Monterey planning commission recommends 20‑unit minimum density for multifamily overlay

At a public meeting and hearing, the Monterey Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council amend the zoning code to require a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre in the city’s multifamily residential overlay districts.

The recommendation follows technical assistance and a corrective action letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that cited Government Code Section 65583 and said the city had not implemented the minimum density required for sites included in its housing element. Planning staff asked the commission to hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution forwarding the amendment to Council so the city would remain in substantial compliance with state housing law.

Levi Hill, the planning manager presenting the proposal, said the amendment is “a pretty straightforward application of a minimum density standard of 20 dwelling units per acre in the multifamily residential overlay districts.” He told commissioners staff had met repeatedly with HCD (April 29, Aug. 2 and Oct. 7, and earlier consultations) and that prior drafts with local exemptions were rejected by the state.

Kim Cole, the city’s Community Development Director, warned of the enforcement consequences: “If the city doesn’t come into compliance, they can decertify our housing element,” which could expose the city to state remedies, she said.

Property owners raised concerns during public comment. A property owner identifying himself as Matt, representing a parcel at 2200 Garden Road, said site constraints — public‑utility easements, a 100‑foot Highway 68 setback and airport limits — prevent his site from reaching the 20 du/acre threshold. “We’re at 18 units per acre and we’re just maxed out at the ability to achieve any more units,” he said, urging staff and commissioners to pursue “creative, out‑of‑the‑box thinking” such as alternative density calculations or concessions.

Commissioners acknowledged the tension between state housing mandates and local resource constraints such as water credits. Multiple commissioners said the city’s hands were limited by statute but suggested the Council and residents contact state legislative representatives to seek exemptions or statutory relief. Chair Silva cast the lone dissenting vote in the roll call; the motion to recommend the amendment carried on the commission’s vote.

The commission’s recommendation is advisory; the City Council will consider the zoning amendment and any further refinements. The staff record cites HCD correspondence and the corrective action letter (May 20, 2026).