Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carmel moves forward with amended housing strategy, will seek state review
Summary
Carmel-by-the-Sea staff presented a draft amendment to the city's six-cycle housing element that swaps a small-number, large-project strategy for a diversified mix of hotel conversions, mixed-income incentives, live-work units, expanded ADU projections and church-site housing.
City planning staff on Nov. 4 presented a proposed amendment to Carmel-by-the-Sea's certified six-cycle housing element that shifts the city's approach from a small number of larger, city-owned projects to a diversified set of smaller-scale strategies scattered through the village. The draft amendment would increase the planning inventory'including hotel-to-residential conversions, mixed-income incentive developments, live-work conversions of underused commercial spaces, updated accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projections and church-site housing'to a total potential of about 439 units (including a 26% buffer) and a higher proportion of deed-restricted affordable units than previously identified.
Why it matters: The housing element governs how the city meets its Regional Housing Needs Allocation and is reviewed by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The amendment shifts the emphasis from concentrating affordable units on city-owned parking lots or the Sunset Center North Lot to market-led incentives, conversions and dispersed affordable units that staff and volunteers say are more compatible with Carmel's scale and character.
Public and council debate: At the public hearing residents and stakeholders gave mixed reactions. Supporters called the amendment creative and said HCD staff had been cooperative; critics urged retaining city-owned sites and warned that relying on voluntary hotel conversions and ADU projections could be speculative and risk failure during state review. Parking, water allocation and the practical capacity of the city to process many small projects were recurring themes.
Next steps: Staff requested authorization to submit the draft amendment to HCD for the formal 60-day review if only minor edits are required. During council discussion there was no roll-call motion recorded; several council members expressed support for sending the draft and staff confirmed written guidance from HCD that the city was not at immediate risk of penalty for seeking amendments. The formal HCD review will determine whether revisions are required before the council can adopt the amendment.
