Title
REF250022 - City of Monterey (Montessori Community School)
Public hearing to consider responding to the City of Monterey’s Notice of Intent to Overrule ALUC Resolution No. 25-003 regarding the proposed conversion of an existing commercial office building to a daycare/school facility located at 2400 Garden Road, Monterey (APN 013-322-008-000) (ALUC File No. REF250022).
Body
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”): approve the attached resolution and response letter regarding the City of Monterey’s Notice of Intent to overrule ALUC Resolution No. 25-003; authorize the ALUC Chair to sign the letter on behalf of the ALUC; and direct ALUC staff to provide the letter to the City Council of the City of Monterey.
PROPOSED PROJECT:
On July 28, 2025, the ALUC adopted Resolution No. 25-003, which found the City of Monterey’s ALUC application to consider a proposed conversion of an existing 11,177 Square Foot commercial office building into a new Montessori Community School (“project” or “proposed project”) inconsistent with the 2019 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) for Monterey Regional Airport. The subject property is located at 2400 Garden Road, Monterey (APN: 013-322-008-000). The Montessori Community School provides infant and toddler daycare and educational programs for children up to 6 years old. The proposed project included the demolition and reconstruction of approximately 8,136 square feet of the interior portions of the upper floor area of the existing office building to accommodate new classroom spaces and support areas. Additional site improvements included construction of a new waste enclosure, reconfiguration of the parking lot to meet current standards and providing the required number of parking spaces, and modifications to existing landscaped areas. The project also proposed new exterior playground areas to support outdoor activities for the daycare/school. (Attachment D)
The ALUC found that the proposed project was consistent with the Noise Compatibility Criteria as the property was outside of the 65-75 CENL contours. The ALUC also found that the project was consistent with Airspace Protection criteria of the ALUCP, as the proposed development did not include increasing the height of any structure beyond what is currently existing on site and therefore will not encroach on Part 77 Surfaces and is an allowed use with respect to airspace protection criteria (ALUCP Policy 4.2.3).
With respect to Safety compatibility, the project site is located within Safety Zone 7 (Airport Influence Area), as delineated in the ALUCP. Safety Zone 7 is the most permissible safety zone, allowing residential development at unrestricted densities, non-residential land uses up to a maximum intensity of 300 persons per acre, and all development types except hazards to flight, outdoor stadiums, and other very high-intensity uses. However, in addition to the prohibited uses of each Safety Zone, Table 4B of the ALUCP establishes various development conditions per Safety Zone. Although daycares and schools are not prohibited uses within Safety Zone 7, projects that involve or would be occupied by “vulnerable occupants” (defined as children, the elderly, and people with disabilities) within 6,000 feet from the side of the runway shall require ALUC review, and such use is “strongly discouraged”. The inclusion of this policy language reflects an intentional differentiation between general land use permissibility within a safety zone and heightened caution for certain sensitive populations in runway proximity areas.
The subject property is located approximately 1,395 feet from the Monterey Regional Airport runway 10R-28L. The proposed use is strongly discouraged by the ALUCP due to its close proximity to MRY runway 10R-28L as this could pose particular hazards to the public or to vulnerable populations in case of an aircraft accident. As set out in California Public Utilities Code section 21670, the ALUC is created “to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.” Accordingly, the ALUC found that the project would introduce vulnerable occupants into an area subject to higher aircraft-related hazards; therefore, creating a potential public safety concern and finding the project inconsistent with the 2019 ALUCP.
Additionally, prior to the ALUC’s July 28, 2025 hearing, the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, verbally informed ALUC staff of its discouragement to introduce vulnerable occupants within the project site and the Monterey Regional Airport District commented on the project, and verbally testified at the July 28, 2025 hearing, stating, “Due to the potential presence of vulnerable occupants within the vicinity of the airport, Monterey Regional Airport does not support the proposed use of 2400 Garden Road as a Day Care Center”.
Notice of Intent to Overrule Procedures
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21676(b), the governing body of a local jurisdiction, here the City Council of the City of Monterey, may overrule a determination of the ALUC by a two-thirds vote if it makes findings that the proposed project is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code section 21670. These purposes include protection of public health, safety, and welfare “by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas surrounding public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.” (Pub. Util. Code § 21670(a)(2).)
The local jurisdiction must provide the ALUC and California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics (the “Division”) a copy of the proposed decision and findings at least 45 days prior to the local jurisdiction's action to overrule the ALUC. Pursuant to Section 21676(b), the ALUC and the Division may provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If the ALUC or the Division do not provide comments within the 30-day comment period (here, ending March 12), the local jurisdiction may act without the comments. The comments are advisory but are required to be included in the record of the local governing body’s final decision to overrule the ALUC. The local agency should be aware that, per Public Utility Commission sections 21678 and 21675.1(f), if a local agency overrules an ALUC, the agency operating the airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by, or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency’s decision to overrule the ALUC’s action or recommendation, and the local agency takes on the liability for allowing development in areas that the ALUC deemed unsafe or incompatible.
City of Monterey’s Notice of Intent to Overrule
On January 26, 2026, the City of Monterey adopted Resolution No. 26-008, declaring its intent to consider overruling the Monterey County Airport Land Use Commission’s determination (ALUC Resolution No. 25-003, adopted July 28, 2025) regarding the proposed conversion of an existing commercial office building to a daycare/school facility located at 2400 Garden Road, Monterey (APN: 013-322-008-000) (Attachment C). Specifically, the City found that the project is consistent with Public Utilities Code section 21670, including that section’s intent to protect public health, safety, and welfare through reasonable minimization of exposure to airport-related hazards within an area already developed with urban areas, for six primary reasons, summarized below:
1. The project proposes the reuse of an existing development site in Airport Safety Zone 7. It would not introduce new development into previously undeveloped land adjacent to the airport. A daycare center is not a prohibited use within Safety Zone 7. The ALUCP strongly discourages placing vulnerable occupants within 6,000 feet of the ends of runways, unless a site outside the zone would not serve the intended function. The proposed daycare facility would be located parallel to the runway.
2. The City found that, based on substantial evidence, including the size of Safety Zone 7 relative to the City of Monterey’s boundaries, constraints with zoning, parcel size, operational requirements, and market considerations, that there are no reasonably available alternative locations outside of Safety Zone 7 that would allow the proposed project;
3. Safety Zone 7 is already substantially devoted to urban, institutional, and community-serving uses, including uses involving children and other potentially vulnerable populations;
4. The public welfare benefits of expanding licensed childcare capacity outweighed the generalized and non-site-specific risk considerations identified for Airport Safety Zone 7.
5. The site was previously used as a church, and as such, it was occupied by vulnerable occupants.
6. The project’s consistency with adopted zoning and General Plan Polices support the conclusion that the project is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code section 21670.
Response to Draft Overrule Findings
ALUC staff have reviewed the City’s draft findings to overrule the ALUC. Staff responses follow:
1. City Council Resolution No. 26-008 asserts that the proposed project protects general public welfare because it is located parallel to the runway, rather than at the end of the runway. While the City correctly observes that daycare and school uses are not prohibited uses in Safety Zone 7, it inaccurately characterizes the ALCUP’s vulnerable occupants restriction as applying only to such land uses within 6,000 feet of the end of a runway. In fact, the policy applies to proposed uses within 6,000 feet of the side of a runway and 10,000 feet of the end of a runway. The subject property is approximately 1,395 feet from the side of Runway 10R-28L. Accordingly, it lies well within the 6,000-foot runway-side influence area and is subject to the ALUCP’s vulnerable occupant restriction. The 6,000 ft. runway-side standard exists because aircraft incidents, while statistically infrequent, are not limited exclusively to runway ends (e.g., runway excursions, loss of control events, aborted takeoffs, and other aviation-related hazards that may occur along the length of the runway). Per Exhibit D2 of the ALUCP, and based on data from airports around the U.S, the subject property is located in an area that may experience multiple arrival and departure accidents. Simply put, the proposed site’s location being parallel to the runway rather than at the end of the runway, by itself, does not mitigate the potential risk to the public of a land use in MRY’s Airport Influence Area. In addition, the proposed use is directly adjacent to Safety Zone 5, which prohibits daycares and school facilities.
2. City Council Resolution No. 26-008 states that the ALUCP requires alternative sites to be considered before allowing a use involving vulnerable occupants within 6,000 feet of the runway. While alternatives are worth considering, the ALUCP lacks this requirement. Instead, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (“CALUPH”) states that in cases where such uses should be avoided, they may be allowed only if a site outside the zone would not serve the intended function. However, this statement is advisory, not mandatory. The CALUPH is intended as guidance for when the ALUCP is silent, not to counter or supplement ALUCP requirements and policies. The ALUCP is clear in its discouragement of such uses near the sides and ends of the runway. Regardless, the City’s claim that “substantial evidence” shows that other sites were reasonably considered but excluded for the proposed use is conclusory; the City does not provide such evidence. Further, the relevant geography for analysis is not Safety Zone 7 in its entirety. Safety Zone 7 encompasses a large portion of the City. The ALUCP’s heightened safety concern applies specifically to the 6,000-foot runway-side and 10,000-foot runway-end areas. A meaningful alternative site evaluation would focus on locations outside those defined proximity areas. To the best of staff’s knowledge, no such evaluation has been completed. General assertions regarding market constraints or operational preferences do not substitute for a documented site selection analysis showing that no feasible alternatives exist beyond the strong discouragement area. Although economic and operational considerations may influence local planning decisions, the statutory mandate under Public Utilities Code section 21670 is hazard minimization. Market feasibility considerations, while relevant, cannot override health and safety considerations, which are the primary considerations underlying both the ALUCP and the law that underlies it.
3. City Council Resolution No. 26-008 notes that Safety Zone 7 is already substantially developed with urban, institutional, and community-serving uses, including uses involving children and other potentially vulnerable populations. While accurate, this observation overlooks that the purpose of the ALUCPS is to guide future land use decisions to avoid incremental increases in incompatible exposure. The presence of existing development does not eliminate the obligation to evaluate whether new or intensified uses further concentrate vulnerable populations in proximity to airport operations.
4. City Council, through Resolution No. 26-008, asserts that the public welfare benefits of expanding licensed childcare capacity outweigh generalized and non-site-specific risk considerations. The need for childcare services is acknowledged; it is an important community objective. However, Public Utilities Code section 21670 directs ALUCs to protect public health, safety, and welfare, specifically by minimizing exposure to airport-related hazards. The statute does not establish a balancing test between broader social benefits and safety compatibility standards. Rather, it establishes hazard minimization as the governing objective for land use planning in airport influence areas. Adherence to the ALUCP’s strong discouragement standard here reflects a policy judgment that such exposure should be avoided where practicable.
5. City Council Resolution No. 26-008 references the prior use of the property as a church as support for compatibility, noting that the site previously accommodated gatherings that may have included vulnerable individuals. However, the comparison is not equivalent to the proposed use in either frequency, duration, or concentration of vulnerable occupants. The prior church use was episodic and event-based, and has since ceased. Peak attendance likely occurred on Sundays or religious holidays. Occupancy during weekday hours would have been substantially lower or nonexistent. By contrast, the proposed Montessori Community School would operate five days per week, during daytime hours, with approximately 104 children present daily. This constitutes a continuous and predictable concentration of vulnerable occupants within close proximity to an active runway. The existence of a prior use does not establish that a proposed intensified use would be compatible under current safety standards or justify such action.
6. City Council, through Resolution No. 26-008, contends that the project’s consistency with adopted zoning and General Plan policies supports a finding that the project is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code section 21670. Government Code section 65302.3 requires affected jurisdictions to submit their General Plan and zoning ordinances to the ALUC for review and determination of consistency with an adopted ALUCP. Since the adoption of the 2019 MRY ALUCP (June 19, 2019), the City has not submitted its General Plan and zoning ordinance for a formal ALUC consistency determination. As a result, the ALUC has not determined whether the City’s regulatory framework aligns with the safety standards of the 2019 ALUCP. Accordingly, reliance on local policy consistency does not independently establish consistency with Public Utilities Code section 21670. The statutory purposes of Public Utility Code 21670 are implemented through the ALUCP, which ensures that future land use development (or changes in use) in the area surrounding MRY is compatible with airport operations and protects public health, safety, and welfare by minimizing noise and safety hazards. Local consistency, absent an ALUC consistency determination under Government Code section 65302.3, is not a substitute for compliance with the ALUCP’s runway proximity standards for vulnerable occupants.
Monterey Regional Airport District and Caltrans Comments
ALUC staff, Monterey Regional Airport District, and the Division of Aeronautics were informed of the City’s intention to override the ALUC’s consistency determination on February 10, 2026.
The Monterey Regional Airport District (“District”) responded to the City’s Notice of Intent to overrule and provided the attached letter (Attachment E). The District reaffirmed its original position that “The proposed undertaking at 2400 Garden Road would increase the potential number of vulnerable occupants in the vicinity of MRY which further decreases safety margins in the 6,000 ft / 10,000 ft review area which is inconsistent with the intent of the Monterey Regional Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan” and that the “Monterey Regional Airport strongly discourages the proposed use of 2400 Garden Road as a Day Care Center.” Further, the District’s letter provided a helpful exhibit illustrating the location of existing land uses that are occupied by vulnerable occupants within 6,000 ft /10,000 ft of the Monterey Regional Airport runways. Within this area, the District found 25 existing land uses that accommodated vulnerable occupants, nine of which were classified as Daycares/Preschools or In-House Daycare/Preschool.
While existing land uses are exempt from ALUCP review, all new uses or changes in uses are regulated by the ALUCP. The ALUCP strongly discourages any use involving vulnerable occupants from being introduced within 6,000 ft / 10,000 ft of the Monterey Regional Airport’s runways (Table 4B of the ALUCP). The proposed project would be the tenth daycare/school within 6,000 ft or 10,000 ft of the MRY runways, and the closest facility to the airport. The nearest existing day cares are separated from the airport by major roadways, including CA-1, SR 218, and SR 68. The nearest similar use, Auburn’s House Montessori School, is located at 1242 Siddall St, Seaside, CA, which is 5,000 feet north of the nearest runway at MRY. In contrast, the proposed day care at 2400 Garden Road is 1,395 feet south of the main runway at MRY and directly adjacent to Zone 5, which prohibits daycare uses.
Caltrans provided comment on the Notice of Intent to Overrule on March 4, 2026, stating, “special measures should be taken to minimize hazards to the facility and occupants” (Attachment F). Caltrans’ letter also supports an ALUCP’s ability to prohibit new instances of these uses involving vulnerable occupants and expansion of existing facilities involving vulnerable occupants. While the 2019 MRY ALUCP does not establish an outright prohibition on such uses within 6,000 feet of the side of a runway, the CALUPH supports the ALUCP’s ability to establish a policy that strongly discourages such uses. Caltrans also requested that adequate noise review be conducted to determine if additional noise attenuation is necessary to maintain interior noise levels below 45 CNEL, or lower if needed.
In summary, staff recommends the ALUC adopt the attached draft resolution (Attachment A). This will authorize the ALUC Chair to sign the letter (Attachment B) on behalf of the ALUC and direct ALUC staff to provide the letter to the City Council of the City of Monterey.
Attachments:
Attachment A Draft ALUC Resolution
Attachment B Response Letter
Attachment C City of Monterey Notice of Intent to Overrule (Resolution No. 26-008)
Attachment D ALUC Resolution No. 25-003
Attachment E Airport District Comments
Attachment F Caltrans Comments
cc: ALUC Commissioners; ALUC Counsel; Monterey Peninsula Airport District (C. Morello); Matthew Friedman, Caltrans; City of Monterey (Chris Schmidt); ALUC File No. REF250022