Housing Element Basics

Housing Elements 101

The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

The Housing Element is one of the City’s General Plan required elements (chapters). It is a comprehensive policy document that identifies where, how, and the amount of housing Carmel-by-the-Sea needs to plan for to accommodate existing and projected housing needs for people of all income groups. In accordance with current State law, Carmel-by-the-Sea must update its Housing Element every eight years. The Housing Element was last updated in 2015 and was referred to as the 5th cycle Housing Element Update and covered the period between 2015 and 2023. The current update is commonly referred to as the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update.

In the 2023-2031 6th Cycle Update, Carmel-by-the-Sea is required to plan for 349 new housing units, also known as its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City expects that the 349 new housing units can be accommodated through past Housing Element sites and new locations. With your participation and input, we will plan for this growth while minimizing impacts on Carmel-by-the-Sea’s unique culture and charm.

Be Part of the Solution!

If you're interested in helping Carmel-by-the-Sea plan for 349 new housing units, and would like to learn more about how to facilitate the creation of new housing click here to fill out our Property Owner Interest Form.

Per Government Code 65583, the Housing Element update must include, at the minimum, the following sections:

An analysis of the City’s housing needs;
An inventory of housing sites to accommodate future growth;
An analysis of housing constraints that impact housing production;
Programs that implement the City's housing policies; and
Actions that promote and further fair housing opportunities.

The draft update will be reviewed for certification by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Milestone Tasks

Following are the milestone tasks that make up the total Housing Element Update process. As we get further into the process of preparing documents related to each milestone, new links and resources will be provided for each individual task.

Sites Inventory - current opportunity sites plus new sites will be considered in order to meet existing and future housing needs;
Policies, Programs, & Objectives - a review of existing policies, programs, and objectives from the 5th cycle to see what worked best along with any new policies required to meet State law including possible zoning changes to accommodate the City’s RHNA;
General Plan Consistency - preparing General Plan updates/revisions to ensure consistency with the Housing Element; and
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - any update to the General Plan requires some amount of environmental review.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: The Importance of AB 686

To combat a history of racial housing discrimination, segregation, and unequal access to opportunity, the Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968. The Fair Housing Act prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, (and as amended) disability status, and family status. However, in the nearly 50 years since the Fair Housing Act was enacted, housing inequality, lack of access to opportunity, and racial and socio-economic segregation have persisted.

The passing of AB 686 in 2018 attempts to address these persistent inequities. For more information on AFFH and AB 686 you may refer to the following resources:

Housing Elements 101

The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

Be Part of the Solution!

Per Government Code 65583, the Housing Element update must include, at the minimum, the following sections:

An analysis of the City’s housing needs;
An inventory of housing sites to accommodate future growth;
An analysis of housing constraints that impact housing production;
Programs that implement the City's housing policies; and
Actions that promote and further fair housing opportunities.

The draft update will be reviewed for certification by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Milestone Tasks

Sites Inventory - current opportunity sites plus new sites will be considered in order to meet existing and future housing needs;
Policies, Programs, & Objectives - a review of existing policies, programs, and objectives from the 5th cycle to see what worked best along with any new policies required to meet State law including possible zoning changes to accommodate the City’s RHNA;
General Plan Consistency - preparing General Plan updates/revisions to ensure consistency with the Housing Element; and
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - any update to the General Plan requires some amount of environmental review.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: The Importance of AB 686

The passing of AB 686 in 2018 attempts to address these persistent inequities. For more information on AFFH and AB 686 you may refer to the following resources:

Comments & Questions

Comments & Questions

The Housing Element Update is an important community process and the planning team needs to hear a wide variety of perspectives. Thank you for taking the time to leave your comments and questions, we appreciate your input. Someone from the team will reply as we are able, thank you for your patience.

Share I attended the recent Housing Element/RHNA presentation at Carpenter Hall. One month earlier, I also attended the Carpenter Hall presentation for the Parking and Congested Traffic Program. I’ve also read the background information for both issues. I’m struck by the fact that the solutions for both problems (housing and parking) called for the use of many of the same properties. This doesn’t seem logical. Obviously, there simply isn’t enough land to solve both issues in this way. So, I wanted to suggest you consider an idea I saw work well in Seattle, Washington. In Seattle, in 2007, Children’s Hospital needed to expand to continue serving the needs of sick children. But its location in a dense, wealthy neighborhood was land-locked, and the hospital campus was already at peak density. So, the hospital hired a high-priced consultant, held many community meetings and developed very expensive and innovative solutions for adding more space – which included creating underground offices, new hospital towers, multi-story parking garages and more. The solution was forced, very complex and disruptive, and the surrounding community hated the idea of years of construction, the threat of sinking foundations due to all the underground boring and more. Then, at the last minute, a deal was stuck for the hospital to purchase an aging 136-home condominium development directly next door to the hospital campus. Yes, the hospital bought the entire development. All the homes were razed, and the hospital now has all-new land to expand for many years. I see two glaring similarities here in Carmel with the current need for room to build new homes to satisfy the state mandate: - Your ideas for using the available public land are innovative, but seem forced and less than ideal. - There are many aging pieces of private property around Carmel that could be purchased and developed. Yes, purchasing private property is very expensive. But … - If the city uses its in-house experts to prepare the property for development (plat it, obtain water rights, rezone, etc.), it could sell the ready-to-develop land to a developer for much more than the purchase price. - Could the city establish an investment vehicle that would allow individuals to invest in the purchase of these properties, then reap the profits upon sale? Seems like that would be very attractive for Carmel residents always in search of new investment vehicles for their money. - This town is positively brimming with real estate agents who have insider knowledge about parcels that could be used in this way. For example: The property at 24730 Delores Street. This property, with a dilapidated main house, three dilapidated outbuildings and a huge amount of undeveloped land, would not sell. So, the owner and the real estate agents recently split it into four large lots. If the city had purchased this property, it could have re-platted it with far more than four lots, then sold it to a developer. I’m only familiar with this example because I toured it during an open house and became intrigued with it. But there have got to be other examples like it. At the very least, I would encourage the city to hold a real-estate-agent-only presentation about the current housing issue, and ask them for insights into properties that could be developed with more housing. Leverage their insider knowledge and form a public-private partnership that benefits both parties. on Facebook Share I attended the recent Housing Element/RHNA presentation at Carpenter Hall. One month earlier, I also attended the Carpenter Hall presentation for the Parking and Congested Traffic Program. I’ve also read the background information for both issues. I’m struck by the fact that the solutions for both problems (housing and parking) called for the use of many of the same properties. This doesn’t seem logical. Obviously, there simply isn’t enough land to solve both issues in this way. So, I wanted to suggest you consider an idea I saw work well in Seattle, Washington. In Seattle, in 2007, Children’s Hospital needed to expand to continue serving the needs of sick children. But its location in a dense, wealthy neighborhood was land-locked, and the hospital campus was already at peak density. So, the hospital hired a high-priced consultant, held many community meetings and developed very expensive and innovative solutions for adding more space – which included creating underground offices, new hospital towers, multi-story parking garages and more. The solution was forced, very complex and disruptive, and the surrounding community hated the idea of years of construction, the threat of sinking foundations due to all the underground boring and more. Then, at the last minute, a deal was stuck for the hospital to purchase an aging 136-home condominium development directly next door to the hospital campus. Yes, the hospital bought the entire development. All the homes were razed, and the hospital now has all-new land to expand for many years. I see two glaring similarities here in Carmel with the current need for room to build new homes to satisfy the state mandate: - Your ideas for using the available public land are innovative, but seem forced and less than ideal. - There are many aging pieces of private property around Carmel that could be purchased and developed. Yes, purchasing private property is very expensive. But … - If the city uses its in-house experts to prepare the property for development (plat it, obtain water rights, rezone, etc.), it could sell the ready-to-develop land to a developer for much more than the purchase price. - Could the city establish an investment vehicle that would allow individuals to invest in the purchase of these properties, then reap the profits upon sale? Seems like that would be very attractive for Carmel residents always in search of new investment vehicles for their money. - This town is positively brimming with real estate agents who have insider knowledge about parcels that could be used in this way. For example: The property at 24730 Delores Street. This property, with a dilapidated main house, three dilapidated outbuildings and a huge amount of undeveloped land, would not sell. So, the owner and the real estate agents recently split it into four large lots. If the city had purchased this property, it could have re-platted it with far more than four lots, then sold it to a developer. I’m only familiar with this example because I toured it during an open house and became intrigued with it. But there have got to be other examples like it. At the very least, I would encourage the city to hold a real-estate-agent-only presentation about the current housing issue, and ask them for insights into properties that could be developed with more housing. Leverage their insider knowledge and form a public-private partnership that benefits both parties. on Twitter Share I attended the recent Housing Element/RHNA presentation at Carpenter Hall. One month earlier, I also attended the Carpenter Hall presentation for the Parking and Congested Traffic Program. I’ve also read the background information for both issues. I’m struck by the fact that the solutions for both problems (housing and parking) called for the use of many of the same properties. This doesn’t seem logical. Obviously, there simply isn’t enough land to solve both issues in this way. So, I wanted to suggest you consider an idea I saw work well in Seattle, Washington. In Seattle, in 2007, Children’s Hospital needed to expand to continue serving the needs of sick children. But its location in a dense, wealthy neighborhood was land-locked, and the hospital campus was already at peak density. So, the hospital hired a high-priced consultant, held many community meetings and developed very expensive and innovative solutions for adding more space – which included creating underground offices, new hospital towers, multi-story parking garages and more. The solution was forced, very complex and disruptive, and the surrounding community hated the idea of years of construction, the threat of sinking foundations due to all the underground boring and more. Then, at the last minute, a deal was stuck for the hospital to purchase an aging 136-home condominium development directly next door to the hospital campus. Yes, the hospital bought the entire development. All the homes were razed, and the hospital now has all-new land to expand for many years. I see two glaring similarities here in Carmel with the current need for room to build new homes to satisfy the state mandate: - Your ideas for using the available public land are innovative, but seem forced and less than ideal. - There are many aging pieces of private property around Carmel that could be purchased and developed. Yes, purchasing private property is very expensive. But … - If the city uses its in-house experts to prepare the property for development (plat it, obtain water rights, rezone, etc.), it could sell the ready-to-develop land to a developer for much more than the purchase price. - Could the city establish an investment vehicle that would allow individuals to invest in the purchase of these properties, then reap the profits upon sale? Seems like that would be very attractive for Carmel residents always in search of new investment vehicles for their money. - This town is positively brimming with real estate agents who have insider knowledge about parcels that could be used in this way. For example: The property at 24730 Delores Street. This property, with a dilapidated main house, three dilapidated outbuildings and a huge amount of undeveloped land, would not sell. So, the owner and the real estate agents recently split it into four large lots. If the city had purchased this property, it could have re-platted it with far more than four lots, then sold it to a developer. I’m only familiar with this example because I toured it during an open house and became intrigued with it. But there have got to be other examples like it. At the very least, I would encourage the city to hold a real-estate-agent-only presentation about the current housing issue, and ask them for insights into properties that could be developed with more housing. Leverage their insider knowledge and form a public-private partnership that benefits both parties. on Linkedin Email I attended the recent Housing Element/RHNA presentation at Carpenter Hall. One month earlier, I also attended the Carpenter Hall presentation for the Parking and Congested Traffic Program. I’ve also read the background information for both issues. I’m struck by the fact that the solutions for both problems (housing and parking) called for the use of many of the same properties. This doesn’t seem logical. Obviously, there simply isn’t enough land to solve both issues in this way. So, I wanted to suggest you consider an idea I saw work well in Seattle, Washington. In Seattle, in 2007, Children’s Hospital needed to expand to continue serving the needs of sick children. But its location in a dense, wealthy neighborhood was land-locked, and the hospital campus was already at peak density. So, the hospital hired a high-priced consultant, held many community meetings and developed very expensive and innovative solutions for adding more space – which included creating underground offices, new hospital towers, multi-story parking garages and more. The solution was forced, very complex and disruptive, and the surrounding community hated the idea of years of construction, the threat of sinking foundations due to all the underground boring and more. Then, at the last minute, a deal was stuck for the hospital to purchase an aging 136-home condominium development directly next door to the hospital campus. Yes, the hospital bought the entire development. All the homes were razed, and the hospital now has all-new land to expand for many years. I see two glaring similarities here in Carmel with the current need for room to build new homes to satisfy the state mandate: - Your ideas for using the available public land are innovative, but seem forced and less than ideal. - There are many aging pieces of private property around Carmel that could be purchased and developed. Yes, purchasing private property is very expensive. But … - If the city uses its in-house experts to prepare the property for development (plat it, obtain water rights, rezone, etc.), it could sell the ready-to-develop land to a developer for much more than the purchase price. - Could the city establish an investment vehicle that would allow individuals to invest in the purchase of these properties, then reap the profits upon sale? Seems like that would be very attractive for Carmel residents always in search of new investment vehicles for their money. - This town is positively brimming with real estate agents who have insider knowledge about parcels that could be used in this way. For example: The property at 24730 Delores Street. This property, with a dilapidated main house, three dilapidated outbuildings and a huge amount of undeveloped land, would not sell. So, the owner and the real estate agents recently split it into four large lots. If the city had purchased this property, it could have re-platted it with far more than four lots, then sold it to a developer. I’m only familiar with this example because I toured it during an open house and became intrigued with it. But there have got to be other examples like it. At the very least, I would encourage the city to hold a real-estate-agent-only presentation about the current housing issue, and ask them for insights into properties that could be developed with more housing. Leverage their insider knowledge and form a public-private partnership that benefits both parties. link

I attended the recent Housing Element/RHNA presentation at Carpenter Hall. One month earlier, I also attended the Carpenter Hall presentation for the Parking and Congested Traffic Program. I’ve also read the background information for both issues. I’m struck by the fact that the solutions for both problems (housing and parking) called for the use of many of the same properties. This doesn’t seem logical. Obviously, there simply isn’t enough land to solve both issues in this way. So, I wanted to suggest you consider an idea I saw work well in Seattle, Washington. In Seattle, in 2007, Children’s Hospital needed to expand to continue serving the needs of sick children. But its location in a dense, wealthy neighborhood was land-locked, and the hospital campus was already at peak density. So, the hospital hired a high-priced consultant, held many community meetings and developed very expensive and innovative solutions for adding more space – which included creating underground offices, new hospital towers, multi-story parking garages and more. The solution was forced, very complex and disruptive, and the surrounding community hated the idea of years of construction, the threat of sinking foundations due to all the underground boring and more. Then, at the last minute, a deal was stuck for the hospital to purchase an aging 136-home condominium development directly next door to the hospital campus. Yes, the hospital bought the entire development. All the homes were razed, and the hospital now has all-new land to expand for many years. I see two glaring similarities here in Carmel with the current need for room to build new homes to satisfy the state mandate: - Your ideas for using the available public land are innovative, but seem forced and less than ideal. - There are many aging pieces of private property around Carmel that could be purchased and developed. Yes, purchasing private property is very expensive. But … - If the city uses its in-house experts to prepare the property for development (plat it, obtain water rights, rezone, etc.), it could sell the ready-to-develop land to a developer for much more than the purchase price. - Could the city establish an investment vehicle that would allow individuals to invest in the purchase of these properties, then reap the profits upon sale? Seems like that would be very attractive for Carmel residents always in search of new investment vehicles for their money. - This town is positively brimming with real estate agents who have insider knowledge about parcels that could be used in this way. For example: The property at 24730 Delores Street. This property, with a dilapidated main house, three dilapidated outbuildings and a huge amount of undeveloped land, would not sell. So, the owner and the real estate agents recently split it into four large lots. If the city had purchased this property, it could have re-platted it with far more than four lots, then sold it to a developer. I’m only familiar with this example because I toured it during an open house and became intrigued with it. But there have got to be other examples like it. At the very least, I would encourage the city to hold a real-estate-agent-only presentation about the current housing issue, and ask them for insights into properties that could be developed with more housing. Leverage their insider knowledge and form a public-private partnership that benefits both parties.

Peter K asked 11 months ago
- If an existing parking lot is redeveloped, the same number of those existing spaces will be integrated into the design of the new housing development, not eliminated. This can be accomplished through the incorporation of underground parking lots, housing above at-grade parking, or simply re-organizing site plan design for more efficient accommodation of both parking and housing.
- State law requires each jurisdiction to plan for affordable housing within their own community, within the existing City boundaries. Properties in unincorporated Monterey County may be considered as potential housing sites by the County; the County RHNA goal is 3k + housing units.
- 24730 Dolores is in unincorporated Monterey County. You can view the boundaries of Carmel-by-the-Sea here.
Share 2.2 of the Initial Public Review Draft of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update RE: Program 2.2.A: Historic Preservation Educational Programs: “…the city will continue to promote education programs that improve public understanding of the city’s rich cultural and design heritage, and provide zoning flexibility and incentives to facilitate residential rehabilitation of historic resources.” It is unfair, discriminatory, and segregating to give zoning flexibility and incentives to a certain style house, but not to other style houses. The term, “historic resources,” refers to a certain style house that is not historic, so is a confusing and deceptive term. The Historic Resources Board was instructed by the city that the proposed program to give zone flexibility and incentives to a certain style house must NOT be combined with the National Registry of historic houses and must be completely separate and have nothing to do with it. The city told it to change the name of the proposed program to make it clear it was not part of the National Registry of historic houses. Therefore, it cannot be combined in the draft either. “Educational Programs” cannot enforce or endorse any style house and can’t “educate” as to what style house is or isn’t acceptable. on Facebook Share 2.2 of the Initial Public Review Draft of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update RE: Program 2.2.A: Historic Preservation Educational Programs: “…the city will continue to promote education programs that improve public understanding of the city’s rich cultural and design heritage, and provide zoning flexibility and incentives to facilitate residential rehabilitation of historic resources.” It is unfair, discriminatory, and segregating to give zoning flexibility and incentives to a certain style house, but not to other style houses. The term, “historic resources,” refers to a certain style house that is not historic, so is a confusing and deceptive term. The Historic Resources Board was instructed by the city that the proposed program to give zone flexibility and incentives to a certain style house must NOT be combined with the National Registry of historic houses and must be completely separate and have nothing to do with it. The city told it to change the name of the proposed program to make it clear it was not part of the National Registry of historic houses. Therefore, it cannot be combined in the draft either. “Educational Programs” cannot enforce or endorse any style house and can’t “educate” as to what style house is or isn’t acceptable. on Twitter Share 2.2 of the Initial Public Review Draft of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update RE: Program 2.2.A: Historic Preservation Educational Programs: “…the city will continue to promote education programs that improve public understanding of the city’s rich cultural and design heritage, and provide zoning flexibility and incentives to facilitate residential rehabilitation of historic resources.” It is unfair, discriminatory, and segregating to give zoning flexibility and incentives to a certain style house, but not to other style houses. The term, “historic resources,” refers to a certain style house that is not historic, so is a confusing and deceptive term. The Historic Resources Board was instructed by the city that the proposed program to give zone flexibility and incentives to a certain style house must NOT be combined with the National Registry of historic houses and must be completely separate and have nothing to do with it. The city told it to change the name of the proposed program to make it clear it was not part of the National Registry of historic houses. Therefore, it cannot be combined in the draft either. “Educational Programs” cannot enforce or endorse any style house and can’t “educate” as to what style house is or isn’t acceptable. on Linkedin Email 2.2 of the Initial Public Review Draft of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update RE: Program 2.2.A: Historic Preservation Educational Programs: “…the city will continue to promote education programs that improve public understanding of the city’s rich cultural and design heritage, and provide zoning flexibility and incentives to facilitate residential rehabilitation of historic resources.” It is unfair, discriminatory, and segregating to give zoning flexibility and incentives to a certain style house, but not to other style houses. The term, “historic resources,” refers to a certain style house that is not historic, so is a confusing and deceptive term. The Historic Resources Board was instructed by the city that the proposed program to give zone flexibility and incentives to a certain style house must NOT be combined with the National Registry of historic houses and must be completely separate and have nothing to do with it. The city told it to change the name of the proposed program to make it clear it was not part of the National Registry of historic houses. Therefore, it cannot be combined in the draft either. “Educational Programs” cannot enforce or endorse any style house and can’t “educate” as to what style house is or isn’t acceptable. link

2.2 of the Initial Public Review Draft of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update RE: Program 2.2.A: Historic Preservation Educational Programs: “…the city will continue to promote education programs that improve public understanding of the city’s rich cultural and design heritage, and provide zoning flexibility and incentives to facilitate residential rehabilitation of historic resources.” It is unfair, discriminatory, and segregating to give zoning flexibility and incentives to a certain style house, but not to other style houses. The term, “historic resources,” refers to a certain style house that is not historic, so is a confusing and deceptive term. The Historic Resources Board was instructed by the city that the proposed program to give zone flexibility and incentives to a certain style house must NOT be combined with the National Registry of historic houses and must be completely separate and have nothing to do with it. The city told it to change the name of the proposed program to make it clear it was not part of the National Registry of historic houses. Therefore, it cannot be combined in the draft either. “Educational Programs” cannot enforce or endorse any style house and can’t “educate” as to what style house is or isn’t acceptable.

Honesty asked 10 months ago

The historic preservation ordinance already provides zoning flexibility and incentives for all buildings on the historic inventory regardless of style. No changes are proposed to these provisions. The Housing Element program reinforces these existing provisions and commits to promoting them over the next 8 years. The Housing Element program is independent of the recent discussions of the Level 2/Notable Homes proposal being discussed with the Historic Resources Board.
Share I appreciated Chapter 2 on goals of the effort but it seems these goals were written to help explain why we need 349 units, a target mandated by the state but not really something that our community has taken ownership of. I suggest we step back and really look at the kind of community we want to be in the future and how housing can make that happen. What kind of demographic do we need to attract to stay vibrant and relevant? Where do those people want to live and work and what are their housing needs and how do we attract them? What trade-offs are we willing to make to achieve whatever goal we prioritize? Knowing the "why" will make the "what" and "how" much easier to achieve. Let's paint a picture of what the Carmel of the future can be with new energy and a long-term, sustainable future. on Facebook Share I appreciated Chapter 2 on goals of the effort but it seems these goals were written to help explain why we need 349 units, a target mandated by the state but not really something that our community has taken ownership of. I suggest we step back and really look at the kind of community we want to be in the future and how housing can make that happen. What kind of demographic do we need to attract to stay vibrant and relevant? Where do those people want to live and work and what are their housing needs and how do we attract them? What trade-offs are we willing to make to achieve whatever goal we prioritize? Knowing the "why" will make the "what" and "how" much easier to achieve. Let's paint a picture of what the Carmel of the future can be with new energy and a long-term, sustainable future. on Twitter Share I appreciated Chapter 2 on goals of the effort but it seems these goals were written to help explain why we need 349 units, a target mandated by the state but not really something that our community has taken ownership of. I suggest we step back and really look at the kind of community we want to be in the future and how housing can make that happen. What kind of demographic do we need to attract to stay vibrant and relevant? Where do those people want to live and work and what are their housing needs and how do we attract them? What trade-offs are we willing to make to achieve whatever goal we prioritize? Knowing the "why" will make the "what" and "how" much easier to achieve. Let's paint a picture of what the Carmel of the future can be with new energy and a long-term, sustainable future. on Linkedin Email I appreciated Chapter 2 on goals of the effort but it seems these goals were written to help explain why we need 349 units, a target mandated by the state but not really something that our community has taken ownership of. I suggest we step back and really look at the kind of community we want to be in the future and how housing can make that happen. What kind of demographic do we need to attract to stay vibrant and relevant? Where do those people want to live and work and what are their housing needs and how do we attract them? What trade-offs are we willing to make to achieve whatever goal we prioritize? Knowing the "why" will make the "what" and "how" much easier to achieve. Let's paint a picture of what the Carmel of the future can be with new energy and a long-term, sustainable future. link

I appreciated Chapter 2 on goals of the effort but it seems these goals were written to help explain why we need 349 units, a target mandated by the state but not really something that our community has taken ownership of. I suggest we step back and really look at the kind of community we want to be in the future and how housing can make that happen. What kind of demographic do we need to attract to stay vibrant and relevant? Where do those people want to live and work and what are their housing needs and how do we attract them? What trade-offs are we willing to make to achieve whatever goal we prioritize? Knowing the "why" will make the "what" and "how" much easier to achieve. Let's paint a picture of what the Carmel of the future can be with new energy and a long-term, sustainable future.

Shannon asked 10 months ago

See Appendix H - Stakeholder Survey Results. This survey includes community member responses about what types of housing they would like to see built in Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Share How is parking for the residents of the new affordable housing being addressed? I just attended a workshop on downtown parking congestion. The current affordable housing proposal includes converting parking lots into affordable units. How is the city providing the infrastructure, ie parking, to accommodate the population increase? on Facebook Share How is parking for the residents of the new affordable housing being addressed? I just attended a workshop on downtown parking congestion. The current affordable housing proposal includes converting parking lots into affordable units. How is the city providing the infrastructure, ie parking, to accommodate the population increase? on Twitter Share How is parking for the residents of the new affordable housing being addressed? I just attended a workshop on downtown parking congestion. The current affordable housing proposal includes converting parking lots into affordable units. How is the city providing the infrastructure, ie parking, to accommodate the population increase? on Linkedin Email How is parking for the residents of the new affordable housing being addressed? I just attended a workshop on downtown parking congestion. The current affordable housing proposal includes converting parking lots into affordable units. How is the city providing the infrastructure, ie parking, to accommodate the population increase? link

How is parking for the residents of the new affordable housing being addressed? I just attended a workshop on downtown parking congestion. The current affordable housing proposal includes converting parking lots into affordable units. How is the city providing the infrastructure, ie parking, to accommodate the population increase?

A asked 11 months ago

All new housing projects are required to comply with the parking standards set forth in the code (refer to Appendix B - Housing Constraints, p. B-31 and Table B-7: Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements). All parking infrastructure would be provided by the developers of the project. Parking would be integrated as part of any redevelopment project on City-owned sites such as Sunset Center, Vista Lobos, or the post office parking lot. For more information on the City's parking standards and changes under consideration, please refer to Chapter 2 - Goals, Policies, and Programs, specifically Program 3.1.D: Reduced Entitlement and Development Fees; Program 3.1.E: Reduced Parking Requirements - AFFH; and Program 1.1.C: Development on Small Sites.
Share If all relevant high density building projects - must be fast tracked with regard to oversite - does re-implementing a Design Review Board (DRB) make any sense? (Answering my own question, I suppose a DRB could still be viable for a single residence build or major remodel. But most all other projects wouldn't be considered by a DRB. Am I right?) on Facebook Share If all relevant high density building projects - must be fast tracked with regard to oversite - does re-implementing a Design Review Board (DRB) make any sense? (Answering my own question, I suppose a DRB could still be viable for a single residence build or major remodel. But most all other projects wouldn't be considered by a DRB. Am I right?) on Twitter Share If all relevant high density building projects - must be fast tracked with regard to oversite - does re-implementing a Design Review Board (DRB) make any sense? (Answering my own question, I suppose a DRB could still be viable for a single residence build or major remodel. But most all other projects wouldn't be considered by a DRB. Am I right?) on Linkedin Email If all relevant high density building projects - must be fast tracked with regard to oversite - does re-implementing a Design Review Board (DRB) make any sense? (Answering my own question, I suppose a DRB could still be viable for a single residence build or major remodel. But most all other projects wouldn't be considered by a DRB. Am I right?) link

If all relevant high density building projects - must be fast tracked with regard to oversite - does re-implementing a Design Review Board (DRB) make any sense? (Answering my own question, I suppose a DRB could still be viable for a single residence build or major remodel. But most all other projects wouldn't be considered by a DRB. Am I right?)

NTwomey asked almost 1 year ago

To facilitate the development of affordable housing, the City is considering objective design standards to streamline the review process. Under that scenario, there would not be discretionary review by the Planning Commission. The City has not yet instituted a Design Review Board, but if such a board is created with discretionary oversight, affordable housing projects would likely be exempt from DRB review.
Share I am increasingly concerned that all of the great work happening in The Design Traditions 1.5 project is at risk of being worthless - given State Laws that we have to comply. Can you clarify how existing or the upcoming new Design Guidelines are or are not applicable as we move ahead with our Housing Element? on Facebook Share I am increasingly concerned that all of the great work happening in The Design Traditions 1.5 project is at risk of being worthless - given State Laws that we have to comply. Can you clarify how existing or the upcoming new Design Guidelines are or are not applicable as we move ahead with our Housing Element? on Twitter Share I am increasingly concerned that all of the great work happening in The Design Traditions 1.5 project is at risk of being worthless - given State Laws that we have to comply. Can you clarify how existing or the upcoming new Design Guidelines are or are not applicable as we move ahead with our Housing Element? on Linkedin Email I am increasingly concerned that all of the great work happening in The Design Traditions 1.5 project is at risk of being worthless - given State Laws that we have to comply. Can you clarify how existing or the upcoming new Design Guidelines are or are not applicable as we move ahead with our Housing Element? link

I am increasingly concerned that all of the great work happening in The Design Traditions 1.5 project is at risk of being worthless - given State Laws that we have to comply. Can you clarify how existing or the upcoming new Design Guidelines are or are not applicable as we move ahead with our Housing Element?

NTwomey asked almost 1 year ago

The Draft Housing Element proposes objective design standards for affordable housing projects downtown. The community will be encouraged to provide feedback on this proposition during the 30 day public review period of the draft. Regarding the ongoing Design Traditions project to update the City's 20-year-old design guidelines, any project that is not an affordable housing project downtown would still be subject to those guidelines. Further, the Design Traditions project has value in that the community has expressed what design elements are most appreciated, and which conditions should be avoided. That community feedback can be used to craft objective design guidelines that are strictly tailored to protect the character of the Village.
Share I'd like to better understand how preparing our housing element will be impacted by SB9 and SB10/ on Facebook Share I'd like to better understand how preparing our housing element will be impacted by SB9 and SB10/ on Twitter Share I'd like to better understand how preparing our housing element will be impacted by SB9 and SB10/ on Linkedin Email I'd like to better understand how preparing our housing element will be impacted by SB9 and SB10/ link

I'd like to better understand how preparing our housing element will be impacted by SB9 and SB10/

NTwomey asked almost 1 year ago

HCD has given clear guidance that SB-9 may not be used to project anticipated future housing to meet RHNA without some measure of certainty. Different than ADUs, cities have not had a history of the SB-9 law around long enough to show a development trend. Like all other lots, the City may consider property owners’ expressed interest in adding their property to the Sites Inventory for the Housing Element update. For SB-9 see pages 6 and 7 on this HCD resource: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/planning-and-community-development/sb9factsheet.pdf, quoted below
The HCD SB 9 Fact Sheet states: “To utilize projections based on SB 9 toward a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation, the housing element must: 1) include a site-specific inventory of sites where SB 9 projections are being applied, 2) include a nonvacant sites analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment and that the existing use will not constitute an impediment for additional residential use, 3) identify any governmental constraints to the use of SB 9 in the creation of units (including land use controls, fees, and other exactions, as well as locally adopted ordinances that impact the cost and supply of residential development), and 4) include programs and policies that establishing zoning an development standards early in the planning period and implement incentives to encourage and facilitate development. The element should support this analysis with local information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning and incentives established through SB 9.”
SB-10 is a voluntary law that a City may opt-in, or not. It enables the local jurisdiction to create a map of sites where up to 10 units may be built on a residentially-zoned parcel, regardless of the underlying allowed densities. We are not currently recommending this optional tool for Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Sites Inventory.
Share How will preparing our housing element be impacted by SB35 and SB 423? on Facebook Share How will preparing our housing element be impacted by SB35 and SB 423? on Twitter Share How will preparing our housing element be impacted by SB35 and SB 423? on Linkedin Email How will preparing our housing element be impacted by SB35 and SB 423? link

How will preparing our housing element be impacted by SB35 and SB 423?

NTwomey asked almost 1 year ago

SB 423 can be understood as an extension of a portion of SB 35, which otherwise sunsets January 2026. There are a number of bills that bring forward pieces of SB 35 (with a few minor tweaks). Though SB 35 “applies to California Cities and Counties where production of new housing has not met the state-mandated Regional Housing Need Allocation targets,” there are limitations such as those areas that are within Coastal Zones. See excerpt below:
65913.4. (a) A development proponent may submit an application for a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (b) and not subject to a conditional use permit if the development satisfies all of the following objective planning standards:
(6) The development is not located on a site that is any of the following:
(A) A coastal zone, as defined in Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code.
Since all of Carmel-by-the-Sea is within the Coastal Zone boundary, development in the community will not be significantly impacted by either state law. There are other laws that require ministerial review for affordable housing in some circumstances, so by-right development that only allows Objective Design and Development review will apply to a portion, if not all, of the sites. By-right development review (non-discretionary) is the direction that most of the housing-focused state laws are moving.
Share Can you clarify how or when CEQA, EIR and Coastal Commission approvals are required for each type of NEW housing projects given these newer Housing State Laws? on Facebook Share Can you clarify how or when CEQA, EIR and Coastal Commission approvals are required for each type of NEW housing projects given these newer Housing State Laws? on Twitter Share Can you clarify how or when CEQA, EIR and Coastal Commission approvals are required for each type of NEW housing projects given these newer Housing State Laws? on Linkedin Email Can you clarify how or when CEQA, EIR and Coastal Commission approvals are required for each type of NEW housing projects given these newer Housing State Laws? link

Can you clarify how or when CEQA, EIR and Coastal Commission approvals are required for each type of NEW housing projects given these newer Housing State Laws?

NTwomey asked almost 1 year ago

At minimum, new Housing Development proposals at locations used in prior housing cycles, and that include at least 20% affordable units must be rezoned to have a process that is by-right (as defined by HCD, see below) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf

By right means the jurisdiction shall not require:
• A conditional use permit.
• A planned unit development permit.
• Other discretionary, local-government review or approval that would constitute a “project” as defined in Section 21100 of the Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act “CEQA”).
However, if the project requires a subdivision, it is subject to all laws, including CEQA.
This does not preclude a jurisdiction from imposing objective design review standards. However, the review and approval process must remain non-discretionary and the design review must not constitute a “project” as defined in Section 21100 of the Public Resources Code. For example, a hearing officer (e.g., zoning administrator) or other hearing body (e.g., planning commission) can review the design merits of a project and call for a project proponent to make design-related modifications, but cannot exercise judgment to reject, deny, or modify the “residential use” itself.
For reference, CEQA applies when a governmental agency can exercise judgment in deciding whether and how to carry out or approve a project. This makes the project “discretionary” (CEQA Guidelines, §15357.) Where the law requires a governmental agency to act on a project using fixed standards and the agency does not have authority to use its own judgment, the project is called “ministerial,” and CEQA does not apply. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15268(a), 15369.)
Share Monterey County did a Fair Housing Report in 2019. Carmel by the Sea - was not included, but it doesn't indicate why. Do you know? It seems to me that our Village (beyond costs) doesn't have any purposeful exclusions tied to all aspects of diversity. Is this correct or ??? on Facebook Share Monterey County did a Fair Housing Report in 2019. Carmel by the Sea - was not included, but it doesn't indicate why. Do you know? It seems to me that our Village (beyond costs) doesn't have any purposeful exclusions tied to all aspects of diversity. Is this correct or ??? on Twitter Share Monterey County did a Fair Housing Report in 2019. Carmel by the Sea - was not included, but it doesn't indicate why. Do you know? It seems to me that our Village (beyond costs) doesn't have any purposeful exclusions tied to all aspects of diversity. Is this correct or ??? on Linkedin Email Monterey County did a Fair Housing Report in 2019. Carmel by the Sea - was not included, but it doesn't indicate why. Do you know? It seems to me that our Village (beyond costs) doesn't have any purposeful exclusions tied to all aspects of diversity. Is this correct or ??? link

Monterey County did a Fair Housing Report in 2019. Carmel by the Sea - was not included, but it doesn't indicate why. Do you know? It seems to me that our Village (beyond costs) doesn't have any purposeful exclusions tied to all aspects of diversity. Is this correct or ???

NTwomey asked almost 1 year ago

We have referenced and acknowledged the good work included with the County’s 2019 Fair Housing Report for unincorporated areas of the County. This is a valuable resource to better understand the regional context and need. Carmel-by-the-Sea was not included because the report was focused areas within the unincorporated boundaries of Monterey County. Regarding lack of “purposeful exclusions” in Carmel-by-the-Sea (ie. no historical racial covenants/deed restrictions) — As we put together the unique Carmel-by-the-Sea story, we are assessing the IMPACT of past actions (or inactions), rather than what the INTENTIONS may have been. The segregation issue is larger than any one village, town, or region. While the Housing Element document is a State-required matter-of-fact document, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) involves sensitive subjects that can be difficult yet necessary to discuss as we envision Carmel-by-the-Sea’s future housing landscape.

Following is an outline of how we approach the AFFH requirements with the Housing Element update:

The new Fair Housing Law (AB686) requires each community within California to attempt to describe how segregation has happened within that city, town, county, and regional area, for the first time within a Housing Element.
From that story, contributing factors to past (and possibly present-day) Fair Housing Issues need to be listed and prioritized.
Review of past (5th Cycle Housing Element) policies must include deep effectiveness analysis, including a cumulative analysis and description of how revisions will overcome shortcomings.
New or revised policies need to connect back to the contributing factors to present-day Fair Housing Issues.
Programs to implement policies must include quantified objectives, metrics, and specific dates for implementation. This becomes your work-plan and HCD annual “report card.”

Page last updated: 15 Dec 2023, 03:24 PM

Housing Element Basics

Housing Elements 101

Per Government Code 65583, the Housing Element update must include, at the minimum, the following sections:

Milestone Tasks

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: The Importance of AB 686

Housing Elements 101

Per Government Code 65583, the Housing Element update must include, at the minimum, the following sections:

Milestone Tasks

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: The Importance of AB 686

Comments & Questions

I'd like to better understand how preparing our housing element will be impacted by SB9 and SB10/

How will preparing our housing element be impacted by SB35 and SB 423?

Can you clarify how or when CEQA, EIR and Coastal Commission approvals are required for each type of NEW housing projects given these newer Housing State Laws?

Monterey County did a Fair Housing Report in 2019. Carmel by the Sea - was not included, but it doesn't indicate why. Do you know? It seems to me that our Village (beyond costs) doesn't have any purposeful exclusions tied to all aspects of diversity. Is this correct or ???

Quick Polls

How prepared do you feel to engage in this process?

Property Owner Interest Form

6 Minute Housing Element Introduction

Glossary of Housing Element Terms

FAQs

Milestones

Sites Inventory

Housing Element

Consistency with General Plan

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Who's Listening