Carmel planning commission backs revised reasonable-accommodation policy, asks for deed restriction option

The Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission on July 23 voted 5-0 to recommend the City Council approve an updated reasonable-accommodation policy intended to clarify how the city evaluates requests for housing modifications for people with disabilities.

The commission's action, taken after about an hour of staff presentation and commissioner discussion, asks that the council adopt the policy revisions recommended by staff and include additional direction to add a deed-restriction mechanism so property-level accommodations are tracked over time.

The revisions update a policy the council originally adopted in 2011 to implement state law requiring local governments to remove barriers to housing access for persons with disabilities. Senior planner Marnie (staff) told commissioners the city has processed 14 reasonable-accommodation applications under the existing policy, and those were mostly requests for site-coverage or setback waivers to allow accessible ramps, porches or other features.

Why it matters: state housing law and recent housing-element requirements prompted the review. Staff identified three potential constraints in the 2011 policy: the permit-fee structure, the subjectivity of one required decision finding, and the policy's reference to who may appeal an accommodation decision. Commissioners said clarifying those elements is important for fair, predictable decision-making and to reduce later disputes.

Staff noted the permit fee for a reasonable-accommodation application in the city's FY25'6 schedule is $205 plus any applicable design-study fee; design-study fees range from $373 for a streamlined review to about $6,000 for full Track 2 review. Staff recommended leaving fees unchanged at this time.

On the policy's required findings, staff proposed replacing a broadly worded finding that the requested accommodation "will not result in a significant and unavoidable negative impact on adjacent uses or structures" with criteria grounded in the California Coastal Act and Coastal Commission guidance. "Where a request for a reasonable accommodation is not consistent with these regulations, the city may waive compliance with an otherwise applicable provision and approve the request if the city finds" a set of four limiting factors, Marnie explained, including that alternatives were infeasible and that the accommodation would not fundamentally alter the local coastal program.

Commissioners debated how much subjectivity remains in the new language but generally supported the Coastal-Act-based framework as a clearer way to balance applicants' needs with coastal protections. Commissioner Allen said he supported keeping the current fee structure and endorsing the draft change to the finding. Commissioner Alborn asked for examples; staff described typical cases where an accessible porch or ramp would otherwise exceed site-coverage limits.

The third substantive change addressed appeal standing. The municipal code's broad definition of an "aggrieved person" previously allowed nearly anyone to appeal a permit decision; staff proposed limiting appeals specific to reasonable-accommodation requests (for example, to the applicant, their representative and abutting property owners) rather than amending the municipal code citywide.

Commissioner Locke and other members pressed staff to add a reliable mechanism to ensure an accommodation is limited to the household that needed it. "You really should have a deed restriction limitation of use on the property that would notify future property owners," Locke said, citing enforcement difficulty otherwise. After discussion the commission voted to recommend the revised policy with an explicit instruction that staff include a deed-restriction option for approval conditions.

No public commenters spoke during the item. The commission's recommendation now goes to the City Council for final action.

Looking ahead: staff said the commission would not be changing fees now but could revisit the fee schedule later. The revised finding and appeal standing language will be part of the council packet when the matter returns for council consideration.