[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6563923,"mediaKeyId","3312517-2692f7b9e2488f9a609721b679914a70","parentId",3312517,"title","Carmel planning commission reviews draft housing element amendment aiming to disperse affordable units across town","audioSeconds",4710,"startMs",724000,"endMs",5434000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3312517-2692f7b9e2488f9a609721b679914a70&start=724&end=5434","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3312517-2692f7b9e2488f9a609721b679914a70/thumbnail_724000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6563923/Carmel-by-the-Sea/Monterey-County/California/Carmel-planning-commission-reviews-draft-housing-element-amendment-aiming-to-disperse-affordable-units-across-town","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6563923-437542fa371179cd86b88de0edaae1b8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184458&Signature=K9zqOnZjERxAuPXoMZDvL7mxaPBZhJ--gTyyoeVPDnfQhZ0RF-1lYhKqYawT8F1gFFjSKYca37FYYQ1tLFadhTNgsMeKWF-IFUccyih8MC4dY0A8v2POjjToVhd8fo23hPdg~GJk6QP5RtlFD15Kysi3R1n5T2BZGGNUE6FR2J~eYXrqNI29~WT6IJp1JjXHAt2ihP5RVp6yZA7TAKzhNCnNnXxfPGU4SmQLYqQeM0p8HyHjPH8Tw0SxnuAzjrsPnu3fLp6YSISeHt1FU8TpsLflz6zS27R9~zgx0Wy74pChha-7w5-ITrqH0Ox6vi1dkl9~P9yEMf3jntREwbEAwA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Carmel-by-the-sea","date","2025-05-14T22:15:24Z","article","The Carmel‑by‑the‑Sea Planning Commission on May 14 received a detailed staff presentation and community‑led proposal to amend the city’s recently adopted 6th‑cycle housing element with programs designed to distribute affordable housing more broadly through the village.

The amendment draft, presented by city planning staffer Marnie, lays out five strategies — hotel‑to‑residential conversions, a downtown mixed‑income incentive program, a downtown live‑work conversion program, expanded accessory dwelling unit (ADU) actions, and housing on religious‑facility property under Senate Bill 4 — and a revised sites inventory that excludes the city‑owned Sunset Center and Vista Lobos parcels. “Tonight represents a large milestone amendment,” Marnie told commissioners as she introduced the draft and the community group’s work.

Why it matters: Carmel’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for this cycle is 349 units, with a statutory obligation to show sites that can accommodate a required share of affordable units. The city’s adopted element met that obligation in April 2024 but relied heavily on two city‑owned sites; the amendment aims to demonstrate a credible alternative pathway that scatters affordable units across private sites and incentivized conversions so the community is not reliant on concentrated, city‑owned redevelopment.

What was proposed
- Hotel‑to‑residential conversions: Consultant and volunteers modeled a program in which an underperforming hotel is bought and converted to mixed housing, and the developer can sell hotel “keys” (rights to hotel room capacity) to third‑party hotel developers. Presenters estimated an illustrative yield of up to 61 units from this strategy, of which staff expect 20 would be affordable under the proposed income mix; the group cautioned the result depends on market interest and conversion rates. Tim Toomey, who led the hotel conversion subcommittee, summarized the three necessary parties for the program: “a hotel owner, an affordable housing developer, and a hotel developer are all needed to make this program work.”
- Downtown mixed‑income incentive program: The commission heard a design for a program to encourage mixed‑income projects in commercial downtown parcels by offering higher density, allocation of water credits for the full project, expedited processing and reduced or waived fees. Hans Bueter described plans based on small 8,000 sq. ft. sites and a tentative income mix that would aim for roughly 30% affordable. Bueter said the team identified three sites with owner interest and is conservatively projecting 27 affordable units and 18 market‑rate units from that strategy for the RHNA table.
- Downtown live‑work conversions: Bueter and volunteers cataloged downtown commercial spaces and found a sizable group of underutilized small storefronts where a deed‑restricted live‑work use (commercial in front, affordable residence behind) could be viable. Staff reported 250 candidate live‑work spaces and a conservative RHNA claim of 85 units from properties with demonstrated owner interest.
- Accessory dwelling units (ADUs): Nancy Toomey and staff urged maximizing state ADU law, pre‑approved plans and outreach, an amnesty program for unpermitted units, renter‑match services, and consideration of incentives such as priority water credits or discounted fees for deed‑restricted units. Staff reported there are already 45 ADU units permitted or licensed during the sixth‑cycle period and suggested the amendment estimates 77 ADU units in the revised program.
- Housing on religious‑facility property (SB 4): Staff described Senate Bill 4 (Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023) and outreach to five local churches; three expressed interest and are included in the draft inventory. Staff estimated roughly 65 units if churches pursue SB4‑eligible, deed‑restricted projects; state law offers by‑right approvals, density increases and reduced parking for qualifying proposals.

State review and next steps: Staff said the draft is an early working document and that the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has already reviewed the individual strategies informally. The city will submit a “friendly” consolidated draft for informal HCD review around a target date of May 30 and anticipates roughly a three‑week informal review period before formal submittal refinements.

Unresolved questions and caveats: Presenters repeatedly cautioned the programs’ yields depend on market interest, developer participation, and how water allocation and hotel‑key demand play out. Commissioners pressed for more detail on the hotel‑key economics and whether hotel owners could separate and retain keys independently; presenters said detailed program rules (e.g., whether keys could be sold individually or only in blocks) would be resolved in implementation after the element is approved. Staff and the community group also noted the RHNA unit estimates are conservative and intended to provide a buffer should an identified site or program not realize the projected units.

Public comment and engagement: At the opening public comment period, resident Will Ray asked whether the city would reopen Mills Act applications for historic property tax‑deferral contracts. He asked the planning commission to “open the Mills Act for applications for this year or for next year so that homeowners can apply for a Mills Act contract with the city.” Staff advised Mr. Ray to contact the planning department for details; no action was taken at the meeting.

Context and implementation risks: The draft relies on the city’s ability to negotiate program‑level incentives (water credits, expedited processing, fee waivers) and on state acceptance of program approaches for RHNA credit. Staff warned the site inventory and unit estimates may change during HCD review. In addition, some strategies (hotel keys, sale mechanics) require further legal and market work before implementation.

What commissioners said: Commissioners broadly praised the community committee’s work and the creativity of the strategies. Several members repeated the need for clarity about water availability and for more concrete pro formas for the hotel conversions. One commissioner emphasized continuing to consider city‑owned parcels if viable redevelopment opportunities arise, while staff said removing them from the formal inventory at this stage does not preclude future municipal action.

What to watch next: A joint city council–planning commission meeting on May 20 will provide a second public review before staff submits the consolidated informal package to HCD. The city expects HCD feedback approximately three weeks after that informal filing and will refine the amendment before any formal submittal.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Regular Meeting - 05/14/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Carmel‑by‑the‑Sea Planning Commission on May 14 reviewed a draft amendment to the city’s 6th‑cycle housing element that proposes five strategies to disperse affordable housing across private sites in the village rather than concentrate it on two city‑owned parcels.","taxTitle","Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County, California","taxId",79643,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6563906,"City staff will take state fire‑hazard map adoption to council; commissioners asked about implications for landscaping and code",58,13856000,13914000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3312517-2692f7b9e2488f9a609721b679914a70&start=13856&end=13914","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3312517-2692f7b9e2488f9a609721b679914a70/thumbnail_13856000.jpg","/articles/6563906/Carmel-by-the-Sea/Monterey-County/California/City-staff-will-take-state-firehazard-map-adoption-to-council-commissioners-asked-about-implications-for-landscaping-and-code","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6563906-0f2bca549ac5fb52c7a9b096b34dc86b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184458&Signature=L0VLyP8jsdvG7g-vu7t-WZ3JgrXgQqJq-oKZCAA1HXzu7PUW-x2dbkgJkWt0zsVOKOvI6d3Bl3Gck~ejF59KV3omQgJN8YpoGZxFchZ-MSpYlgZq~koLs8F2dOys06TLL9wp7sU3Ck0irNnzjVzwWVVOnCTudK3pPStdxt0Q7ofSp4loE~PT73N63BOpul-KJ7k-brbSQzl1MVlaHsONtkPmqkKefLMoA9tZoAPL1PmQxeOxS8pzw2EXHPF5yaTPXbUHPlSwFH2F7VyM0NHg6EpDV8pg9S04lsno9ujJQ3WIcMr1ITF9vlbwyEFtwBgqAgu3SXFzmnWyqw0Azs9QZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff told the commission on May 14 that the Carmel‑by‑the‑Sea City Council will be scheduled to introduce an ordinance in June to adopt the State Fire Marshal’s fire hazard severity map for the city.

Lede: Planning staff said the council will consider an ordinance to adopt the state map at a June meeting with a subsequent second reading prior to a July date; adopting the state’s map will label areas of the city as very high, high or moderate fire hazard severity according to the state Fire Marshal’s mapping.

Nut graf: Commissioners asked whether the state map changes will affect landscaping, rooftop materials and development standards. Staff said the city is adopting the state‑required map (the city may adopt stricter rules but cannot adopt less protective ones) and noted a staff recommendation to form a working group to consider any additional local restrictions, such as limits on combustible landscaping materials or requirements for defensible space and roofing assembly details.

Details and questions asked: Commissioner Locke and others asked how living roofs, mulched pathways and garden materials would be treated if portions of the village are designated very high fire hazard. Staff responded that the map triggers building and construction requirements for projects in mapped hazard areas (which can affect permitted exterior materials and building code compliance) and that enforcement of nuisance or unsafe conditions typically begins with neighbor complaint and code enforcement.

Next steps: Staff said the city will put the ordinance through the council process in June; the commission encouraged staff to return with a recommended working‑group timeline and clarified the role of any future ordinance in landscaping and rooftop materials. Staff said a working group has not yet been formed and that staff will report back when one is scheduled.

Why it matters: Fire hazard designations can change building‑code triggers and permissible materials for exterior siding and roofing; they also influence how the city and property owners manage landscaping and defensible space requirements on private property.","Staff reported to the commission that a June city council introduction is scheduled to adopt the state fire‑hazard severity maps; commissioners asked how the map affects design rules, landscaping and water/maintenance requirements.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6563911,"Planning staff gives commission refresher on findings, evidence and conditions of approval",751,8387000,9138000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3312517-2692f7b9e2488f9a609721b679914a70&start=8387&end=9138","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3312517-2692f7b9e2488f9a609721b679914a70/thumbnail_8387000.jpg","/articles/6563911/Carmel-by-the-Sea/Monterey-County/California/Planning-staff-gives-commission-refresher-on-findings-evidence-and-conditions-of-approval","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6563911-0ec5540ab40a2f01e85d45e94c49184f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184458&Signature=aAkZ9CfD7xC0KakIYLntfb2K4mPbbmcJ3oK3HigFFjTtF8VzOf6Dl~EAIf4-PPF34wOi3sCvKHgLGWercAlJGZEGYCk~w0tWO2SZhtQayFtet1ruErGiRC8KwNbWJyX4w6JWWZls28XJHLwqQimxne9T753nEqlsPHDJNsA6blmYOzGZO0E7k3vsUYH8adtKbKc8t7e9Cc7182uFpL6dN3KCFnGMeMflliVW4SxcAMtSGB8gR7JGuhJr4k5KEX90h3OPFIgSqBGYj46hoNAbcXSJ2qy7tVnfTSkBvIK~Zc4tmcawe4CtDAq4ZoI94jsHWTTkz0XT50AOwXnkvsKJxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The commission received a refresher presentation from Anna Jeanette, Director of Community Planning and Building, on how findings, evidence and conditions of approval should be documented and applied to discretionary permits.

Lede: Jeanette told commissioners that “findings provide the written documentation explaining the reasons and justifications for the hearing body's action” and emphasized findings must be supported by factual evidence. The session reviewed typical finding categories, acceptable evidence types and the legal limits on permit conditions.

Nut graf: The training covered the practical components of good administrative record‑keeping, types of evidence that can support findings (project plans, technical reports, site visits), standard and special conditions of approval, and the Nolan/Dolan legal tests that govern exactions and proportionality for dedications and mitigation conditions.

Key points raised
- Evidence types: Jeanette listed project plans, technical reports (geotechnical, arborist, drainage), code requirements, and site visit observations as typical evidence that can support findings. She noted staff is preparing a revised resolution template to make findings and supporting evidence clearer in each staff report.
- Conditions of approval: Conditions were grouped into standard project conditions, site‑specific mitigation and exactions. Jeanette reminded commissioners that mitigation required by a CEQA document must be applied as conditions of approval.
- Exactions and legal limits: The training reviewed the Nolan and Dolan cases and the two core tests that local governments must meet when imposing mitigation/exactions: an “essential nexus” to a legitimate public purpose and that the exaction be “roughly proportional” to the development’s impact.
- Procedural question from commissioners: Several commissioners discussed whether staff should continue to provide a recommended resolution (with findings and conditions) as part of the staff report or present only neutral facts so the commission’s deliberation is more open. Staff noted a neutral, fact‑focused staff report would require an extra hearing step because the commission must adopt a resolution that matches findings; commissioners said the goal is to avoid perceived bias while preserving administrative efficiency.

Why it matters: Clear findings and documented evidence are essential to defend discretionary decisions if appealed or litigated. The refresher reinforces the record‑building process and the legal limits on what conditions a planning body can impose.

Next steps: Staff is preparing a revised resolution template intended to more clearly link findings to listed evidence and to reduce ambiguity for both commissioners and the public.","Director Anna Jeanette led training explaining the role of findings and evidence in discretionary permit decisions, the types of acceptable evidence, and legal constraints on conditions (Nolan/Dolan exaction tests). Commissioners discussed staff recommendations and procedural options for how hearings are conducted.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6563913,"Planning commission grants use permit for Sea Shack Candy Company in Carmel Square",309,10066000,10375000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3312517-2692f7b9e2488f9a609721b679914a70&start=10066&end=10375","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3312517-2692f7b9e2488f9a609721b679914a70/thumbnail_10066000.jpg","/articles/6563913/Carmel-by-the-Sea/Monterey-County/California/Planning-commission-grants-use-permit-for-Sea-Shack-Candy-Company-in-Carmel-Square","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6563913-f019ecb77c8ca131c162bf97b28cc783/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184458&Signature=kl67o61hM9bAcZBnwwEjFFfoTGnkQkusp7YJtRoLqj6ry8cD6WR50qFK4TpFf~iyQ2ggzw5HJyqZIQuBC0PszD6xLRqEABBuIZHfgIB~MMtorYH3d1~01ndilXGWqUaclp33131t9Fq99z4jwF0TyiH2ASNCJ~OMj2cpw2lsu9nUF1jkxlmq9igV9E8-eXezS1vXV3C3RH722acPcZnoO-z~L7xlejjtsXVQZElxNGj2mfuh9Z59Q-ljWWKIEDQI5kbdHXPHcap9YIsXAyWH~5P84K0s5R0rrDyrcXseeNslBR94vWo8QEYQBUXfpKzbe6Qw0gbn~EtyuEPjeAEjCA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Carmel‑by‑the‑Sea Planning Commission on May 14 approved a use permit for a new retail food business, Sea Shack Candy Company, proposed for a small space in Carmel Square.

Lede: Staff described the proposed shop as a Scandinavian‑style specialty candy retailer offering a mix‑and‑match self‑serve selection and packaged imports; the commission adopted the staff resolution and findings and voted unanimously to approve the permit.

Nut graf: The proposed tenant will occupy an existing approximately 275‑square‑foot space that previously housed an art gallery. Staff found the change of retail tenant consistent with the municipal code and recommended a categorical CEQA exemption because the location remains a retail use in an existing commercial building.

Details: Planning staff summarized the proposal as a self‑serve “pick and mix” retail candy shop anchored on Scandinavian imports with some domestic candy as well. Staff said minimal interior modifications are proposed — new shelving, a cash wrap and fresh paint — and no exterior changes that would require building permit work. The applicant’s proposed hours are weekdays 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. and weekends 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. Restroom and waste handling will use existing shared facilities in the Carmel Square courtyard.

CEQA and findings: Staff recommended the standard finding that the project is exempt from environmental review because it maintains the existing commercial use in the built space (CEQA categorical exemption for existing facilities). Staff prepared affirmative findings for the specialty food store and the commercial use permit and recommended approval without special conditions.

Commission action: A commissioner moved to accept staff’s resolution “as per staff” and a second was made; a five‑zero roll‑call vote approved the use permit. The planning record will document the adopted findings and the applicant may proceed with tenant‑improvement details that do not require a building permit.

Why it matters: The action demonstrates the city’s routine permitting of small downtown retail tenants and clarifies staff and the commission’s interpretation that limited interior changes retaining commercial use are CEQA‑exempt and can proceed by discretionary use permit with standard findings.

Provenance: The Sea Shack item was heard in the public hearings section; staff presented the proposal and the commission voted to adopt the resolution in the same hearing.","Commissioners approved a use permit for a Scandinavian sweet shop in Carmel Square; staff said the small 275‑sq. ft. tenant fit the specialty food store criteria and the project was exempt from CEQA.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6563918,"Planning commission approves Mission Sisters cluster, lot‑line adjustment and related design studies",3363,6783000,10146000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3312517-2692f7b9e2488f9a609721b679914a70&start=6783&end=10146","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3312517-2692f7b9e2488f9a609721b679914a70/thumbnail_6783000.jpg","/articles/6563918/Carmel-by-the-Sea/Monterey-County/California/Planning-commission-approves-Mission-Sisters-cluster-lotline-adjustment-and-related-design-studies","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6563918-f2b05295c4b010c9e2fed3bca1ce23f4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184458&Signature=VqFO7htQLag1CMu2-NYtrTiu~0mtbUBANiT52y0OqPw5kOfOhmUSbz-M40LfffL8~Y6Cr9c35qZ6W7wQGUaZMbfQEzQRX5tPGdKNdwksPMOPRPh9k84llnpBcxKQHwdzH0p~W2jEqR7pvJpeBtCOfcJvkoEZ31LiuTbXr9FBuSexPtjo5wqd3P55fdkwB1xh15Y6gSD7qQkMLJBSzrtVNKl-iGOZaIAq5djWByRPlZ4c5fqF8vS3nvc3ftp5VZNn2fQ-keEkkVQkSaIqLLbMcGgXNnUER3q-MEWxbSp7GwuJmHfSHlsaIpdoK6MNArocCFYZ3Xj8CVKuckiJYZJ1ww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Carmel‑by‑the‑Sea Planning Commission on May 14 approved a lot‑line adjustment and final design studies for three adjacent single‑family projects collectively referred to as the Mission Sisters (Hapuna, Kaleya and Ohana).

Lede: The commission voted unanimously to adopt four resolutions — a lot‑line adjustment that reallocates area among the three parcels and separate design studies for each of the three houses — after staff and the project team presented final details, materials and landscaping plans. The chair moved each resolution and roll‑call votes were 5–0 in favor.

Nut graf: Staff concluded the projects meet local design guidelines and recommended categorical CEQA exemptions for demolition and new single‑family construction (CEQA Guidelines section 15302/15303) and for the lot‑line adjustment (section 15305). The architect and landscape team emphasized modest massing, forested site integration and living roofs; many neighbors and architects addressed the commission in support.

What the commission approved: Staff presented the proposed lot‑line adjustment that reallocates area from the largest of the three properties to the two smaller lots so each house can better fit into the sloped, heavily treed parcels. The commission approved:
- A lot‑line adjustment to reconfigure the three parcels (adopt resolution designated as attachment 1 in staff materials).
- Final design study DS24207 (Hapuna) (adopt resolution designated as attachment 2).
- Final design study DS24208 (Kaleya) (adopt resolution designated as attachment 3).
- Final design study DS24209 (Ohana) (adopt resolution designated as attachment 4).

CEQA and findings: Planning staff recommended and documented categorical exemptions, noting each lot will replace an existing residence with a single‑family structure and that none of the statutory or categorical exceptions to the exemptions applied. City counsel participated in a portion of the environmental analysis discussion. Staff also explained volume studies and that the three proposals fit within the maximum allowed floor area and site coverage for each lot.

Design, materials and landscaping: Architect Eric Dyer told commissioners the concepts draw from Carmel’s Bay‑Region and cottage traditions and are intentionally low in street profile, with entries and massing scaled to human proportions. Dyer said the designs aim to “connect to the special landscape that is Carmel” and described board‑and‑bat siding, local stone accents, composite slate roofs, and two living‑roof assemblies on two homes. Landscape architect Marie Goulet described woodland‑style plantings, stone paving, pervious wood cobble drive aisles and retention details for living roofs. Commissioners and members of the public noted the design team’s responsiveness to earlier feedback, including reduced glazing and lowered entry heights on particular facades.

Public comment: Several local architects, neighbors and residents spoke in favor of the project’s sensitivity to the forested site and its craftsmanship. Supporters included architect Thomas Hood and long‑time residents who called the project exemplary for the neighborhood’s character.

Vote and next steps: Each resolution passed by a unanimous roll‑call vote (yes: Chair LePage, Commissioner Alborn, Commissioner Allen, Commissioner Kerapetkov, Commissioner Locke). Staff indicated construction is expected to be staged and that the applicants plan to coordinate with neighbors during building; the project team estimated construction scheduling and contractor coordination would follow permitting.

Why this matters: The approved designs emphasize contextually sensitive, smaller‑scale single‑family development and include modern sustainability elements (extensive green roofs and stormwater retention) that staff and the design team presented as reinforcing the village’s forested character. The approvals conclude final administrative review for these three individually permitted homes, subject to building permit compliance and any required conditions of approval.

Questions and issues to watch: Commissioners asked about long‑term maintenance of living roofs and whether drought or prolonged dry periods would affect performance; the landscape architect said selected plant palettes and retention mats were intended to minimize ongoing irrigation needs and monthly maintenance.

Provenance: Staff introduced the Mission Sisters item in the orders of business and the actions were adopted at the end of the public hearing after testimony and commissioner deliberation.","The commission adopted four resolutions approving a lot‑line adjustment and final design studies for three single‑family projects dubbed the Mission Sisters; staff found the projects categorically exempt from CEQA and commissioners voted unanimously to adopt the resolutions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Carmel planning commission reviews draft housing element amendment aiming to disperse affordable units across town

City staff will take state fire‑hazard map adoption to council; commissioners asked about implications for landscaping and code

Planning staff gives commission refresher on findings, evidence and conditions of approval

Planning commission grants use permit for Sea Shack Candy Company in Carmel Square

Planning commission approves Mission Sisters cluster, lot‑line adjustment and related design studies