Carmel planning staff outlines three-track ADU permitting system; coastal parking and fire risk drive debate

Chair Ann LePage called a special meeting of the Carmel Planning Commission to open a workshop on accessory dwelling units on Sept. 30, where staff laid out a comprehensive draft ordinance and fielded public and commissioner questions.

The staff presentation, given by Evan (planning staff), proposed three application tracks: Type 1 (building permit only), Type 2 (administrative Coastal Development Permit plus building permit) and Type 3 (discretionary review with design study and Planning Commission hearing). Evan said the three tracks were intended to reconcile state ADU requirements with the city’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP): “To address the conflicts with the ADU statute and the Coastal Act and to harmonize the requirements of both with the LCP, 3 tracks for ADUs have been proposed in the ordinance.”

Why it matters: state ADU law sets floor‑area and review limits intended to streamline approvals, while the California Coastal Act and Carmel’s certified LCP protect scenic, visual and public‑access resources citywide. Staff warned the two bodies of rules can conflict — for example, state law requires a jurisdiction to allow an ADU of at least 800 square feet in many cases, while the city’s general plan includes a policy capping above‑ground floor area on 4,000‑square‑foot lots at 1,800 square feet. Evan summarized that “the city still needs to comply with the Coastal Act and by extension, the city's local coastal program.”

Key points from the ordinance and staff presentation - ADU types and triggers: Type 1 units require only a building permit where no development is involved; Type 2 requires an administrative Coastal Development Permit (CDP) when the proposal constitutes “development” under the Coastal Act; Type 3 is discretionary and includes projects requesting exceptions such as an ADU floor‑area bonus up to 800 square feet above the site’s allowable floor area or units within sensitive beach/riparian overlay areas. - Unit limits and sizes described in the draft: minimum ADU size 150 square feet; Junior ADUs (JADUs) limited to 500 square feet and (per staff) require owner occupancy of either the JADU or the primary dwelling; attached ADUs may be up to 50% of the primary dwelling (but state law requires jurisdictions to permit at least an 800‑square‑foot ADU in some instances); detached ADUs were described with studio/one‑bedroom maxima at about 850 square feet and larger two‑bedroom possibilities up to 1,000 square feet depending on site constraints. - Coastal CDP and LCP authority: staff reiterated that CDPs are an existing requirement for development in the Coastal Zone and said applicants can process a CDP concurrently with a building permit but a building permit application will not be deemed complete until an associated CDP is approved. - Parking and coastal access: the draft would generally waive ADU parking except within a defined coastal access parking area along the beach overlay. Staff showed maps of local bus stops and half‑mile walking radii and noted most of town would qualify under the state transit‑proximity parking waiver; but the Coastal Commission has advised that waiving parking in areas of heavy visitor demand can impede public coastal access. Evan said Coastal Commission staff “support for increasing a parking area is bolstered by data,” and encouraged the city to document on‑street demand if it wants to expand the mapped coastal‑access boundary. - Historic resources and trees: ADUs on properties with historic resources would still be subject to the city’s historic preservation chapter and require a determination of consistency with the Secretary of the Interior standards; staff said in many cases duties and powers would be delegated to the director and that a qualified professional’s evaluation would be required. - Wildfire and defensible space: staff displayed new wildfire hazard maps and flagged that most of the city falls within Wildland‑Urban Interface or high/very‑high fire hazard severity zones. The presentation raised concerns about how additional ADUs would affect defensible‑space buffers, tree pruning requirements and forest canopy impacts.

Local data and enforcement history Staff presented a summary of ADU permit activity from 2017 through mid‑2025 including roughly 80 included applications (some were excluded because they were withdrawn, still in review, or incomplete). In the staff summary Evan reported counts that would fall under the proposed tracks: roughly 16 Type 1, 27 Type 2 and 36 Type 3 across that sample and only one denial. He also said JADUs have been rare in Carmel.

Public comment and commissioners’ concerns Public commentators and commissioners raised repeated concerns about parking pressures downtown and near the beach, protection of historic resources, objective design standards, and water availability. Notable comments included: - Commissioner Carol Locke (Planning Commissioner) praised staff’s dataset and asked staff to display the ADU table: “this is unbelievable.” - Kent Sieving, a historic‑preservation consultant, urged use of the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for historic properties: “These are national standards… I think that if they were done as an addendum, any building that's listed on the National Register… needs to apply that specific document.” - Nancy Toomey (public) said she was surprised to learn the city’s existing ADU ordinance remains in effect under the certified LCP and urged careful updates to public materials. - Several residents asked for more flexibility to treat certain carport or partial‑wall structures as conversions rather than new construction, so they could preserve existing nonconforming footprints.

Staff direction and next steps Staff said the project team prepared two draft ordinance formats: Attachment A, a 25‑page detailed version that explicitly defines Type 1/2/3 tracks and specific standards; and Attachment B, a condensed 7‑page version that relies more on cross‑references to existing code. Staff asked the commission for policy direction and public feedback to refine the drafts. Evan said the city is also awaiting state guidance under recent bills (staff referenced SB 1077) that require the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Coastal Commission to coordinate on applying ADU rules in the coastal zone.

No formal actions or votes were taken at the workshop; staff collected public and commissioner comments and said it will bring a revised ordinance back for further review by the Planning Commission and then the City Council.

Ending note: staff said they plan to return with updated drafts and invited more public input; commissioners asked staff to return with additional data on coastal parking impacts, wildfire defensible‑space implications, and clarified draft language on conversions and carports.