Planning Commission recommends how city should allocate 14 acre‑feet of new water from Pure Water Monterey

The Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission voted unanimously on Sept. 8 to recommend that the City Council formally place 14 acre‑feet of water the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District allocated to the city into the city's water management program, and to move 3 acre‑feet of that supply into the low and very low income housing category.

The recommendation, advanced after a staff presentation and public comments, also asked staff to update older allocation categories carried forward from a 2013 resolution and to work with the council on how the remaining unallocated supply should be assigned.

City planning staff told commissioners the 14 acre‑feet will arrive through the Pure Water Monterey Expansion Project and is currently recorded administratively in the city's unallocated reserve. Staff said the city remains subject to an existing district cease‑and‑desist order that prevents new meters until lifted; allocations therefore reserve capacity rather than immediately enabling new hookups. "This water is not for sale," Planning Department staff said during the presentation, repeating an earlier district clarification.

Why it matters: Carmel's water management program (codified as Carmel Municipal Code chapter 17.5) governs how limited water supplies are prioritized for categories such as single‑family development, affordable housing, municipal uses and coastal recreation access. The commission's recommendation responds to the city council's direction to designate a portion of the new supply for affordable housing and to keep the allocation tables current before the council adopts a new resolution.

Key points from staff and commissioners - Staff summarized how the program works, reminded the commission that 10% of available water must be reserved for affordable housing under the city's existing ordinance, and explained fixture‑unit and acre‑foot conversions used to estimate demand (e.g., a one‑bath multifamily unit ≈ 0.068 acre‑feet per year). - Planning staff said once the district allocates water to the city, it goes into an unallocated reserve until the council formally adopts a resolution allocating it to specific categories. - The council had asked staff to consider moving 3 acre‑feet into the city's low/very‑low‑income housing category; staff asked the commission for a recommendation on that request. - Commissioners and public commenters debated whether to hold water in the unallocated reserve or assign it now to categories that would allow commercial projects, municipal needs (such as restroom facilities) and residential units.

Public comments and stakeholder input - Several members of the public urged the commission to allocate water now rather than leave it idle in a reserve. Adam Jeselnik, an architect and longtime local resident, said he saw no justification for keeping the water unallocated and urged the commission to move water into categories that would allow community uses and economic vitality. Allen Lehman and others asked questions about deed restrictions for deed‑restricted ADUs and how those would be prioritized.

Commission action and recommended allocation - The Planning Commission voted 4–0 to recommend that the City Council: (a) formally place the 14 acre‑feet into the unallocated reserve via resolution language; (b) move 3 acre‑feet from the reserve to the low/very‑low‑income housing category as the council requested; (c) update the table to remove or correct obsolete categories (including transferring a small 0.109‑acre‑foot balance back to the primary residential category and deleting an expired category); and (d) direct staff to return with any other recommended allocations after the housing element amendment process is further along.

Next steps - Staff will prepare a draft water allocation resolution reflecting the commission's recommendation and take it to the City Council for action. The commission noted it expects to review allocations annually and that the city forester/planning staff should be involved where tree planting or scenic easement changes are proposed as part of any mitigation tied to allocations.

Evidence and vote - The commission recorded a roll call vote of Alborn — yes; Allen — yes; Locke — yes; LePage (chair) — yes. The motion carried. The planning staff presentation and the commission discussion ran during the public hearing portion of the meeting.