a goal in neighborhood traffic calming
plans, which will be implemented as feasible.

Policy b.12. Encourage implementation of
the adopted City Traffic Calming Program
(TCP) through neighborhood traffic calming
plans.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 34, Packet Page 368

EXHIBIT A
25 Policy b.13. Continue to maintain streets
using the City’s Pavement Management
System (PMS).

Ongoing.

Policy b.14. Support capacity operational
improvements on State highways such as
roundabouts on Monterey-Salinas Highway
(Highway 68) to address regional traffic
congestion.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy b.15. When feasible, coordinate road
maintenance, reconstruction, and resurfacing
projects with infrastructure, utility, and
telecommunication projects to minimize
project costs and disruption to motorists and
nearby properties.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Goal c. A safe, reliable, connected and
integrated bicycle transportation network that
encourages bicycling as a primary mode of
transportation for residents, employees and
visitors.

In 2021, the City adopted Move Monterey, a
Multimodal Mobility Plan, for the City of
Monterey. In addition, Complete Streets
policies were incorporated into the City’s
updated Circulation Element adopted 2024.

Policy c.1. Design bicycle facilities that take
into account users of all abilities and ages.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy c.2. Increased bicycle connectivity
between neighborhoods and major city and
regional destinations.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy c.3. Maintain designated bicycle
routes as attractive and safe transportation
facilities to provide viable alternatives to
automobile travel.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy c.4. Prioritize connections to the
Monterey Peninsula Recreational Trail
(MPRT) as a primary route for active
transportation.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy c.5.. Identify commuter routes, which
provide more direct bicycle connections for
residents and visitors.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy c.6. Establish and maintain a current
list of bicycle improvement projects in the
City’s multimodal plan to create a connected
bicycle transportation network.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy c.7. Enhance public awareness of
bicycling laws and the proper use of
bikeways through enforcement, bicycle safety
programs, and bikeway design.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy c.8. Support implementation of
regional active transportation networks, such
as the Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway
(FORTAG) and Monterey Bay Sanctuary
Scenic Trail (MBSST), which connect
pedestrians and bicyclists from Monterey to
the greater Monterey Bay Area.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 35, Packet Page 369

EXHIBIT A
26 Policy c.9. Require development projects to
provide on-site facilities such as bicycle
parking, storage and showers, provide
connections to existing and future planned
facilities, dedicate land to expand existing
facilities or provide new facilities such as
sidewalks/multi-use paths and/or bicycle
lanes, or contribute to the cost of
improvements. Ensure that projects are
designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently
served by buses, bike routes and pedestrians
connections.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Goal d. A safe, accessible, connected and
integrated pedestrian transportation network
that encourages walking as a primary mode
of transportation for residents, employees
and visitors.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy d.1. Design pedestrian facilities that
take into account users of all abilities and
ages.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy d.2. Design intersections to improve
pedestrian safety and mobility.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy d.3. Increase pedestrian connectivity
between neighborhoods and major city and
regional destinations.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy d.4. Establish and maintain a current
list of pedestrian improvement projects in the
City’s multimodal plan to create a continuous
pedestrian network throughout the City.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy d.5. Establish Crosswalk Guidelines
which provide standards for the strategic
placement of pedestrian crossings throughout
the City in the City’s multimodal plan, as well
as the basis for relocating and eliminating
crosswalks.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

The City approved a 2024 Update to its
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Transition Plan to identify and prioritize
disabled access projects, estimate project
costs, establish an implementation schedule
and funding strategy, and strengthen ongoing
monitoring programs. This update builds
upon and modernizes the existing transition
Plan. In 2025, 56 curb ramps were
constructed.

Policy d.7. Require that development
projects provide internal pedestrian
connections and linkages to adjacent public
streets, neighborhoods and community
The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 36, Packet Page 370

EXHIBIT A
27 facilities. Ensure that projects are designed
and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by
buses, bike routes and pedestrians
connections.

Goal e. An integrated multi-modal
transportation network that supports and
encourages transit use, including Bus, Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT), and Rail.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy e.1. Promote the use of transit service
as an attractive alternative for residents,
employees, and visitors.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy e.2. Encourage use of the MST
Trolley service to connect visitors between
Downtown Monterey and Cannery Row.

Staff continually supports and coordinates
with MST.

Policy e.3. Coordinate with Monterey-Salinas
Transit (MST) on changes to the local transit
service.

Ongoing. Staff continually supports and
coordinates with MST.

Policy e.4. Install transit priority system,
where feasible, in collaboration with MST.

Ongoing. Staff continually supports and
coordinates with MST.

Policy e.5. Collaborate with MST and area
jurisdictions to improve access to transit.

Ongoing. Staff continually supports and
coordinates with MST.

Policy e.6. Collaborate with MST to provide
attractive amenities at transit stops in the City.

Ongoing. Staff continually supports and
coordinates with MST.

Policy e.7. Protect the potential for future rail
transportation by supporting the efforts of the
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
(TAMC) to provide additional passenger rail
service.

Ongoing. Staff continually supports and
coordinates with TAMC.

Policy e.8. Require development projects to
enhance access to transit. Ensure that
projects are designed and/or retrofitted to be
efficiently served by buses, bike routes and
pedestrian connections.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Goal f. A transportation network which
supports the reduction of transportation
related greenhouse gas emissions through
the reduction of vehicle miles traveled.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy f.1. Apply vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) as the metric to measure
transportation environmental impacts for
CEQA, in accordance with SB 743.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy f.2. Apply VMT thresholds of
significance for proposed developments, land
use plans, transportation projects, and any
other plans or development projects in the
Move Monterey Multimodal Plan.

The City adopted a VMT policy in 2021 and
applies it as applicable to new development,
plans or projects whenever applicable.

Goal g. Parking that efficiently utilizes
existing facilities and encourages a reduction
in auto travel.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 37, Packet Page 371

EXHIBIT A
28 Policy g.1. Adopt parking programs that
maximize occupancy of public parking
spaces by employees and/or visitors to
minimize parking impacts in adjacent
residential neighborhoods.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy g.2.Implement a demand-based
pricing structure for public parking.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy g.3. Establish appropriate time limits
for parking in commercial business districts to
support local businesses and encourage use
of the MST Trolley.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy g.4. Improve utilization of existing
parking and create new parking opportunities,
such as shared parking, through partnerships
and cooperation in order to meet parking
needs with fewer total spaces.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy g.5. Consider pedestrian safety and
mobility, when designing pedestrian ways
through parking lots to enable pedestrians to
reach their destinations in a safe manner.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy g.6. Maintain the supply of existing
visitor recreational vehicle parking supply, on
the Waterfront, Depot, Marina and
Breakwater parking lots.

The City is maintaining existing RV parking,
and has not removed these areas.

Policy g.7. Establish and maintain the
residential permit parking program.

The permit parking program is maintained,
and being updated to a virtual system.

Policy g.8. Incorporate bicycle parking in
parking lots and garages for both public and
private development.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy g.9. Promote a “Park Once” system
that encourages visitors to park once and
walk, bike or use transit to travel in Monterey.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy g.10. Partner with the schools and
universities to reduce the parking impact on
residential parking supply.

The City coordinates with schools as
necessary to reduce parking impact.

Policy g.11. When incorporating directional
and variable message signs (VMS) redirect
visitor traffic to the Downtown Parking
garages and encourage the use of the MST
Trolley when Cannery Row Parking is at
capacity.

Ongoing, and will be implemented as projects
are proposed. Staff continually supports and
coordinates with MST.

Goal h. A transportation network supported
by projects and programs that work towards
zero collisions involving serious or fatal
injuries.

City staff continually monitors accident rates
and trends. Staff includes projects which
further the City’s vision zero goal into the
Capital Improvement Program and
Multimodal Plan as new projects develop.

Policy h.1. Prioritize safety over congestion. City staff continually monitors accident rates and trends. Staff applied for grant funding
from the Safe Streets and Roads for All
Federal Grant to develop a local road safety
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 38, Packet Page 372

EXHIBIT A
29 plan which will utilize a data driven approach
to identify rates and trends and proven
countermeasures to address the trends.

Policy h.2. Prioritize transportation
improvements that enhance pedestrian and
bicycle safety.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy h.3. Prioritize transportation projects
at locations which have been identified as
high collision intersections/segments.

City staff continually monitors accident rates
and trends. Proposals reviewed for
consistency as proposed.

Policy h.4. Minimize and/or eliminate midblock median openings and direct driveway access for individual properties along other
principal and minor arterial streets.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy h.5. Monitor collision rates and trends
to identify transportation safety
improvements.

Ongoing. City staff continually monitors
accident rates and trends. Staff will utilize a
data driven approach to identify rates and
trends and proven countermeasures to
address the trends.

Policy h.6. Incorporate the five E’s of safety
(Education, Engineering, Enforcement,
Emergency Response, and Emerging
Technology) when addressing safety
concerns.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy h.7. Identify grant funding
opportunities for engineering projects,
emergency response, enforcement and
safety programs.

City staff continually monitors grant programs
that align with the City’s goals and projects to
maximize the City’s ability to implement
projects and programs. Staff applied for, and
will continue to apply for, grant funding such
as the Safe Streets and Roads for All federal
grant to implement projects from the adopted
Local Road Safety Plan.

Policy h.8. Collaborate with Monterey
Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD),
Monterey Fire Department (MFD) and
Monterey Police Department (MPD) on
education and enforcement programs,
including promoting “Safe Routes to School”
Programs.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Goal i. A transportation network that
incorporates environmental stewardship,
equitable access and economic vitality.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy i.1. Promote and maintain the
Wayfinding Sign Program, to efficiently move
traffic.

Ongoing. As part of Wayfinding Sign Program
Phase II, signs for vehicular and pedestrians
have been fabricated. Vehicular Wayfinding
Signs have been installed excluding those
which require additional permitting.

Pedestrian Wayfinding signs which require
new poles are being slowly installed due to
limited engineering staffing. Phase III which
includes non-directional recreational trail
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 39, Packet Page 373

EXHIBIT A
30 signs and signs which overlap with the
Transportation Agency for Monterey County's
Regional Wayfinding Sign Program is
unfunded.

Policy i.2. Preserve natural and historic
resources and maintain scenic views when siting
and developing new roads.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy i.3. Consider sea level rise when
planning future transportation infrastructure
improvements.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy i.4. Identify and adapt transportation
infrastructure vulnerable to natural disasters,
climate change, or extreme weather events.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy i.5. Improve the security and
resiliency of the transportation system.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy i.6. Maintain the major entrances to
the city as scenic, landscaped corridors.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy i.7. Preserve landscaped greenbelt
areas along the borders of scenic highways.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy i.8. Minimize traffic impacts in
residential neighborhoods by routing trucks
and through-traffic onto highways and arterial
streets.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy i.9. Implement and maintain a truck
route system.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy i.10. Direct traffic leaving Cannery
Row to use David Avenue and Holman
Highway 68 to access Highway 1.

Ongoing. City staff continually monitor travel
trends. Staff will utilize a data driven
approach to identify rates and trends and
proven countermeasures to address the
trends.

Policy i.11. Collaborate with neighboring
cities, County of Monterey, TAMC, MST,
Airport District and Caltrans on developing
operational improvements that address
regional traffic congestion.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy i.12. Collaborate with event
coordinators for major special events, such
as festivals, sports events and conventions,
to implement strategies to reduce event
related congestion, such as shuttle service
and limited on-site parking.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy i.13. Collaborate with tourism and
hospitality industry to inform visitors on
access and circulation in the City via
websites, mobile applications, and social
media.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy i.14. Continue to work closely with the
military installations on circulation, mobility,
Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 40, Packet Page 374

EXHIBIT A
31 Transportation Demand Management (TDM),
and gate access.

Policy i.15. Promote social justice and equity
by prioritizing projects that increase mobility
options to disadvantaged communities within
the City and the region.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Goal j. A transportation network that is more
efficient through the use of demand
management and intelligent transportation
technology.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy j.1. Utilize transportation system
management effectively to optimize the
existing street network.

Ongoing. City staff continually monitors travel
trends. Staff will utilize a data driven
approach to identify rates and trends and
proven countermeasures to address the
trends
Policy j.3. Encourage the use of
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
strategies to address vehicle congestion and
parking demand by implementing strategies
such as: telecommuting, travel mode
changes, reducing trips taken, re-routing
trips, and re-timing when trips are taken.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy j.4. Establish a list of recommended
programs and strategies for implementing
TDM in the City’s multimodal plan to address
vehicle congestion, vehicle miles travelled
mitigation and parking demand.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy j.5. Encourage the use of directional
and variable message signs (VMS) to direct
visitor traffic efficiently and enhance visitor
experience.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy j.6. Support the implementation and
maintenance of a Citywide traffic signal
adaptive system.

Ongoing. City staff continually monitors travel
trends. Staff will utilize a data driven
approach to identify rates and trends and
proven countermeasures to address the
trends.

Policy j.7. Support the implementation of
fiber communication to interconnect the traffic
signal network to a traffic signal management
system.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy j.8. Maintain traffic signal
management system to ensure continued
operations.

Ongoing. City staff continually monitors travel
trends. Staff will utilize a data driven
approach to identify rates and trends and
proven countermeasures to address the
trends.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 41, Packet Page 375

EXHIBIT A
32 Policy j.9. Protect emergency evacuation
routes.

Ongoing. City staff continually monitors travel
trends. Staff will utilize a data driven
approach to identify rates and trends and
proven countermeasures to address the
trends.

Policy j.10. Maintain capacity on principal
arterials to support emergency evacuation.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy j.11. Maintain signal preemption
capability for Emergency Vehicles, whenever
feasible.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Goal k. An air transportation system that is
integrated with a multimodal surface
transportation system that efficiently moves
people and goods while maximizing positive
economic impacts.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy k.1. Work with the Airport District and
hospitality industry to provide direct and
affordable connections between the Monterey
Peninsula Airport and their destinations,
through car/ride-share, transportation
network companies (TNC), hotel shuttle, or
other means.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy k.2. Direct vehicular traffic generated
by airport land uses to highways and away
from residential neighborhoods.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Policy k.3. Work with the Airport District to
implement alternatives to the use of Airport
Road as an access road for non-aviation
uses on the Airport grounds.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy k.4. Support efforts by the Airport
District to provide affordable shuttle service to
the Monterey Peninsula Airport.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy k.5. Support improvements and
operational changes at the airport that
promote safety and noise reduction.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy k.6. Actively work with the Airport
District to maintain air service curfews.

Background Information – Proposals
reviewed for consistency as proposed.

Policy k.7. Plan for a multimodal facility in
central Monterey that supports and
encourages the use of airport shuttles,
regional transit, and local transit.

The Move Monterey Multimodal Plan
addresses this issue, and staff implements it
if feasible.

Housing Element
Goal/Policy Progress
Goal 1. Increase
housing supply and
facilitate production
of at least 3,654 new
homes by 2031.

Background Information
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 42, Packet Page 376

EXHIBIT A
33 Policy 1.1. Maintain
sufficient land
designated and
appropriately zoned
for housing to
achieve a
complementary mix
of single‐family and
multi‐family
development to
accommodate
RHNA allocations at
all levels throughout
the planning period.

Background Information
Policy 1.2. Promote
infill development in
adopted Specific
Plan areas where
high density
residential
development can be
accommodated in
locations with good
pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure
and proximity to
employment,
shopping, transit,
recreation, and other
services.

Background Information
Policy 1.3.

Recognizing that
infill development
alone will not be
sufficient to meet the
City's RHNA
obligations, plan
holistically to
integrate new
housing in context
sensitive ways on
larger vacant
properties in the
southeast of
Monterey to take
advantage of
opportunities where
they exist.

Background Information
Policy 1.4.

Incentivize and
Background Information
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 43, Packet Page 377

EXHIBIT A
34 facilitate housing
development on
properties owned by
schools, churches,
synagogues,
mosques, and
businesses so that
interested property
owners can build
housing to help meet
the needs of the
local workforce.

Policy 1.5. Promote
development of a
variety of housing
types, sizes, and
densities that meet
community needs
based on the
suitability of the
land, including the
availability of
infrastructure, the
provision of
adequate services,
and recognition of
environmental
constraints.

Background Information
Policy 1.6. Continue
to partner with and
support non-profit
and for-profit
organizations in their
efforts to construct,
acquire, and
improve housing to
accommodate
households with
lower and moderate
incomes.

Background Information
Policy 1.7. Provide
opportunities and
facilitate innovative
housing approaches
in financing, design,
construction, and
types of housing to
increase the variety
and supply of lower
and moderateincome housing.

Background Information
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 44, Packet Page 378

EXHIBIT A
35 Program 1-A
Inventory of
Available Sites.

Maintain and publish
an inventory of
properties available
for residential
development on the
City's website,
updating it at regular
intervals.

Implementation deadline includes reporting each quarter through Q4 2031.

Status: Continuous.

The City is required to publish inventory by April of each year. The City posted the Inventory of Available Sites on October 8, 2024, four days after HCD certification of Housing Element. See 2023-31 Housing Element Volume 2: Appendices, Appendix A - Sites Inventory:
https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/monterey2031/news_feed/stateapproves-housing-element-that-includes-3-654-new-housing-unitsover-eight-years HCD required the City to update the Sites Inventory after certification to further identify parcel characteristics. The Sites Inventory was reposted in March 2026.

Program 1-B MultiFamily Residential
Overlay
Amendments. The
City has established
a Multifamily
Residential (MFR)
Overlay District, set
forth in City Code
section 38-99.4 et
seq., applicable to
properties along the
south side of Garden
Road that permits
the conversion of
existing commercial
and office buildings
to housing or the
development of new
housing at up to 30
du/ac. Garden Road
and the
Pacific/Munras/Cass
area have attracted
significant developer
interest in recent
times and the City
will amend the MFR
overlay and related
standards to further
facilitate housing
development in
these areas, which
have a total
combined area of 90
Implementation deadline Q3 2024.

Status: Completed.

The City established a Multifamily Residential Overlay District (MFR) Overlay District, set forth in City Code section 38-99.4 et seq. The existing overlay applies to properties along the south side of Garden Road and permits the conversion of existing commercial and office buildings to housing and the development of new housing at densities up to 30 du/ac.

The amendment expands the existing MFR overlay to include portions of the City located in the Pacific/Munras/Cass area as well as the County Courthouse site located at 1200 Aguajito Road and incorporates an increased density of 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) in all overlay areas. The amendment further facilitates housing development in these areas by allowing ministerial permitting of residential development when at least 20 percent of the proposed units are affordable to lower-income households in accordance with Government Code section 65583.2(h) and (i). In addition to defining three unique geographical overlay zones, the amendment establishes four distinct subsections of land use and development standards addressing setbacks, height, tree removals, etc.
(Ordinance No. 3688 C.S. 1st reading adopted December 3, 2024; 2nd reading adopted December 17, 2024; Effective January 16, 2025)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 45, Packet Page 379

EXHIBIT A
36 acres. Specifically,
through this program
the City will amend
the MFR Overlay to:
• Increase the
maximum permitted
density from 30 to
60 du/ac;
• Permit residential
uses “by right”
without discretionary
review per
Government Code
65583.2 (h) and (i)
on sites in the MFR
overlay when at
least 20 percent of
the proposed units
are affordable to
lower income
households;
• Apply the overlay
to sites with
Commercial zoning
in the
Pacific/Munras/Cass
area (total area:

37.84 acres);
• Recognizing the
smaller parcel size
and existing mixed
use context in the
Pacific/Munras/Cass
area, incorporate
appropriate objective
development
standards (including
standards for side
setbacks, building
heights etc) to
integrate higher
density housing in
the area and ensure
the projected yield of
new units can be
achieved;
• Require that
residential uses
occupy at least 50
percent of the total
floor area of a
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 46, Packet Page 380

EXHIBIT A
37 mixed-use project in
the MFR overlay
(mixed use is not
permitted on Garden
Road but may be
permitted in the
Pacific/Munras/Cass
area); and
• When adequate
water supply
becomes available
establish a minimum
density for the MFR
overlay which would
prevail over any
density standards
the base zone.

Policy 1-C.

Focused Specific
Plan Updates. The
City has adopted
specific plans with
the intention of
integrating new high
density housing into
three key
commercial areas
with good access to
employment,
shopping, transit,
recreation, and other
services: Downtown,
North Fremont, and
Lighthouse Avenue.

Buildout of the
specific plans will
primarily involve infill
development, and
recognizing the
associated
challenges, the
specific plans
incorporate
strategies to assist
with the financial
feasibility of high
density infill housing
development,
including reduced
parking
requirements and
Implementation deadline: December 15, 2024.

Status: Completed.

Focused specific plan amendments to the North Fremont, Downtown, and Lighthouse Specific Plans have been adopted to facilitate development at the projected densities planned for in the adopted housing element. The amendments include:

North Fremont Specific Plan
 Increased residential density from 30 du/ac to 60 du/ac.  Increased maximum allowed building height from 35 feet to 45 feet in areas.
 Reduced minimum parking requirement from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1 space per unit.
 Allow ministerial permitting of residential development when at least 20 percent of the proposed units are affordable to lowerincome households in accordance with Government Code section 65583.2(h) and (i).

Downtown Specific Plan
 Incorporate additional development incentives beyond State density bonus for qualifying projects.
 Increase maximum allowed building height from 4 stories to 5 stories in the Alvarado District.

Lighthouse Specific Plan
 Amend use table to allow 100 percent residential developments including ground floor residential uses.
 Allow parking requirements for residential projects to be met with a municipal shared parking agreement when projects proposing 30 du/acre are located within 500 feet of a City-owned parking lot or structure.
(Resolution No. 24-188 C.S. adopted December 3, 2024)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 47, Packet Page 381

EXHIBIT A
38 provisions for
permitting density
above 30 du/ac. The
specific plans control
zoning for their
respective areas. As
described in Chapter
3, the North Fremont
Specific Plan needs
to be amended to
accommodate a
lower income RHNA
shortfall and there
are additional
opportunities to
facilitate and
incentivize
development in the
Downtown and
Lighthouse specific
plan areas. Through
this program the City
will:
• Amend the North
Fremont Specific
Plan to increase
maximum permitted
density to 60 du/ac;
revise development
standards (including
standards for
building height,
setbacks, parking) to
integrate higher
density product,
establish appropriate
transitions to
adjacent lower
density
development, and
ensure the projected
yield of new units
can be achieved;
permit residential
uses “by right”
without discretionary
review per
Government Code
65583.2 (h) and (i)
on sites identified to
accommodate a
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 48, Packet Page 382

EXHIBIT A
39 lower income RHNA
shortfall when at
least 20 percent of
the proposed units
are affordable to
lower income
households; and
require that
residential uses
occupy at least 50
percent of the total
floor area of a
mixed-use project if
proposed;
• Amend the
Downtown Specific
Plan to increase
permitted building
heights to five
stories in the
Alvarado District;
offer municipal
shared parking
agreements to
projects that
propose a minimum
number of new
housing units in
proximity to a Cityowned parking lot or
structure; and
incorporate
additional incentives
for consolidation of
adjacent, small lots;
and
• Amend the
Lighthouse Avenue
Specific Plan to
permit 100 percent
residential projects
fronting Lighthouse
Avenue; offer
municipal shared
parking agreements
to projects that
propose a minimum
number of new
housing units in
proximity to a Cityowned parking lot or
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 49, Packet Page 383

EXHIBIT A
40 structure; and
incorporate
additional incentives
for consolidation of
adjacent, small lots.
• When adequate
water supply
becomes available
establish a minimum
density standard of
20 du/ac in the
specific plan areas.

Program 1-D Permit
Streamlining Pilot
Project. The
Monterey Peninsula
faces an acute
shortage of housing
that undermines the
local economy and
the social fabric of
its communities.

Lack of an adequate
water supply is the
primary constraint
on new housing
development;
however, the
development
approval and
permitting process in
Monterey can add
complexity,
uncertainty, and cost
for housing projects.

Therefore, to fasttrack infill housing
development in core
areas of the city
identified for high
density housing
when adequate
water supply
becomes available,
the City will adopt an
ordinance modeled
after the Resilient
City Development
Measures enacted
by the City of Santa
Rosa following the
Implementation deadline Q2 2026, including the following implementation actions:
 Initiate preparation of draft ordinance in Q2 2025;
 Bring the draft ordinance to City Council for adoption in Q2 2026.

Status: Not Yet Started.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 50, Packet Page 384

EXHIBIT A
41 Tubbs and Nuns
fires of October
2017. The ordinance
will:
• Allow housing
projects by-right in
portions of the
Downtown and
Pacific/Munras/Cass
areas with
concentrations of
housing opportunity
sites (see Map 4-1);
• Delegate design
review (subject to
objective standards
enacted pursuant to
Program 3-C) to the
City staff with the
exception of
properties in the
National Landmark
Historic District;
• Establish expedited
permitting
procedures to
reduce the time
required for review
and approval of
planning,
engineering, and
building permits;
• Remain in force for
a period of three
years from the date
it becomes effective,
unless otherwise
amended by
subsequent action of
the City Council.

Program 1-E
Education Workforce
Housing Overlay.

The cost of housing
on the Monterey
Peninsula is a
significant barrier to
the recruitment and
retention of teachers
and school district
staff. Each year the
Implementation deadline Q2 2031, including the following implementation actions:
 Outreach to MPUSD and private school operators to be
completed by end of Q2 2024.
 Draft ordinance to City Council for adoption to be completed in Q1 2025.
 Quarterly meetings with MPUSD to occur quarterly.
 By mid-2028, evaluate progress toward construction target.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 51, Packet Page 385

EXHIBIT A
42 Monterey Peninsula
Unified School
District (MPUSD)
loses approximately
20 percent of its
teaching staff due to
a critical housing
shortage of housing
in the region and the
high cost of living. In
2022, the Governor
signed into law
AB2295, codified as
Government Code
section 65914.7,
intended to facilitate
housing
development
projects on property
owned by a local
educational agency
(LEA). The law
exempts LEA
housing projects
from the provisions
of the Surplus Land
Act and allows
housing at densities
deemed affordable
to lower income
households on
properties wholly
owned by LEAs,
subject to certain
conditions. To
provide much
needed housing for
teachers, school
district employees,
public agency staff,
and others in the
community, the City
will adopt an
Education Workforce
Housing Overlay
and associated
development
standards that
implements AB2295
locally and permits
housing
Status: Not Yet Started.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 52, Packet Page 386

EXHIBIT A
43 development by right
at up to 30 du/ac on
urban infill sites
owned by the
MPUSD in the City
of Monterey and by
interested private
schools in the city,
subject to
compliance with the
objective standards
adopted as part of
the overlay.

Additionally, the City
will work with
MPUSD to facilitate
approval and
development of
educational
workforce housing
following adoption of
the overlay. Specific
actions will include:
• Conduct outreach
to MPUSD and
private school
operators by end of
Q2 2024;
• Bring draft
ordinance to City
Council for adoption
in Q1 2025;
• Meet quarterly with
MPUSD to help
advance site
planning and
development
applications;
• By mid-2028,
evaluate progress
toward construction
target within the
planning period and
if production is not in
line with target, take
action as needed to
ensure compliance
with "no-net loss"
provisions of State
law. Corrective
actions may include
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 53, Packet Page 387

EXHIBIT A
44 providing additional
regulatory or
process incentives;
or if actual
production and
affordability is far
from anticipated
trends, amending
the housing element,
identifying additional
sites as needed to
accommodate
RHNA, and rezoning
within 1 year of the
corrective action
evaluation.

Program 1-F
Congregational
Overlay. The faithbased community
can play an
important role in
providing affordable
housing in Monterey.

The City has
identified 12 sites
owned by religious
institutions with
potential for
redevelopment over
the planning period
should the owners
wish to pursue that
option. Current
zoning for most of
the properties
permits housing
development;
however, cost and
familiarity with the
development
process can be
barriers to
development even
where supportive
zoning is already in
place. Therefore, to
facilitate production
of affordable
housing projects on
properties owned by
Implementation deadline Q2 2031, including the following implementation actions:
 Rezoning within 3 years or 1 year of statutory deadline;  Institute program of technical assistance/support in April of year following rezoning; and
 Ongoing with regular reporting annually by April of each year thereafter via Annual Progress Report to HCD.

Status. In Progress.

The City’s Housing Manager has been in contact with other cities, religious institutions, and members of Community Opportunity to Purchase Acts (COPA) regarding SB4 (Affordable Housing on Faith Lands Act).

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 54, Packet Page 388

EXHIBIT A
45 religious institutions,
the City will:
a. Adopt a
congregational
overlay and
associated objective
development
standards that
permits residential
development at up
to 30 dwelling units
per acre by-right
(consistent with
Government Code
section 65583.2 (h)
and (i)) on properties
owned by religious
institutions where
affordable housing is
proposed;
b. Provide a
program of technical
assistance and
development
support to faithbased organizations
wishing to pursue
affordable housing
developments on
their properties. This
may include the
preparation of
factsheets;
introductions to
qualified design
professionals,
construction
contractors, property
management firms,
and affordable
housing operators;
consultations on
navigating the
development
application process;
c. Proactively
conduct outreach to
faith-based
organizations in
Monterey to raise
awareness of
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 55, Packet Page 389

EXHIBIT A
46 programs and
incentives available
to them for
affordable housing
development. This
may include mailers,
phone calls,
meetings, and
publication of
information on the
City’s website.

Program 1-G
Surplus Municipal
Parking Facilities.

Two City-owned
downtown parking
facilities (Lot 14
parking lot on
Bonifacio Pl &
Adams St and the
Calle Principal
Garage on Calle
Principal near
Bonifacio Pl) have
been identified as
candidates for
redevelopment with
workforce housing to
increase
opportunities for
hospitality and
service workers,
teachers, public
servants, and others
who earn less than
80 percent of the
area median
income. Both sites
are located in the
Alvarado District
where the
Downtown Specific
Plan permits
residential
development at up
to 100 du/ac.

Through this
program, the City
will seek to partner
with a non-profit
developer for the
Implementation deadline Q2 2028, including the following implementation actions:
 Release RFP for sites in Q4 2025;
 Identifying parter(s) and entering into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement by end of Q2 2025;
 Negotiating Development and Disposition Agreement including incentives such as ground lease and soft costs by end of Q4 2025 so long as there is sufficient guarantee of water supply for this site;
 Holding regular meetings with developer in order to expedite processing of development application and design work with the goal of project approval by end of Q2 2027;
 Completion of construction by end of Q2 is anticipate in 2028.  Actions and timing as noted above with the goal of completing construction by the end of Q2 2028 if water supply is available.

Status: Not Yet Started.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 56, Packet Page 390

EXHIBIT A
47 construction of
workforce housing
on the sites to meet
the needs of lower
income households
in Monterey. In
making these
properties available
for affordable
housing
development, the
City will comply with
the requirements of
the Surplus Lands
Act. City actions for
implementation will
include:
• Releasing an RFP
for the sites in Q4
2025;
• Identifying
partner(s) and
entering into an
Exclusive
Negotiating
Agreement (ENA) by
end of Q2 2025;
• Negotiating
Development and
Disposition
Agreement (DDA),
including incentives
such as a ground
lease and soft costs
by end of Q4 2025
so long as there is
sufficient guarantee
of a water supply for
this site.
• Holding regular
meetings with
developer in order to
expedite processing
development
application and
design work with the
goal of project
approval by end of
Q2 2027;
• Completion of
construction by end
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 57, Packet Page 391

EXHIBIT A
48 of Q2 is anticipated
in 2028.
• If the project is not
approved by Q1
2028, the City will
review and take
action proportional
to the gap identified
to ensure
compliance with "nonet loss" provisions
of State law. Actions
may include further
streamlining and
incentivizing
affordable housing
construction,
rezoning additional
nonresidential sites,
or other similar
actions.

Program 1-H Fort
Ord/Ryan Ranch
Specific Plan. In a
community survey
conducted for the
Housing Element
that garnered over
1,050 responses,
the former Fort Ord
Military Base was
the area of the city
identified most
favorably for new
housing to meet
current and
projected need.

Adjacent Ryan
Ranch, home to a
regional medical
center and office
park south of the
airport, was also
ranked highly as a
location for new
townhomes and
apartments by
respondents.

Integrating new
housing into this
area would need to
Implementation deadline Q1 2030, including the following implementation actions:
 Identify funding sources and release RFP by end of 2024;  Complete site remediation work, special status species surveys, and biological study by the end of Q3 2026;
 Bring draft specific plan to City Council for adoption in Q2 2028;
 target issuance of building permits for an initial project phase by end of Q1 2030;
 by end of Q3 2029 if permitting is not on track, take action (such as identifying new sites or rezoning) as needed to ensure compliance with "no-net loss" provisions of State law.

Status: Not Yet Started.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 58, Packet Page 392

EXHIBIT A
49 be done carefully
and in a way that
responds to the
variety of
preferences and
concerns that
community members
expressed through
the survey, as
described in Chapter

3. Therefore, the
City will prepare a
specific plan to
establish a clear
vision for the area
and to guide future
development and
conservation,
identify infrastructure
needs and financing
mechanisms, and
establish measures
to ensure
sustainable
development and
adequate resource
protection. The
overarching
objective should be
to foster the creation
of a mixed-use
village on a portion
of the site to provide
housing, jobs,
schools, shops,
services and
recreation for future
residents while also
preserving carefully
selected areas of
natural open space
and habitat. The
Specific Plan should
prioritize housing
and mixed-use
development on any
combination of the
parcels shown on
Map 3-10 Sites
Available for
Housing; however,
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 59, Packet Page 393

EXHIBIT A
50 future land uses
planned on the Fort
Ord property that are
within the Monterey
Regional Airport
Influence Area shall
be compatible with
the ALUCP. The
Specific Plan will
incorporate
mechanisms to
ensure parcelization
at appropriate sizes
(ie. between 0.5 and
10 acres) and
objective
development
standards to
integrate high
density housing into
the area.

Additionally, given
that the City of
Monterey is the
property owner,
incentives should be
incorporated to
ensure that at least
100 of the new
homes planned will
be affordable to
moderate income
households and at
least 100 homes will
be affordable to
lower income
households.

Program 1-I
Highway 68 Area
Plan Update.

MPUSD owns a
vacant 50-acre
parcel on relatively
flat land, east of
Tarpey Flats and
south of Highway 68
and the Monterey
Regional Airport.

The Highway 68
Area Plan envisions
a mix of up to 300
Implementation deadline Q4 2029, including the following implementation actions:
 Revise the Area Plan and bring it to the City Council for adoption by Q1 2026;
 Work with MPUSD for release of an RFP/Q for development of the site by Q2 2026;
 Meet regularly with MPUSD and the developer to facilitate project approval by Q1 2028;
 Target issuance of construction permits by Q4 2028 (Q1 2028 if water supply is available); and
 Evaluate progress of application by end of Q3 2029.

Status: Not Yet Started.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 60, Packet Page 394

EXHIBIT A
51 low- and moderateincome housing
units on this property
if MPUSD declares
the property surplus,
and the Plan
provides policy
direction and design
guidelines that could
serve as a starting
point for planning of
the site and
surroundings.

Through this
program, the City
will update the
Highway 68 Area
Plan to facilitate
development of
mixed income
housing, access and
infrastructure
improvements, and
neighborhood
services and
amenities on the
site. The Highway
68 Area Plan Update
should identify
portions the site for
low-medium density
housing, high
density housing, and
open space
preservation,
including creation of
a parcel or parcels
no greater than 10-
acres in size for
development at
densities deemed
appropriate to
accommodate
housing for lower
income households;
incorporate
regulatory or
process incentives
to facilitate on-site
provision of housing
for households with
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 61, Packet Page 395

EXHIBIT A
52 limited financial
resources; establish
a basis for the City,
MPUSD, and
Monterey County to
jointly pursue an
Enhanced
Infrastructure
Financing District
(EIFD) to help fund
the cost of
infrastructure to
support
development of the
site. Policies and
standards in the
Plan should account
for and provide
adequate buffer from
the adjacent
property, acquired
for the purpose of
natural resource and
habitat conservation.

Future land uses
planned within the
Monterey Regional
Airport Influence
Area shall be
compatible with the
ALUCP. City actions
for implementation
will include:
• Revising the Area
Plan and bringing it
to the Council for
adoption by Q1
2026;
• Working with
MPUSD for release
of an RFP/Q for
development of the
site by Q2 2026;
• Meeting regularly
with MPUSD and the
developer to
facilitate project
approval by Q1
2028; and
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 62, Packet Page 396

EXHIBIT A
53 • Targeting issue of
construction permits
by Q4 2028;
• Evaluating
progress of
application(s) by end
of Q3 2029 if
permitting is not on
track, take action
(such as identifying
new sites or
rezoning) by the end
of Q4 2029 as
needed to ensure
compliance with "nonet loss" provisions
of State law.

Program 1-J SB 9
Housing Ordinance.

SB 9 allows division
of lots in singlefamily residential
districts to facilitate
the development of
smaller scale
housing that may be
more affordable in
existing
neighborhoods. The
new requirements,
which are codified in
Government Code
sections
65852.21.21 and
66411.7,require
ministerial approval
of a housing
development with no
more than two
primary units in a
single-family zone or
subdivision of a
parcel in a singlefamily zone into two
parcels subject to
compliance with
objective
development
standards and
requirements in the
State law. This
Implementation deadline Q4 2024.

Status: Completed
An SB 9 Housing Ordinance was adopted with the passage of two ordinances. These ordinances added urban lot splits in Single Family Zoning Districts by adding Article 7 to Chapter 33 of the Monterey City Code. The ordinance allows ministerial review of urban lot split applications that subdivide an existing parcel in a Single-Family Zoning District to create no more than two new parcels as provided by Government Code Section 66411.7. The maximum of two dwelling units of any kind per lot, including but not limited to primary dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, and junior accessory dwelling units, unless an additional unit is approved as an affordable unit incentive pursuant to City Code section 38-26.1(g)(1)(A). Development options include a maximum of four units that may be developed without application of the affordability incentive.
(Ordinance No. 3709 adopted September 19, 2025; and Ordinance No. 3710 adopted August 19, 2025)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 63, Packet Page 397

EXHIBIT A
54 program commits
the city to enacting
regulations to
comply with SB 9
and to promote and
facilitate SB9
housing as
appropriate in
Monterey. Further,
to promote housing
opportunities for
very low-income
families with children
in single-family
neighborhoods in
Monterey, the
ordinance will allow
up to six units on
what is currently a
single-family parcel
if the property owner
commits to making
at least one of the
additional units
affordable to
households earning
less than 50 percent
of the Monterey
County AMI through
a long-term
affordability
agreement.

Program 1-K
Employer
Sponsored Housing.

The availability and
cost of housing is a
significant
impediment to hiring
and retention of
employees for
Monterey
businesses. The
Community Hospital
of the Monterey
Peninsula (CHOMP)
has expressed
interest in potentially
building employee
housing on property
they own and other
Implementation deadline Q3 2026, including the following implementation actions:
 Complete outreach in Q4 2023;
 If appropriate, adopt an Employer Sponsored Housing Overlay and related objective design standards by the end of Q3 2026.

Status: Not Yet Started.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 64, Packet Page 398

EXHIBIT A
55 local businesses
may also be
interested.

Therefore, the City
will conduct
outreach to major
employers in the city
to gauge interest in
employee sponsored
housing and discuss
potential zoning
mechanisms that
could facilitate
housing
development for
interested
employers. If
appropriate, the City
will develop an
overlay or
comparable zoning
mechanism to
facilitate
development of
employee housing
on properties they
own, subject to
objective standards.

Program 1-L
County Courthouse
Site. The County
has decided to
relocate the
courthouse and this

4.4-acre site, located
on Aguajito Road,
east of Highway 1, is
available for
redevelopment with
housing. Through
this program, the
City will coordinate
with the County to
facilitate
redevelopment of
the site with at least
246 new homes
affordable to
moderate, low, and
very low income
Implementation deadline Q4 2028, including the following implementation actions:
 Rezone the site to promote multifamily housing at densities affordable to lower income households before December 15, 2024.
 Regular coordination meetings with the county to identify and implement a schedule of actions for redevelopment of the property, including compliance with the Surplus Land Act;  Identification of regulatory and process incentives and rezoning of the site at densities appropriate to accommodate moderate, low, and very low income housing by Q4 2025.
 Assist the County with outreach to the development community to solicit applications;
 Facilitate approval of a development application by Q4 2027 and issue of construction permits by Q4 2028; and
 Review progress by the end of Q2 2028.

Status: In Progress
Rezoning 1200 Aguajito Road from R-1-15-D1 to R-3-MF3 (Aguajito Multifamily Residential Overlay District (MF3). (Ordinance No. 3688 ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 65, Packet Page 399

EXHIBIT A
56 households. City
actions will include:
• Rezoning the site
to promote
multifamily housing
at densities deemed
affordable to lower
income households
before December
15, 2024. Rezoning
actions will involve
changing the base
zone to R3, applying
the MFR overlay to
allow up to 60 du/ac,
and permitting
residential uses “by
right” per
Government Code
65583.2 (h) and (i)
on the site;
• Regular
coordination
meetings with the
County to identify
and implement a
schedule of actions
for redevelopment of
the property,
including compliance
with the Surplus
Land Act;
• Identification of
regulatory and
process incentives
and rezoning of the
site at densities
appropriate to
accommodate
moderate, low, and
very low income
housing by Q4 2025;
• Assisting the
County with
outreach to the
development
community to solicit
applications;
• Facilitating
approval of a
development
C.S. 1st reading adopted December 3, 2024; 2nd reading adopted December 17, 2024; Effective January 16, 2025)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 66, Packet Page 400

EXHIBIT A
57 application by Q4
2027 and issue of
construction permits
by Q4 2028; and
• Reviewing
progress by the end
of Q2 2028 and if a
development
application has not
been approved at
that time, identifying
and implementing
corrective actions to
ensure the capacity
of the inventory is
sufficient to meet the
City's RHNA
obligations for all
income categories.

Actions may include
further streamlining
and incentivizing
affordable housing
construction,
rezoning additional
nonresidential sites,
or other similar
actions.

Program 1-M

ADU/JADU
Awareness. The City
will initiate a
program to inform
the public about
benefits and
incentives offered,
with the objective of
promoting the
development of
ADUs and JADUs in
Monterey. The
program will include
the following
elements: • Citywide
email blasts and
newsletter articles
advertising
incentives and
resources available
to interested
homeowners;
Implementation deadline Q4 2031, including the following implementation actions:
 Prepare informational materials and launch program by the end of Q4 2024 with updates via APR to HCD.

Status: Continuous
The Building and Safety Division conducted multiple outreach and engagement efforts in 2025 to promote ADUs and JADUs and provide education to contractors, plumbers, realtors, and the public. Events included two Pop-Up Outreach sessions at the Old Monterey Business Association Farmer’s Market, a Contractor Lunch attended by 12 contractors, and a Coffee/Donuts networking event attended by 18 industry professionals. Topics covered included value engineering, substantiable materials, ADU permitting, sewer laterals, backwater valves, encroachments, and residential property inspections.

Additionally, the Division published an article titled “ADUs and JADUs:

Expanding Housing Options in Monterey” in the Summer 2025 issue of the City’s quarterly newsletter, City Focus.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 67, Packet Page 401

EXHIBIT A
58 • Preparation of an

ADU/JADU
application checklist
and informational
handouts on costsaving building
materials and
construction
techniques;
• Pop up presence at
events around City
to raise awareness
and answer
questions;
• Community
seminars providing
advice and
information to
interested
homeowners.

Program 1-N PreApproved ADU Floor
Plans. Designing an
ADU can be a long
and complex
process. To
streamline and
simplify process for
interested
homeowners, the
City will solicit
proposals from
licensed architects
and builders,
including those who
have experience in
Monterey and other
locations in the
AMBAG region, for a
range of schematic
floor plans in
different unit sizes,
bedroom
configurations, and
designs. The
Building Department
will review floor
plans submitted for
compliance with
applicable City
regulations and preImplementation deadline Q2 2025, including the following implementation actions:
 Solicit floor plans by Q4 2024
 Pre-approve selection by end of Q2 2025;
 Promote availability of pre-approved floor plans bi-annually as part of Program I-M implementation
Status: In Progress.

The City is developing a pre-approved ADU Floor Plan.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 68, Packet Page 402

EXHIBIT A
59 approve a selection
from the proposals
received, making
them available on
the City website.

Interested
homeowners will
then be able to
select a preapproved floor plan
and contact the
architect or builder
to have them
complete site
design, accounting
for site specific
context, structural
engineering, and
exterior building
materials
considerations.

Goal 2. Remove or
reduce barriers to
housing production
in Monterey and
address the
regulatory, process,
and market factors
that limit and
adversely affect
affordability.

Background Information
Policy 2.1. Review
and revise use
permit and design
review thresholds
including expanding
number and type of
housing projects
allowed by-right.

Background Information
Policy 2.2. Increase
flexibility in
development
standards including
building heights,
parking, and other
requirements.

Background Information
Policy 2.3. Develop
zoning standards to
encourage smaller
multi-unit housing
Background Information
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 69, Packet Page 403

EXHIBIT A
60 types including
fourplexes,
townhouses, and
rowhouses.

Policy 2.4. Reduce
constraints to the
development of
Accessory Dwelling
Units.

Background Information
Policy 2.5. Ensure
that City fees are
equitable and reflect
reasonable cost of
reviewing projects.

Background Information
Policy 2.6. Remove
obstacles to the
development of
Single Room
Occupancy housing
and other affordable
options available to
individuals and
households who are
unsheltered and
those transitioning
from homelessness.

Background Information
Program 2-A ByRight Rezoning
Sites from Prior
Inventories. A
number of the nonvacant commercial
sites identified on
the housing sites
inventory were
included on two prior
Housing Element
inventories and
identified to
accommodate lower
income RHNA units
(see Map 4-2). As
these sites are also
anticipated to
accommodate lower
income RHNA
during the 2023-31
planning period, the
City will create a
zoning provision to
Implementation deadline Q4: December 15, 2024
Status: Completed.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(h) and (i), any nonvacant commercial sites identified on two prior housing element inventories that are also identified to accommodate lower income RHNA units on the 6th Cycle Housing Element shall be allowed ministerial permitting when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households.

The Regional Housing Needs Assessment Overlay District identifies these sites in addition to the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(h) and (i) to ensure compliance with State law.

Qualifying projects will continue to be required to comply with existing zoning regulations and objective design standards.

RHNA Overlay District Sites include: 600 Munras Ave, 445 Tyler St, 755 Lighthouse Ave, 600 Cannery Row, 724 Abrego St, 300 Fremont St, and 398 Fremont St.
(Ordinance No. 3688 C.S. 1st reading approved December 3, 2024; 2nd reading adopted December 17, 2024; Effective January 16, 2025)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 70, Packet Page 404

EXHIBIT A
61 allow developments
by-right pursuant to
Government Code
section 65583.2(h)
and (i) when 20
percent or more of
the units are
affordable to lower
income households.

Program 2-B Permit
Thresholds for MultiFamily Projects. The
Zoning Code
requires a use
permit for multifamily projects with
four or more units in
R-2, R-3, C-1, C-2,
C-3, CO, and CR
Districts and for
mixed-use projects
including residential
units in the districts
where the Code
allows them. As
noted below, the
same requirements
apply to supportive
and transitional
housing with four or
more units. In most
cases, these
projects also require
design review.

These requirements
are a constraint to
development of
small multi-family
projects including
those with 5,000
square feet of floor
area or less on sites
where a nonresidential building
of the same size
would be permitted
by-right. As part of
the process of
bringing its zoning
into compliance with
the General Plan
Implementation deadline Q4 2025, including the following implementation actions:
 Detail a scope of work and schedule by mid-2024;
 Adopt amended standards by end of Q4 2025.

Status: Not Yet Started.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 71, Packet Page 405

EXHIBIT A
62 and Housing
Element, the City will
review its permit
thresholds and
identify revisions to
eliminate disparate
treatment of
residential projects.

Program 2-C ARC
Review. The
Monterey City Code
establishes a twostep architectural
review process:

Preliminary
Architectural Review
and Final
Architectural
Review. Both levels
of review consider
consistency with the
General Plan, and
any applicable Area
or Neighborhood
Plan, design
guidelines, or similar
document. Section
38-191 specifies
findings that the
ARC or City
Manager must make
to approve an
application
submitted for
Preliminary and
Final Review.

Through Program 2-
D below, the City will
adopt objective
design and
development
standards for use in
the architectural
review process to
the extent they do
not already exist.

Through this
Program, the City
will revise Section
38-191 of the City
Code to remove
Implementation deadline Q1 2025.

Status: In Progress.

On July 18, 2023, objective design standards were established for the Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plans. Applicants that are eligible for streamlined review pursuant to SB 35 and comply with the City’s objective design standards do not require any discretionary review permit and are not subject to environmental review under CEQA (City Council Resolution No. 23-082 C.S. Adopted July 18, 2023).

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 72, Packet Page 406

EXHIBIT A
63 findings based on
subjective
determinations (such
as whether design
features are
“appropriate for the
project site, the
immediate area, and
the City; ”, whether
the proposed project
will not
“unreasonably
impair the views,
privacy, or living
environment
currently enjoyed by
other properties;”
and that whether the
proposed project is
“substantially
consistent” with the
General Plan and
other plans,
guidelines, and such
documents
applicable to the
project) and replace
them with findings
based on objective
determinations.

Additionally, Section
38-188 will be
updated to clarify
that architectural
review does not
apply to projects that
qualify for
streamlined review.

Implementation of
this program will
help ensure that
architectural review
focuses on
development
features that may
conflict with
construction
standards, such as
public safety access
and the California
Building Code, Title
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 73, Packet Page 407

EXHIBIT A
64 24, requirements for
disability access.

Program 2-D
Revise Adopted
Plans and Zoning
with Objective
Standards. The
Housing
Accountability Act
(Gov Code
Sec.65589.5 (j)(1)
requires objective
development
standards as a basis
for denying or
conditioning
approval of all
multifamily and
residential mixeduse projects.

Additionally, in
Monterey,
multifamily and
mixed use projects
that make at least 10
percent of their
proposed units
affordable to low
income households
are subject to
streamlined review
and approval, based
on the 2023
Statewide SB35
determination. SB35
stipulates that
qualifying projects
are eligible for a
streamlined approval
process subject to
consistency with
objective zoning,
subdivision, or
design review
standards. Given
that the City's
inclusionary zoning
program requires
projects of six units
or more to make 20
percent of their units
Implementation deadline Q2 2029, including the following implementation actions:
 Detail a scope of work and schedule by the end of Q3 2024;  Target incremental adoption with updates to all plans complete by end of Q2 2029.

Status: In Progress.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 74, Packet Page 408

EXHIBIT A
65 affordable to low and
moderate income
households, this
means that most
projects pursuant to
this Housing
Element will qualify
for SB35
streamlining.

However, the City's
three adopted
specific plans and
14 adopted area and
neighborhood plans
include policies,
standards and
guidelines that use
imprecise terms that
rely on subjective
judgment.

Commercial zoning
district standards for
mixed-use
development also
contain provisions
that are subjective,
as discussed in
Appendix C.

Therefore, through
this program the City
will adopt objective
design and
development
standards (ODDS)
applicable to all
multifamily and
residential mixed
use projects,
including those that
qualify for SB35
streamlining. The
City has already
adopted ODDS for
the Downtown and
Lighthouse Specific
Plan Areas, and
through Programs 1-
B and 1-C in the
Housing Action Plan
will adopt ODDS for
the MFR Overlay
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 75, Packet Page 409

EXHIBIT A
66 and the North
Fremont Specific
Plan Area by
December 15, 2024.

As such, the focus of
this program is on
ODDS for
multifamily and
mixed use projects
in other areas of the
city. Standards for
commercial zoning
districts where the
inventory envisions
more new housing
will be prioritized
and the City will
establish a schedule
for review and
revision of all
remaining adopted
area and
neighborhood plans
to ensure that they
contain objective
standard and comply
with other applicable
State requirements.

In addition to
establishing
objective policies
and standards,
pursuant to State
law, Specific Plans
must be consistent
with the General
Plan. (California
Government Code
section 65454).

Program 2-E Revise
Parking
Requirements.

Amendments to
State law enacted in
2023 (AB 2097),
amending
Government Code
section 65585 and
adding Government
Code section
65863.2, generally
Implementation deadline Q1 2024, including the following implementation actions:
 As part of an omnibus Code clean up effort, adopt revisions to Zoning Code to comply with changes to State law and bring to City Council for adoption by the end of 2023;
 Detailed scope of work and schedule for parking study by end of 2023.

Status: In Progress.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 76, Packet Page 410

EXHIBIT A
67 prohibit public
agencies from
imposing minimum
parking
requirements within
a half-mile of “high
quality" public
transit. The City will
revise parking
requirements to
remove minimum
requirements for all
projects located
within one half mile
of a major transit
stop or high-quality
transit corridor with
fixed route bus
service with service
intervals no longer
than 15 minutes
during peak
commute hours and
reduce the minimum
parking
requirements for
multi-units buildings
to an average
maximum of 1.5
spaces per bedroom
and 1 space for
studio unit for
projects located
within one half mile
of other major public
transit routes. In
addition, the City
should reduce the
base parking
requirements for
mixed-use sites so
that they reflect the
maximum demand
for parking at any
one time, rather than
the sum of the
requirements for all
individual uses. The
City will revise the
Zoning Code to
ensure its parking
In September of 2024, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan to eliminate minimum parking requirements for residential land uses.
(Resolution No. 24-154 C.S. adopted September 17, 2024; effective December 1, 2024)
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 77, Packet Page 411

EXHIBIT A
68 requirements
conform to the
requirements
applicable to areas
within a half-mile of
public transit and will
also initiate an
evaluation of all
parking
requirements for
residential uses to
identify regulations
that applicants
identify as a
constraint to
affordable housing
development and
propose revisions to
the Code.

Program 2-F
Update Density
Bonus Ordinance.

New State laws
pertaining to density
bonuses were
enacted in 2023: AB
2334, which
amended
Government Code
section 65915,
makes important
changes to the
Density Bonus Law
to define
development
capacity; and AB
1551, set forth in
Government Code
section 65915.7,
reinstates the ability
to seek State
Density Bonus Law
benefits for
commercial projects.

Additional bonuses
(including up to 80
percent for
completely
affordable projects)
are now available.

This program
Implementation deadline Q4 2024
Status: Completed.

The City’s current Density Bonus ordinance set forth in City Code section 38-112.5, was adopted in 2016. Since that time, the State has enacted new laws pertaining to density bonuses. The City amended its Density Bonus ordinance to incorporate the current requirements of State density bonus law.
(Ordinance No. 3689 C.S.1st reading adopted December 3, 2024; 2nd reading adopted December 17, 2024; Effective January 16, 2025) ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 78, Packet Page 412

EXHIBIT A
69 commits the City to
updating its density
bonus ordinance to
incorporate the new
requirements.

Program 2-G
Prepare Local
Coastal Program
(LCP). Because
Monterey has not
yet adopted a Local
Coastal Program
(LCP) and
implementation plan
for certification by
the State Coastal
Commission, new
housing in the
coastal zone
requires Coastal
Commission review
and approval of a
Coastal
Development Permit
for most new
development with
possible exception
of individual singlefamily development.

The City will prepare
an LCP for Coastal
Commission that
meets all applicable
requirements at the
same time it
prepares a hearing
on the draft of
Zoning Code update
so it can be
submitted to Coastal
Commission for
review and approval
immediately
following City
Council action on
the Zoning Code
update.

Implementation deadline Q4 2024
Status: In Progress.

The City is preparing an updated and consolidated Local Coastal Program (LCP); an LCP is a document that consists of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementing ordinances (Implementation Plan). The six chapters of the LUP were drafted in 2025 and continue to be edited by City staff and consultant team (Rincon Consultants). In 2026, the draft LUP will be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission. Public outreach was reinitiated in 2025, starting with a community survey completed in December 2025. The survey provided input on the community’s priorities for the coastal zone, including coastal access, amenities, land use types, and coastal resilience, etc.

Additional outreach will be conducted in 2026.

Program 2-H
Expand Online
Transparency.

Government Code
Implementation deadline Q1 2024
Status: In Progress.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 79, Packet Page 413

EXHIBIT A
70 section 65940.1
requires cities and
counties to provide
transparency in
publicizing land use
controls and fees.

The Planning Office
website provides
links to a variety of
resources as well as
links to
downloadable
versions of Land
Use Plans,
Regulations, and
Studies. The City
must also continue
to ensure that the
on-line version of the
City Code is
regularly updated
and that revisions to
review procedures
are available on-line
as well as in
handouts at the
Planning counter.

This program
commits the City to
ensuring these
requirements are
met and to
addressing the
recently enacted
regulations in
Government Code
section 65913.3
requiring cities to
compile lists
specifying
information
applicants must
provide to obtain
post-entitlement
phase permits.

These requirements
are effective at the
end of 2023 but the
City may be eligible
for an extension.

The online version of the Monterey City Code is regularly updated (https://monterey.municipal.codes/)
City of Monterey Land Use Plans, Regulations, and Studies are available on the City of Monterey Planning website
(https://monterey.gov/your_city_hall/departments/community_develop ment/planning/)
or on HaveYourSayMonterey (https://haveyoursaymonterey.org/).

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 80, Packet Page 414

EXHIBIT A
71 Program 2-I
Inclusionary Zoning.

Chapter 8 of the City
Code establishes a
requirement that a
minimum of 20
percent of the units
in any project with
more than six new
housing units be
made permanently
affordable to
moderate- and lowincome households
for the life of the
project. The
inclusionary
requirements are an
important
mechanism for
increasing the total
stock of affordable
homes in the
community over
time. As a matter of
practice, projects
subject to the City's
inclusionary
requirement typically
comply by making
10 percent of the
proposed units
available to
moderate income
households and 10
percent available to
low income
households.

Through this
program, the City
will amend the Code
to codify this as a
requirement.

Additionally, as an
anti-displacement
strategy, the City will
continue to
administer the
Purchase and
Resale Program that
provides below
Implementation deadline Q4 2024
Status: In Progress.

In 2024 and 2025, the City continued to administer the Purchase and Resale Program that provides below market rate homeownership opportunities for households in the city or with a family member who works in the city. In 2025, the City acquired and rehabilitated one inclusionary unit, successfully returning it to the market for a lowincome buyer. Throughout the year, the City finalized the sale of two inclusionary units to low-income households and officially assigned a third unit to the next eligible applicant on the waitlist.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is being updated.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 81, Packet Page 415

EXHIBIT A
72 market rate
homeownership
opportunities for
households in the
city or with a family
member who works
in the city.

Program 2-J Water
Distribution Policy.

As detailed in
Appendix C,
Housing Constraints,
the State Water
Resources Control
Board has put in
place a Cease-andDesist Order that
effectively prohibits
new water hookups
or increased water
use in Monterey.

Consequently, the
City cannot approve
housing projects that
would result a net
increase in water
consumption until
the water supplier,
the California
American Water
Company, has
terminated illegal
diversions from the
Carmel River and a
new water supply is
in operation.

Additional water
supply is anticipated
to become available
starting in 2025 if the
California Public
Utilities Commission
authorizes Cal-Am
to enter into a water
purchase agreement
for the Pure Water
Monterey expansion
project, with supply
to the City of
Monterey increasing
incrementally as
Implementation deadline Q4 2024
Status: Completed.

On November 18, 2025, the City Council established a water policy for the distribution of the 141 acre feet allocated to the City by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. In establishing a water policy for the distribution of this water, the City Council decided that this new distribution of water to the City is not available for distribution to customers until the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Cease and Desist Order (CDO) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) moratorium is lifted.

City Council Resolution 25-118 established the following priorities and procedures:

1. Projects that include affordable housing are the city’s top priority for water allocation and will be issued a water permit prior to other project types. The priority for water allocation is based on the overall size of the project, the number of affordable units proposed, and the level of affordability proposed.

2. Project applicants may submit the completed Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Water Release Form to the City only after all planning permits and outside agency (Coastal Commission, etc.) approvals have been finalized/issued and when the project’s building permit is ready for issuance according to the City Building Official.

3. Project applicants are required to pull a building permit within 180 days of the applicant being notified by email of the building and water permit issuance status.

4. Projects are required to pass a required building inspection within 365 days of building permit issuance in compliance with Monterey City Code.

5. Housing units are limited to these maximum water credits:
- Residential Uses can add fixtures compliant with this maximum acre foot allocation
One Bath Residential Dwelling with High Efficiency Fixtures (.063 acre feet (af))
Two Bath Residential Dwelling with High Efficiency Fixtures (.111 af) Two & ½ Bath Residential Dwelling with High Efficiency Fixtures (.129 af)
- ADU (.063 af)
- JADU (.063 af)

6. Water permits for new allocations per the MPWMD’s Ordinance 197 will be issued when the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Cease and Desist Order (CDO) and the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") moratorium is lifted or modified to allow the setting of new meters or allow for increasing water use at existing sites.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 82, Packet Page 416

EXHIBIT A
73 new sources come
online. Additional
water sources are
being explored for
feasibility and are
also anticipated to
increase the overall
water supply for the
City. Therefore, as it
becomes available,
the City will develop
a methodology for
allocating new water
supply in a manner
that prioritizes
affordable housing
projects. The
methodology will
consider the overall
size of the project,
the number of
affordable units
proposed, and the
level of affordability
proposed.

Program 2-K
Addressing Water
Supply Constraints.

The primary
constraint to
development on the
Monterey Peninsula
is water supply.

While new sources
of water supply are
anticipated to
become available
during the planning
period, the City does
not currently have
access to sufficient
water to support
development of its
full RHNA allocation.

Therefore, the City
will the City continue
to work with other
jurisdictions and
agencies to optimize
the use of available
supply in the shortImplementation deadline Q4 2024, including the following implementation actions:
 Require use of 142 standards starting Q1 2024;
 Coordinate annually with water service providers starting in Q3 2024;
 Promote the availability of water conservation programs at least annually starting Q4 2024; and
 Send adopted Housing Element to MPWMD and Cal-Am by
end of Q2 2024.

Status: Continuous.
 In March 2025, the City Manager sent a copy of the certified Housing Element to Cal Am, MCWD, and MPWMD.
 In 2025, City staff amended the standard conditions of approval that would require projects permitted at the city to implement the Monterey Peninsula Water Management
Districts’ Rule 142 Water Efficiency Standards.
 On May 19, 2025, the City management and MPWMD met to discuss the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project and water allocations. The City indicated that it was considering the development of a water policy to distribute water once the cease and desist order is lifted.
 On May 30, 2025, the City met with representatives from California American Water (Cal Am) met to discuss the
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 83, Packet Page 417

EXHIBIT A
74 terms and to
augment the existing
water supply in the
mid- to long-term
with the following
actions:
• Continue to require
as a condition of
project approval that
new development
and remodels
implement the
Monterey Peninsula
Water Management
District's Rule 142
Water Efficiency
Standards, as
applicable, in order
to minimize the use
of water;
• Support efforts by
the Monterey
Peninsula Water
Management District
(MPWMD), the
California American
Water Company
(Cal-AM), and the
Marina Coast Water
District (MCWD) to
expand the water
supply, including but
not limited to future
supply from the Pure
Water Monterey
Expansion Project
and the Monterey
Peninsula Water
Supply Project
Ocean Desalination
Plant, anticipated to
become available by
2030. Support will
include:
o Advocating at least
annually for
additional water
supply, through
meetings with
agency staff, written
communications,
progress to build a regional desalination plant. Cal Am indicated that they anticipate construction to begin in early 2026 and the desalination plant may take a few years to complete.
 On June 24, 2025, the City and Monterey Coast Water District met to discuss the District’s ability to provide future water to the city’s former Fort Ord properties.
 On July 23, 2025, the City Council sent a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission reconsider the long-term water demand projections included in the proposed decision for Application 21-11-024. The issue was noted as urgent as the City of Monterey works to meet our State-mandated 2023-2031 Housing Element goals, including the RHNA of 3,654 new
housing units.
 The City continues to participate in the regional decision making process, such as representation on the Monterey One Water (M1W) Board of Directors. Mayor Tyller Williamson was appointed to the M1W Board of Directors in January 2019 and continues to serve on the Board.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 84, Packet Page 418

EXHIBIT A
75 and comments at
public meetings; and
o Continuing to
participate in
regional decisionmaking processes,
such as
representation on
the Monterey One
Water (M1W) Board
of Directors;
• Work with MPWMP
and Cal-AM to
increase
participation among
City of Monterey
households in water
conservation
programs such as
Water Wise House
Calls (free water
conservation audits
for homeowners and
renters) and Free
Devices (Cal-Am
and MPWMD offer
customers free
water-saving
devices including
low-flow
showerheads, sink
aerators, hose
nozzles, and
timers)to augment
water for existing
development
projects. City actions
will include
promoting the
availability of water
conservation
programs through
web, email, and
social media
communications at
least annually;
• Upon adoption of
the Housing
Element, provide a
copy of the Element
to MPWMP, Cal-AM,
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 85, Packet Page 419

EXHIBIT A
76 and MCWD to
facilitate
prioritization of
adequate supply for
affordable housing
projects, in
compliance with AB
1087.

Program 2-L
Moratorium on
Vehicle Storage.

The Multifamily
Residential Overlay
applies to properties
in the Industrial,
Administration, and
Research District (IR District) along
Garden Road.

These sites
represent important
opportunities for
high density infill
housing in Monterey
and have attracted
interest from
residential
developers in recent
years; however,
water constraints
limit the potential for
housing in the shortterm while the
cease-and-desist
order remains in
place. Until new
sources of water
supply come online,
there is a risk that
these sites may
develop with uses
such as vehicle
storage that
generate revenue
but do not require
new water
connections.

Therefore, to protect
these sites for high
density housing to
meet community
Implementation deadline Q1 2024, including the following implementation action:
 Adopt urgency ordinance
Status: In Progress.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 86, Packet Page 420

EXHIBIT A
77 need, the City will
adopt an urgency
ordinance prohibiting
vehicle storage uses
in the I-R district for
a period of three
years.

Program 2-M Permit
Processing
Procedures. The
time between
planning application
approval and
building permit
issuance is
influenced by a
variety factors,
including the time
the applicant needs
to produce required
technical or
engineering studies;
complete
construction
drawings and
detailed site and
landscape design;
secure construction
and permanent
financing; and retain
a building contractor
and subcontractors.

To facilitate the
review process, the
City currently allows
applicants to apply
for concurrent
review of planning
and building permits,
which many
developers opt to
pursue. Through this
program, the City
will identify internal
process
improvements to
further reduce the
time required for
review and approval
of planning,
engineering, and
Implementation deadline Q2 2025
Status: Not Yet Started.

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 87, Packet Page 421

EXHIBIT A
78 building permits.

Such improvements
may include
establishing regular
inter-departmental
coordination
meetings and
designating a staff
member track and
expedite review.

Additionally, through
this program the City
will amend Section
38-189.D of the City
Code to allow an
option for affordable
multi-family projects
to utilize 3-D
modeling or other
comparable
methods in lieu of
story poles and
netting that provide
objective information
to assess impacts of
development on
important scenic
views and
resources.

Goal 3. Provide for
fair and equal
housing
opportunities for all
persons, regardless
of protected
characteristics such
as age, sex, family
status, race, creed,
color, or national
origin, etc.

Background Information
Policy 3.1. Enforce
fair housing laws
and address
discrimination in the
building, financing,
selling, or renting of
housing based on
protected
characteristics such
as race, religion,
family status,
Background Information
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Regular Meeting, 3/17/2026, Item No. 14., Item Page 88, Packet Page 422

EXHIBIT A
79 national origin,
disability, color, sex,
gender, gender
expression, sexual
orientation, or other
protected class.

Policy 3.2. Work
collaboratively with
local non-profit,
public, and private
sector partners to
raise awareness and
achieve
implementation of
fair housing
practices.

Background Information
Policy 3.3. Promote
a wider variety of
housing types in
High Resource
areas of Monterey.

Background Information
Policy 3.4. Expand
housing choices for
special needs
groups throughout
Monterey to better
accommodate the
varied housing
needs of current and
future residents.

Background Information
Policy 3.5. Ensure
that the City’s
regulations, policies,
practices, and
procedures provide
equal access to
housing for all
persons.

Background Information
Program 3-A Legal
Services and Fair
Housing Education.

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,
Implementation deadline Q1 2031, including the following implementation actions:
 Provide funding annually to a fair housing counseling group;  Publish information on City website and update annually as appropriate; and
 Conduct workshops or seminars annually.

Monterey City CouncilMarch 17, 2026

Monterey City Council
March 17, 2026