Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission keeps Casanova Holloway design study on consent but questions tree protection and ADU ordinance application
Summary
Commission approved the Casanova Holloway design study on the consent agenda but pulled related activity reports for discussion on accessory dwelling unit (ADU) reporting and raised specific tree‑protection and state‑law questions about ADUs.
The Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission approved a consent‑agenda design study (DS25078) for the Casanova Holloway property but members pulled two monthly activity reports for discussion and questioned possible impacts on a large redwood tree and on how the city’s ADU ordinance interacts with state law.
Commissioner Kerpakoff, who visited the site, asked whether the proposed addition and ADU would be within 6 to 7 feet of a large redwood. A city forester on staff said that “the eaves of the … the new ADU in the rear will be 6.3 [feet] from the tree. The wall of the structure will be 7 feet 11 inches,” and explained the standard tree‑protection measures: hand digging near roots, contact a forester if roots larger than 2 inches are encountered and sensitive excavation methods such as hydro‑vac are required within the structural root zone.
Commissioners discussed whether the ADU ordinance’s restrictions — including language that an ADU “may not be sold separately from the existing single‑family home” and occupancy/transient‑rental limitations (cited in the transcript as code section 17O805OG2(b)) — would apply to the design study. Planning staff advised that state ADU law can supersede local provisions in some circumstances and that the city’s draft ADU ordinance includes a provision that an ADU cannot be sold separately “except under certain circumstances that state law requires,” with likely exceptions for nonprofit ownership and local‑government ownership.
After discussion the commission approved the Casanova Holloway design study as part of the consent agenda and also voted to accept the other consent items that were not pulled. The commission asked staff to consider adding ADU tallies to its monthly activity report (submitted as a public‑information suggestion), and requested that staff clarify tree‑and‑fence descriptions for a continued item (not the Casanova item) at its next hearing.
The record includes the forester’s tree‑protection guidance and the commission’s request for staff to standardize how ADU entries appear in activity summaries. No building permit or final plan approvals were issued at the meeting; the action was at the design‑study/consent level.
Speakers who addressed the item and are quoted here include Commissioner Kerpakoff and city planning/forestry staff.
