Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Monterey planning commissioners accept 2025 general plan report and press council on withheld Pure Water Monterey allocation

Monterey Planning Commission · March 11, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Monterey Planning Commission voted to accept the city's 2025 general plan annual progress report and asked staff to convey the commission's concern about the City Council's November 2025 decision to delay issuance of 141 acre-feet per year from Pure Water Monterey, saying the hold-up is constraining housing development.

The Monterey Planning Commission voted to accept the city's 2025 general plan annual progress report on March 1, 2026, and asked staff to include the commission's concern about City Council's November 2025 decision to delay distribution of 141 acre-feet per year from the Pure Water Monterey program.

Principal planner Christie Sabdo told commissioners the annual progress report is the State-required summary of progress implementing the general plan and housing element. Sabdo said the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the period is 3,654 units, and that for calendar year 2025 the city recorded 116 entitlement permits, 77 building permits (67 above-moderate, 5 moderate and 5 low-income), and 96 units receiving occupancy.

Sabdo also told the commission the City Council adopted a November 2025 resolution establishing priorities for water allocation that prioritized affordable housing but delayed issuing the 141 acre-feet per year until the State Water Resources Control Board's cease-and-desist order is lifted and any relevant moratoriums are resolved. Sabdo said those steps are outside city staff's control and that the APR documents what occurred in 2025 for submittal to the state.

Public commenters urged a different course. Laura Davis of LandWatch Monterey County told the commission "the city can make water available right now," arguing that the CDO does not bar allocations where no zoning change is required and urging the commission to ask council to reverse its delay. Gabriel Sanders of the Monterey Opportunity Housing Trust said withholding water prevents immediate conversion or construction of deed-restricted affordable units. Diane Coward, CEO of Revision West, described a local site that needs 25 water credits to build six affordable units within walking distance of downtown.

Melody Chrislock, who identified herself as director of Public Water Now, told commissioners that Pure Water Monterey is storing water in the Seaside basin and that "there really is no reason to wait" to distribute allocations for housing. Telephone caller Monique Olsen recounted a decade-long effort to obtain a meter at 1880 Prescott and urged the commission to press the council to act.

City staff and commission members emphasized process limits. One staff member explained the APR is a historical reporting action required by State law and does not itself reopen or reverse past City Council actions. Commissioners nonetheless voted to accept the APR and asked staff to include the commission's concern about the withheld 141 acre-feet in the staff report to City Council and to consult with the city attorney about potential procedural steps.

Vice Chair LaTaza moved to accept the report and request staff add that concern; Commissioner Bluth seconded. The motion carried on roll call, 5–1 (Chair Silva, Vice Chair LaTaza, Commissioner Bluth, Commissioner Freeman and Commissioner Polley — yes; Commissioner Stoker — no).

What happens next: the accepted APR will be forwarded to the state as required; commissioners asked staff to provide legal guidance on whether the commission can agendize a separate item to take a formal position on the water allocation decision.

(Reporting note: Quotes and attributions are taken directly from the meeting transcript; the commission and staff repeatedly framed the APR as a statutory, historical submission rather than a vehicle to change previously adopted council policy.)