A unique amendment to Carmel’s housing plan passed on a split 3-2 vote during a City Council meeting on Tuesday, July 7, which, if it works to bring in much-needed housing to the small town, could set a precedent for other cities across the state. Already state housing officials are pointing to the plan as a model.
The meeting was not without sharp moments, including an accusation by Councilmember Alissandra Dramov against Mayor Dale Byrne, an opponent of the amendment, claiming he wanted to help “your friend,” referring to a developer who wants to build a luxury hotel on the Sunset Center north lot.
The crux of the issue revolves around Carmel’s original housing plan, called a housing element, certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development and passed by the City Council in 2024. The eight-year plan spanning 2023 to 2031 satisfies a state mandate to make possible 349 housing units in the 1.1-square-mile town, 149 of those low- to very low-income.
That plan called for the use of the three city-owned parking lots for a project to house the 149 low-income units needed—the north and south parking lots at Sunset Center or Vista Lobos off of Junipero Avenue a few blocks north of Ocean Avenue.
A number of residents became alarmed over the idea of large housing projects on city lots, and formed a citizen’s group, Affordable Housing Alternatives, known as AHA. Over the past two years, more than 40 residents, working in partnership with city staff, have invested a combined thousands of hours of volunteer time in research, as well as their own money to hire a consultant to guide them, in developing an amendment to the plan in order to find alternatives to a single building.
Together they created several innovative programs that are now being pointed to by state officials as models for what can be done in challenging situations like Carmel’s. They included converting underperforming hotels into housing, building above commercial spaces, creating live-work units, accessory dwelling units and constructing housing on church properties.
HCD officials certified the amendment in May, paving the way for final approval by the City Council on July 7.
Carmel Principal Planner Marnie Waffle shared with the Council that the amended housing element actually provided more units than the original element, 434 as opposed to the original 410, providing for a more beneficial buffer for the required 349, in case some units do not pan out.
The amendment suggests the city could achieve 70 ADUs by 2031, and already has met 58 percent of the goal, with 41 units approved since 2023, Waffle said.
Byrne asked a number of pointed questions of Waffle, casting doubt on the amendment’s numbers and on whether any of the plan could actually be achieved. One concern he raised was over parking for the cars that would come with new units—although Acting City Administrator Brandon Swanson pointed out the city’s current code doesn’t require new parking spaces for housing in the downtown area.
The mayor also questioned the length of time it takes to get things built in Carmel as well as the challenge of upgrading older buildings to new codes. In particular, business owners are finding they cannot expand their businesses because of the cost of adding sprinkler systems, sometimes to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
“I really don’t think a lot of these programs are going to survive that test when it comes to building,” Byrne said.
Similarly, Councilmember Jeff Baron had his own list of concerns and said he doubted the plan would work.
“I find this amendment is not going to produce housing so I’m going to be a ‘no’ vote,” he said. He asserted that ADUs are not providing housing because the people who are building them aren’t actually renting them out, except in rare cases.
Baron also worried that the plan, which would put most of the units in and around downtown, would create chaos.
He supported the original idea of building apartment complexes on city-owned lots, calling it an opportunity for shared sacrifice as a community for the good of providing affordable housing.
“I believe producing housing is an opportunity for the community to come together and open our doors just a tiny bit,” Baron said. “I do not agree with the thesis of all this, that building on the parking lots is going to sacrifice our community character."
Councilmember Bob Delves, who supported the amendment, said the original element “put all our eggs in one basket” by having all the low-income units on a parking lot.
“Those parking lots are in people’s neighborhoods. We need to understand that as well,” Delves said.
One of the more contentious points of the amended plan among opponents, to convert underperforming hotels into apartments, was criticized by attorney Peter Prows as a representative of a client. He called the plan unproven and unlikely to pencil out. He and others called into question the plan’s projections for the sale of hotel rooms to be converted.
Councilmember Hans Buder, one of the architects of the amendment and a candidate for mayor, called Prows a “hired gun of a developer who wants to build a luxury hotel” on the Sunset parking lot. “It’s raw self interest and they do not care about Carmel,” Buder said.
Buder shot down each of Byrne’s concerns and contended that the hotel room sales projections were sound.
“This has really been an amazing process, a process of a community coming together. A super majority of the community support this plan, 80 percent. This is how self-government at its best is supposed to work,” Buder said.
As it came time to vote, Byrne said he hoped he was wrong about the amendment, “but tonight I have to vote on the evidence in front of me and I haven’t seen enough to believe these numbers are realistic, especially without public land in the mix. Public land was part of the original plan for a reason,” he said.
With Baron and Byrne both believing that development of the parking lots should be part of the housing element, Baron asked Buder to “take a step back,” and consider changing the amendment in such a way that would get him and Byrne to vote in the amendment’s favor.
“This conversation is the conversation we should have had over a year ago,” Buder said. Normally he would strive for compromise to get closer to a unanimous vote, but two years into the eight-year housing cycle, it was time to move forward, he said.
Byrne then began arguing again in favor of adding the parking lots back in.
“I would love to have that as a backup plan,” Byrne said.
At that point Dramov interjected and reminded Byrne that the whole reason why the AHA group was formed and the amendment was pursued was because of “public outcry” against housing on city lots.
“And now we’re going to turn ourselves around in a circle and go back to where we were? It makes no sense,” Dramov said. “You’re trying to get the parking lots back in because you want to help your developer friend.”
“I do not,” Byrne replied. “I’m actually not interested in Sunset Center.”
“I say we take the vote,” Dramov said.
Buder, Dramov and Delves voted “yes.” Baron and Byrne voted “no.”
From here, city staff must begin working on new ordinances and policies to make the amendment’s programs a reality within the next couple of years.