Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey H-3 EMC Planning Group Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Adopted April 8, 2024 Figure 4 below demonstrates the majority of respondents identified themselves as Carmel residents owning their home (61 percent) compared to 14 percent of survey respondents indicating they rent their homes. Twenty-two percent of respondents identified as working in Carmel-by-the-Sea, 8 percent identified as business owners in Carmel-by-the-Sea, and one respondent identified as being unhoused or lacking permanent housing.
1%
8%
14%
17%
22%
61%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
I am unhoused/do not have permanent housing
I own a business in Carmel-by-the-Sea
I live in Carmel-by-the-Sea and rent my home.
Other
I work in Carmel-by-the-Sea
I live in Carmel-by-the-Sea and own my home
Figure 4: "Describe your role in the community."
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
8%
18%
75%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Blended
Middle Eastern
Black or African American
Asian or Asian American
Native American
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
Prefer not to say
White (non-Hispanic)
Figure 3: "Which racial or ethnic group(s) do you identify as?"
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey H-4 EMC Planning Group Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Adopted April 8, 2024 Figure 5 below demonstrates that the majority of survey respondents live in Carmel-by-the-Sea fulltime, and Figure 6 below demonstrates that 68 percent of survey respondents are 55 years or older followed by 16 percent being female-headed households. This demographic data suggests that respondents are likely more established community members in the City. 15%
20%
65%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Part-time
Not applicable
Full-time
Figure 5: "If you are a current resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea, do you live here full-time or part-time?"
1%
1%
3%
16%
26%
68%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Unhoused
Single-Parent Household
Differently Abled / Disabled
Female Headed Household
None of the above apply
Senior (55+)
Figure 6: "Do you identify with any of the following?"
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey H-5 EMC Planning Group Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Adopted April 8, 2024 Desired Housing Types
Survey respondents were asked to identify which housing types they would prefer to live in, of which approximately 83 percent identified single-family homes, followed by 6 percent identifying condominiums, 5 percent identifying apartments, and 3 percent identifying ADUs (Figure 7).
Note: See Attachment B
Respondents were asked to explain why they would prefer to live in ADUs. The following 5 responses were received:
Privacy;
Aesthetic (assuming newer prefabricated ADU), privacy and affordability; Privacy & more quiet than apartment;
I only need space for a single bed, table & chair, toilet sink, shower. I work 7 days a week. I just need 800 square feet; and
Affordable housing.
Respondents were asked to explain why they would prefer to live in an Apartment. The following 7 responses were received:
I have little time for motivation for the upkeep of a whole house; 3%
3%
5%
6%
83%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
ADU
Other
Apartment
Condominium
Single-Family home
Figure 7: "In which of these housing types would/do you prefer to live in?"
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey H-6 EMC Planning Group Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Adopted April 8, 2024 I am at the stage in my life where I am seeking to maximize my financial solvency through steady accrual of work skills/experience and high willingness to relocate for greater chances of quality employment. I will not seek any living place requiring greater commitment until I have found the community most suited to sustaining both my professional growth and my standard of living;
Affordability and community living opportunities. Apartments are like little families. Single family homes are like balkanized islands, with little communion; Affordable and give the freedom to move quickly;
Most affordable option;
Convenience; and
Single; No maintenance; Safety/Security.
Respondents were asked to explain why they would prefer to live in a Condominium. The following 10 responses were received:
It's the right amount of space I'd need and likely more affordable and feasible than a singlefamily home; Pride of ownership, take better care of community and more involved; Makes better use of land without the problems associated with high density rental properties; Easy maintenance;
Maintenance lower;
Less maintenance;
Less expensive alternative to single-family housing;
Amenities;
Would rather own than rent; and
No maintenance
In the next survey question, respondents were asked to identify the types of housing they would like to see constructed in Carmel-by-the-Sea. A list of options was provided and respondents were asked to select all that applied (they could select more than one choice). Figure 8 below demonstrates the most common housing types respondents would like to see built are: Condominiums (50 percent); ADUs (49 percent); Apartment rentals (47 percent); and Senior Housing (44 percent). Seventeen percent of respondents shared their own idea Figure 8, and can be found under Question #10 in Attachment B
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey H-7 EMC Planning Group Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Adopted April 8, 2024 Note: See Attachment B
Affordable Housing in Carmel-by-the-Sea
Survey respondents were asked how the supply of affordable housing could be increased to meet the needs of the community. A list of options was provided and respondents were asked to select all that applied, with many respondents selecting more than one choice.
The majority of respondents (55 percent) selected second-story additions to single story buildings could provide affordable housing downtown, followed by 52 percent of respondents selecting guesthouses could be converted to Accessory Dwelling Units, and 36 percent selecting set a maximum square footage limit on housing units downtown as a means to create more small units.
ThirtyFigure 9, and can be found under Question #11 in Attachment B where all free responses are listed.
17%
20%
22%
34%
39%
44%
47%
49%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other
Triplex
Fourplex
Duplex
Single-Family Home
Senior Housing
Apartment
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Condominium (owned)
Figure 8: "What type of housing would you like to see constructed in Carmel-by-the-Sea?"
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey H-8 EMC Planning Group Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Adopted April 8, 2024 Note: See Attachment B -ended responses that were received.
Respondents were asked what affordable housing resources should be provided in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (Figure 10). Out of 157 responses, the majority of respondents (69 percent) , resources, . Nineteen percent
Figure 10, and can be
found under Question #12 in Attachment B where all free responses received in the survey are listed.
26%
30%
32%
34%
36%
52%
55%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Change the zoning code to allow 3-story buildings
downtown specifically for affordable housing.
Fund the creation of affordable housing through a housing vacancy tax or bond funding.
Other
Create objective (yes/no checklist-style) design standards for new housing projects that include affordable units.
Set a maximum square footage limit on housing units in
Encourage property owners to convert existing
Encourage second-story additions to single-story buildings downtown specifically for affordable housing.
Figure 9: "How can the supply of affordable housing be increased to meet the needs of our community?"
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey H-9 EMC Planning Group Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Adopted April 8, 2024 Note: See Attachment B -ended responses that were received.
Increased Housing and Local Businesses
Survey respondents were asked what effect providing more housing units would have on local businesses in Carmel-by-the-Sea, of which 39 percent indicated more customers, 21 percent indicated no change, and 7 percent indicated fewer customers. Thirty-two percent of respondents Figure 11, and can be found under
Question #15 in Attachment B where all free responses received in the survey are listed.
Note: See Attachment B -ended responses that were received. 5%
19%
26%
28%
32%
33%
69%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
None
Other
Housing Choice Voucher program (federal)
Information on Fair Housing/ How to file discrimination claims
Down payment assistance
Tenant assistance resources
Information about affordable units
Figure 10: "What affordable housing resources do you feel should be provided in Carmel-by-the-Sea?"
7%
21%
32%
39%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Fewer customers
No Change
Other
More customers
Figure 11: "What effect would providing more housing units in Carmel-by-the-Sea have on local businesses?"
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey H-10 EMC Planning Group Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Adopted April 8, 2024 Benefits of Living in Carmel
Survey respondents were asked what the most appealing elements about life in Carmel-by-the-Sea is.
The most common response was Parks/Beach/Recreation (89 percent), followed by Architectural Aesthetic (67 percent), and Public Engagement/Community (50 percent). Eighteen percent of Figure 12, and can be found
under Question #7 in Attachment B where all free responses are listed.
Note: See Attachment B -ended responses that were received.
Discussion of Results
The majority of respondents were between the ages of 55 and 75, earned more than $100,000 year, and owned homes in Carmel-by-the-Sea. This indicates responses from a group who is generally well established in the City and may not adequately capture community-wide ideas towards housing needs, for example from a younger renter or worker in the community.
Although respondents indicated their preferred housing type to live in is a single-family dwelling, many respondents indicated a need for more diverse housing types within the City, such as condominiums, apartments, and ADUs which could help to provide more affordable housing options in the City. The 6th Cycle Housing Element includes programs to increase these housing types. Program 1.3.C (Accessory Dwelling Units) will streamline ADU permitting, Program 1.4.A (Eliminate Unnecessary Use Permits) will incentive multi-family type housing by removing permitting barriers, and Program 3.1.G (A Housing Priority Overlay Zoning District) encourages a higher unit yield within the commercial and multi-family zoning districts. 10%
17%
18%
24%
43%
50%
68%
89%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Employment opprotunities
Housing investment property
Other
The school district
Amenities (shopping,services).
Public engagement/community
Architectural Aesthetic of the housing
Parks/Beach/Recreation
Figure 12: "What are the most appealing elements about life in Carmel-by-the-Sea?"
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey H-11 EMC Planning Group Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Adopted April 8, 2024 A number of respondents did indicate a preference for constructing condominiums, apartments, and ADUs.
When asked how the supply of affordable housing could be increased within Carmel-by-the-Sea, the most common selected responses out of provided options were: 1) encourage second-story additions to single-story buildings downtown, 2) convert guesthouses to ADUs, and 3) set a maximum square footage limit on housing units downtown. Number one will be addressed via Program 2.3.A (Preserve and Increase Upper Floor Residential Uses), number two will be addressed via Program 1.3.C (Accessory Dwelling Units), and number three will be addressed via Program
3.1.G (A Housing Priority Overlay Zoning District). For this question, respondents were also given the opportunity to provide their own response. Themes from these free responses include: utilize empty or underutilized parking lots for housing, turn Flanders Mansion into housing, and sentiment that there is not enough space in Carmel for additional housing. Program 1.1.B (Underutilized Sites) addresses exploring underutilized sites, with the City committed to actively investigate underutilized publicly owned sites such as parking lots.
When asked what affordable housing resources should be provided in Carmel-by-the-Sea, the . th Cycle
Housing Element includes a Program 5.1.A in which the City will work with fair housing organizations and increase outreach efforts to connect community members to affordable housing opportunities.
Most property owners indicate they are not interested in re-developing their property to include more housing, such as ADUs. However, there were a handful of property owners that did indicate interest. Property owners indicated interest in building additional housing on their property if parking requirements were waived, permitting fees lowered, and water credits made available.
The last two survey questions focused on life in Carmel-by-the-Sea. The majority of respondents believe more housing would result in more customers for local businesses. A handful of respondents said that more housing would result in fewer customers, which appears to be an assumption based on the concern that more housing would result in less parking available for visitors. While the 6th Cycle Housing Element does allow for parking reductions for affordable housing projects, it also requires that all existing parking be integrated into the new housing development, if for example a parking lot is converted.
Finally, respondents were asked about the most appealing aspects about living in Carmel-by-the-Sea.
The most popular response was Parks/Beach/Recreation, followed by Architectural Aesthetic of the Housing, followed by ublic Engagement/Community. It is clear that the architectural character and charm of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a major reason people choose to live in Carmel-by-theSea. It is evident that a number of community members fear that meeting the RHNA will disrupt this charm they love. Program 1.4.B (Objective Design Standards) will allow the City to retain their
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey H-12 EMC Planning Group Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Adopted April 8, 2024 design aesthetic while streamlining the permit process. Additionally, based on the survey results, community is also an important aspect of living in Carmel-by-the-Sea. With a current vacancy rate of 51 percent, more market rate and affordable units will result in more full-time community members, which will enrich the community of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Stakeholder Survey Questions A
ATTACHMENT
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 1 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 How old are you?
Which racial or ethnic group(s) do you identify as?
Do you identify with any of the following? Select all that apply.
4. What is your annual household income?
5. Describe your role in the Community. Select all that apply.
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 2 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024
6. If you are a current resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea, do you live here full-time or part-time?
7. Residents and non-residents, what are the most appealing elements about life in Carmel-by-the-Sea? Select all that apply.
8. When considering housing affordability and availability, what factors might influence your decision to reside in Carmel-by-the-Sea or outside of the City? Select all that apply.
9. In which of these housing types would/do you prefer to live, and why?
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 3 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024
10. The State housing goal for Carmel-by-the-Sea is 349 new housing units (market rate and affordable) between 2023 and 2031. What type of housing would you like to see constructed in Carmel-by-the-Sea? Select all that apply.
How can the supply of affordable housing be increased to meet the needs of our community? Select all that apply.
12. What affordable housing resources do you feel should be provided in Carmel-bythe-Sea? Select all that apply.
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 4 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024
13. If you own property, what would it take for you to consider adding a housing unit(s) on your property, such as an accessory dwelling unit?
14. If you own property, would you consider redeveloping your property to include new housing? Examples include building an ADU/JADU, converting commercial office space to an apartment, or constructing a second-floor addition with apartments.
15. What effect would providing more housing units in Carmel-by-the-Sea have on local businesses?
How does, or how would, living in Carmel-by-the-Sea benefit you? (Quality of life question)
Open-ended Responses B
ATTACHMENT
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 1 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 The following lists the open-ended responses received for survey questions 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ,15, and 16. These responses are indicated as figures.
Question 7: What are the most appealing elements about life in Carmel-by-the-Sea? Select all that Figure 12. A forest with a village and a beach!
Our neighbors are kind and we help one another.
2 hour commute from home
The natural beauty of the setting on the California coastline.
Trees, scenic pathway, ocean views, sunsets, walking town, dog friendly Volunteer opportunities
The natural beauty of the Forest and beach, etc.
The peninsula provides most big city benefits without the downside beauty of our area and lack of traffic and homeless
garage bands
No streetlight, quiet, good air quality
Weather/climate
Mainly small unostentatious but unique homes on small lots in natural settings.
Serenity, beauty, simple life
Weather, mountains, beach
Question 10: The State housing goal for Carmel-by-the-Sea is 349 new housing units (market rate and affordable) between 2023 and 2031. What type of housing would you like to see constructed in Carmel-by-the- See corresponding
Figure 8. Housing that naturally flows from a century of local control I appreciate the efforts of the city to meet the State's dictates, but I do not believe adequate thought has been placed on the implications of additional housing on the natural setting of Carmel, as well as traffic, parking, services, etc. Once built, who will be responsible for maintenance? And who will fairly determine who is allowed to live in these 350 units? I also do not believe that the longer-term has been considered. If 350 units are added in this round will more units be required in the future? There are many more people who work in Carmel's low paying service sector than can ever be accommodated in the surrounding residential area, and the existing residential area should not be expected to serve Carmel's commercial sector.
Also, if changes are made to accommodate development of affordable housing, won't some of these changes also be used by clever developers of luxury housing to build larger, more ostentatious housing?
I don't think it is feasible to build affordable housing given the value of the property and cost of building.
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 2 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 -densification. 4,000
square foot lots are already small. We already have small setbacks.
Minimally invasive to character of Carmel.
No additional housing
no more new housing
None
None Carmel should determine what is right for its citizens not bow to government bureaucrats
None It is too crowded already. Parking is already a problem None - this needs to be a local decision - not mandated by the state None.
none. we have no space. how about building housing at fort ord area None. Ridiculous amount of homes being required by the State. Will destroy Carmel by the Sea.
Resistance/Reduction of State housing goal
We should fight this ridiculous "mandate" from on high! Would like to see use of second story condos over downtown business only. Against removing Sunset Center parking unless able to dig subterranean parking. Do not think there is space for 349 homes without razing the character of Carmel. Eastwood and others improved water availability and do not believe there is sustainable possibility here--instead, build up city portions in other portions of Monterey county. If would be more efficient and better for the environment
Question 11: How can the supply of affordable housing be increased to meet the needs of our community? Select all that apply. Note: The following are examples and not the only options See corresponding Figure 9. housing and all other products and services. Work with builders and developers to find There is no
and solutions.
Aggressively tax homes that are NOT primary residences. Anyone using Carmel as their residences or full time rentals!
allow free market forces to guide the housing in the community Annex land outside city for affordable housing
Build housing on the outskirts and empty parking lots
Carmel should not be forced to change its look, feel and style! CBTS is nearly fully built out and highly desirable and therefor expensive. Adding housing will only ruin the quality of life in the city. Build the additional housing out in the Fort Ord area.
encourage landowners to build on empty lots, fast-track building permits
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 3 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 First define "our community." Whose needs are being met? Service workers in the business district? Teachers? Artists? Seniors? If racial/ethnic diversity is a goal, then make sure these people are included in the discussion. Then ask what sort of housing these people wish to have - do not dictate this for them. Keeping in mind that at this point only 350 units would be available, then do what it appears the planning office is recommending. Focus on areas in the central business district that could be enhanced by development and that will not encroach upon residential areas that are already built out with small homes on small lots.
Prioritize opportunities for purchasing versus renting so people can benefit from investment and not simply pay rent to a landlord. Any building should require attention to parking availability, increased traffic, environmental impact, and potential increased commercial needs (grocery stores, etc.). I also believe that an argument can and should be made that areas beyond the tiny jurisdiction of Carmel by the Sea can do more to accommodate affordable housing needs, and provide people with larger dwellings and ownership opportunities. Senator Laird seems to be leaning this way.
Hospitality requires workers who aren't paid enough to live here. Hospitality should bear the cost of providing housing for their workers; it is not the responsibility of residents I did not think that there is a good reason to change the town as we are too small and do not have the availability of land to do this
I do not believe CBTS should be required to provide "affordable housing". I believe in the free market factors.
It is absolutely ridiculous to plan affordable housing in a community the size of Carmel Bythe-Sea.
Less short term rental places, more long term rental options Limit the number of the short term vacation rentals of houses MAKE CERTAIN THE NEED EXISTS. Ask those who work in Carmel if they & their families are willing to give up the square footage they now enjoy to live in Carmel in half the space.
N/A. How will you address the issue of water & parking? Not everyone can live in the Carmel area. Not enough room! Small lots. Neighbors too close!
OPPOSE THE MANDATE
Press upon our representatives the lack of space in our tiny village and encourage housing in other parts of the county
Push back on State mandate
Reaching the state mandated goal will destroy the character and charm of Carmel There is no space for this in Carmel - but our state is huge - build housing elsewhere. Anyone Utilize empty lots for single family housing.
Where is the Water going to come from for any of this?
work with our neighboring communities that have land/water available for housing
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 4 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 Question 12: Carmel-by-theSee corresponding Figure 10. A map of someplace else affordability is the main factor. No gov. assistance should be involved Affordable housing outside city limits.
I don't care for any of the choices
Limit to that which is currently available
N/A. The city is not obligated to provide affordable housing None
None
None
None
NONE
None
none
NONE
None
None of the above
None. Carmel is NOT affordable for everyone. No one would want to help me if I wanted to live in the first arrondisement in Paris!
Not for the City to get involved in.
Nothing.
Provide a gig economy type resource such as Airbnb or Neighborhood Storage to allow owners to rent out rooms
Rental agencies
Simplify the building code. Reduce the planning commission to 3, There is smooch open ground within 1/2 hour of Carmel why would anyone in their right mind try to jam affordable housing in a community as small and as expensive as Carmel? Unknown
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 5 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 Question 14:
housing? Examples include building an ADU/JADU, converting commercial office space to an apartment, or constructing a secondNote: There is no corresponding figure for this question.
No
yes I would consider
No
More space
no
I would, if I had more space.
No
No
No way
No
No
NOT
No
ADU
No
I am not interested at this time to increase the density of my property No
I would consider an ADU. CTBS is not an apartment community. no
Absolutely not.
Not possible. No.
N/A, but no
No
The lots are too small
I would consider adding a second floor condo unit but not an apartment.
No
no
Yah, would like to build condominium to retain pride of ownership in community No
No. My house is already two stories. A third story would destroy the character of the neighborhood. I value the forest-like nature of the neighborhood and am not willing to remove the trees on the property to make space for an ADU. no
No
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 6 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 No
No
No
No, all the options above make a community a less desirable place to live.
No because the state is on the path to more rent control. How would I recoup my costs unless I sell.
No
n/a
Yes, converting second floor office space to apartments.
No
Yes
No
yes
No - My house location relative to the lot and steep hillside won't support an ADU.
Otherwise I would explore this.
Yes an ADU.
No
No. ly have to pay more property taxes than I do now
no
NO
Yes
Not enough space
No.
N/A see above
if properly stimulated financially
We live in a modest 100 year old house. Altering it would be a travesty No
no
Yes, if lot would permit addition
Absolutely NOT!!
We already have a second story. I suspect many homeowners have similar situations. You might do better filling vacant commercial properties as there are quite a few. only a JDU is possible...but not of interest.
No, don't have the space or floorplan for an addition.
I believe that SFD zoning laws should be respected and followed; so I would not consider an ADU. ADU's as now allowed increase the density of our village without any other requirements to offset the impact: no parking, setbacks, no requirement to even rent at below market rate. Nothing gained and much loss to the community.
Heritage oak in the way.
No.
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 7 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 NA
Yes, all of the above
No
Only with some protection to me as an owner as mentioned above.
No
No
No
I could not afford to build anything. Fixed income senior No
I would consider it, but we cannot afford to do this.
No
No, my property is too small.
Too small
No
Build ADUs not encourage STRs
no (see above)
Not a property owner
Yes
Yes
I already have a legal subordinate unit.
No, see above
No
No. Already 2 story.
Since I live in a quiet neighborhood, I believe the best option for us is to build an ADU/JADU. The city should evaluate the house size to lot size ratio. With that houses can go to a second level without restrictions.
NA
yes
All of the above.
Yes - I am currently considering this.
N/A
Not at this time.
Yes
Yes.
N/A
No.
No
No, it's a single family home that I plan to live in.
na
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 8 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 Yes, but the city makes the permitting very difficult and the county does not have the water.
Yes
No
No
Question 13:
Note: There is no corresponding
figure for this question.
Extra housing on a 4000 sqft lot? No thanks
ability to pay for development and increased property taxes. ADUs appear the most realistic way approach to meet our 349 housing unit goals.
More space
My property is historic.
More land, more financial resources. All other existing elements are acceptable.
Untenable request due to lot limitations
There isn't space on my property to add an ADU
I would move out of the city if affordable housing continues to be forced on Carmel, and if it indeed comes to fruition
Guidelines to keep the charm and permit process loosened.
Never
I would NOT consider adding a unit to house somebody else We have a tiny lot and there is no room
We are content with our property just the way it is
HIghly cooperative City regulations and water
No
It should be my choice and not mandated by the State
I would not build an ADU on a 40x100 lot. My poor neighbors! Nothing
If CTBS changed the access to water and limits on lot coverage, many owners would build ADU's because they would like to have more space available. I would build an ADU and put a relative in it.
There isn't enough room and there isn't enough water
Absolutely not. The city won't even let me build a car port let alone another dwelling! We do not have room so we could not consider it.
N/A, but if I owned, I would build an ADU for my aging parents More land
Less restrictions on adding units and off street parking.
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 9 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 No
I live on a 4000 sqft lot - cant imagine having additional people on the lot.
Upzoning to allow for condominiums
Nothing would convince me
Waive lot coverage limits to permit ADUs on small lots
My lot is fully built out. I would have to remove trees in order to add an ADU. no
Not enough space to build an ADU
No room to do so. Nothing could convince me to build a unit I would only consider housing unit for family members
How would we possibly fit an extra unit on our small lot and where is the water going to come from?????
Nothing would ever entice me to add an ADU to my Pebble Beach property.
Lower the cost of fees, lot coverage, water demand and red tape No
own property in another county but purchase in Carmel not affordable n/a
Waive or lower permit fees and improve the building permit process so it is quicker.
Not relevant
Change in Building Codes
Tax break
Not much as have considered.
The position of my house on the lot and the steepness of my backyard won't support an ADU
Currently have an ADU. Have rented it in the past.
I would not consider adding housing to my property. Parking is an issue as is noise and congestion.
a larger lot!
In 4,000 sq. ft and a 1600 sq. ft. hour, where would I put it and would the city allow my extra water rights?
more space
Would never do this the lots are already tiny and this would look horrible it would also eliminate trees which is no good
Significant tax credits
Not enough space
No room for an additional unit.
streamlined, affordable, planning and design services
No incentive would encourage me to add housing to my property. there is not enough space on our property to add an ADU -street parking, so the city will have to give on that as
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 10 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 financial stimuli
Not possible. Lot already too small
Lot us too small
Nothing
nothing
Planning Commission objections to design elements they do not like. lower permit fees Already have an ADU on the property.
I am not at all interested.
My house already occupies most of the lot.
No - There is no viable space on our corner lot
Don't have the space for separate structure but might consider roommate if had the space A much bigger parcel of land so that the ADU structure did not impact my privacy or that of my neighbors. It would have to be in compliance with existing SFD zoning. It would have to have room for off street parking and room to create a lovely landscaped setting for the occupant.
Water available and space to put one. Tree in the way now.
My lot is too small to add an ADU
NA
Eliminate fees, fast track permitting, have the City maintain a renter registry so that recreation rentals are prohibited.
No space for anything
Make the permitting process easier. Fine citizens who weaponize archaic zoning laws for NIMBYism. Make being a NIMBY uncool.
Some way to positively prevent irresponsible people renting it. CA rental laws are so biased against the property owners it's nearly impossible to evict deadbeats or creeps.
Parking plan
Water allocation and change of building codes
N/A live outside of CBTS, but still in surrounding area.
Market rent
Not possible on our small lot
I would need financial assistance to do that.
Increase the size of the lot. Already built out to allowable size on lot.
Decreased red tape and incentives.
Nothing
Reducing the county fees for permits and facilitate the programs to encourage ADUs.
Essentially incentivize efforts to do ADUs.
would depend on what kitchen facilities would qualify (we have a guest house but no room for another structure)
Not a property owner
Financial assistance to build an ADU
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 11 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 Permit streamlining and financial assistance
I already have a legal subordinate unit. I may want to convert it to an ADU.
I wouldn't because I would have to build such a unit from scratch and the return of investment probably would be low, and the reduction in privacy and yard space.
Functional need arising internally
We would have to be allowed to cut down a large, healthy tree.
For the city to allow me to have different set backs, expedite approval process, maybe provide incentives for quick/economical building, and for the county to increase my water credits. I will be delighted to build an ADU in my property. Additionally, the city may consider making the size on the house bigger than the current 40% of the lot size. An option will be to expand to 50 or 60% of the lot.
Adding a kitchen to existing guest house (need water credits) NA
I own property in another county, but funding would be the primary requirement.
Reduced/eliminated planning and building fees. Real property tax assessment deferral.
More clarity on rules.
N/A
Have not considered it..mmm
Help with water restrictions, subsidy, low interest loan, clear regulations, reasonable standards and explanations for license and permits and building codes and inspection Low interest loan and property tax reduction incentive.
N/A
We would have no interest in doing this. Our home is already on a typical small lot. We have little to no backyard. There would be no parking for a tenant/tenants.
We have a gust house already
There is no room for that on my property.
Zoning changes, property tax breaks, neutral to positive cash flow model. na
Easier building laws and permit allocations.
Limitations on allowed max size of ADU
Question 15: What effect would providing more housing units in Carmel-by-the-Sea have on local businesses? See corresponding Figure 11. housing costs, they cannot afford to support the local business. These people who need financial help with housing will probably add burden to public services such as police, schools, fire, paramedics, and infrastructure such as water and electrical.
Adverse affect since Carmel businesses wants to attract affluent visitors not workers in their own stores/restaurants
Affordable housing would not improve local business revenue Anything that hurts the livability here will hurt the businesses.
Carmel shops and restaurants are too expensive if on a low income
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 12 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 Crowds, parking, traffic, crime, pollution air and noise Depends on the disposable income of the new residents.
Depends on the type of shops .. overall could be more customers if service business and affordable goods
Destroy the look and feel of Carmel by the Sea.
Even more congestion , traffic, lack of parking. Remember- let's not kill our Golden Goose.
Fewer customers. It's already hard to get to places due to lack of parking. Hills make it hard to walk with seniors and disabled and losing more spots to younger people would discriminate against aged and disabled
I am not sure, but can offer some thoughts. Residents in affordable housing will likely not be frequenting the tourist venues: the proliferating wine tasting rooms, high end clothing shops, art galleries, restaurants, etc. They will likely need different options that are not available in town. So either these are added (which means even more commercial activity paying low wages), or more people will be travelling to shop/eat out, etc in the surrounding areas. This implies that there are either even more cars on the roads or that mass transit will need to be enhanced so people can travel beyond town. Ideally, the local businesses would feel responsibility for making affordable housing available to the lower wage workers they hire, wherever possible. The idea that hotels would provide living quarters is a good one. Thought should also be put into reducing the number of business licenses in Careml by the Sea. As businesses move or close, these spaces could be made into housing. More service businesses simply means more lower paid workers who are unable to afford housing.
If below market, it would assist with employee housing and retention. increase in available workforce
Increased diversity; less traffic
It depends if the businesses provide some reasonably priced options people are going to take the bus? The city spent more time actually keeping the city clean (and not rely on Carmel Cares) I think more people would frequent downtown CBTS.
It will compound the parking issues. PACT as now proposed: no time limit on parking and residents park free.
It would bring in more traffic and make the parking situation worse. This would drive away the tourists who are willing and able to spend money in the shops and restaurants here.
It would make parking even worse than it already is.
It would probably change the character of the town to some degree Less parking for visitors. Congestion
less tourists, less income
Like a lot of locals, other than Safeway, they wouldn't shop at local business Locals do not shop downtown, well except for the cheese shop.
Loss of parking spaces
loss of prestige and distinction -Carmel would no long be a worldwide magnet once the character and charm is destroyed by over development
Low income people will not shop in Carmel
maybe new residents but could they afford the shops and restaurant prices in Carmel?
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 13 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 More clients
More congestion and less parking
More crowded, less appealing to shop
More customers, as long as the units are for permanent renters and not visitors.
More employees/employers and City employees living in Carmel will increase demand for services of local businesses. It will also allow city employees to engage with the community and be part of local activities at their backyards.
More housing likely means more illegal short term rentals and vacation rentals - so I suppose business would go up.
More potential employees.
More traffic and no place to park!
More traffic. Less parking.
More workers that could live near their work.
Most would become vacation units of some kind.
Of course more people theoretically would would help local business I doubt that the high end stores will see any increase from the new medium and low income residences. I doubt that many of the high end shops in town will see any increase in buisness from the new medium and low income
Offer housing opportunities of housing for people that also work in Carmel! Only more customers, if the new residents could afford to shop locally.
Overcrowding and more traffic.
Overcrowding of parking spaces for shoppers.
Parking would be important. More housing comes with more cars.
Simply more congestion
They would probably recognize a need to carry more generally affordable options for lowerpaid residents This will cause a detrimental impact on the desirability just look at San Francisco fewer customers
Traffic congestion. If this town was 100% occupied our neighborhoods and roads could not manage the modern day traffic with most owning 2-3 cars.
Ugly buildings. No parking. Loss of charm of Carmel
Very little as parking is already a problem.
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 14 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 Question 16: Carmel-by-the-Sea benefit you? (Quality of life Note: There is no corresponding figure for this question.
How does, or how would, living in Carmel-by-the-Sea benefit you? (Quality of life question) Financially and also scholastically.
Pretty incredible year round weather and ease of access to shops / services / restsurants.
Less traffic congestion would be a plus
394 units in this small area is ridiculous as the traffic and infrastructure not to mention water Fresh air.
The physical benefits of walking the scenic pathway ir ti tien to town, scenic vistas, the architecture and trees are what we like best. We hope we can continue to live here. The expense is a huge sacrifice.
and ridiculous government policies. The state owns most of the land in the state. They can and should be building affordable housing in less populous, not necessarily remote, locations of our state
Like the small scale community and peacefulness
N/A
Sense of community, cultural and out door events
Living in Carmel is a positive experience for the soul, whether to live or visit. Most people are fantastic. Nature, fresh air, and fairy tale esthetics are refreshing and inspiring. This is not a thriving metropolis by design and I appreciate that. There are different times for different places.
We live here and, once again, appreciate the small, unostentatious homes on small lots embedded in natural surroundings. Nature supersedes housing in Carmel. We appreciate our neighbors. We appreciate living on a street that does not have a lot of traffic, although this has increased. We appreciate being able to hike from our home in most directions and experience beauty.
Access to nature. Walkable town.
Carmel is my haven
Incredible schools, safe, beautiful place to raise my family What a beautiful place to live. I benefit by being so close to nature, knowing that there is a good school district. Glad I live near cities with more ex and social diversity and would like to see more here in Carmel.
at one of the restaurants. We rarely drive i to town unless we have an oversized package at the PO. I can tell you having lived here 25+ years we have watched it of CA which was/is not only preventable, but sad.
Does not apply since I already live in Carmel-by-the-Sea. I am concerned that there is no work in Carmel requirement for those potential occupants of the new housing. Aren't we trying to eliminate the commute and the environmental impact of such traffic? I already live in Carmel-by-the-Sea and love it. If we add 349 units of affordable housing, there will be more traffic and overcrowding, which will diminish my property value. Please
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 15 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 reject the state's misguided demands. Instead of wasting tax dollars to come up with a plan, we should be fighting the state with a lawsuit.
It's a great little community with a very low crime rate.
We have worked hard to be able to afford to live in this gem of a place. It is perfect the way it is. Affordable housing outside our tiny city would be my preference.
Beach walks and biking encourages my soul. Love the quiet. Value the Safety. greatly
Our current quality of life is excellent.
I live in Carmel because I can handle the weather, walking to town, close by groceries and medical facilities. I am old and cannot take care of too much anymore. I would hate to see town broken up by little ADU buildings where there used to be a pretty little flower gardens.
This town is already crowded. Whoever decided to break up town into 4000 square feet lots was not thinking.
In an earlier question, you asked what is attractive about living in Carmel - beauty of the landscape, the architecture and the urban forest - destroy that and you've destroyed Carmel Safe, clean, cool weather, golf, mountains, beach
love being able to walk most everywhere I go and not step over homeless on the sidewalks and have to deal with bay area type traffic
It's a peaceful city with a lot to do
We already live in Carmel-by-the-Sea and enjoy a nice quality of life just the way it is.
It is a tranquil, unique place to spend time. Cramming more housing into limited space will make it less appealing.
Living in downtown Carmel allows me to be a pedestrian, which increases my personal traffic through town. I am more likely to buy something when it catches my eye in the window. Also, walking like a pedestrian decreases my carbon foot print.
I already live here! Our quality of life is good -- walk daily, enjoy restaurants and events, and have developed a very nice community of friends. We like to live here and plan to do so for many years to come.
We would have loved to keep the parklets at all the restaurants since that made the city more friendly, encouraged walkability, and community. It gave the city a sense of vibrancy, excitement and camaraderie.
Already do - it is wonderful.
I enjoy and treasure every moment of living in Carmel. Adding more housing is going to increase traffic, parking problems and congestion which are BIG negatives to the current quality of life here in Carmel. I suggest that a survey with the target audience be done to see who would be interested in living these proposed changes and could they even afford those! There is abundant opportunity to enjoy the beach and MTNP.
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 16 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 Walkable life and friendly people with nice weather.
It is a beautiful town the way it is. Don't over develop it. If you cant afford to live in CBTS then you can always visit it. I am 100% against the changes proposed! Social activities, restaurants, clean air, beautiful nature, lovely architecture, walkable community, less stress.
It would be more crowded.
Reduce my quality. If moving into town from Carmel Woods with larger lots, ocean and forest views, space between houses, wildlife and a large garden and small house, I would feel cramped. When I grew up in Carmel, our house was small, but there were undeveloped lots between houses, so we had places to play and our neighbors weren't right next to us.
I live here now.
Dog friendly
Being close to Carmel Foundation for services allowing us to walk most places, & to shop, bank, eat out, go to the Sunset Center, the theatre etc.
I live here full time-adding additional housing is only going to decrease my quality of life as this village is not made for big city congestion.
Encouragement to walk to the beach and into town
Simple answer; I can live anywhere in the world I want to live and I choose Carmel for a myriad of reasons of which affordable housing is certainly not one! Carmel-by-the-Sea is special and it shouldn't be forced to provide affordable housing, it's a short commute to nearby towns that are more equipped to add housing.
Small town feel/friendliness; less worry about crime, drugs, vagrancy; strong pride in cleanliness, safety, livability of community; wonderful shops and eateries.
I would not live in a City that cratered to ridiculous demands from State government. If 349 units even begin to be sandwiched in Carmel- I move
CTBS is a very special place and it is no business of the government to change our community in any way. Our community is our decision, not up to the "State". We are not yet a communist county.
I like small town living.
If Carmel-by-the-Sea is required to build all these affordable units, the residential density will lower the quality of life and make it a much less desirable city for residents and tourists.
Safety
I like be able to walk everywhere, limited amount of noise pollution, access to events at the Sunset Center - and parking there for patrons.
Wonderful retreat. I appreciate the need to make it affordable for people who work there but do not ruin the charm of Carmel. Can these units be outside of the golden rectangle and be by the crossroads or somewhere else where there is space
Negative.
Sense of community.
It is relatively peaceful, but every holiday and weekend and special event bring hundreds or Great place to retire.
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 17 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 Because every restaurant and business is within walking distance, we are active and healthy.
Walking around also results in more friends and that makes a better community.
Love it! Need more more condominiums
Presently living in Carmel offers a unique experience with a peaceful, healthy way of life.
I would be able to live closer to work and in the CUSD school district for my kids No commuting so more time spent with family.
More active neighborhoods. It would likely result in more traffic, noise and possibly a slight uptick in crime. However, the town has lost ~20% of it's full time population in the 20+ years I've liked here. It can grow by 1000 residents without much pain.
Great weather, small community, friendly residents.
I love the small town feel, clean air, and quiet.
I live in Carmel now
I lke living here.
The same as now, as many homes empty.
I live here and value every aspect of it's beauty, people, nature, charm etc.
Actively involved community
Enjoy hiking in the community and visiting the beach.
Excellent walking and running without having to drive. Quiet forested neighborhoods. Good stuff.
Best Quality of Life experience, lived here 70 years.
High quality of retired lifestyle
I love living here...the beauty of the beach and forest is incredible, and I love the small-town feel of the village and the fact that I can walk everywhere.
Lifestyle
I love easy access to forest, beach, Sunset Center, downtown Small town life, running into people I know, clean air, pretty surroundings, peace and quiet, community engagement activities.
Low stress environment, nature, low crime
Active lifestyle, great school district, amenities, etc.
Diversity of every kind is good for everyone
I live here full time. I love the quiet atmosphere outside of the downtown district and the charming homes.
I love the way Carmel by the Sea integrates city living with the natural environment.
Living in Carmel by the Sea is a wonderful experience. I chose to live here so i can walk the streets and get to know my neighbors. I wish there were more apartments in the village center and less parking lots. I would recommend having tourist parking at cross roads and provide free electric shuttles to Ocean Avenue and the beaches to cut down on single car traffic.
It would be able to walk or bike to work. I would also be an integral part of the community I serve.
I love living in Carmel. I am incredibly blessed to have a home here and there are wonderful benefits. Strong community connections, peaceful and tranquil lifestyle, safety and security, opportunities for leadership, close to downtown where I can walk, and much more. Great presentation, great work and thank you!
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 18 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 I live and work in Carmel-by-the-Sea, so I rarely drive my car during the week. I feel safe where I live; it is a quiet street. I have access to multiple great restaurants and other small businesses, and I can walk to the beach. My family and friends can stay with me when they come to visit, and we can all enjoy the City together.
Would enjoy greater diversity
Great school district for my kids, the beauty and charm of the area makes me happy Proximity to outdoor activities.
for affordable housing it would allow a senior artist like myself to create art here and sell it in the shops instead of having to live outside of town.
Living in Carmel would reduce my daily commute time by three hours Living in Carmel immerses me in natural beauty and allows me to walk rather than take my car for many errands and services. I wish we had a few more of these services in the village these days.
Daily walks to beach, fresh air, minimal traffic; do not see any congestion.
Access to natural resources is incredible.
closer proximity to ocean/beach
Dream location.
peaceful, clean, healthy living, quiet during the non-touristy times of the year.
Peaceful. Friendly. Beautiful.
We have built our lives here, and are deeply involved in the community.
Quality of life
I would live where I work and drive less or not need to drive at all Shorter commute, and being part of the community I work in.
Easy lifestyle
Allowing my family to be fully emersed with the community that they go to school in and work in. Currently having to commute from another city to be able to attend work and school doesn't allow for a well-rounded lifestyle. Providing housing in Carmel for the people who teach and support Carmel students/children, should be a big factor in this decision.
I grew up here, but without changes to the local real estate market I cannot foresee ever owning a home here. Being able to support my aging parents in the area and maintain my ties to the community mean a great deal to me.
would love to be closer to my job at Library and walk everywhere.
I lose two hours a day of my life to drive here, from Salinas, which is also barely affordable Closer to work
The daily way of life here has been greatly improved for me and my dogs. The ability to walk every where, rarely drive, and have a more active life while feeling safe is a dream.
Would be closer to work.
I would be closer to work and the Carmel community.
Living close to beautiful natural resources of ocean and forest- soul-sustaining. Opportunities for outdoor exercise.
Breathable air
More engagement with the community that sustains my employment, extremely high standard of living.
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 19 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 Surrounded by my current age group and scenic beauty; Monterey Salinas Transit Bus #5 to my place of employment in Carmel by the Sea.
We could absorb these additional homes with no change of quality of life.
Quality would deteriorate if you cram extra housing into our limited space People are happy here. Happiness is good!
Clean air, low crime
FEWER PEOPLE ARE BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
Small town
I like it as it it. If you start stuffing hundreds of extra units into this town I might actually sell and leave.
We love it here and want to preserve it in its current state before it gets over built Bonding with community and nature
Great Quiet lifestyle
Quiet Lifestyle
I love living in a safe and small village that is easy to walk where ever I want to go. I rarely need to use my car here. Carmel is quiet and has a high quality of life, unlike Texas where I moved here from almost twenty years ago. I am very much against state control and unfunded mandates. Local control is where we need to concentrate our efforts. There is plenty of land a short drive from Carmel by-the-Sea that can easily accommodate the houses the state is mandating. I do not think it is fair that those who bought houses here under certain conditions such as view shed or single family ownership should have to now live where they would not have bought had they known of the development required by the state. beautiful surroundings
I live here - not looking forward to have this housing mandate from the state impacting our quality of life
go-to places for dining out are mostly in PG and Monterey as they are more reasonably Can walk most places
I've traveled the world and can live anywhere. I choose here for its unique culture, weather and natural beauty. I would welcome more residents to share it with.
Fulfills a decades long dream to have a home in one of our favorite places Peace and quiet, proximity to beauty of the area
Access to CUSD, access to more open/transparent government, access to outdoor opportunities.
I enjoy the beautiful environment and community engagement.
Enjoy current QofL in Carmel
Vastly improved over city living. Very happy to be here full time. Do not lose the charm that is Carmel.
No change to current benefits.
Too expensive for what you get
Appendix H -- Stakeholder Survey 20 EMC Planning Group
Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Adopted April 8, 2024 Carmel is safe and close to my work.
Safety and being in a small community.
CBTS is a small and safe community with lots of culture and entertainment options.
Lower commute times, using less gas, less crime.
Tranquil, beautiful setting, safety and quiet
The feel of being safe. And being able to walk everywhere Peace of mind from safety
Clean air, can walk to the beach and to town. Local events and outings. Carmelites care about each other. Feel safe, not as safe as before.
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031)
Housing Element Amendment Public Comment
Responses
1.1 Public Comments Received
Per the requirements of AB 215, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea published the Housing Element Amendment for a seven-day public review period on the City’s website, https://ci.carmel.ca.us/post/current-planning-applications, Public Meetings/Hearings. The public review period began on October 16, 2025, and ended on November 5, 2025. A total of 12 comments were received, none of which resulted in a substantive change to the Draft Housing Element Amendment. Public comments received on the Housing Element Amendment are summarized below, followed by City staff’s response to the comments.
Comment #1: A. Carr
● Amazing job [with the Housing Element Amendment] without compromising the integrity of the town
● A state-mandated program that assumes people don’t have cars is a real issue ● Appreciate taking the [city-owned] parking lots off [of the site's inventory] ● Whatever [the City] does with the parking lots should be done in a calm manner and not against a timeline, with developers swarming around trying to do what is good for them and not the town
City Response: Comment noted.
Comment #2: F. Kern
● City has a wonderful plan approved for the Sunset Center and Vista Lobos ● The #1 problem in this town is parking, which can be built underground [at the City-owned sites] and never be seen
● Put out an RFP for Sunset Center and Vista Lobos for 90 days, allow developers to make a proposal, present plans
● Developers have been completely left out of this process, bring in the private sector ● The [hotel-to-residential] keys is a wonderful idea, trade one hotel key for workforce housing, and build a 5-star hotel at Sunset Center with underground parking and charge 15% TOT [transient occupancy tax] all through the private sector ● The town has no money to give to people, and water is not an incentive ● Churches have no interest in selling their property unless it is at market rate Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-1 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
City Response: Appendix C, Page C-11 includes a section titled “Outreach and Developer and Hotel Owner Interest.” Several meetings with developers were held to discuss the hotel-to-residential conversion program and strong interest was expressed in the program.
Appendix C, Page C-15 includes a section titled, “Outreach and Owner Interest.” Developers participated in a community meeting at the Sunset Center in November 2024 to discuss development of affordable housing on church sites.
Comment #3: Anonymous
● Parking is the main problem and it will be compounded with an additional 349 housing units and 1.5-2 people per unit - how many cars is that per unit? ● Why are you rewarding underperforming hotels with a way out? Is there another way of gaining revenue for the city?
● One of the sites identified should be designated for parking City Response: Comment noted. Meeting the RHNA of 349 units is a State mandate.
Comment #4: A. Jeselnick
● [Housing Element Amendment] is right-sized for Carmel ● Water needs to be allocated to the housing element programs with a commercial component
● Parking is the elephant in the room, and there is no silver bullet to fix it ● Current staffing may not be adequate to process the number of housing units planned for City Response: Comment noted.
Comment #5: V. Beach
● [Higher] potential for units but presenting less
● ADUs occupied by an elderly parent, nurse, or another person at no cost are still considered an affordable unit - this is a likely Carmel scenario ● A market study of commercial rents revealed that residential rents are higher than commercial rents, which supports the live/work concept
City Response: Comment noted.
Comment #6: P. Prowes
● Public has not had an opportunity to review the Amendment ● Has there been any interest from hotel owners?
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-2 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
● No CEQA has been done and the path is not clear, parking and water issues may require an EIR
● Put out the RFP and see what is the highest and best use, there is developer interest City Response: Since initiating the amendment effort in July 2024, there have been eight public meetings with the Planning Commission and/or City Council and two community meetings on the topic of the Housing Element amendment.
Appendix C, Page C-11 includes a section titled “Outreach and Developer and Hotel Owner Interest.” Several meetings with hotel owners were held to discuss the hotel-to-residential conversion program and strong interest was expressed in the program.
Environmental review will be conducted once the project description becomes solidified. Parking is not an environmental impact analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Refer to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2023-2031) and Safety Element Update Mitigated Negative Declaration for a discussion of groundwater supplies.
Comment #7: T. Twomey
● There is interest in the hotel program
● The concept was vetted with several stakeholders, including hotel owners, hotel developers, and affordable housing developers
● Support for the Amendment and for trying something different City Response: Comment noted.
Comment #8: CalHDF
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when considering an amendment to the City’s Housing Element, as contemplated by agenda item 1 from the October 20, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, which calls for removing the City-owned sites known as Vista Lobos, Sunset Center North, and Sunset Center South.
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when considering an amendment to the City’s Housing Element, agenda item 2 for the November 4, 2025 Council meeting, which calls for removing the City-owned sites known as Vista Lobos, Sunset Center North, and Sunset Center South.
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-3 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
The City’s proposed amendments to its Housing Element would violate state law, including recently decided appellate case law, in several ways, as detailed below. The City’s contemplated approach brings a significant risk of litigation.
Background
The City’s Housing Element of its General Plan must provide an inventory of sites where housing is likely to be built in the upcoming cycle for each income level in its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”). (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) The City’s RHNA includes the construction of 113 very low-income units, 74 low-income units, 44 moderate-income units, and 118 above moderate income units. The City’s Housing Element Site Inventory allocates 78 very low-income units to the three City-owned sites, along with 46 low-income units and 25 moderate-income units. Together, these sites account for the vast majority of lower-income units in the City’s Housing Element.
Additionally, these are the three best sites for potential funding as Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) projects, given their size, potential unit yield, and land cost. Were these three sites to be removed from the Housing Element, the Site Inventory would have a serious deficit, falling well short of both the Housing Element’s target production of 410 units, including 201 lower-income units, and the RHNA of 349 units, including 187 lower-income units. Because removing these sites would cause a deficit of lower-income units in the City’s Site Inventory, the City’s Housing Element would no longer be in substantial compliance with state law.
The City has proposed to make up for this shortfall by amending its Housing Element to establish multiple new programs, including:
● Program 1.1.C: Live/Work Housing
● Program 1.1.B: Development on Small Sites / Program 1.1.D: Mixed-Income Incentive Program
● Program 1.1.E: Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties ● Program 1.1.F: Hotel-to-Residential Conversion (Hotel ‘Key’ Transfer) However, each of these programs are defective with respect to state law, as discussed infra.
Underlying Purpose of the Amendment
Before addressing the substance of the proposed amendment to the City’s Housing Element, it is worth addressing the very purpose of the amendment. The City’s existing, approved Housing Element plans to develop affordable housing via a tried and true technique - the disposal of City-owned land to affordable developers in order to build 100% affordable housing, almost certainly using federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTC”).
Pages 2-1 and 2-2 of the amended Housing Element contain the City’s justification for this amendment (emphasis added):
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-4 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
“Beginning in Summer 2024, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea began exploring strategies to further enhance the City’s ability in delivering affordable housing opportunities throughout the community, and developing alternative strategies that present near-term potential for affordable units … The City is proud of the policies and programs that follow below. They represent an honest desire by both the local government and residents of Carmel to create real affordable housing opportunities in what, by all accounts, is an unaffordable place to live. This shared desire is evidenced by how these policies and programs came together … it leveraged the knowledge of both residents and City staff, making it possible to turn Carmel’s unique constraints into opportunities for the creation of new housing.” However, these statements are simply not true. This amendment was created because members of the community have sought to block the development of 100% affordable housing on the City-owned sites.
The public record makes it clear that an antipathy towards housing for low-income households underlies this effort to amend the Housing Element.
A news article has documented how the City Council directed City staff to work with a group of local activists to amend the housing element to exclude the City sites, a group that evidently includes former Council Member Victoria Beach, who is quoted as saying, “The idea of clumping people who are lower-income together is a discredited housing strategy.” The development of housing in which 100% of units are affordable to lower-income households is in fact the primary method of developing affordable housing across the nation. Across the country, LIHTC funding has placed into service more than 3.7 million affordable homes, according to the federal government. In California, LIHTC developments are almost always 100% affordable to lower-income households. The LIHTC program, particularly when paired with local or state subsidy, is the primary way that California develops affordable housing.
The City, by choosing to abandon a 100% affordable strategy involving the disposition of City-owned land, is choosing riskier, unproven models that are much less likely to result in the development of housing affordable to lower-income households during the planning period. And the City seems to be doing so in order to appease residents who do not want 100% affordable housing developed in their community.
Lack of Site Inventory
Before addressing the various major legal problems in the proposed amendment, it is worth noting the fact that the amendment fails to include an adequate site inventory. Appendix C largely rehashes and expands upon various Housing Element programs. However, it fails to complete a critical Housing Element task - an inventory of land with specific numbers of units by income level assigned to each parcel.
This duty is imposed upon the City by state law. Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(3) requires that the Housing Element include::
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-5 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
(a)(3) An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.
If this were not clear enough, page 9 of the HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook states:
Identify which RHNA income category that each site in the inventory is anticipated to accommodate. On the site inventory, specify whether the site or a portion of the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or abovemoderate-income housing. Sites can accommodate units for more than one income category. However, the inventory should indicate the number of units of each income category, and together the total of units attributed to each income category may not exceed total units attributed to the site, so that no unit is designated for more than one income category.
The proposed amendment fails in this elementary task.
Given that Appendix C, Sites Inventory, does not actually include a site inventory, below is a discussion of tables in Appendix C that do identify potential housing sites:
● Tables C-2 and C-3 identify pipeline projects, which is appropriate. ● Table C-8 identifies 45 different hotels that could conceivably be converted into affordable housing, but it fails to identify how many units by income level are planned for each site. However, Table C-42 assigns 80 lower-income units to the hotel conversion program. It is unclear which of these hotels are actually planned for lower-income units. ● Table C-10 identifies three churches that are planned for conversion to affordable housing, with unit counts and income levels. This is acceptable for this specific program. [The program itself violates state law for other reasons, including minimum site capacity issues, as discussed infra.]
● Table C-15 identifies eight parcels for the Live/Work program along with a number of units achievable on each site, but it fails to identify which income levels the sites will serve.
○ It is worth noting that on page C-29 the Housing Element states that only low-income units will be allowed to be developed in these buildings. However, Table C-15 assigns less than the minimum number of units required for low-income sites, as discussed infra.
○ Disturbingly, Table C-15 is entitled “Properties with Live/Work Potential for Lower-Income Housing.” It is unclear if the City is actually committing to rezoning these parcels, or if it even considers these particular parcels to be on its site inventory.
● Table C-16 includes two parcels that will be rezoned and it also includes the number of units by income levels. However, Table C-16 assigns less than the minimum number of units required for low-income sites, as discussed infra.
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-6 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
● Table C-18 includes pipeline sites and recycled sites, with units by income level, which is appropriate.
In sum, the proposed amendment fails to include a site inventory that meets the requirements of state law. Even when taking all the tables in Appendix C in aggregate, the amendment simply does not supply enough information to constructively generate a site inventory. Crucially, Table C-8 fails to identify how many units by income level are planned for each hotel site.
However, the site inventory is superseded in importance by the failure of the amendment’s housing programs, which do not satisfy Housing Element Law.
Required Minimum Number of Units Per Lower-Income Site
The five aforementioned programs fail to follow the requirements of state law regarding the minimum number of units per site.
Zoning code amendments, zoning map amendments, or both are required to implement each of the five listed programs. This means that the current zoning does not accommodate the programmed RHNA. For sites where the current zoning does not accommodate the programmed RHNA, Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2) requires that the City rezone each site slated for a portion of its low-income RHNA for at least 16 units per site.
low-income site to accommodate at least 16 units.
However, many of the sites in the City’s proposed amended Housing Element do not allow at least 16 units of residential development.
● Program 1.1.C: Live/Work Housing - AFFH
○ All the sites in Table C-15 have between 7 and 13 units of capacity ● Program 1.1.D: Mixed-Income Incentive Program / Program 1.1.B: Development on Small Sites
○ Each of the two sites listed in Table C-16 have fewer than 16 units of capacity, with 010-138-020 planned for 7 units and 010-142-001 planned for 5 units ● Program 1.1.E: Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties - AFFH ○ First Church of Christian Science’s site capacity is only 13 units ○ Rezoning required as the City may not rely on SB 4 in lieu of a rezoning, as discussed infra. This means that the 16-unit minimum applies. ● Program 1.1.F: Hotel-to-Residential Conversion (Hotel ‘Key’ Transfer) - AFFH ○ The following hotels listed in table C-8 have less than 16 rooms:
■ Briarwood Inn
■ Briarwood Inn II/Holland Court Inn
■ Carmel Cottage Inn LLC
■ Carmel Country Inn LLC
■ Carmel Garden Inn
■ Carriage House Inn
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-7 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
■ Forest Lodge
■ Lamplighter Inn
■ Monte Verde Inn
■ Monte Verde Inn East
■ Ocean View Lodge
■ Sea View Inn
■ Sunset House
■ Tally-Ho Inn
■ The Homestead
■ Vagabond House
○ As discussed supra, Program 1.1.F also fails to satisfy state law because the site inventory does not assign units by income level to the various sites The City’s Housing Element therefore does not comply with state law because it fails to satisfy the requirement that each lower-income site accommodate at least 16 units. (See Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2).) This is a basic requirement for any housing element.
Required Local Zoning for Religious Properties Program
Program 1.1.E: Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties has legal defects beyond the insufficient number of units on one of the sites. Specifically, the City cannot rely on the use of SB 4 (Gov. Code, § 65913.16) to generate housing on those sites. As discussed on page 14 of HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, the base density of each site must allow the achievement of the number of units planned in the site inventory.
Furthermore, SB 4 imposes a number of constraints on housing development. The City must analyze and account for these constraints in its Housing Element. Specifically, SB 4 requires that projects be both 100% affordable and pay prevailing wage for construction labor. This requirement, in addition to the meager number of units planned for each site, means that potential projects on these sites must receive a full LIHTC award and additional governmental subsidy (“soft money”) in order for a project to pencil out. The City must explain how it anticipates that such projects will be feasible or where the additional soft money will come from to pay the prevailing wage requirement of SB 4.
The City should remember that it must make required findings based on substantial evidence that the existing uses on these sites are likely to discontinue during the planning period, as required by Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (g)(2), given that the City is relying on nonvacant sites for at least 50% of its low-income RHNA. The City should bear in mind the prevailing wage requirements of SB 4 when making these findings.
Instead of relying on SB 4, the City must include a plan to rezone these church sites in order to allow residential development on a by-right basis, as is required by Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(1).
Additional Legal Defects in Mixed-Income Program
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-8 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
Program 1.1.D: Mixed-Income Incentive Program has legal defects beyond the insufficient number of units planned for each site. The City states that it is planning on using incentive zoning to achieve the number of low-income units on each site. However, this approach is forbidden by HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook. From page 14 of the Guidebook:
The analysis of “appropriate zoning” should not include residential buildout projections resulting from the implementation of a jurisdiction’s inclusionary program or potential increase in density due to a density bonus, because these tools are not a substitute for addressing whether the underlining (base) zoning densities are appropriate to accommodate the RHNA for lower income households.
The City must instead rezone each of these potential mixed-income sites to achieve both the minimum density and minimum unit count prescribed by law. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2).) And the City must allow residential development on a by-right basis on each site. (Id. at subd. (h)(1).)
Additional Legal Defects in Hotel Conversion Program
Program 1.1.F: Hotel-to-Residential Conversion (Hotel ‘Key’ Transfer) fails to satisfy the requirements of state law regarding the Housing Element Site Inventory. Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (b) and (c) spell out what the Housing Element’s Site Inventory must contain. As discussed supra, the site inventory must list (among other information) each site by APN along with the number of units at each income level that each site will accommodate.
The City’s proposed amended Housing Element fails to accomplish this basic task. The Housing Element lists a large number of hotels that could potentially be converted, but fails to assign specific numbers of units to specific properties at specific income levels.
And, as discussed supra, the program does not have at least 16 units on each lower-income site, violating state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2).) Requirement for By-Right Development
The program also fails to comply with Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(1), which mandates that the City allow residential development on a by-right basis for residential projects on low-income sites where at least 20% of the units are affordable. If the City plans on allowing hotels to convert to residential use in order to satisfy its low-income RHNA, then it must allow residential use on those sites on a by-right basis.
Ability to Make Findings Re Discontinuance of Uses
It is also unlikely that the City can make the required findings based on substantial evidence that the existing uses on these sites are likely to discontinue during the planning period, as required by Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (g)(2), given that the City is relying on nonvacant sites for at least 50% of its low-income RHNA.
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-9 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
The program relies on the sale of “hotel keys” (i.e. a transfer of development rights program, akin to taxi medallions or liquor licenses). In order for this program to function, there must be sufficient zoned capacity of commercial land to accommodate new hotels, so that there will be a market created for the “hotel keys.” However, the program has deeper flaws.
The City is counting on the conversion of failing hotels into affordable housing while at the same time relying on a $438,000 market value of each “hotel key.” This is an internal contradiction of the program - it is unclear why hotels are failing and ripe for conversion to affordable housing if there is such overwhelming demand for hotel rooms that developers are willing to pay $438,000 per door just for the right to develop/operate a hotel room.
Additionally, the anticipated market value of each “hotel key” seems highly inflated. To put it into perspective, in 2018, St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Midtown Manhattan was attempting to sell its development rights at an asking price of $385 per square foot, and JP Morgan Chase purchased development rights for its new Midtown office building at $350 per square foot. If each Carmel hotel room is (conservatively) 400 square feet in size, plus 100 square feet for hallways and other circulation space, this means that the City is assuming that hotel development rights in Carmel are worth approximately $600 per square foot. It is improbable that development rights in Carmel for hotel use are worth so much more than development rights in Midtown Manhattan.
Constraints from Coastal Commission Policies re Low Cost Lodging When implementing the Housing Element, the City will likely need to amend the Land Use and Coastal Access and Recreation (due to the impact on hotels/motels) chapters of its General Plan. The City will certainly need to amend its zoning code.
The City will be required to submit these various amendments to the Coastal Commission for approval, as they make up parts of the City’s Local Coastal Program.
The Coastal Commission has long prioritized lower-cost lodging in the coastal zone. Program
1.1.F is predicated on the conversion of lower-cost hotels/motels into lower-income housing.
Replacement hotel/motel units are likely to be significantly more expensive. In fact, they must be dramatically more expensive in order to pay off the $438,000 that the City plans to charge for a ‘hotel key.’
The City must analyze the degree to which the Coastal Commission’s policies regarding low-cost lodging represent a constraint on this program.
Additional Defects in Live/Work Program
As discussed supra, Program 1.1.C: Live/Work Housing has an insufficient number of units on each site, in violation of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2).
Beyond this, however, the program assumes that property owners will voluntarily renovate underutilized commercial space into deed-restricted, low-income residential units without government subsidy. The proposed amended Housing Element paints a rosy picture of how deed-restricted affordable housing will generate higher rents than the current commercial rents Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-10 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
of these spaces. However, this proposal fails to address the renovation costs needed to convert these spaces into residential units.
Chapter 10 of California’s Existing Building Code (C.C.R. Title 24, Part 10) imposes a host of requirements whenever a change of occupancy is proposed, and such building improvements will be required in addition to the installation of bathrooms, kitchens, interior walls, HVAC, etc.
The notion that property owners would opt into such renovations to create affordable housing without government funding is improbable, to say the least.
Successful programs in California rely on bonuses of additional market rate development to encourage the development of deed-restricted, affordable housing. Highly successful programs that use this model include the state’s Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915) and San Diego’s bonus ADU program. However, programs tend to be very unsuccessful if they allow additional units only on the condition that they be deed-restricted, affordable units.
It is therefore unlikely that the City can make the required findings based on substantial evidence that the existing uses on these sites are likely to discontinue during the planning period, as required by Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (g)(2), given that the City is relying on nonvacant sites for at least 50% of its low-income RHNA.
Limitations on Non-Residential Use for Low-Income Sites Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2) places strict requirements on the type of zoning allowed for low-income RHNA sites (emphasis added):
These sites shall be zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit at least 16 units per site at a density of at least 16 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), shall be at least 20 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), and shall meet the standards set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b). At least 50 percent of the lower income housing need shall be accommodated on sites designated for residential use and for which nonresidential uses or mixed uses are not permitted, except that a city or county may accommodate all of the lower income housing need on sites designated for mixed use if those sites allow 100 percent residential use and require that residential use occupy 50 percent of the total fl oor area of a mixed-use project.
As can be seen from this excerpt, at least half the City’s lower-income RHNA must be planned on sites that only allow residential use. However, the proposed amended Housing Element fails to meet this statutory requirement.
The following four programs all fail to meet this standard:
● Program 1.1.C: Live/Work Housing
○ This program is explicitly mixed-use and therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2). ○ 78 lower-income units
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-11 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
● Program 1.1.D: Mixed-Income Incentive Program / Program 1.1.B: Development on Small Sites
○ The City must zone these sites so that only residential development is allowed. ○ 4 lower-income units
● Program 1.1.E: Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties ○ Because religious facility uses are still permitted on these properties, this program fails to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2).
○ 65 lower-income units
● Program 1.1.F: Hotel-to-Residential Conversion (Hotel ‘Key’ Transfer) ○ Because commercial (hotel) uses are still permitted on these properties, this program fails to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2).
○ 80 lower-income units
This means that the City is accommodating 227 lower-income units on sites that allow nonresidential or mixed uses.
The City’s lower-income RHNA is 187 units. The pipeline projects (26 lower-income units), ADUs (42 lower-income units), mixed-income program (6 lower-income units), and Forest Cottages Specific Plan (2 lower-income units) represent 74 units total. This means that well under half of the City’s lower-income RHNA (74/187=40%) is planned for sites where the zoning allows exclusively residential use.
This means that the proposed amended Housing Element violates the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2).
Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2) allows low-income RHNA sites to be mixed-use only if: “... those sites allow 100 percent residential use and require that residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project.” However, the various programs either do not allow 100% residential use, do not require 50% of floor area to be residential, or fail both tests.
It also appears that the Mixed-Income Program may also allow for non-residential use (see pages 2-11), as is planned to be implemented in the downtown area and the City states that such projects may include first floor commercial space, as the intent is to model these projects on the recent development “Trevvett Court.” Furthermore, it is unclear if the Forest Cottages Specific Plan only allows residential use, as there is an existing motel on the site. ● Program 1.1.C: Live/Work Housing
○ This program neither allows 100% residential use nor requires 50% of fl oor area to be residential.
● Program 1.1.D: Mixed-Income Incentive Program / Program 1.1.B Development on Small Sites
○ This program neither allows 100% residential use nor requires 50% of fl oor area to be residential (see discussion of this program supra) Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-12 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
● Program 1.1.E: Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties ○ This program does not require 50% of fl oor area to be residential. Additionally, this program relies on SB 4 and does not facilitate 100% residential use via the underlying zoning.
● Program 1.1.F: Hotel-to-Residential Conversion (Hotel ‘Key’ Transfer) ○ This program does not require 50% of fl oor area to be residential for mixed-use projects. Additionally, the City would have to rezone all the hotels on its list of potential sites for 100% residential use.
Recently published, binding caselaw from the California Court of Appeal has clarified the requirements of Housing Element Law regarding mixed-use zoning on sites planned for power-income units.
In New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (Oct. 10, 2025, No. B336042) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ [attached], the Court held that an overlay cannot be used to satisfy the requirements of state law for rezonings for lower-income sites (see Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2)) if the zoning expressly permits development that does not include housing. Allowing underlying, non-residential uses would not satisfy the minimum residential density requirement imposed by state housing law.
As applied to Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Housing Element, the Redondo Beach decision prohibits the City from proposing zoning for lower-income sites that allows for any development that does not include a residential component.
This has implications for the following programs:
● Program 1.1.C: Live/Work Housing
○ These low-income RHNA sites must be mapped with zoning that prohibits the establishment or expansion of commercial development, with the exception of mixed-use developments satisfying Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2)). This would mean that zoning must prohibit existing commercial buildings from expanding their fl oor area on site, absent a residential development.
● Program 1.1.D: Mixed-Income Incentive Program / Program 1.1.B Development on Small Sites
○ These low-income RHNA sites must be mapped with zoning that prohibits the establishment or expansion of commercial development, with the exception of mixed-use developments satisfying Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2)). This would mean that zoning must prohibit existing commercial buildings from expanding their fl oor area on site, absent a residential development.
● Program 1.1.E: Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties ○ These low-income RHNA sites must be mapped with zoning that prohibits the establishment or expansion of religious uses, with the exception of mixed-use developments satisfying Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2)).
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-13 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
This would mean that zoning must prohibit existing houses of worship from expanding their fl oor area on site, absent a residential development. ● Program 1.1.F: Hotel-to-Residential Conversion (Hotel ‘Key’ Transfer) ○ These low-income RHNA sites must be mapped with zoning that prohibits the establishment or expansion of hotels/motels, with the exception of mixed-use developments satisfying Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2)).
This would mean that zoning must prohibit existing hotels/motels from expanding their fl oor area on site, absent a residential development.
The City Should Follow Through on Its Commitments
Given the timelines necessary for housing development, the fact that we are already two years into the planning period, and the comparative lack of vacant land in the City, it is inappropriate for the City to abandon its most important low-income sites. Government Code Section 65583, subdivision (a)(3) requires that the Housing Element include (emphasis added) “An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.” The City-owned sites were scheduled for an RFP by December 2025, and it is highly unlikely that any private organizations, such as churches, would be able to come to an agreement regarding potential development plans on the same schedule as the City had committed to.
Furthermore, any plans by such organizations to develop affordable housing via SB 4 will likely run into equivalent community opposition, given that their scale would likely have to be similar to what has been proposed for the City-owned lots given the realities of affordable housing finance. Unlike a private developer, a church is much more susceptible to public pressure given that it is made up of members of the community.
Fair Housing Implications
The public record makes it clear that an antipathy towards housing for low-income households underlies this sudden decision to amend the Housing Element.
Basic affordable housing finance dictates that the most effective way to develop affordable housing is via projects of sufficient size and composition to qualify for LIHTC funding. This typically means 100% affordable projects of 40-80 units for 9% LIHTC and more than 100 units for 4% LIHTC. Furthermore, this scale ensures efficient delivery of services for residents. This is exactly why state law dictates minimum densities on sites for low-income households (See Gov.
Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h).) In contrast, the City’s proposed amended Housing Element envisions a large number of low-income sites with densities below what is required by state law. (Ibid.)
Amending the City’s Housing Element to exclude the City-owned sites is transparently discriminatory towards lower-income households. For purposes of state fair housing law (See Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-14 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
Gov. Code, § 8899.50, inter alia.), low-income residents are a protected class. (Gov. Code § 65008, subs. (a)(3), (b)(1)(C), and (b)(2)(B).) The City is obligated by state law (Gov. Code, § 8899.50) not to discriminate against such residents based on protected characteristics.
Additionally, the City has a duty to affirmatively further fair housing (“AFFH”) in preparing its Housing Element. (See Gov. Code § 8899.50 and § 65583 (c)(5).) The Housing Element itself, moreover, must assess fair housing within the City. (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Under Government Code section 8899.50, all public agencies must affirmatively further fair housing through their housing and community development programs. Government Code section 8899.50, subdivision (a)(1), defines “affirmatively furthering fair housing” as taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.
The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. Public agencies are required to take meaningful actions to AFFH and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to AFFH. (Id. at subd. (b).)
Amending its Housing Element to exclude the City-owned sites would be disparate treatment based on a protected characteristic and it would also fail to affirmatively further fair housing.
Carmel-by-the-Sea is much, much wealthier than the rest of Monterey County and has a vastly higher proportion of White residents. According to the 2020 decennial census, Carmel-by-the-Sea is 87% White and only 6% Latino, whereas Monterey County is 27% White and 60% Latino. Furthermore, the median household income in Carmel-by-the-Sea is $126,406 per year, according to the 2022 5-year American Community Survey, whereas the Monterey County median household income is $91,043, according to the same dataset.
The City has also permitted only 13 lower-income units according to its annual progress reports dating back to 2018. Eliminating the main program in its housing plan to produce low-income homes, while replacing this production with a variety of programs unlikely to produce any new homes, would be a clear violation of fair housing laws.
Housing Element Substantial Compliance and the Builder’s Remedy If the City continues to attempt to amend its Housing Element, rather than issue the RFPs for the City-owned sites, it runs a high likelihood of missing the December 2025 deadline for the RFPs. If the City fails to implement required programs within the timeframes outlined in the housing element, the City is no longer in substantial compliance with Housing Element law.
The Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5; the “HAA”) requires approval of “builder’s remedy” projects that are submitted during periods of local housing element noncompliance. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(6).) Under the HAA, a city may not disapprove a builder’s remedy project on the grounds it does not comply with the city’s zoning and general plan if the developer submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-15 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
"complete development application" while the city's housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(6), (h)(5), (o)(1).) This statutory provision temporarily suspends the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects. See California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case Number: 23STCP02614 (attached), for a recent court decision affirming the plain language of the statute in this regard.
If the City’s compliance with Housing Element law lapses, developers will be able to propose any residential project, no matter how tall or large, as long as it qualifies as a builder’s remedy project. The City will be bound to approve all such projects even if the City later comes back into compliance with housing element law. For instance, in Santa Monica, a single developer proposed 4,260 housing units, including several 18-story buildings, when Santa Monica’s housing element fell out of compliance. If the City wrongfully denies such builder’s remedy applications, not only may the applicant seek judicial remedies, but the HAA specifically empowers housing organizations, such as CalHDF to enforce the act via litigation. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(A)(i).)
And if the City contests such Builder’s Remedy applications, it may be liable for costs. For example, the HAA authorizes courts to award attorney’s fees and costs both to applicants and to housing organizations if they prevail in litigation to enforce the HAA. (Id. at subd. (k).) As an example, the City of Berkeley was fined $2.6 million and forced to pay $1.4 million in attorneys’ fees after incorrectly denying a housing development project in violation of the HAA. ⧫⧫⧫
In sum, if the City amends its housing element to exclude the three City-owned sites, or fails to issue the RFPs for the City-owned sites, it will be exposing itself to potential litigation. If the City loses such litigation, it will be exposed to a variety of remedies, potentially including the Builder’s Remedy, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. CalHDF recommends that the City drop its effort to amend the Housing Element and instead proceed with its plans to dispose of the City-owned sites to develop 100% affordable housing, which is badly needed in Carmel-by-the-Sea.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
City Response: The City worked diligently with HCD staff to develop alternative strategies for accommodating the RHNA. HCD has continued to guide the City through this amendment process. HCD has assured staff that the City’s adopted Housing Element will continue to retain its compliance status until such time when the City adopts an amendment. Because the City is actively pursuing alternative strategies, HCD has indicated pausing the implementation of the city-owned sites is appropriate. It is absolutely the City’s goal to only adopt an HCD-certifiable amendment that fully complies with State law, including adequate sites for RHNA and AFFH requirements. Furthermore, replacing the city-owned sites with alternative strategies does not preclude development on these sites.
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-16 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
As no rezoning is being proposed as part of this amendment, AB 1397’s rezoning for shortfall provisions do not apply.
The proposed alternative strategies are intended to promote housing choice and mobility in Carmel-by-the-Sea, expanding housing options and locational choices for lower and moderate income households.
Comment #9: M. Ruess
As a resident of Carmel and someone who has tremendous interest in having Carmel by the Sea succeed in the implementation of the adopted 6th Housing Element (HE6) already certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on 25 April 2024, I have prepared some comments to the proposed amendment.
After reading the proposed Amendment to the 6th Housing Element, and appreciating the work done by the city planning department as well as the Affordable Housing Alternatives Group (AHA), I discovered a few inconsistencies or unnecessary changes:
General comments:
1. The purpose of the work to be performed was to focus on identifying solutions for the 149 Very Low to Low Income units required; however, it looks like this effort was expanded to look at ALL housing solutions. That is inconsistent with the original discussions with this effort.
Question: Why was the focus expanded? Why was this action taken without prior review with the council?
City Response: In order to move the 149 affordable units from the City owned sites, and dispersed in a manner that could realistically be accomplished, the mix of affordability also needed to be considered.
2. The Chapter 2 Redline version on the website for the City Council meeting on Nov. 4 does not show the complete redlines (with track changes) performed to the original document in order to create the version proposed as an amendment.
Question: Why are the two documents not provided to the public for complete review? It is important to allow for the public to compare both documents in order to understand the changes and the impact to the already adopted HE6.
City Response: City staff prepared a redlined version of Chapter 2 and a clean version. Both have been posted on the City’s website and included as attachments to the October 20, 2025 Planning Commission agenda report.
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-17 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
Additionally, the City Council agenda report for the Housing Element includes direct links to the City’s websites where the Chapter 2 redlines can be found. CLICK HERE to be taken to the Public Meetings/Hearings page or you can view them directly HERE for your convenience.
3. Other documents shown as Redlines do not provide track changes or highlights of the changes. For example, on Appendix C, when comparing the section on Accessory Dwelling Units on the original HE6 against the version shown as “Appendix C Redlines” on the city website for the meeting, the language is different and the explanations have changed. Yet, the document never shows them with track changes. (See Annex 1).
Request: Please update the documents for the upcoming Nov. 4 meeting with the corresponding detailed redlines/track changes so as to allow for true comparison.
City Response: Redlines were not prepared for Appendix C because it is a complete rewrite and effectively a new document. The staff report explains the changes that have been made to the adopted Housing Element.
Specific to Programs:
4. Program 1.1.B City Owned Sites – this section was eliminated. However, it is imperative that the city continues to evaluate the three (3) sites in the Sites Inventory as originally described. “The City plans to pursue three (3) sites (#1, #2, and #3 in the Sites Inventory) over the next five years for the potential development of 149 total units over the three sites (124 affordable to lower-income households and 25 for moderate-income households).” Recommendation: I suggest that the city goes forward with the steps outlined in the HE6, and prepares and publishes the required RFP by December 2025 so developers can evaluate the city-owned land, consider alternatives for leasing it, and provide the city with valuable information in order to make informed decisions.
“Establish and implement development standards for Sunset Center (Sites #1 and #2) by December 2025; 2. Develop project description and establish an RFP process and solicit developers by December 2025;”
City Response: The City Council directed these sites to be removed from the Housing Element, which is being accomplished by this amendment. The City is not precluded from pursuing development on City owned sites outside of the Housing Element if they choose to make that a priority.
5. Programs 1.1.E, 1.1.F, & 1.1.G (formerly 1.1.D, 1.3.B, 1.3.D) – Affordable Housing on Religious Facilities, Hotel Employee Housing Program, and Hotel to Residential Conversion. I appreciate the work to further develop these initiatives, that were originally identified in the adopted HE6, by the city and the AHA group. The data has given these programs a more compelling position.
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-18 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
Question: For hotel to residential (1.1.F) is the city prepared to reach out to developers by December of 2025?
City Response: The City has already been in contact with both developers and hotel owners.
We have received interest from both parties.
6. Program 1.1.C – Live/Work Housing – A very creative, new idea with a lot of work done to identify and select sites. Your target is 78 of them which is commendable. You are recommending to make them deed restricted. Is that an attractive alternative to the owners knowing that it restricts them?
Question: Have the owners responded to any queries regarding this idea? Has this assumption been validated? If not, I recommend it be eliminated.
City Response: Some owners have been contacted and expressed interest. The assumption has been validated with market research that appears in Appendix C of the Housing Element.
7. Program 1.1.H (formerly 1.3.C) – Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – Although the State has passed legislation to assist and support the development of ADUs, including the by-right approval of units less than 800 square feet, and that we continue to include them in our solutions for very low to low-income housing, I do not think this is accurate of the currently permitted ADUs in the city.
Recommendation: We should take them out of the list since they do not offer that solution.
Question: Have any of them been rented? If so, do they qualify for very low to low-income housing rentals? How is this being documented?
Question: Since deed restrictions are being suggested for Live/Work housing, why aren’t ADUs being deed restricted?
City Response: We do not have a formal study of whether or not ADUs are being rented. To our knowledge, none of the ADUs in town are deed restricted affordable. However, HCD has confirmed that for ADUs, you do not necessarily need to have them be deed restricted to count as "affordable". HCD will accept a formal survey of ADUs which shows how much they are being rented for, and a comparison of other rents in the Village to show that they are below the market rate (ADUs are the only type of housing that this applies to). The ADU program in the Housing Element includes creation of this program to track the cost of ADU rentals in town. As for why ADUs are not proposed to be deed restricted, our research, and conversations with the State, show that home owners are unlikely to put a meaningful deed restriction on an ADU due to the limited incentives that can be offered, unlike commercial property owners who stand to gain more from a deed restriction.
Thank you for reviewing my comments and for encouraging all residents to participate in this very important process.
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-19 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
[Continuation of M. Ruess written comments:]
Annex 1
The purpose of this section is to provide comparisons between the adopted 6th Housing Element (HE6) and the proposed amendment to it.
In preparation for the City Council meeting on Nov. 4, it is imperative to have a clear understanding of the changes made to the adopted 6th Housing Element document presented in April 2024 and the proposed amendment being reviewed. However, the documents shown as “Redlines” do not show the actual changes as normally shown in a Redline version of a document where track changes are kept so the reader understands the changes submitted. For example, the sections on Accessory Dwelling Units shown on Chapter 2 and Appendix C as “Redlines” do not demonstrate changes from the adopted 6th Housing Element. Please read comparisons below:
Appendix C
Adopted 6th Housing Element
Accessory Dwelling Units Since July 1, 2023, the City has issued certificates of occupancy for four (4) new accessory dwelling units, and issued building permits for five (5) additional ADUs for a total of nine (9)ADUs. Furthermore, building permits issued prior to July 1, 2023 include 13 additional ADUs which are currently under construction and are expected to be completed during the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period. An additional four (4) building permit applications for ADUs are currently in building plancheck review and are also expected to be constructed during the planning period. In total, the City expects that at least 26 new ADUs will be completed during the planning period. The city continues to see a strong interest in ADUs and expects that number to be even higher by June 30, 2031. The following details ADUs that have a certificate of occupancy, building permit, or are under construction as of July 1, 2023.
Proposed Amendment 6th Housing Element Redlines
Accessory Dwelling Units
Between July 1, 2023 and December 31, 2024, the City issued certificates of occupancy and building permits, and is in the process of reviewing additional ADU applications, for a total of 45 ADUs and JADUs as documented in the City’s Housing Element Annual Progress Reports submitted to HCD. The City continues to see a strong interest in ADUs and expects that trend to continue throughout the planning period. In reviewing the City’s ADU construction activities between 2017 and 2024, 64 ADU applications were processed in the City. Among these units, 15 (24 percent) were for units smaller than 300 square feet and 20 (32 percent) were between 301 and 500 square feet. Also 31 (49 percent) were for conversion from existing spaces (these units tend to be smaller and less expensive to construct, and therefore are more likely to be affordable). Based on a review of rental unit sizes in Monterey County, average unit sizes in the region are:
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-20 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
· Studio - 420 square feet
· One-bedroom - 646 square feet
· Two-bedroom - 938 square feet
Overall, 41 percent of the City’s ADUs between 2017 and 2024 were significantly smaller than the average sized ADU in the region for that bedroom count. Rental rates for these smaller ADUs are reasonably expected to be lower than market rate, regularly sized units. Furthermore, discussions with local realtors indicate that many ADUs are occupied by caretakers at reduced or no costs. Therefore, the City uses the30/30/30/10 income/affordability distribution approved for the ABAG jurisdictions and also used by most ABAG jurisdictions for the 6th cycle Housing Element update. Overall, the 45 ADUs permitted are distributed into 13 very low income, 13 low income, 13 moderate income, and 6 above moderate income. ATTACHMENT 6 Chapter 2
Adopted 6th Housing Element
Program 1.3.C: Accessory Dwelling Units - AFFH The City’s ADU ordinance was last updated in 2017 (Ord. 2017-10 § 1 (Exh. A), 2017). Carmel-by-the-Sea is currently following the requirements of State law in the review and approval of ADUs and JADUs. The City is in the process of updating its ADU Ordinance to incorporate state laws that have expanded since 2017, and to clarify the ADU permitting process for property owners. The City recognizes that ADUs provide affordable housing options for family members, seniors, students, in-home health care providers, and other small household types. ADUs can also be useful to generate additional rental income for the homeowner, making homeownership more financially feasible.
It’s also important to note that 80 percent of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s vacant units are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional (second home) use. ADU and JADU development on properties used for occasional use adds to the permanent rental housing stock and provides on-site oversight for second properties. The City includes the Housing and Community Development Department ADU Handbook on the Planning Department website to offer technical assistance to interested property owners. Pre-approved, standardized plans can eliminate the costs of designing a custom ADU, and assures property owners the unit type and size is already approved by the City. Pre-approved plans can also make construction more affordable if the designs are using materials that are easily sourced and standard sized. To further promote ADU development the City will implement to the following: ▪ The City is on track to adopt an updated ADU
Ordinance by the end of 2024. The City will also amend the Municipal Code to reflect current State ADU law in a timely manner as new relevant state laws are adopted during the planning cycle. Chapter 2.0 – Goals, Policies, and Implementing Programs 2-12 EMC Planning Group Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Adopted April 8, 2024 Timeframe:
Ordinance adopted by December 2024 ▪ Develop pre-approved, standardized ADU plans available on the City’s website to further incentive the construction of ADUs. Quantified Objective: 5 Extremely Low, 5 Very Low, 10 Low, 10 Moderate, and 4 Above Moderate-Income Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-21 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
units Timeframe: December 2026 Responsible Party: Community Planning and Building Department Funding Source: General Fund (Formerly Program 3-5.3.c: Subordinate Units) Proposed Amendment to 6th Housing Element Redlines
Program 1.1.H: Accessory Dwelling Units - AFFH
Quantified Objective: 7 Extremely Low, 14 Very Low, 21 Low, 21 Moderate, 7 Above Moderate Income Units
Timeframe: December 2025 to December 2031
Monitor and report to the City Council the City’s progress in facilitating ADU production annually.
Based on results of the monitoring, if by June 2028 the City is not trending to meet its established objectives for this program, the City will modify the program and/or utilize alternative strategies within six months to ensure that the City could fully accommodate its RHNA.
Responsible Party: Community Planning and Building Department Funding Source: General Fund
Issues and Opportunities
The City’s ADU ordinance was last updated in 2017 (Ord. 2017-10 §1 (Exh. A), 2017).
Carmel-by-the-Sea is currently following the requirements of state law in the review and approval of ADUs and JADUs. The City is in the process of updating its ADU Ordinance to incorporate state laws that have expanded since 2017, and to clarify the ADU permitting process for property owners.
Program Description
The City recognizes that ADUs provide affordable housing options for family members, seniors, students, in-home health care providers, couples, small families, and friends. ADUs can also be useful to generate additional rental income for the homeowner. The City also recognizes that there are many misconceptions surrounding development regulations and water restrictions for ADUs. For example, it is not widely known that ADUs do not need a new water meter, or that the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District(MPWMD) does not charge a service connection fee for an ADU. To help combat this lack of public knowledge, the City maintains a dedicated housing webpage that includes the California Department of Housing and Community Development Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook and that serves as a source of technical assistance to property owners.
To facilitate ADU development the City will complete the following actions between 2024 and 2031:
● The City will complete revisions to its local ADU Ordinance and incorporate guidance from the recent Senate Bill 1077 (December 2026).
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-22 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
● As new relevant state laws are adopted during the planning cycle, the City will amend theCarmel Municipal Code in a timely manner to reflect applicable changes in the law. ● The City will develop a process for reviewing plans submitted for pre-approval pursuant to AB1332 (2023). (June 2026)
● The City will develop a procedure for the review and approval of unpermitted ADUs pursuant to AB 2533 (2024) also known as the amnesty program. (June 2026) ATTACHMENT 2
● Chapter 2.0 – Goals, Policies, and Programs 2-16
● Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment Update Adopted November 2025
● The City will pursue implementing a pre-sales inspection program to identify unpermitted ADUs and refer them to the amnesty program. (December 2027) ● If the program is determined to be feasible, establish a program within six months. (June 2028)
● The City will establish a renter match program for ADUs. (December 2029) ● The program may also employ a citywide survey of ADU rental rates to help connect tenants with property owners charging more affordable rates. ● Outreach activities will include promoting ADU availability to local workers. ● The City will promote affordability and increase workforce housing by developing a program to incentivize homeowners to create ADUs that are affordable to, and occupied by, lower income households. One incentive could be providing the necessary water credits to serve the ADU. Other incentives would also be explored during the development of the program. (December 2026)
● The City will conduct outreach and education on an ongoing basis, including but not limited to the following efforts: holding community workshops, promoting the Property Owners Guide toBuilding an ADU (prepared by the AHA community group in coordination with the City of Carmel) and updating it as needed, maintaining a dedicated webpage on the City’s website with information on ADUs, conducting outreach and providing education to local architects and realtors, and sending educational information through the mail to property owners about working with the City to develop ADUs, and clarifying common misconceptions about water availability.
Program Benefits
● Legalize unpermitted ADUs to ensure they meet minimum health and safety regulations. ● Provide affordable housing options for the local workforce. ● Provide additional housing options for local seniors. ● Increase the proportion of ADUs that are occupied through a renter match program. ● Increase the permanent housing stock.
● Encourage full-time residency within the village.
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-23 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
City Response: Comment noted.
Comment #10: B. Shields
My name is Bryan Shields and I am a representative of Carpenters Local 646, covering Monterey County. I am reaching out today in concerns to the 6th Cycle Housing Element and how you as the council can support the Construction Workers of Monterey County. Other municipalities have already adopted this menial encouragement language, but it can make a world of difference in its effect.
Proposed Language:
Local Labor.
Encourage developers and contractors to evaluate hiring local labor, hiring from or contributing to apprenticeship programs, increasing resources for labor compliance, and providing living wages.
Sincerely I ask the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to adopt this language in its 6th cycle housing element that it might by doing this fasten the working class to the future of the City.
Attached are examples from other municipalities who have adopted such language.
City Response: Comment noted.
Comment #11: Monterey Salinas Transit (MST)
Monterey-Salinas Transit District (MST) has reviewed the Draft Amendments to the Adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element. MST supports the City’s continued efforts to align housing implementation with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that reduce traffic congestion, manage parking demand, and improve mobility for both residents and the local workforce.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Coordination
MST supports the City’s vision in reducing parking demand through Program 1.1.B (Development on Small Sites) and Program 3.1.E (Reduced Parking Requirements) identified in the Housing Element Amendment. MST continues to operate Lines 5, 91, and 94, making connections to regional employment and commercial centers. Ongoing coordination on TDM strategies and reduced parking requirements near accessible transit stops can help make new housing more affordable, strengthen transit use, and improve overall mobility for residents and the local workforce.
MST’s Vanpool Program
MST’s Vanpool Program, operated in partnership with Commute with Enterprise, offers a sustainable commuting option for employees traveling to Carmel-by-the-Sea from other parts of Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-24 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
Monterey County. Employers, including the City, can support their staff by contributing to vanpool costs and making this a more attractive option for the local workforce. City staff have met with MST several times this year to explore vanpool opportunities, and MST looks forward to helping launch one or more vanpools serving City employees and local hospitality workers.
MST looks forward to supporting the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element by aligning housing needs with the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) efforts. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or 831-264-5877.
City Response: Comment noted.
Comment #12: K. Ferlito
● Stick with the certified housing element and reject the Amendment ● Affordable housing on city land where we can control the outcome City Response: Comment noted.
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-25 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment November 2025 ATTACHMENT 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
January 13, 2026
Brandon Swanson, City Administrator
City of Carmel-by-the Sea
P.O. Box CC
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Dear Brandon Swanson:
RE: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Amendment to the Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s (City) draft amendment to the housing element update that was received for review on November 14, 2025. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from California Housing Defense Fund, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).
On April 25, 2024, HCD found the City’s housing element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq) and as of this writing, the City continues to comply with State Housing Element Law. This draft amendment continues to meet most statutory requirements. For example, the element demonstrates the suitability of some strategies to accommodate the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), hotel conversions to affordable housing and Downtown Carmel. However, this draft amendment may impact HCD’s prior finding of substantial compliance and should be revised, as follows:
1. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
ATTACHMENT 4
Brandon Swanson, City Administrator
Progress toward the RHNA: The City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built, approved, or pending since June 30, 2023; however, the element must demonstrate their availability and affordability in the planning period. While the element demonstrates the availability and affordability of Ulrika Plaza (Site No. P-1), Scandia Lopez/Hakim (Site No. P-3) and ADUs, it must also demonstrate the availability for the JB Pastor Building (Site Number P-2).
Specifically, the element explains an appeal has been heard that denied some portions but upheld others and the project has been remanded back to the Planning Commission. In addition, the element should discuss which portions were upheld and what direction was provided by the City Council then demonstrate the likelihood of the project being permitted in the planning period, including any known barriers or circumstances that influence timing, any past trends or other relevant factors.
Realistic Capacity: The element must demonstrate the realistic residential capacity of identified sites and account for land use controls, site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. While in most cases, the element addresses this statutory requirement, it must specifically support assumptions for the Church of the Wayfarer site or adjust calculations, as appropriate. For example, the element could list past trends by zone and built densities or preliminary applications or conversations with the property owner.
Prior Identified Sites: Sites identified in prior planning periods shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate the housing needs for lower-income households unless a program, meeting statutory requirements, requires appropriate rezoning within one or three years. The element identifies sites used in prior planning periods for the Additional Opportunities for Housing strategy and includes Program 1.4.C (By-Right Approval). However, the element should clarify if sites were used in prior planning periods for the Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties and Downtown Carmel (Live Work and Mixed Income Incentive) strategies.
For your information, a jurisdiction that did not adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days from the statutory deadline (December 15, 2023) must rezone sites within one year of the statutory deadline and meet requirements pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A) and 65583.2, subdivisions (c), (h) and (i), as applicable. As this year has passed, if Program 1.4.C (By-Right Approval) is necessary to accommodate the lowerincome RHNA, the housing element will remain out of compliance until the rezoning has been completed and submitted to HCD to meet all statutory requirements.
ATTACHMENT 4
Brandon Swanson, City Administrator
Nonvacant Sites: The element demonstrates the potential for redevelopment on identified sites for the Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties and Downtown Carmel (Live Work and Mixed Income Incentive) strategies. But the element must include an analysis to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment on identified sites for the Additional Opportunities for Housing strategy. The analysis shall consider factors including, but not limited to, the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the City’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. This analysis may be conducted on a site-by-site basis utilizing the site profiles (Starting on page C-41).
In addition, the element relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the housing needs for lower-income households, which triggers requirements to make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue in the planning period.
Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.
Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory and submit an electronic version of the sites inventory. While the City has submitted an electronic version of the sites inventory, since changes have occurred, future adopted versions of the element must also submit the electronic version of the sites inventory.
Programs: As noted above, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established.
Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised, as follows:
• Program 1.1.H (Accessory Dwelling Units): The Program commits to monitor ADU production annually and take action, as appropriate but should also specifically monitor ADU affordability and occupancy.
ATTACHMENT 4
Brandon Swanson, City Administrator
• Program 1.1.B (Development on Small Sites) or Program 1.1.D (MixedIncome Incentive Program): Either of these Programs should commit to modifying development standards (e.g., heights) as appropriate to facilitate achieving program goals and maximum allowable densities, including allowable densities under incentive-based approaches.
2. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element, programs should be revised, as follows:
• Discrete Timing: Several programs should be revised with timing earlier in the planning period (e.g., by 2027), including Programs 1.1.B (Development on Small Sites), 1.1.D (Mixed-Income Incentive), 1.4.A (Modify or Eliminate Onerous Use Permits), 1.4.C (By-Right Approval),
2.1.A (Incentives for Mixed-Use Development) and 3.1.A (Mixed-Use
3.3.C:
• Program 3.3.C (Unlicensed Residential Care Facilities): While the Program commits to allow these residential uses in all zones allowing residential uses, it should also address the conditional use permit as a constraint. For example, the Program could commit to amend zoning for these uses as a permitted use and only subject to requirements that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
3. Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(9).)
While the City made the draft amendment to the housing element to the public for comment, moving forward, the City should employ additional methods for public outreach, particularly including lower-income and special needs households. For example, the City could conduct targeted stakeholder interviews or establish a committee representative of lower-income and special needs households in future public outreach efforts.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City must continue to engage the community, ATTACHMENT 4
Brandon Swanson, City Administrator
including commenters on this draft amendment and organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.
Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
The draft amendment will not negatively impact HCD’s finding of substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law once the amendment has been revised to address the above requirements, adopted, submitted, and reviewed by HCD to comply with the above requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65585.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City continues to meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
HCD appreciates the hard work and diligence of the City in the housing element update and acknowledges and appreciates the extensive collaboration and innovative approaches employed during the entirety of this process. Significant progress has been achieved in developing community driven solutions that meet housing needs, the unique circumstances and conditions of the City and statutory requirements. HCD welcomes the opportunity to discuss this review and assist with the remaining statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Rogelio Martinez, of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031)
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-1 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 27, 2026 Housing Element Amendment
Public Comment Responses
1.1 Public Comments Received
Per the requirements of AB 215, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea published the revised draft Housing Element Amendment for a seven-day public review period on the City’s website, https://ci.carmel.ca.us/post/housing, 2023-2031 Housing Element, Revised Draft Housing Element: 7-day Public Review Period. The public review period began on March 13, 2026, and ended on March 20, 2026. A total of 10 comments were received, none of which warranted any substantive changes to the revised draft Housing Element Amendment. Public comments received on the revised draft Housing Element Amendment are summarized below, followed by City staff’s response to the comments.
Comment #1: P. Prows
Dear Mr. Martinez:
I write on behalf of a client concerned that Carmel-by-the-Sea's proposal to amend its housing element to substitute hotels for city-owned sites for affordable housing is unlikely to succeed.
Your letter of 13 January 2026 to the Planning Director, Mr. Swanson, of Carmel-by-the-Sea (attached) noted that the city's revised housing element relies on nonvacant sites (like the hotel sites) to accommodate 50 percent or more of the affordable housing proposed, and so the city must "make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue in the planning period" -or else the "existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development." Carmel-by-the-Sea has no substantial evidence to support a finding that the owners of those hotels have any intention of converting those sites to affordable housing. On 13 February 2026, I submitted a Public Records Act request (attached) to Mr. Swanson asking for all records relating to hotel-owners' interest in converting their sites to affordable housing, but I've gotten no response whatsoever to that request. (The Public Records Act requires a response within 10 days if disclosable records exist, Gov. Code§ 6253(c), but I've gotten nothing.) Converting hotels to affordable housing requires a significant capital investment that makes the conversion uneconomic. Tellingly, during the public comment period on this proposal, no hotel owners spoke to publicly commit to participating in this proposed program.
The existing hotel uses are an impediment to converting those sites to affordable housing, and Carmel-by-the-Sea has not met its burden to show otherwise. The revised housing element should not be found consistent with State housing law.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-2 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 Dear Mr. Martinez:
Carmel-by-the-Sea has now belatedly responded to my Public Records Act request for documents related to the feasibility of the program in the proposed housing element revision to convert existing hotels to new affordable housing units.
The only document the City provided is the attached letter from July 2024 (more than a year before the amendment to the housing element was sent to HCD) from Mark Watson, a hotel proprietor.
My client has recently spoken with Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson some time ago withdrew from the City's touted "Affordable Housing Alternatives" group that developed this proposal because the proposal was financially infeasible for hotel owners.
Existing hotel keys in Carmel are now selling for more than $800,000 apiece (as shown by the recent sale of the hotel at 917 San Carlos Avenue for $9.25 million). At those prices, existing hotel owners are not interested in participating in a program that will require them to invest in building affordable housing-an unneeded expense that just subtracts from the substantial value of every hotel key sold.
As the program is currently constructed, the City has no substantial evidence to rebut the presumption that existing hotel uses will be an obstacle to creating new affordable housing on those sites.
On the other hand, substantial interest is developing in the private and non-profit sectors towards investing in the city-owned sites identified in the current housing element for new affordable housing combined with mixed-use development.
The City's proposed housing element amendment should not be approved by HCD.
A few clarifications:
The 917 San Carlos sale demonstrates a per-key value of about $616,000. Mr. Watson told my client that he believes his keys are worth at least $800,000 apiece. Either way, selling existing keys to existing hotels remains a more attractive option for hotel owners now that selling keys to undertake the expensive effort to build new hotels and build new housing.
The existing housing element called upon the City to promulgate an RFP last December for developing of the cityowned sites for new housing. There is interest in developing those city-owned sites for new housing. There is not a demonstrated interest in developing existing hotel sites for new housing.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-3 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 City Response: Thank you for your comments. The City consulted various development interests in hotel conversion opportunities and will continue to tailer the program to enhance its attractiveness to property owners and developers.
Comment #2: P.A. Matthew
I had planned to address the entirety of the amended plans on this new City Council proposal, but instead decided to focus on what I felt was the most problematic of the ideas as presented - and that is the Live/Work Spaces.
LIVE/WORK SPACES:
This idea threatens to change the entire character of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and is a Pandora’s Box of conflict between Tenant Rights and the City of Carmel Use Permit Restrictions.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
1) Will the Affordable Housing Live/Work Tenants be subject to the same stringent Use Permit codes and restrictions as has been required of current and previous applicants for business storefronts in Carmel-bythe-Sea re: type of products sold, signs, etc.? City Response: While the specific types of live/work combinations have not been determined, the business portion of the use will be required to comply with zoning regulations for the district in which it is located, including signage.
2) Will the Live/Work Tenant be evicted if they fail to comply with the Use Permit over time? PROBABLY NOT, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO because Tenant Rights trounce City Use Permit Ordinances and you will be stuck with products, signs, etc., that you cannot control in keeping with the character of Carmel. You are conflating Tenant Rights of the State/County with City Ordinances for retailer permits - and setting yourself up for future lawsuits.
City Response: Thank you for your comment. This will be further evaluated during the development of the program.
3) What if a Business Owner on Ocean Avenue wants to live in back of their store? On what legal basis could you possibly reject that request??? Do they not have equal rights? City Response: The purpose of the live/work program is to support small business owners and provide affordable housing while adhering to local health and safety regulations. We encourage all commercial property owners to consider the possibilities of adding residential units to their properties providing more housing opportunities for business owners and the local workforce.
4) Do you really think you can contain these live/work spaces to vacant back alleys for very long? Carmel-bythe-Sea is Carmel-by-the-Sea, a one square mile area. On what basis are you justified to contain/hide these businesses to vacant back alleys?
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-4 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 City Response: The intent is not to limit them to vacant back alleys. What the field reconnaissance work revealed is that there are numerous small hidden spaces that are underutilized and offer the opportunity to be revitalized into active live/work spaces providing benefits to property owners as well as prospective tenants. 5) What if the Live/Work Tenant makes tons of money from their business? Will you evict them if they surpass Low Income Guidelines?
City Response: The intent of the program is to provide more housing opportunities, not displace future residents.
The comment however is valid in that the City should consider how it will address such conditions when developing the program. Thank you for your comment.
6) Will they have to re-apply for the Use Permit every few years as others are required to do? City Response: It has not yet been determined whether a Use Permit will be required for the Live/Work program. In an effort to facilitate housing, the intent is to create a program that streamlined and easy to navigate. This will be further discussed during the development of the program. 7) Have you thought about how you plan to monitor this Live/Work concept over the “permanent lifetime” of its implementation?
City Response: Yes, like any other business in Carmel, the “work” portion would be required to maintain a City business license. The “live” portion would require annual monitoring for affordability. The City will explore different options for monitoring during the development of the program.
I think the City Council has lost objectivity and fallen in love with their “new ideas.” Not every unique idea is a good one, especially for our town. You further list hotels and selling rights to hotel rooms (which would be rare); churches exempt from taxes - so where will the rent profits go?; back alley live/work spaces; either/or alternatives that you list if one or another plan doesn’t work; and a cavalier attitude about buying or creating more water. I find it hard to believe that the County would approve such a cacaphony of ideas.
Did you plan to hire a staff of 30 to implement, track, and patrol these spaces for compliance within the Planning Period? - AND beyond the completion period to monitor these living spaces for their permanent lifetime??? The only cogent idea I see in the Amendment are the Granny Units/ADU’s which many homeowners would be happy to construct.
And look, nobody likes giving up the Vista Lobos Public Parking Lot, but it is there - it is large - with plenty of room to build and helps fulfill requirements. It is at the top of town, away from the Center (not even very convenient to park there). Do we like doing this? Absolutely NOT, but we are forced to make accommodation. Keep it clean.
Keep it simple!
P.S. Do I also understand that you have added 89 units beyond the 349 unit requirement? If so, why on earth would you do this?
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-5 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 City Response: Each housing plan has included a buffer. This is a safety net in the event one of the identified housing sites redevelops and does not include the type or amount of housing anticipated. The buffer ensures that we do not find ourselves in a deficit below the 349 units we are required to plan for.
Comment #3: Maykranz
Hi Marnie,
Thank you for your hard work on the Housing Element. Kim and I have a residence on Carpenter Street. Several comments regarding the Housing Element follow:
Kim and I are very concerned that the proposed ADU's and increased height proposals are going to radically raise the risk of a catastrophic fire in Carmel by the Sea. As you know, our town sits in a forest and our streets are very narrow, and as we add to neighborhood density, we are adding tremendously to the risk of a devastating fire spreading community-wide. As well, it is becoming very difficult and prohibitively expensive to insure homes in Carmel due to fire risk. In fact, Safeco Insurance just sent us a letter stating they will no longer insure our home.
This is greatly impacting affordability for existing residents.
City Response: As the City continues to develop its local ADU Ordinance, we will consider how to mitigate risk to life and property in very high fire hazard severity zones.
I like your proposal to convert underperforming hotels into usable housing. As well, adding housing on church sites makes sense as well. Any and all housing must meet environmental standards and rigorous design standards compatible with the existing built environment. Obviously, these structures will need to have fire sprinkler systems.
City Response: The City is currently working with Opticos Design Inc to develop Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS) for mixed-use and multifamily housing projects in the commercial districts to ensure that Carmel’s design traditions are preserved when new development is proposed. All projects will adhere to current building and fire code standards in effect at the time the building permit is applied for.
I think that Carmel needs to push back on speedy permit approvals. Adding density to a small town with limited infrastructure and high fire risk should be approached thoughtfully. Public safety is paramount.
City Response: Thank you for your comments. The City will comply with all State requirements on processing.
With the cost of new construction, how will low and very low income folks afford to live in Carmel? Carmel simply does not dovetail with Sacramento's rubber stamp housing plan.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-6 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 City Response: Housing initiatives such as encouraging the conversion of second-story spaces within existing commercial buildings to residential uses, creating a new live/work housing type, and allowing for the conversion of older hotels to housing are just some ways that new housing can be created using the existing built environment.
I think that since the old hospital property adjacent to Carmel by the Sea will be developed for housing, Carmel should get the housing credit for this proposed housing because our small town will bear the brunt of the added density. The overwhelming additional density will fill our narrow streets with traffic and make our community less safe.
City Response: While we understand this perspective, the law currently does not allow us to receive housing credits for projects constructed outside of our incorporated city limits.
The Housing Element mandated changes will make Carmel a less desirable place to live and visit and will certainly reduce tourism tax dollars.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
One additional comment: Kim and I are very concerned about the availability of adequate water supplies going forward. Where will all this "abundant" acre feet of additional water supply for additional housing come from? Is it sustainable? Can Carmel's sewer and water infrastructure handle this additional demand? City Response: The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) has over 2,000-acre-feet of water resources available to peninsula jurisdictions from the Pure Water Monterey expansion project which was completed in October 2025. As housing projects come forward, should the City deplete its current water allocation, the District has assured the City that additional water will be allocated. Based on communication with the Carmel Area Wastewater District (CAWD) in May 2023, the District has adequate treatment capacity to serve an additional 349 housing units in Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Comment #4: B. Keast
Marnie,
Overall, while I wish this could have come together much sooner, I think the Revised Draft Housing Element Amendment is an outstanding piece of work.
Regardless of the State requirements at this point in the process, my primary concerns are accountability and timing.
Feasibility of Programs 1.1.C (Live/Work) and 1.1.H (ADUs) Combined I think these two programs represent over 40% of the 349-unit goal. While creative, without supporting data, I'm skeptical about their real-world uptake. ● ADUs: Many homeowners currently utilize ADUs as extensions of their living space rather than independent rental units. Why do we expect that to change? ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-7 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 City Response: The City will pursue a renter match program to increase full-time occupancy of ADUs and develop incentives for homeowners to rent their ADUS. Outreach and education will be on-going throughout the planning period (through 2031).
● Live/Work: For property owners to invest in these conversions, the projects must be financially viable and pencil out. Will these be viable often enough to meet goals? City Response: An analysis was conducted of available downtown commercial spaces and rent per square foot which can be found in Appendix C (starting on page C-22). Based on this analysis a live/work program does appear financially viable. Outreach and education to downtown property owners will be ongoing throughout the planning period (through 2031) combined with the creation of incentives to further encourage new housing.
In addition to the qualitative surveys and anecdotal conversations, do we have any additional data to support the expected uptake on these programs?
City Response: In Appendix C, Table C-15 the City identifies a potential for 78 live/work units with six property owners expressing interest in the program. However, the program will not be limited to just these properties but rather will be available to properties throughout the commercial district. The City will continue conducting outreach to these and other downtown property owners during the development of the live/work program.
Measurable benchmarks, supporting processes and systems ● Dates. Are there specific dates associated with these goals so we can track progress? City Response: Each housing element program in Chapter 2 has a timeframe for completion. Additionally, each year City staff prepares an Annual Progress Report which is presented to the Planning Commission and City Council (typically in February/March). These reports are also posted on the city’s website under Annual Progress Report. ● Monitoring. How will we track whether these units are actually being built and offered for rent? City Response: See comment above.
● Contingency Planning and Corrective Actions. If we find we are falling behind, what is the trigger for the City to pivot to other strategies? I know there were objections to the use of City properties so I'm not sure where that leaves us if this doesn't work.
City Response: Program 1.1.C Live/Work Housing, Program 1.1.E Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties, Program 1.1.F Hotel-to-Residential Conversion, and Program 1.1.H Accessory Dwelling Units include a mid-cycle check-in of June 2028 on the status of the program and whether the City is trending to meet its objectives. It reads as follows: If by June 2028 the City is not trending to meet its established objectives for this program, the City will modify the program and/or utilize alternative strategies within six months to ensure that the City could fully accommodate its RHNA.
Thanks to the AHA group, staff and City Council for all the hard work on this.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-8 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 Comment #5: M. Rengifo-Ruess
Mayor Byrne, Council members, city administrator, and city staff, As a resident of Carmel, who has been offering comments with regards to the 6th Housing element since its early adoption, I would like to come back to you with a few issues I have encountered in our response to address the letter from California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) received by our city administrator on January 13th, 2026.
My comments:
● 1. Program: City Owned Sites needs to be kept and addressed. HCD specifically asks that an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment...”
The City needs to identify the actions that are being taken to make these sites available. Once again, I implore to you to keep city owned sites: Sunset Center (Sites #1 & #2) and Vista Lobos (Site #3) on the adopted 6th housing element. The city needs to prepare and release an RFP so to assess the interest from possible developers, evaluate opportunities on these city-owned land, consider alternatives for long-term leasing, and provide the city with valuable information regarding this required solution.
City Response: Thank you for your comment.
● 2. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (Program 1.1.H) – I appreciate the fact that we have added the words:
Monitor production, affordability, and occupancy of ADUs to the redline version of the 6th housing element amendment to address the comments from HCD: “Program 1.1.H (Accessory Dwelling Units):
The Program commits to monitor ADU production annually and take action, as appropriate but should also specifically monitor ADU affordability and occupancy.” However, the issue still remains. As I have shared with this group as well as during public comment sessions during the past two years, I am very skeptical of counting vacant ADUs among our solution for very low/low-income housing. Although you have a total of 70 in our site inventory (with a 10% discount), I recommend we first validate and confirm their current occupancy to ensure our number is accurate and reflects actual use of such ADUs. As I have said, it seems in Carmel the ADU build serves only to expand square footage/house size but not to offer the spaces for rent or affordable housing, so this is not part of the solution to our housing requirements. Please add to your report: 1) how many are currently occupied full time; 2) how many are rented.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-9 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 City Response: A significant loophole in state law exists between the mandate requiring cities to approve Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and the lack of a requirement for owners to actually utilize them as housing. This gap between construction and occupancy is a pressing issue that extends well beyond Carmel-by-the-Sea. The City intends to establish a tenant matching program to facilitate and encourage the long-term use of ADUs as residential dwellings.
● 3. Program 2.1.D: Establish Affordable Housing Trust Fund – It is stated that the City will establish a Housing Trust Fund of $1 million by December 2026. “The City currently relies on outside agencies and organizations to fund affordable housing projects. However, in an effort to establish a City-funded source dedicated to supporting the creation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of affordable units, the City will pursue the creation of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The Trust would be funded by the City, either through a dedicated revenue source or via the General Fund.” Is the timeframe correct? Has this fund already been identified in the City’s budget? Recommendation: If this is a proposed solution, please update the timing and explain how it is being funded or supported in our current budget.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment. I certainly hope we start making progress on all items identified as solutions instead of trying to modify an already adopted 6th housing element.
City Response: The creation of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund will be through adoption of an Ordinance. This process includes identifying dedicated funding (like developer fees or specific taxes), deciding on governance (who oversees the funds), and setting program guidelines to ensure the money is used effectively to build or preserve homes for our community. The timeline for adoption of the Ordinance is December 2026. The objective is to have $1 million in the fund by the end of the planning period (2031).
Comment #6: Monterey-Salinas Transit
Monterey-Salinas Transit District (MST) provides public transportation throughout Monterey County and operates multiple fixed-route bus lines serving the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, including Lines 5, 91, and 94. MST has reviewed the amendments to the Housing Element and has the following comments for your consideration:
● Programs 1.1.D – F, 1.3A, 2.3, 3.1A-C, 3.1G, and 5.1A-C:
MST supports the effort by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to create broad incentives for the development of new housing through various processes including in programs 1.1D-F. The construction of new units in the downtown area serves to both close the RHNA gap and provide development within walking distance of MST service.
The effort to expand affordable housing in programs 1.3A, 2.3, 3.1A-C, and 3.1G is also something that MST heavily encourages. An increased supply of affordable housing benefits not only residents within downtown Carmel, but also often increases transit ridership and decreases car travel as workers who would have commuted would be able to live closer to work.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-10 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 MST encourages the effort to enact programs, such as 5.1A-C that increase density and support mixed land use, following transit-oriented development (TOD) guidelines. A denser environment in combination with TOD allows for greater ease of mobility for people less reliant on cars. It facilitates sustainable communities and the enhanced density allows for a reduced cost of transit and essential services.
In alignment with these policies, MST completed the Transit Oriented Development Planning Study (2024), which identified land use policies and first-/last mile transportation strategies that support TOD opportunities, increase transit ridership, and reduce vehicle-miles travel and greenhouse gas emissions.
Chapter 2.1. Transit-Oriented Development Practices of MST’s TOD Implementation Summary Report provides key design standards to support cities in their efforts to foster vibrant communities, maximize housing production, provide a mix of uses, and support the region’s public transit1 . We encourage City
Staff to use this planning study as a resource when revising designs for future housing developments.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
● Program 1.2.B:
MST applauds the effort to modernize the city’s roads and storm drains. As the City advances planned street improvements, it is essential that all design elements remain consistent with the standards in MST’s Designing for Transit Guidelines to ensure safe and efficient transit operations. MST respectfully requests to be consulted at every project phase, including conceptual design, detailed design, and value engineering, to reduce the risk of costly redesigns or removal of bus service. Key transit design considerations include the following:
○ Lane Width: Transit buses measure 10ft 7in in width (including side mirrors). Therefore, a minimum lane width of 11ft is required where transit operates. Lanes of 10ft or narrower can result in buses encroaching into adjacent lanes, increasing the risk of conflicts with other road users.
○ ADA-Compliant Bus Stops: Any bus stop relocation or pedestrian infrastructure upgrade must comply with all applicable ADA requirements to ensure safe and universal access. ○ Roundabout and Curb Extensions: Roundabouts and pedestrian bulb-outs must be designed to meet the turning radii and clearance standards outlined in the Technical Reference Chapter of MST’s Designing for Transit Guidelines. Bus stops slated to be near roundabouts should be consistent with mid-block as the preferred/ideal safe location. ○ Bus & Bicycle Interactions: Whenever possible, buses and bikes should operate in separate lanes ideally with a 6’ striped bike lane. Green conflict-zone hash markings should be applied in areas where the buses merge into and out of bus stops to alert all users to the crossing movement and reduce potential conflicts.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-11 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Thank you for considering these comments. If you have any questions about the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or 831-264-5877. 1 MST Transit-Oriented Development Planning Study Implementation Report (2024) https://mst.org/wp-content/media/20240417-MSTTOD-Implementation-Strategy-Report_clean.pdf Comment #7: Housing Defense Fund
Dear City of Carmel-by-the-Sea,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter regarding the proposed March 2026 amendment to the City’s Housing Element, which calls for removing the City-owned sites known as Vista Lobos, Sunset Center North, and Sunset Center South.
The City’s proposed amendments to its Housing Element would violate state law, including recently decided appellate case law, in several ways, as detailed below. None of the City’s proposed minor changes to its previous draft Housing Element amendment fail to satisfy any of the concerns that we have presented in our previous correspondence. Furthermore, the City is now four months overdue on its central commitment in its current, active housing element. Program 1.1.B requires the City to release RFPs on both City-owned sites for low-income housing development. Because the City failed to follow through on this commitment, it has failed to maintain an inventory of land available for development of low-income housing. The City therefore currently lacks a compliant housing element,, and subject to the various consequences under state law such as the builder’s remedy. Instead of working to follow through on the commitments made in the compliant housing element, the City is choosing to reinvent the plan in order to prevent the development of affordable housing.
The City’s contemplated approach brings a significant risk of litigation.
Background
The City’s Housing Element of its General Plan must provide an inventory of sites where housing is likely to be built in the upcoming cycle for each income level in its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”). (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
The City’s RHNA includes the construction of 113 very low-income units, 74 low-income units, 44 moderateincome units, and 118 above moderate income units. The City’s Housing Element Site Inventory allocates 78 very low-income units to the three City-owned sites, along with 46 low-income units and 25 moderate-income units.
Together, these sites account for the vast majority of lower-income units in the City’s Housing Element.
Additionally, these are the three best sites for potential funding as Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) projects, given their size, potential unit yield, and land cost. Were these three sites to be removed from the Housing Element, the Site Inventory would have a serious deficit, falling well short of both the Housing Element’s target production of 410 units, including 201 lower-income units, and the RHNA of 349 units, including 187 lowerincome units. Because removing these sites would cause a deficit of lower-income units in the City’s Site Inventory, the City’s Housing Element would no longer be in substantial compliance with state law.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-12 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 The City has proposed to make up for this shortfall by amending its Housing Element to establish multiple new programs, including:
● Program 1.1.C: Live/Work Housing
● Program 1.1.B: Development on Small Sites / Program 1.1.D: Mixed-Income Incentive Program
● Program 1.1.E: Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties ● Program 1.1.F: Hotel- to-Residential Conversion (Hotel ‘Key’ Transfer) However, each of these programs are defective with respect to state law, as discussed infra.
Underlying Purpose of the Amendment
Before addressing the substance of the proposed amendment to the City’s Housing Element, it is worth addressing the very purpose of the amendment. The City’s existing, approved Housing Element plans to develop affordable housing via a tried and true technique – the disposal of City-owned land to affordable developers in order to build 100% affordable housing, almost certainly using federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTC”).
Pages 2-1 and 2-2 of the amended Housing Element contain the City’s justification for this amendment (emphasis added):
“Beginning in Summer 2024, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea began exploring strategies to further enhance the City’s ability in delivering affordable housing opportunities throughout the community, and developing alternative strategies that present near-term potential for affordable units … The City is proud of the policies and programs that follow below. They represent an honest desire by both the local government and residents of Carmel to create real affordable housing opportunities in what, by all accounts, is an unaffordable place to live. This shared desire is evidenced by how these policies and programs came together … it leveraged the knowledge of both residents and City staff, making it possible to turn Carmel’s unique constraints into opportunities for the creation of new housing.” However, these statements are simply not true. This amendment was created because members of the community have sought to block the development of 100% affordable housing on the City-owned sites.
The public record makes it clear that an antipathy towards housing for low-income households underlies this effort to amend the Housing Element.
A news article has documented how the City Council directed City staff to work with a group of local activists to amend the housing element to exclude the City sites, a group that evidently includes former Council Member Victoria Beach, who is quoted as saying, “The idea of clumping people who are lower-income together is a discredited housing strategy.”
The development of housing in which 100% of units are affordable to lower-income households is in fact the primary method of developing affordable housing across the nation. Across the country, LIHTC funding has placed into service more than 3.7 million affordable homes, according to the federal government. In California, LIHTC ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-13 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 developments are almost always 100% affordable to lower-income households. The LIHTC program, particularly when paired with local or state subsidy, is the primary way that California develops affordable housing.
The City, by choosing to abandon a 100% affordable strategy involving the disposition of City-owned land, is choosing riskier, unproven models that are much less likely to result in the development of housing affordable to lower-income households during the planning period. And the City seems to be doing so in order to appease residents who do not want 100% affordable housing developed in their community.
Lack of Site Inventory
Before addressing the various major legal problems in the proposed amendment, it is worth noting the fact that the amendment fails to include an adequate site inventory. Appendix C largely rehashes and expands upon various Housing Element programs. However, it fails to complete a critical Housing Element task - an inventory of land with specific numbers of units by income level assigned to each parcel.
This duty is imposed upon the City by state law. Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(3) requires that the Housing Element include::
(a)(3) An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.
If this were not clear enough, page 9 of the HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook states:
Identify which RHNA income category that each site in the inventory is anticipated to accommodate. On the site inventory, specify whether the site or a portion of the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing. Sites can accommodate units for more than one income category. However, the inventory should indicate the number of units of each income category, and together the total of units attributed to each income category may not exceed total units attributed to the site, so that no unit is designated for more than one income category.
The proposed amendment fails in this elementary task.
Given that Appendix C, Sites Inventory, does not actually include a site inventory, below is a discussion of tables in Appendix C that do identify potential housing sites:
• Tables C-2 and C-3 identify pipeline projects, which is appropriate. • Table C-8 identifies 45 different hotels that could conceivably be converted into affordable housing, but it fails to identify how many units by income level are planned for each site. Table C-9 identifies the total number of units expected from this program by income level, but fails to identify which sites will accommodate which units by income level And Table C-42 assigns 80 lower-income units to the hotel conversion program, but it is unclear which of these hotels are actually planned for lower-income units.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-14 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 • Table C-10 identifies three churches that are planned for conversion to affordable housing, with unit counts and income levels. This is acceptable for this specific program. [The program itself violates state law for other reasons, including minimum site capacity issues, as discussed infra.] • Table C-15 identifies eight parcels for the Live/Work program along with a number of units achievable on each site, but it fails to identify which income levels the sites will serve. o It is worth noting that on page C-29 the Housing Element states that only low-income units will be allowed to be developed in these buildings. However, Table C-15 assigns less than the minimum number of units required for low-income sites, as discussed infra. o Disturbingly, Table C-15 is entitled “Properties with Live/Work Potential for Lower-Income Housing.” It is unclear if the City is actually committing to rezoning these parcels, or if it even considers these particular parcels to be on its site inventory. • Table C-16 includes two parcels that will be rezoned and it also includes the number of units by income levels. However, Table C-16 assigns less than the minimum number of units required for low-income sites, as discussed infra.
• Table C-18 includes pipeline sites and recycled sites, with units by income level, which is appropriate.
In sum, the proposed amendment fails to include a site inventory that meets the requirements of state law. Even when taking all the tables in Appendix C in aggregate, the amendment simply does not supply enough information to constructively generate a site inventory. Crucially, Table C-8 fails to identify how many units by income level are planned for each hotel site.
However, the site inventory is superseded in importance by the failure of the amendment’s housing programs, which do not satisfy Housing Element Law.
Required Minimum Number of Units Per Lower-Income Site
The five aforementioned programs fail to follow the requirements of state law regarding the minimum number of units per site.
Zoning code amendments, zoning map amendments, or both are required to implement each of the five listed programs. This means that the current zoning does not accommodate the programmed RHNA. For sites where the current zoning does not accommodate the programmed RHNA, Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2) requires that the City rezone each site slated for a portion of its low-income RHNA for at least 16 units per site.
accommodate at least 16 units.
However, many of the low-income sites in the City’s proposed amended Housing Element do not allow at least 16 units of residential development.
• Program 1.1.C: Live/Work Housing – AFFH
o All the sites in Table C-15 have between 7 and 13 units of capacity • Program 1.1.D: Mixed-Income Incentive Program / Program 1.1.B: Development on Small Sites ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-15 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 o Each of the two sites listed in Table C-16 have fewer than 16 units of capacity, with 010-138-020 planned for 7 units and 010-142-001 planned for 5 units • Program 1.1.E: Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties – AFFH o First Church of Christian Science’s site capacity is only 13 units o Rezoning required as the City may not rely on SB 4 in lieu of a rezoning, as discussed infra. This means that the 16-unit minimum applies.
• Program 1.1.F: Hotel-to-Residential Conversion (Hotel ‘Key’ Transfer) – AFFH o The following hotels listed in table C-8 have less than 16 rooms:
■ Briarwood Inn
■ Briarwood Inn II/Holland Court Inn
■ Carmel Cottage Inn LLC
■ Carmel Country Inn LLC
■ Carmel Garden Inn
■ Carriage House Inn
■ Forest Lodge
■ Lamplighter Inn
■ Monte Verde Inn
■ Monte Verde Inn East
■ Ocean View Lodge
■ Sea View Inn
■ Sunset House
■ Tally-Ho Inn
■ The Homestead
■ Vagabond House
o As discussed supra, Program 1.1.F also fails to satisfy state law because the site inventory does not assign units by income level to the various sites
The City’s Housing Element therefore does not comply with state law because it fails to satisfy the requirement that each lower-income site accommodate at least 16 units. (See Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2).) This is a basic requirement for any housing element.
Required Local Zoning for Religious Properties Program
Program 1.1.E: Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties has legal defects beyond the insufficient number of units on one of the sites. Specifically, the City cannot rely on the use of SB 4 (Gov. Code, § 65913.16) to generate housing on those sites. As discussed on page 14 of HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, the base density of each site must allow the achievement of the number of units planned in the site inventory.
Furthermore, SB 4 imposes a number of constraints on housing development. The City must analyze and account for these constraints in its Housing Element. Specifically, SB 4 requires that projects be both 100% affordable and pay prevailing wage for construction labor. This requirement, in addition to the meager number of units planned for each site, means that potential projects on these sites must receive a full LIHTC award and additional governmental subsidy (“soft money”) in order for a project to pencil out. The City must explain how it anticipates ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-16 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 that such projects will be feasible or where the additional soft money will come from to pay the prevailing wage requirement of SB 4.
The City should remember that it must make required findings based on substantial evidence that the existing uses on these sites are likely to discontinue during the planning period, as required by Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (g)(2), given that the City is relying on nonvacant sites for at least 50% of its low-income RHNA. The City should bear in mind the prevailing wage requirements of SB 4 when making these findings.
Instead of relying on SB 4, the City must include a plan to rezone these church sites in order to allow residential development on a by-right basis, as is required by Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(1).
Additional Legal Defects in Mixed-Income Program
Program 1.1.D: Mixed-Income Incentive Program has legal defects beyond the insufficient number of units planned for each site. The City states that it is planning on using incentive zoning to achieve the number of lowincome units on each site. However, this approach is forbidden by HCD’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook. From page 14 of the Guidebook:
The analysis of “appropriate zoning” should not include residential buildout projections resulting from the implementation of a jurisdiction’s inclusionary program or potential increase in density due to a density bonus, because these tools are not a substitute for addressing whether the underlining (base) zoning densities are appropriate to accommodate the RHNA for lower income households.
The City must instead rezone each of these potential mixed-income sites to achieve both the minimum density and minimum unit count prescribed by law. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2).) And the City must allow residential development on a by-right basis on each site. (Id. at subd. (h)(1).) Additional Legal Defects in Hotel Conversion Program
Program 1.1.F: Hotel-to-Residential Conversion (Hotel ‘Key’ Transfer) fails to satisfy the requirements of state law regarding the Housing Element Site Inventory. Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (b) and (c) spell out what the Housing Element’s Site Inventory must contain. As discussed supra, the site inventory must list (among other information) each site by APN along with the number of units at each income level that each site will accommodate.
The City’s proposed amended Housing Element fails to accomplish this basic task. The Housing Element lists a large number of hotels that could potentially be converted, but fails to assign specific numbers of units to specific properties at specific income levels.
And, as discussed supra, the program does not have at least 16 units on each lower-income site, violating state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2).)
Requirement for By-Right Development
The program also fails to comply with Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(1), which mandates that the City allow residential development on a by-right basis for residential projects on low-income sites where at ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-17 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 least 20% of the units are affordable. If the City plans on allowing hotels to convert to residential use in order to satisfy its low-income RHNA, then it must allow residential use on those sites on a by-right basis.
Ability to Make Findings Re Discontinuance of Uses
It is also unlikely that the City can make the required findings based on substantial evidence that the existing uses on these sites are likely to discontinue during the planning period, as required by Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (g)(2), given that the City is relying on nonvacant sites for at least 50% of its low-income RHNA.
The program relies on the sale of “hotel keys” (i.e. a transfer of development rights program, akin to taxi medallions or liquor licenses). In order for this program to function, there must be sufficient zoned capacity of commercial land to accommodate new hotels, so that there will be a market created for the “hotel keys.” However, the program has deeper flaws.
The City is counting on the conversion of failing hotels into affordable housing while at the same time relying on a $438,000 market value of each “hotel key.” This is an internal contradiction of the program - it is unclear why hotels are failing and ripe for conversion to affordable housing if there is such overwhelming demand for hotel rooms that developers are willing to pay $438,000 per door just for the right to develop/operate a hotel room.
Additionally, the anticipated market value of each “hotel key” seems highly inflated. To put it into perspective, in 2018, St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Midtown Manhattan was attempting to sell its development rights at an asking price of $385 per square foot, and JP Morgan Chase purchased development rights for its new Midtown office building at $350 per square foot. If each Carmel hotel room is (conservatively) 400 square feet in size, plus 100 square feet for hallways and other circulation space, this means that the City is assuming that hotel development rights in Carmel are worth approximately $600 per square foot. It is improbable that development rights in Carmel for hotel use are worth so much more than development rights in Midtown Manhattan.
Constraints from Coastal Commission Policies re Low Cost Lodging When implementing the Housing Element, the City will likely need to amend the Land Use and Coastal Access and Recreation (due to the impact on hotels/motels) chapters of its General Plan. The City will certainly need to amend its zoning code.
The City will be required to submit these various amendments to the Coastal Commission for approval, as they make up parts of the City’s Local Coastal Program.
The Coastal Commission has long prioritized lower-cost lodging in the coastal zone. Program 1.1.F is predicated on the conversion of lower-cost hotels/motels into lower-income housing. Replacement hotel/motel units are likely to be significantly more expensive. In fact, they must be dramatically more expensive in order to pay off the $438,000 that the City plans to charge for a ‘hotel key.’ The City must analyze the degree to which the Coastal Commission’s policies regarding low-cost lodging represent a constraint on this program.
Additional Defects in Live/Work Program
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-18 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 As discussed supra, Program 1.1.C: Live/Work Housing has an insufficient number of units on each site (see Table C-15), in violation of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2).
Beyond this, however, the program assumes that property owners will voluntarily renovate underutilized commercial space into deed-restricted, low-income residential units without government subsidy. The proposed amended Housing Element paints a rosy picture of how deed-restricted affordable housing will generate higher rents than the current commercial rents of these spaces. However, this proposal fails to address the renovation costs needed to convert these spaces into residential units.
Chapter 10 of California’s Existing Building Code (C.C.R. Title 24, Part 10) imposes a host of requirements whenever a change of occupancy is proposed, and such building improvements will be required in addition to the installation of bathrooms, kitchens, interior walls, HVAC, etc. The notion that property owners would opt into such renovations to create affordable housing without government funding is improbable, to say the least.
Successful programs in California rely on bonuses of additional market rate development to encourage the development of deed-restricted, affordable housing. Highly successful programs that use this model include the state’s Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915) and San Diego’s bonus ADU program. However, programs tend to be very unsuccessful if they allow additional units only on the condition that they be deed-restricted, affordable units.
It is therefore unlikely that the City can make the required findings based on substantial evidence that the existing uses on these sites are likely to discontinue during the planning period, as required by Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (g)(2), given that the City is relying on nonvacant sites for at least 50% of its low-income RHNA.
Limitations on Non-Residential Use for Low-Income Sites Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2) places strict requirements on the type of zoning allowed for low-income RHNA sites (emphasis added):
These sites shall be zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit at least 16 units per site at a density of at least 16 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), shall be at least 20 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), and shall meet the standards set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b). At least 50 percent of the lower income housing need shall be accommodated on sites designated for residential use and for which nonresidential uses or mixed uses are not permitted, except that a city or county may accommodate all of the lower income housing need on sites designated for mixed use if those sites allow 100 percent residential use and require that residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project.
As can be seen from this excerpt, at least half the City’s lower-income RHNA must be planned on sites that only allow residential use. However, the proposed amended Housing Element fails to meet this statutory requirement.
The following four programs all fail to meet this standard:
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-19 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 • Program 1.1.C: Live/Work Housing
o This program is explicitly mixed-use and therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2).
o 78 lower-income units
• Program 1.1.D: Mixed-Income Incentive Program / Program 1.1.B: Development on Small Sites o The City must zone these sites so that only residential development is allowed. • Program 1.1.E: Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties o Because religious facility uses are still permitted on these properties, this program fails to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2). o 65 lower-income units
• Program 1.1.F: Hotel-to-Residential Conversion (Hotel ‘Key’ Transfer) o Because commercial (hotel) uses are still permitted on these properties, this program fails to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2). o 80 lower-income units
This means that the City is accommodating 227 lower-income units on sites that allow nonresidential or mixed uses.
The City’s lower-income RHNA is 187 units. The pipeline projects (26 lower-income units), ADUs (42 lower-income units), mixed-income program (6 lower-income units), and Forest Cottages Specific Plan (2 lower-income units) represent 74 units total. This means that well under half of the City’s lower-income RHNA (74/187=40%) is planned for sites where the zoning allows exclusively residential use.
This means that the proposed amended Housing Element violates the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2).
Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2) allows low-income RHNA sites to be mixed-use only if: “... those sites allow 100 percent residential use and require that residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project.” However, the various programs either do not allow 100% residential use, do not require 50% of floor area to be residential, or fail both tests.
It also appears that the Mixed-Income Program may also allow for non-residential use (see pages 2-11), as is planned to be implemented in the downtown area and the City states that such projects may include first floor commercial space, as the intent is to model these projects on the recent development “Trevvett Court.” Furthermore, it is unclear if the Forest Cottages Specific Plan only allows residential use, as there is an existing motel on the site.
• Program 1.1.C: Live/Work Housing
o This program neither allows 100% residential use nor requires 50% of floor area to be residential. • Program 1.1.D: Mixed-Income Incentive Program / Program 1.1.B Development on Small Sites o This program neither allows 100% residential use nor requires 50% of floor area to be residential (see discussion of this program supra)
• Program 1.1.E: Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-20 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 o This program does not require 50% of floor area to be residential. Additionally, this program relies on SB 4 and does not facilitate 100% residential use via the underlying zoning. • Program 1.1.F: Hotel-to-Residential Conversion (Hotel ‘Key’ Transfer) o This program does not require 50% of floor area to be residential for mixed-use projects.
Additionally, the City would have to rezone all the hotels on its list of potential sites for 100% residential use.
Recently published, binding caselaw from the California Court of Appeal has clarified the requirements of Housing Element Law regarding mixed-use zoning on sites planned for power-income units.
In New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach ( 2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 111, the Court held that an overlay cannot be used to satisfy the requirements of state law for rezonings for lower-income sites (see Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2)) if the zoning expressly permits development that does not include housing. Allowing underlying, non-residential uses would not satisfy the minimum residential density requirement imposed by state housing law.
As applied to Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Housing Element, the Redondo Beach decision prohibits the City from proposing zoning for lower-income sites that allows for any development that does not include a residential component.
This has implications for the following programs:
• Program 1.1.C: Live/Work Housing
o These low-income RHNA sites must be mapped with zoning that prohibits the establishment or expansion of commercial development, with the exception of mixed-use developments satisfying Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2)). This would mean that zoning must prohibit existing commercial buildings from expanding their floor area on site, absent a residential development.
• Program 1.1.D: Mixed-Income Incentive Program / Program 1.1.B Development on Small Sites o These low-income RHNA sites must be mapped with zoning that prohibits the establishment or expansion of commercial development, with the exception of mixed-use developments satisfying Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2)). This would mean that zoning must prohibit existing commercial buildings from expanding their floor area on site, absent a residential development.
• Program 1.1.E: Affordable Housing on Religious Facility Properties o These low-income RHNA sites must be mapped with zoning that prohibits the establishment or expansion of religious uses, with the exception of mixed-use developments satisfying Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2)). This would mean that zoning must prohibit existing houses of worship from expanding their floor area on site, absent a residential development.
• Program 1.1.F: Hotel-to-Residential Conversion (Hotel ‘Key’ Transfer) ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-21 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 o These low-income RHNA sites must be mapped with zoning that prohibits the establishment or expansion of hotels/motels, with the exception of mixed-use developments satisfying Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (h)(2)). This would mean that zoning must prohibit existing hotels/motels from expanding their floor area on site, absent a residential development.
The City Should Follow Through on Its Commitments
Given the timelines necessary for housing development, the fact that we are already two years into the planning period, and the comparative lack of vacant land in the City, it is inappropriate for the City to abandon its most important low-income sites. Government Code Section 65583, subdivision (a)(3) requires that the Housing Element include (emphasis added) “An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.” The City-owned sites were scheduled for an RFP by December 2025, and it is highly unlikely that any private organizations, such as churches, would be able to come to an agreement regarding potential development plans on the same schedule as the City had committed to. Furthermore, any plans by such organizations to develop affordable housing via SB 4 will likely run into equivalent community opposition, given that their scale would likely have to be similar to what has been proposed for the City-owned lots given the realities of affordable housing finance. Unlike a private developer, a church is much more susceptible to public pressure given that it is made up of members of the community.
Fair Housing Implications
The public record makes it clear that an antipathy towards housing for low-income households underlies this sudden decision to amend the Housing Element.
Basic affordable housing finance dictates that the most effective way to develop affordable housing is via projects of sufficient size and composition to qualify for LIHTC funding. This typically means 100% affordable projects of 40-80 units for 9% LIHTC and more than 100 units for 4% LIHTC. Furthermore, this scale ensures efficient delivery of services for residents. This is exactly why state law dictates minimum densities on sites for low-income households (See Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h).) In contrast, the City’s proposed amended Housing Element envisions a large number of low-income sites with densities below what is required by state law. (Ibid.) Amending the City’s Housing Element to exclude the City-owned sites is transparently discriminatory towards lower-income households. For purposes of state fair housing law (See Gov. Code, § 8899.50, inter alia.), lowincome residents are a protected class. (Gov. Code § 65008, subs. (a)(3), (b)(1)(C), and (b)(2)(B).) The City is obligated by state law (Gov. Code, § 8899.50) not to discriminate against such residents based on protected characteristics.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-22 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 Additionally, the City has a duty to affirmatively further fair housing (“AFFH”) in preparing its Housing Element. (See Gov. Code § 8899.50 and § 65583 (c)(5).) The Housing Element itself, moreover, must assess fair housing within the City. (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Under Government Code section 8899.50, all public agencies must affirmatively further fair housing through their housing and community development programs. Government Code section 8899.50, subdivision (a)(1), defines “affirmatively furthering fair housing” as taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.
The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. Public agencies are required to take meaningful actions to AFFH and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to AFFH. (Id. at subd. (b).) Amending its Housing Element to exclude the City-owned sites would be disparate treatment based on a protected characteristic and it would also fail to affirmatively further fair housing.
Carmel-by-the-Sea is much, much wealthier than the rest of Monterey County and has a vastly higher proportion of White residents. According to the 2020 decennial census, Carmel-by-the-Sea is 87% White and only 6% Latino, whereas Monterey County is 27% White and 60% Latino. Furthermore, the median household income in Carmelby-the-Sea is $126,406 per year, according to the 2022 5-year American Community Survey, whereas the Monterey County median household income is $91,043, according to the same dataset.
The City has also permitted only 13 lower-income units according to its annual progress reports dating back to 2018. Eliminating the main program in its housing plan to produce low-income homes, while replacing this production with a variety of programs unlikely to produce any new homes, would be a clear violation of fair housing laws.
Housing Element Substantial Compliance and the Builder’s Remedy By attempting to amend its Housing Element, rather than issue the RFPs for the City-owned sites, the City has already missed its December 2025 deadline for the RFPs. If the City fails to implement required programs within the timeframes outlined in the housing element, the City is no longer in substantial compliance with Housing Element law.
The Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5; the “HAA”) requires approval of “builder’s remedy” projects that are submitted during periods of local housing element noncompliance. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(6).) Under the HAA, a city may not disapprove a builder’s remedy project on the grounds it does not comply with the city’s zoning and general plan if the developer submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a "complete development application" while the city's housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(6), (h)(5), (o)(1).) This statutory provision temporarily suspends the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects. See California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case Number:
23STCP02614 (attached), for a recent court decision affirming the plain language of the statute in this regard.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-23 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 If the City’s compliance with Housing Element law lapses, developers will be able to propose any residential project, no matter how tall or large, as long as it qualifies as a builder’s remedy project. The City will be bound to approve all such projects even if the City later comes back into compliance with housing element law. For instance, in Santa Monica, a single developer proposed 4,260 housing units, including several 18-story buildings, when Santa Monica’s housing element fell out of compliance. If the City wrongfully denies such builder’s remedy applications, not only may the applicant seek judicial remedies, but the HAA specifically empowers housing organizations, such as CalHDF to enforce the act via litigation. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(A)(i).) And if the City contests such Builder’s Remedy applications, it may be liable for costs. For example, the HAA authorizes courts to award attorney’s fees and costs both to applicants and to housing organizations if they prevail in litigation to enforce the HAA. (Id. at subd. (k).) As an example, the City of Berkeley was fined $2.6 million and forced to pay $1.4 million in attorneys’ fees after incorrectly denying a housing development project in violation of the HAA.
The City should be aware that by failing to issue these RFPs by December 2025, its Housing Element is no longer in substantial compliance with state law.
In sum, if the City amends its housing element to exclude the three City-owned sites, or fails to issue the RFPs for the City-owned sites, it will be exposing itself to potential litigation. If the City loses such litigation, it will be exposed to a variety of remedies, potentially including the Builder’s Remedy, as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. CalHDF recommends that the City drop its effort to amend the Housing Element and instead proceed with its plans to dispose of the City-owned sites to develop 100% affordable housing, which is badly needed in Carmelby-the-Sea.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-24 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 City Response: The City worked collaborative with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to develop programs to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). HCD has continued to guide the City through this amendment process and has assured City staff that its adopted Housing Element will retain its compliance status until such time the City adopts an amendment. Because the City is actively pursuing alternative strategies, HCD has indicated pausing the implementation of the city-owned sites is appropriate. It is absolutely the City’s goal to only adopt an HCD-certifiable amendment that fully complies with State law, including adequate sites for RHNA and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements.
Furthermore, replacing the city-owned sites program with alternative strategies does not preclude development on these sites.
As no rezoning is proposed as part of this amendment, AB 1397’s rezoning for shortfall provisions do not apply.
The proposed alternative strategies are intended to promote housing choice and mobility in Carmel-by-the-Sea, expanding housing options and locational choices for lower and moderate income households.
Comment #8: See list of commenters below.
Victoria Beach, Resident & Architect
Beth Bowman, Business Operator
Janine Chicourrat, Resident
Erik Dyar, Architect Business Operator
Stephen Lee, Resident
Rich Pepe, Business Operator
Dave Potter, Resident
Kristi Reimers, Resident & Business Operator
Bobby Richards, Resident & Business Operator
Graeme Robertson, Resident
Nancy Twomey, Resident
Tim Twomey, Resident
Mark Watson, Business Operator
On behalf of current and future residents and stakeholders, we strongly support this revised Carmel-by-the-Sea Housing Element and its programs that enable our regional housing obligation (RHNA).
Unlike the prior Cycle 6 Housing Element, this revision recognizes:
the social difficulties inherent in concentrating lower income residents on a few parcels, the logistical hurdles involved in re-purposing extremely scarce public lands zoned and reserved for cultural uses, and
the sustainability questions posed by a one-off approach that cannot extend beyond this planning cycle.
Through our collaboration, this newly revised Housing Element :
geographically disperses affordable housing throughout our neighborhoods, ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-25 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 builds on successful housing models that have a proven record of working throughout our commercial and residential zones, and
provides innovative yet compatible approaches that can continue to integrate new residents for the future.
For all these reasons, we anticipate our newly amended plan accelerates the actual construction of new affordable units beyond what was previously targeted. All the while, it maintains alignment with our General Plan, preserving the town’s defining character and its economic health for current and future neighbors to enjoy.
This alignment has received strong community support that will deliver predictable and streamlined processes for developers, architects, and property owners alike.
Thank you for your support, partnership, and consideration.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #9: D. Byrne
Public Comment on the Proposed Housing Element Amendment Submitted by Dale Byrne, Carmel Resident and Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea Introduction and Purpose
I am submitting this comment as a Carmel resident and as Mayor, having followed the Housing Element process closely over the past several years. I strongly support housing production, including affordable units, in Carmel.
We need them, and among all those in need, our seniors are the most urgent priority. Long-time residents who built their lives here are increasingly priced out as rents rise beyond fixed incomes. I also want to thank the volunteers and staff members who have worked on this amendment over the past couple of years. Their research and program development work was valuable and can play an important role in Carmel’s future housing production.
Our overall objective should not be to meet minimum compliance thresholds, but to deliver housing at a scale that meaningfully serves Carmel’s seniors, workforce, and others in the community in a highly difficult housing environment.
Carmel’s Approved Strategy
Carmel’s Housing Element was approved by HCD based on a clear strategy: use city-owned sites, engage experienced affordable and market-rate development partners through a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process, and complement that approach with creative programs such as mixed-use, live/work units, church-based developments, and ADUs. That framework has precedent across California and was designed to deliver results at the scale necessary to satisfy the required numbers.
The Proposed Shift
This proposed amendment shifts away from that strategy by removing city-owned sites and the RFP process, relying primarily on refined versions of the smaller, voluntary mixed-use programs and church sites. Removing the ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-26 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 RFP process also removes the ability to motivate developers to provide other civic resources as part of their projects. The question is whether this revised approach can realistically produce the number and type of housing units Carmel needs, not just what our assigned RHNA number requires, and within the required timeframe.
City-Owned Sites as Strategic Assets
City-owned parking lots are highly valuable land and by most measures, the only locations capable of addressing both our housing needs and our long-standing parking constraints through integrated, structured solutions. It is not clear that there is broad community consensus to remove these sites from consideration, particularly given the widely acknowledged and growing parking challenges in Carmel today.
What We Risk Walking Away From
A well-structured RFP process using city-owned land is not just a housing tool. It is a rare opportunity to solve multiple long-standing challenges at once. Could public-private partnerships built around city-owned land deliver all of the following simultaneously?
• Dedicated senior housing with appropriate amenities and parking • Workforce and affordable housing for first responders, teachers, artists, and other essential workers • Market-rate housing that cross-subsidizes affordable units • Underground parking for the additional housing units and the public to address one Carmel’s most chronic long-standing challenges
• Hotel rooms that could generate Transient Occupancy Tax revenue at a meaningful scale • A new civic campus consolidating our aged police station, public works facilities, and perhaps City Hall staff into a modern one-stop center for city services
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. It is precisely the model well-capitalized development partners bring to city-owned site RFPs across California. The City contributes land value. The developer contributes financing, expertise, and market relationships. Parking revenue and TOT income service development costs over time, potentially eliminating the need to float general obligation bonds, draw on the general fund, or seek property tax increases requiring approval by property owners.
Included in both the current and proposed plan is a practical and economically powerful hotel key transfer strategy. Under this approach, older or underperforming hotel rooms could be retired and converted into longterm housing, including both market-rate and potentially deed-restricted units. Those hotel “keys” would then be transferred to new, purpose-built hotel rooms on an appropriate site.
This creates a dual benefit. It increases housing supply by converting existing units into residential use, with existing parking lots, while allowing new hotel rooms to be built in a more suitable location where they can generate significantly higher Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue. That increased revenue can help support public improvements, infrastructure, and potentially offset development costs.
Critically, this strategy depends on having appropriately located sites to receive the keys with sufficient scale, which city-owned properties are uniquely positioned to provide. Without those sites, the hotel key program becomes a piecemeal basis and far more difficult to implement at a meaningful scale.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-27 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 By removing city-owned sites from this amendment before this approach is tested, we risk closing the door on a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
Feasibility of the Proposed Program-Based Approach
The alternative approach outlined in the amendment relies heavily on ADUs, mixed-use conversions, and other voluntary programs. While these tools can contribute incremental units, their ability to deliver housing at scale, and to serve the intended populations, is uncertain.
ADUs are assumed to play a significant role in unit production. However, ADUs are typically not deed-restricted and are often used for purposes other than long-term housing for seniors, workforce residents, or other priority groups. They may be used for periodic stays by friends and family, home offices, 30-day rentals where permitted, or higher-rent market uses. As a result, there is a meaningful risk that a substantial portion of projected ADU production will not translate into housing that serves Carmel’s identified needs.
The proposed plan also relies heavily on commercial-to-residential and live/work conversions. While these may appear straightforward in concept, the practical realities are often far more complex. Even a modest change of use, such as adding a residential unit to an existing commercial space, can trigger significant building code requirements. These may include full fire sprinkler systems throughout the entire structure, ADA-compliant restrooms, accessibility upgrades, and other life-safety improvements.
These requirements can materially increase project costs, reduce usable space, and extend approval timelines.
Similar projects have taken over five years to move through Carmel’s system. In some cases, they may render projects financially infeasible altogether. As a result, there is a meaningful risk that a substantial portion of these projected units will not be realized or will be delayed well beyond this planning period.
While innovative methods were used to survey downtown Carmel properties, in the end, there appears to be no written confirmation that building owners are firmly committed to participating in any of these programs and it doesn’t seem that the amendment has accounted for this in its projections.
Parking Constraints and Real-World Project Experience
The proposed approach assumes that mixed-use and residential projects can be delivered without on-site parking.
Recent experience suggests otherwise. A recently approved mixed-use project that would have produced some of the first apartment units in decades faced significant community concern regarding parking impacts, ultimately requiring the addition of parking that greatly increased project costs and created significant delays.
This raises a practical question. If that project, which actually used city-approved parking requirements, encountered resistance and added cost due to parking constraints, how likely is it that a larger number of smaller projects, each adding incremental demand to already constrained downtown streets, will move forward smoothly and at scale? If these projects require added parking to gain approval, their financial feasibility would be eliminated. If they proceed without parking, they risk increasing pressure on an already limited public parking supply. Either outcome calls into question whether this approach can reliably deliver housing units at the scale and pace required.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-28 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 Risk of Non-Performance
What is the Builder’s Remedy exposure if this approach falls short? If we do not meet our obligations at scale, we risk losing local control over development in ways that could have far greater impacts on community character than a well-planned project delivered through an RFP process.
A Non-Binary Path Forward
This does not have to be a binary choice. The programs included in the amendment have value and were part of the original strategy. The question is whether they should replace the RFP approach or be layered alongside it.
Pursuing both would provide multiple paths to success and increase the likelihood that we meet our obligations.
The smaller programs could begin producing incremental units immediately while the RFP process moves forward in parallel, providing near-term production alongside long-term transformational capacity.
Questions for Consideration
Before adopting this amendment, I respectfully ask that the following questions be addressed on the public record:
1. What is the realistic unit yield and income level of the proposed program-based approach, broken down by program type, and how many of those units are expected to serve seniors and workforce households?
2. What assumptions does this approach rely on regarding actual verified building owner participation, required code revisions, and staff processing capacity?
3. What analysis has been done of the true costs and feasibility of live/work and mixed-use conversions in Carmel’s permitting environment, including coastal zone considerations and change of use triggers?
4. Is there sufficient appropriately located land for the hotel key program to operate at a scale that meaningfully contributes to our mandated numbers at the prices assumed?
5. What civic, fiscal, and community benefits would be foregone by removing city-owned parking lots from the sites inventory before a competitive RFP has been attempted?
6. Has the Builder’s Remedy risk been formally evaluated and disclosed to the public? I would also ask whether the proposed amendment represents a credible and compliant path to meeting Carmel’s housing commitments, or whether it introduces the very compliance risk the original approved strategy was designed to avoid. Why not layer the updated programs on top of the original city sites and RFP process to assure a higher likelihood of success?
A Final Thought on Our Seniors
Carmel’s senior residents deserve to age in the community they helped build. That is not a sentiment. It should be our planning obligation. The Carmel Foundation’s 50 units represent a fraction of what is needed, and the gap is growing as rents rise and fixed incomes do not keep pace. What if a well-structured RFP process for city-owned sites could realistically deliver 150 or more additional senior units in a purpose-built setting with appropriate services and amenities? A collection of scattered voluntary programs heavily dependent on unregulated ADUs and complex commercial conversions is a far less certain path to that same outcome. Which approach gives Carmel’s seniors the best realistic chance of staying home? I would ask the Council to keep that question at the center of this discussion.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-29 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 Carmel has a genuine opportunity here, not just to meet a state mandate, but to solve parking, civic facilities, senior and workforce housing, and long-term revenue generation in a single integrated effort that could cost taxpayers nothing, all made possible because it is our land that gives us this leverage. I hope we do not foreclose that opportunity without fully understanding what we would be giving up.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #10: A. Jeselnick
Dear Ms. Waffle,
Over the past year, I have had the pleasure of working alongside dedicated community members, planning department staff, council members, and consultants to amend the adopted City of Carmel-by-the-Sea housing element. This effort, comprising many thousands of hours of independent research, fact-finding expeditions throughout the downtown, case studies, and zoning code research, has resulted in a comprehensive plan to address the need for affordable housing development in the city. As a result, I strongly support this amendment and look forward to swift adoption hearings this spring as the city moves toward collective action and effective implementation of the policies, programs, and goals defined by this plan.
I joined this effort based on my sincere desire to raise awareness, and express reasonable criticism, of significant challenges to developing multifamily housing in Carmel-by-the-Sea. This 1.1 square mile village, predominantly zoned R-1 (single family residential), leaves limited land area available for the construction of new housing. A compact, historic downtown, in many instances already built up to the maximum existing floor-area ratio limits, with small lots and limited opportunities for on-site parking, further reduces those opportunities. Most projects that involve the remodeling or replacement of existing buildings face a lengthy and complicated design review process, interminable delays due to neighbor controversy, and significantly higher construction costs than elsewhere, even for famously expensive California.
The removal of two city-owned properties (the Vista Lobos and Sunset Center parking lots), as potential sites for affordable housing in this housing cycle, has helped spur the creation of a new model to increase the availability of affordable housing in coastal communities. By leveraging the city's existing built environment, specifically under-valued hotels, vacant office and retail space, and faith-based properties, this amendment provides a uniquely crafted, proven strategy to deliver new housing options dispersed throughout the downtown area.
Thank you for the continued effort to bring this amendment forward, and I look forward to supporting the city's goals by encouraging local property owners and developers to utilize the full array of programs and incentives to increase housing opportunities in Carmel-by-the-Sea.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment#11: M. & L. Hill
Dear Marnie,
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-30 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 As a home owner for over 18-years here, and having built our own home 13-years ago, I'm writing to formally express my support for Carmel-by-the-Sea's proposed Housing Element amendment. What I find especially compelling is the strong and broad-based support from the community, as well as the thoughtful and creative approach taken in refining the plan.
It's clear that residents, in collaboration with City staff, contributed meaningful ideas that both honor Carmel's character and respond constructively to State requirements. The updated plan reflects a more adaptive and considered approach, one that feels aligned with the town's unique identity while still addressing broader housing goals.
To me, this amendment is a positive and important step in the right direction, and a strong example of what can be achieved through open dialogue and cooperation.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #12: B. Richards
I am pleased to offer my support for Carmel-by-the-Sea's proposed amendment to its 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Having served as Vice Mayor during the prior administration, and as one of two members appointed to the ad hoc committee responsible for shaping the original Housing Element, I bring a close and informed perspective to this effort.
This revised plan reflects a meaningful evolution of that earlier work. With the benefit of additional time for careful analysis and broader community engagement, the City has strengthened both the substance and the vision of its housing strategy. The result is a set of core programs that demonstrate not only creativity, but also a clear understanding of Carmel's unique character and constraints.
In my view, this amendment represents a thoughtful, balanced, and achievable approach to fulfilling the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations. It is evident that considerable care has been taken to align state requirements with local priorities, and I commend the City and its residents for their diligence and collaboration in advancing a plan that is both practical and broadly supported.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #13: D. Silverie
Dear Housing and Community Development Leadership,
I am writing to formally express my strong support for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Community Planning and Building Department’s Program 1.1.F: Hotel-to-Residential Conversion (Hotel Key Transfer) as part of its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) initiatives.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-31 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 Carmel-by-the-Sea faces a profound imbalance between housing supply and the needs of the workforce and community members who sustain the local economy. At the same time, the city has a significant inventory of underperforming overnight accommodations. The hotel-to-residential conversion program represents a thoughtful, market-aware, and practical strategy to address both realities simultaneously.
From a planning and design standpoint, the existing hotel room layouts are particularly well suited to multifamily conversion. These properties already possess the core building infrastructure, unit configurations, and location advantages that allow them to transition efficiently into housing with relatively modest structural intervention.
This approach not only accelerates delivery timelines but also represents a fiscally responsible and environmentally sound method of producing housing.
I am especially supportive of the proposed funding framework utilizing the innovative “hotel key” purchase mechanism. Allowing hotel use rights to be transferred to residential use is a forward-thinking policy that enables reinvestment and adaptive reuse without expanding the cap on hotel rooms in Carmel-by-the-Sea. This is a balanced solution that respects both the hospitality industry and the urgent need for affordable housing.
Silverie Properties has a long history of local participation and partnership with surrounding municipalities in the development, construction, and operation of meaningful affordable housing properties. Our owner/operator experience includes the 91-unit Plaza Grande SRO in Salinas, the 14-unit Monterey Hotel Apartments in Monterey, and the construction of Trevvett Court, a senior housing community developed, owned, and operated by the Carmel Foundation. Our construction background is broad ranged in the building and completion of hundreds if not thousands of multifamily units the Bay Area and Southern California. The history and experience of these projects reflect our commitment to responsible development and long-term community stewardship.
I have personally been involved in this initiative since the first committee hearing and remain committed to helping bridge the gap between public policy objectives and free-market enterprise. I intend to continue supporting the City’s recommendations and implementation efforts moving forward.
Carmel Planning has clearly taken a comprehensive and balanced approach, thoughtfully considering the needs of market participants, hotel operators, and the overwhelming demand for affordable housing in our community.
This program represents the type of collaborative, pragmatic policy that can deliver meaningful results.
On a personal note, I grew up in Carmel-by-the-Sea and as a teenager I bussed tables in downtown restaurants during my first few jobs. At that time, many restaurant staff and service workers lived within the community because they had real choices and affordable opportunities to do so. Restoring that possibility is essential to preserving the social and economic fabric of Carmel.
For these reasons, I respectfully encourage HCD to support and advance this program.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-32 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #14: B. Bowman
Marnie,
I'm writing to express my support for the proposed amendment to Carmel's 6th Cycle Housing Element. As Executive Director of the Sunset Center, I want to highlight that our campus has a number of unique constraints that make it especially difficult to use for housing. The property is on the National Register of Historic Places, it isn't zoned for residential use, and it plays a key role as one of the City's primary cultural assets.
The site has long been intended for civic and cultural purposes, including possible future expansion of arts programming or even a museum. Those priorities should remain central to how the property is used moving forward.
The revised plan feels much more practical, focusing on sites and strategies that are more realistic and better aligned with the City's long-term goals. It reflects thoughtful collaboration among residents and staff to create a plan that is both workable and respectful of Carmel's unique character. I respectfully encourage HCD to approve the amendment. Thank you for your consideration.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #15: P. Hazdovac
Dear Marnie,
As a former [Carmel-by-the-Sea] City Councilmember [1994-2012], I fully support the City Staff and community’s work to craft this new Housing Element Ammendment. The revised plan achieves the essential replacement of use of the City owned lots, possibly allowing for new housing that can be embraced by Carmel by the Sea residents. I believe this Ammendment positions our city for greater future success.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #16: V. Beach
Dear Mr. Martinez and Mr. McDougall,
Carmel-by-the-Sea’s proposed amendment to its 6th Cycle Housing Element represents a significant step forward for the community. As a former Mayor Pro Tem and a co-founder of the AHA resident group, I have been deeply involved in the effort to develop a more workable and effective housing plan. As you know, this revised amendment reflects an extraordinary level of engagement and care, along with a much more refined understanding of local conditions. It is not only more thoughtful in its approach, but also far more likely to result in housing that can actually be produced.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-33 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 What stands out most is the depth of collaboration behind this work. Residents, City staff, and HCD worked together in a constructive and iterative way, and I appreciate HCD’s time, engagement, and willingness to help the community think creatively about turning constraints into opportunities. The result is a plan that is both creative and credible, and one that I believe offers a meaningful opportunity to deliver real housing outcomes for the community.
Dear Paul and Rogelio,
I thought it might be useful to clarify a few things about some communications you are receiving.
As your close familiarity with our hotel / housing program will confirm, the comments from attorney Prows are not well-founded. His analysis of that program is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between hotel “rooms”, which can currently be bought and sold like any physical property, and hotel “keys” or development rights, which cannot, but which Carmel will soon permit -- exclusively for the funding of affordable housing. You may also have noticed that Prows accuses one of the program’s designers, whom you met on zoom, of turning against this same program. This is also incorrect, since he enthusiastically signed on to a supportive group letter you are also receiving.
It appears that the main purpose of these attorney arguments is to persuade HCD to force the City into making its public lands available for private development. It is worth understanding that the developer-client that Prows represents has no known experience or interest in affordable housing. Instead, he is part of a corporate real estate development group that has made clear its interest in obtaining Carmel’s public lands, both by publishing construction proposals and by lobbying our elected representatives.
Some of this lobbying may be having a small effect — albeit on just one council member. Our mayor recently has started giving presentations, writing newspaper articles, appearing on radio shows, and composing a letter to you.
Though his official endorsement of the amendment remains, his recent outreach focuses on how Carmel should consider increasing tourist revenue by developing large mixed-use hospitality projects like surrounding bigger cities have done, precisely the topics raised by Prows’s developer clients.
The rest of the Council has unanimously refused to take up these topics as they have not garnered any support from any of them or their constituents. They simply have no traction. But, even if they did, they remain separate topics from that of affordable housing or the public lands that the developers have in their sights. The factually flawed Prows letter rests on the hope that the State will use housing policies to overrule these democratic bodies and their legally mandated processes in order to fulfill a corporate, non-housing agenda.
I hope this information lends some useful local context as you interpret these communications. As I have said often, I am personally very grateful for the tremendous efforts you and your agency have made to get to know our local conditions and to collaborate with us as we tailor our plan to those conditions.
With great appreciation, Victoria Beach
Carmel Mayor Pro Tem Emeritas
Co-founder, Affordable Housing Alternatives
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-34 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #17: K. White
I wanted to add my support and public comment on the City's Housing Element Amendment.
Carmel-by-the-Sea's proposed Amendment reflects strong community backing and a thoughtful effort to shape a plan that fits our City.
This draws on local knowledge and engagement in a way that makes the proposal feel both grounded and practical. The result is a plan that is well suited to Carmel and supported by a broad cross-section of the community.
Best regards, Ken White
Former Mayor of Carmel - 1992-2000
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #18: S. Hillyard
Dear Housing Element review team,
I support Carmel-by-the-Sea’s proposed amendment to its 6th Cycle Housing Element. This revised plan reflects broad and genuine backing within the community, along with a more refined understanding of Carmel’s unique setting. It takes into account the scale, character, and physical constraints that define the city, resulting in a more tailored and thoughtful approach to housing. The level of local engagement behind this effort is clear, and the outcome is a plan that better fits Carmel’s circumstances.
With respect, Steve Hillyard
Former Planning Commissioner and City Council member
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #19: G. Robertson
Marnie,
I enthusiastically support Carmel’s proposed Housing Element amendment. This reflects the kind of careful engaging local planning that should be encouraged. The amendment improves on the prior version by replacing unwelcome dependence on scarce public sites with a broader set of realistic housing opportunities, distributed throughout the community and designed to fit Carmel's charm. This makes the plan more credible, more implementable, and more responsive to community concerns.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-35 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 This was not a superficial exercise. The amendment grew out of extensive volunteer research, repeated public discussion, and close coordination with City staff. The result is a thoughtful, innovative plan with tremendous local support, and I respectfully ask HCD to approve it.
With gratitude for all your hard work, Graeme Robertson Carmel-by-the-Sea resident for over 60 years
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #20: M. Condry
Dear HCD team,
I am writing to express my support for Carmel-by-the-Sea’s proposed amendment to its 6th Cycle Housing Element. This revised plan reflects a great deal of thoughtful work by residents and City staff working together to find practical solutions. It takes a more realistic approach to identifying housing opportunities that align with local conditions. I believe it provides a stronger foundation for achieving meaningful housing outcomes in Carmel. The level of community engagement behind this effort has been both significant and encouraging. It represents a sincere and constructive response to the City’s housing responsibilities.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #21: M. A. T. Lloyd
Department of Housing and Community Development staff,
As a Carmel resident, I support Carmel-by-the-Sea’s proposed amendment to its 6th Cycle Housing Element.
It reflects extensive work by residents and City staff to develop a plan that is thoughtful, realistic, and grounded in an awareness of local conditions.
The revised approach offers a more credible path to creating housing that can actually be achieved. It also demonstrates strong community involvement and a genuine effort to respond constructively to State requirements. i encourage your approval of this amendment.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #22: N. Twomey
As a partner alongside you and our fellow team members throughout this two-year effort, I fully support our Carmel-by-the-Sea's Amendment. I also look forward to celebrating the upcoming formal adoption and certification—and then moving swiftly into the various next steps ahead.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-36 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 Much of the following is familiar to you, but it is worth reinforcing as our amendment enters final approval. As you know better than most, our Village encompasses just one square mile, with little to no undeveloped land and very few City-owned properties.
Our Village is widely recognized for the charm and character that have drawn international visitors as well as new and longtime full-time residents—ourselves included, now going on nearly ten years. We chose to visit here, and ultimately to live here, because of its welcoming people, natural setting, cultural opportunities, rustic and smallscale homes, and vibrant business community. This is not a boast—it is the foundation of what we are entrusted to protect. As stewards of this Village, we bear a responsibility to preserve these qualities for everyone's enjoyment for decades to come.
Rushing to repurpose these heavily utilized City-owned lots without meaningful community support would only divide our small community and ultimately delay any realistic progress on affordable housing. It is equally important to emphasize that our amendment team's efforts have always been pro–affordable housing. Together, we have crafted programs designed to advance this goal—through a process that carries the support of our community.
I look forward to receiving HCD's determination of "substantial compliance" for our Village Housing Element in the coming weeks.
With my deepest thanks, Nancy Ann Twomey
Carmel-by-the-Sea Resident and AHA CoFounder
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #23: T. Twomey
Marnie,
I am pleased to share my strong support for Carmel-by-the-Sea’s proposed amendment to our 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Over the course of the AHA effort, I’ve seen how deeply this community cares - residents, local expertise, and City staff coming together to have an honest, practical look at how we can actually create housing here. This amendment reflects that collaborative spirit, moving beyond abstract planning to focus on realistic opportunities and strategies that are far more likely to deliver tangible housing outcomes.
I also want to recognize and thank HCD for their role in this process. Their willingness to engage with the community, listen carefully, and help us think creatively about turning real constraints into workable solutions made a meaningful difference. This amendment is stronger because of that partnership, and it represents a goodfaith, locally grounded path forward.
As a member of the Carmel-by-the-Sea community, I look forward to approval of this amendment and am encouraged that this plan will translate into practical housing that remains true to our town’s character.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-37 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 With my appreciation, Tim Twomey
Carmel Resident and AHA Co-Founder
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #24: S. Lee
Dear Marnie,
I write in strong support of the proposed amendment to Carmel's 6th Cycle Housing Element. The amendment is a significant improvement over the prior plan because it reflects a more realistic and context-sensitive approach to identifying viable housing opportunities.
In particular, the prior inclusion of the Sunset Center campus as a primary housing site presents substantial challenges. The property is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which brings important preservation considerations. It is not currently zoned for residential use, and it has long been understood as a site reserved for civic and cultural purposes, including potential future uses such as a museum or expanded arts facilities.
Repurposing this site for housing would be complex, uncertain, and in tension with its established role in the community.
By shifting away from reliance on sites with these kinds of constraints, the amendment creates a more credible path to actual housing production. It is grounded in a clearer understanding of site feasibility and better aligned with Carmel’s long-term planning priorities.
This work was informed by an unprecedented level of local effort. Residents, architects, business owners, and City staff invested enormous time studying parcels, constraints, and implementation tools in order to craft a plan that is practical, creative, and tailored to Carmel. In my judgment, the amendment is more likely to yield housing that can actually be delivered, and I hope it will be approved.
Respectfully, Stephen Lee
Carmel Resident
Chair of the Board of Trustees - Sunset Cultural Center City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #25: C. Kahn
Hello Marnie,
I wanted you to know how strongly Jesse and I support the latest revised plan in response to the state mandate.
The first proposal would be a disaster because our city’s parking needs….. already unmet…would worsen. Instead, the new proposal uses existing spaces and places for housing. Please support the latest housing plan. It’s the city’s best possible response.
ATTACHMENT 5
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-38 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment March 24, 2026 City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #26: D. Potter
Good Morning Marnie – I wanted to formally reach out to you regarding the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Carmel-by-the-Sea’s proposed amendment to its 6th Cycle Housing Element reflects a substantial amount of thoughtful local work and engagement. The revised plan shows a clearer understanding of how housing can be approached in a way that is both practical and responsive to the realities of the community. It builds on prior efforts while incorporating additional analysis and input that strengthens the overall proposal.
What is especially notable is the breadth of participation behind this amendment. Residents, City staff, and local stakeholders have contributed meaningfully to shaping a plan that is more cohesive and better aligned with how Carmel functions. The result is a well-considered framework that has earned broad community support.
Best, Dave Potter
Resident and Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2018-2024)
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #27: E. Dyar
Dear HCD Review Team:
As a local architect and participant in the AHA process, I support Carmel-by-the-Sea’s proposed amendment to its 6th Cycle Housing Element. Rather than focusing on what could in the end be larger scaled projects at risk of not being well-integrated into the character of the town, the revised amendment outlines and incentivizes housing unit development based on connecting to the existing fabric of the city.
I have been thoroughly impressed by the way resident volunteers, City Staff and professional consultants carefully researched and developed policies that address the complexities of the existing built environment and uses.
What has been produced, I believe, provides a sustainable and realistic strategy to incentivize and weave housing development throughout the different zones, while maintaining the existing scale and character of this very special and unique Coastal town. This is quite an achievement and one which deserves everyone's support.
The revised plan, far from prohibiting housing on the larger City-owned sites, simply provides maximum flexibility for the town's citizens to decide how to utilize and develop them.
It is a carefully considered and broadly supported proposal which can serve as a model for other similar communities. I respectfully urge HCD to approve it.
Erik Dyar, Local Architect and Particpant in the AHA Process City Response: Thank you for your comments.
ATTACHMENT 5
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031)
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-1 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment May 13, 2026 Housing Element Amendment
Public Comment Responses
1.1 Public Comments Received
Per the requirements of AB 215, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea published minor revisions to the revised draft Housing Element Amendment for a second, seven-day public review period on the City’s website, https://ci.carmel.ca.us/post/housing, 2023-2031 Housing Element, Revised Draft Housing Element: Second 7-day Public Review Period. The public review period began on May 6, 2026, and ended on May 13, 2026. A total of seven (7) comments were received, none of which warranted any substantive changes to the revised draft Housing Element Amendment. Public comments received on the revised draft Housing Element Amendment are summarized below, followed by City staff’s response to the comments.
Comment #1: R. Strimaitis
I am submitting the following proposed clarifications and edits to the Housing Element and implementing provisions in bold text to help ensure alignment between the City's policies and State ADU law. I will plan on attending the meeting on Tuesday.
Ray Strimaitis
MODIFY INTRODUCTORY LANGUAGE (SECTION 2.1)
The City is responsible for enabling the production of housing by reducing regulatory barriers, including ensuring that previously approved housing units-such as Accessory Dwelling Units-are not treated in a manner that discourages their retention or penalizes property owners seeking to redevelop primary residences, providing incentives, and supporting programs that create or preserve housing, especially for vulnerable populations. To enable the construction of quality housing, the City has identified the following goals:
Insert additional language:
At the end of Program 1.3.C
The City shall apply the development standards and interpretations no more restrictive than those in effect at the time of ADU application approval in determining the treatment of such ADU for future development.
The City shall ensure that local development standards, including but not limited to floor area limitations and accessory use requirements, are not applied in a manner that:
• Discourages the construction or retention of ADUs; or • Constrains the ability of property owners to redevelop sites containing existing ADUs.
Program 1.3.C(2): Demolition and Reconstruction of Primary Dwellings with Existing ADUs (Add):
The City shall amend the Municipal Code to clarify that a property owner may demolish and reconstruct a primary ATTACHMENT 6
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-2 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment May 13, 2026 dwelling on a lot containing an existing legally permitted ADU, provided that a new primary dwelling is constructed within a reasonable timeframe. The temporary absence of a primary dwelling during demolition and reconstruction shall not affect the lawful status of an existing ADU. The City shall not require removal of a legally permitted ADU as a condition of approving demolition or reconstruction of a primary residence. Existing water credits or new allocations associated with a lawfully developed property shall remain available for use by a replacement primary dwelling.
1.3.C(3): Accessory Status During Redevelopment
New Text (Add):
For purposes of zoning and land use regulations, an ADU shall be considered accessory where a primary dwelling exists or is proposed as part of an approved development project. The City shall not interpret the requirement that an ADU be "accessory" to require continuous physical existence of a primary structure during periods of construction.
ADD NEW POLICY
Policy 1.5: Treatment of Accessory Dwelling Units in Development Standards New Text (Add):
The City shall ensure that development standards, including floor area ratio (FAR), are not applied in a manner that constrains the development, retention, or use of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) consistent with State law.
The City shall further ensure that existing legally permitted ADUs are not treated in a manner that discourages their continued use or penalizes property owners seeking to improve or redevelop primary residences.
City Response: Thank you for your comments. The issues raised will be addressed when updating the City’s local ADU Ordinance.
Comment #2: M. Billig
Dear Marne, I applaud the incredible effort that has gone int this document. I have only one comment and that i the document does not talk about the fact that Carmel is a known as a "village in the forest". No where is the forest recognized or its incredible history. It is recognized in our General Plan, and its documents as well as the Local coastal Plan. It defines the Character of our community. It is a native ancient forest and buildings have been tucked into it. It is not manmade. This needs to be recognized and appreciated. It and its environment are fragile and endangered bulack of knowledge and appreciation.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #3: L. Smith
I am truly impressed with the amount of effort and work that staff and the AHA group has invested in this 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element amendment document, and I commend all concerned for its thoughtfulness and the extensiveness of its suggested solutions to the unique problems Carmel faces with regard to state housing requirements.
Though I have not thoroughly read the entire document, there is one concern that stood out to me, and as a 4th generation Carmelite and president of Monterey Pine Forest Watch, I wanted to just note it, and reinforce its importance, with some excerpts from Carmel’s General Plan/LUP. The concern is that there is no mention of the ATTACHMENT 6
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-3 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment May 13, 2026 specific natural environment referred to in the document, i.e., the Monterey Pine Forest.
Carmel is located within the world famous and now “critically imperiled” native Monterey Pine Forest which is the dominant natural resource of the Monterey Peninsula and environs. Carmel was founded as a “village in a pine forest” and has cherished its extraordinary beauty and the many health benefits it has provided. The whole foundation of Carmel’s character was based upon its love and respect for its natural environment, its mosaic of forest and chaparral, and upon the intention to protect it and fit into it, rather than the other way around. In the past 20 years, more recent residents and staff have for whatever reason remained unaware of this essential fact about Carmel’s being, and that is reflected in the degradation of our urbanized forest itself. In the update process to the Forest Management Plan these oversights have undergone remediation, thank goodness. I think it important to reinstate the importance of our urbanized Monterey Pine Forest in each issue of policy that comes up from here on in. Below are excerpts from various elements of our General Plan/LUP. The thread that binds them together is Carmel’s essential relationship to its natural environment, i.e. its “urbanized Monterey pine Forest” and beach and bay. We are a part of and stewards of a very rare and precious, one of a kind, forest treasure, here on the Peninsula, and everything we do here in Carmel matters for its future welfare and survival.
From the Introduction, Purpose and Organization of the Carmel General Plan/Land Use Plan:
A General Plan is an important land management tool for use by the community and its government officials. It provides a common base of understanding for everyone involved in matters related to community conservation and development and it sets forth community goals as well as procedures and policies needed to achieve the goals. The General Plan performs the following functions:
• Integrates the environmental, social and economic needs and aspirations of the community with the community's natural setting.
• Serves as a basic legal document with narrative and policies to which a wide range of ordinances and rules governing the quality of life in and about Carmel must conform. • Simplifies the decision-making responsibilities of Planning Commissioners and City Council Members by enabling the review of all proposals in light of a clear picture of desirable future development. • Provides a common base of understanding that enables public agencies and private property owners to relate their projects to a common goal.
• Embodies policies and procedures essential to effective city management and the timing of public improvements; it thus provides a basis on which the annual city budget can be established.
Carmel is unique in terms of State coastal regulation. Under Proposition 20, the City was granted a “categorical exclusion” that exempted the City (except for approximately the first line of lots inland from the ocean) from the Regional Coastal Commission’s permit authority. Following passage of the 1976 Coastal Act, the City was granted another “categorical exclusion” that remained in effect until Carmel’s Coastal Program was certified and adopted.
The categorical exclusions were granted in recognition of Carmel’s local ordinances and practices that, with few exceptions, were already consistent with the Coastal Act. (LUP) The City was not, however, exempted from preparing a Local Coastal Program. Because the entire City falls within the Coastal Zone, all of Carmel’s policies, practices, ordinances and plans must be in conformance with the requirements of the 1976 Coastal Act. The City achieved certification of a Land Use Plan in 1980 and nearly ATTACHMENT 6
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-4 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment May 13, 2026 received certification of its Implementation Plan in 1983. However, disagreements over how to protect historic resources as part of community character stymied final certification of the LCP and resulted in loss of certification for the LUP. The City’s efforts to complete its LCP were rekindled in the late 1990s and led to the certification of this document in December 2002. (LUP)
The overriding policies of the Coastal Act, relevant to Carmel, require that the City:
• Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and man-made resources.
• Protect special communities and neighborhoods, and retain their unique characteristics.
From the Coastal Resource Management Element of the General Plan This element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan includes policies for protection of the City’s coastal environmental resources including the character of its forest, beach and bluffs, water quality and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs).
Environmental Setting
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is located in a region of California’s central coast that is known for its diversity of plants and plant communities.
Urbanized Forest, Parks and Open Spaces
Since the early 1900s Carmel’s forest has been carefully nurtured and enhanced. Monterey pines, Coast Live oaks and other trees were often planted when lots were first sold or developed in an effort to extend the forest cover and range.
Carmel's forest is an “urbanized” Monterey pine forest rather than an “urban” forest… An “urbanized” forest exists before development…
To many, the “urbanized” forest is the character-defining feature that makes Carmel-by the-Sea so unique. The forest, along with the beach and ocean, is the City’s largest and most visible natural resource. Homes are nestled into the native Monterey pine and Coast Live oak on a grid of streets that yields to trees more than to engineering expediency. Upper canopy trees impart a distinctive ambiance and identity to the City. Lower canopy trees soften and provide screening of development. Together the mix of upper and lower canopy trees establishes a powerful sense of place. (LUP)… As the number of Monterey Pines declined since 1971, the number of Coast Live Oaks increased 17% on private property and 40% on public property. The increase in oaks, dramatic as it may be, cannot offset the loss of Monterey pines, which impart a very different sense of place for the village. (LUP) Steps must be taken to minimize the threat to existing healthy Monterey pines and new seedlings to ensure continued diversity in species, age, and location. This document includes policies to respond to this issue.
Disturbance and/or removal of mature and disease resistant trees during construction or other development activities should be avoided. Permit conditions requiring replacement trees for those removed from private land should be monitored and enforced to ensure that the trees are healthy and reach maturity. Replacements should also be in like kind. It is essential that these and other policy directives be carried out to ensure that the Monterey pine forest landscape is protected so that the forested character of this unique coastal village is preserved. (LUP) ATTACHMENT 6
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-5 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment May 13, 2026 Urban Forests, Parks and Open Spaces
G5-3 Protect, conserve and enhance the unique natural beauty and irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel and its Sphere of Influence, including its biological resources, water resources, and scenic routes and corridors. (LUP) O5-8 Protect, conserve and enhance designated open space, the urban Monterey pine forest, beach and shoreline, the sensitive habitats and the hillside areas, and acquire additional open space as deemed appropriate. (LUP)
From the Land Use and Community Character Element of the General Plan:
Located adjacent to Carmel Bay with gently rising slopes, the City has conscientiously retained its residential village character in a forest setting, dominated by Monterey Pines. The special character of this residential coastal community is considered a unique asset of statewide and national significance that should be maintained as a resource both for local residents and for visitors. The incorporated limits of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea shall be designated a special community and a highly scenic area within the meaning of Coastal Act sections 30251 and 30253 and for the purposes of implementing section 30610 and corresponding regulation section 13250 of the California Code of Regulations. New development shall protect this special community and its unique characteristics. (LUP)
Again, thank you to all who participated in the creation of this replete document. And thank you for the opportunity to give input that hopefully will be of value.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #4: K. Ferlito
1. Are there firm commitments with any churches to build affordable housing on their property? Firm? Would they be in charge of releasing RFPs, architectural plans, building costs, grant applications, etc? City Response: Yes, all three churches included in the Housing Element amendment are expressing strong interest in building affordable housing. City staff, along with a representative from AHA, have, and continue to meet with the churches, to help facilitate housing on their properties. Churches are not required to release RFP's (as far as I know). One church is currently working with an architectural firm they selected and are developing conceptual plans for their property. The other two churches have met with local architects to conceptualize designs for their sites. One church is actively seeking grant opportunities and City staff assisted with one grant application. Both City staff and AHA have also been active in connecting the churches with organizations and resources that can assist them. Expediting the establishment of the Housing Trust Fund is another way the City can assist churches with pre-development costs.
2. Are there any firm commitments from commercial property owners to convert store fronts or offices into live/work units and how would that be controlled or how would you qualify and keep track of this? And, would these units be required to have sprinklers and improved Ingress and egress for the artist and the public? City Response: As shown in Appendix C, Table C-15, six of the eight property owners have expressed interest in the Live/Work program. As of right now, any change in occupancy will require sprinklers and all emergency egress requirements will need to be met.
ATTACHMENT 6
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-6 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment May 13, 2026
3. Do you know of any ADUs that are rented and if so for how much? Has there been a City actually had a survey response?
City Response: City staff are actively working on revising the building permit application in order to collect data on how new ADUs intend to be used. The application is currently under review by the city attorney.
4. Have any hotels expressed firm (not just wishful thinking) interest in converting to affordable rentals and how would the city keep track of rental amounts, etc? How would tenants be evaluated for need? Who would do this? Wouldn’t the city lose a source of TOT?
City Response: In Appendix C, Page C-11, is a discussion of outreach and developer and hotel owner interest in the Hotel-to-Residential program. The details of the program are still being developed but all tenants of affordable housing will be screened to ensure they meet the income qualifications. How this will be carried out is to be determined. The City may elect to hire an employee to manage the program or it may wish to contract with an outside agency. The number of affordable housing units being managed will likely inform that process (managing 10 units versus 100 units would require different levels of resources). Regarding TOT, similar to when a hotel is under renovations, there may be a period of time when the rooms are not being rented, however hoteliers who possess hotel development rights are not likely to take rooms out of commission and hold them indefinitely. Hotel rooms are a fixed commodity and highly desirable among hotel operators.
5. Has there been a Survey of retail, city and hospitality employees regarding interest in living in CBTS? For example, what size unit would you need if you are single or if you are a family member? Would you be able to live and work without a car? Would you be willing to agree to not having a car? City Response: No new surveys have been conducted as part of the Housing Element Amendment. However, in Programs 1.1.C, Live/Work Housing, 1.1.D Mixed-Income Incentive Program, 1.1.F Hotel-to-Residential Conversion, and 1.1.G Hotel Employee Housing, an added commitment to conduct targeted outreach to those who could benefit from the programs has been added. Alternative modes of transportation will also be part of those conversations and will inform the details of the Ordinance.
6. Would the city have a housing employee to keep track of the AFFORDABLE rentals? City Response: City staff is responsible for tracking and reporting affordable housing units as part of the Annual Progress Report (APR). Program 2.1.C Monitor Affordable Housing Stock is included in the adopted Housing Element to ensure this happens and is not proposed to be modified as part of the Amendment.
Comment #5: T. Twomey
Once again, I whole heartedly support Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Amendment to the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Being a founding member of the Affordable Housing Alternatives (AHA) initiative, I’ve seen our community align on this shared purpose—neighbors, local experts, and City staff working together to make housing feel possible, not out of reach. This Amendment carries that spirit of collaboration, bringing frontline voices together with the guidance of HCD to turn our ideas into action.
Having check points with HCD on this journey has been invaluable. They’ve been open to listening, talking things ATTACHMENT 6
Housing Element Public Comment Report, Response to Comments P-7 Carmel-by-the-Sea 6th Cycle Housing Element Amendment May 13, 2026 through, and brainstorming with residents and City staff, turning our limitations into workable solutions. This partnership has strengthened our resolve and clarified the path forward. It shows what we can achieve when State guidance and local effort join forces for the common good.
As a Carmel-by-the-Sea resident, I’m optimistic about this Amendment’s coming production of practical, affordable housing that respects our town’s character. I look forward to welcoming future new residents enjoying the beauty, culture, and sense of community we preserve and value. This effort is more than planning; it reflects our ongoing commitments to look after one another and build a brighter, more inclusive future for everyone who calls our Village home.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #6: N. Twomey
As engaged residents are fully aware, our Village has almost no open/unused land in our 1.1 square mile - that has been the case for decades. Our prior Cycle 5 RHNA was 31 units, while our current Cycle 6 RHNA is 349 units - an 1126% increase.
Our joint efforts since day 1 were to craft plans that would enable net new and affordable housing while maintaining and honoring our Village character and general plan. Collaboratively we are committed to the rollout of programs and updates reflected in our Amendment, and to welcome new residents into our Village.
These new/recent minor edits reflect accelerated timelines and alignment to the State's requirement to the best of our abilities. We ask the HCD teams to provide their final green light, so we can all focus on program rollouts and progress on housing production with an approach that our community can embrace.
Thank you for all of your work on this Housing Element in the past, present and in the future. Your collaboration, commitment, guidance, oversight and more continues to be invaluable.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
Comment #7: E. Cummings
Burt and I are in support of the revised housing plan and very proud of how Carmel has tackled this challenging project. Thanks to you, the committee and all involved for your hard work.
City Response: Thank you for your comments.
ATTACHMENT 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor May 28, 2026
Brandon Swanson, City Administrator
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
P.O. Box CC
Carmel-by-the Sea, CA 93921
Dear Brandon Swanson:
RE: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Amendment to the Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s (City) revised draft amendment to the housing element that was received for review on March 30, 2026, along with the revisions that were received May 19, 2026. The revisions were posted and made available to the public for seven days prior to review. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Peter Prows, Greg Scattini and the California Housing Defense Fund pursuant to Government Code section 65585 subdivision (c).
On April 25, 2024, HCD found the City’s housing element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq) and as of this writing, the City continues to comply with State Housing Element Law. The revised draft amendments address the findings from HCD’s review on January 13,2026 and do not impact the April 25, 2024 finding of substantial compliance. The element will continue to comply with State Housing Element Law once the amendments have been adopted, submitted, and reviewed by HCD pursuant to Government Code section 65585.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the County should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.
Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
ATTACHMENT 7
Brandon Swanson, City Administrator
For your information, the element relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the housing needs for lower-income households, which triggers requirements to make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue in the planning period. Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-communitydevelopment/housing-elements for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City continues to meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
HCD appreciates the hard work and diligence of the City in the housing element update and acknowledges and appreciates the extensive collaboration and innovative approaches employed during the entirety of this process. HCD looks forward to receiving the re-adopted element. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Rogelio Martinez, of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
ATTACHMENT 7
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-25-PC
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE ADOPTED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE 6TH CYCLE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council adopt a Housing Element for the eightyear planning period 2023- tion (RHNA) of 349 housing units, comprised of 113 very low-income units, 74 low-income units, 44 moderate-income units, and 118 above moderate-income units; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., amending the Housing Element constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§
17.60) require
that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program by City Council Resolution 2024-028 ; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with State Housing Element Law, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element on April 8, 2024 by City Council Resolution 2024-028 and the State Department of Housing and Community Development certified the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element on April 25, 2024; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2024, in response to community concerns regarding the redevelopment of the city-owned sites, the City Council passed Resolution 2024-062 directing staff to begin work immediately on exploring and developing alternative affordable housing sites and programs, and submit a formal general plan housing element amendment that provides alternative affordable housing opportunities and removes the need for housing units at Sunset Center (Site 1: North Lot and Site 2: South Lot) and Vista Lobos (Lot 3); and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., amending the Housing Element constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and ATTACHMENT 8
Resolution 2026-25-PC
June 10, 2026
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§
17.60) require
that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Sections 65352.3 the City of Carmel-by-theSea consulted with California Native American Tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 WHEREAS, two California Native American Tribes responded with a request for consultation and were provided with information, including documents, website resources, and notification of public meetings, as of May 22, 2026, the consultation process has been completed in compliance with all State requirements, ensuring the protection of cultural heritage within the project area; and
WHEREAS, an addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2026, a notice of the public hearing scheduled for June 10, 2026, was published in the Carmel Pine Cone in compliance with State law (California Government Code Section 65091) and provided to all parties requesting notice indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on or before June 5, 2026, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony and consider this Resolution regarding the proposed Housing Element Amendment, reviewed the amended Housing Element Amendment dated June 10, 2026 and all attachments, and oral and written public comments provided at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission hereby finds that, based on substantial evidence in the record:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and recommends that the Housing Element Amendment was considered within the IS/MND. No subsequent EIR is required because ATTACHMENT 8
Resolution 2026-25-PC
June 10, 2026
none of the circumstances requiring a subsequent EIR exist (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162):
a. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The Housing Element Amendment does not create any additional environmental impacts.
b. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken. The IS/MND was adopted in April 2024, and no substantial evidence has been submitted showing any change in the circumstances applicable to the project.
c. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the IS/MND was adopted, has been submitted to the City.
3. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Addendum to the adopted Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 6th cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by this reference.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 10th day of June 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: AHLBORN, KARAPETKOV, LOCKE, RUESS, LEPAGE
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST: _________________________ _________________________ Michael LePage Shelby Gorman Chair Planning Commission Secretary
ATTACHMENT 8