Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal by Robert Carver (APP 21-415) and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review Application DR 21-114 and Use Permit UP 21-226 as adopted in Planning Commission Resolution 2021-60-PC (refer to Attachment 7).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On November 10, 2021, Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving a Design Review Application and Conditional Use Permit for the renovation and reuse of the historic China Arts Buildings into a music recording studio. The Commission was generally supportive of the project, except for the addition of a sound-proofing glass entryway on the Dolores side of the building, similar to the entry at Sunset Center.  As part of their motion for approval of the project, the Commission included Special Condition of Approval #27 which required the sound-proofing to be moved indoors, and prohibited modifications to the building on Dolores Street.  Subsequent to this decision, an appeal was filed by the project architect, Robert Carver, objecting to the inclusion of the Special Condition.  

BACKGROUND/ PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site is located on Dolores Street, 2 northwest of 7th Avenue on a 4,000 square foot lot.  The applicant is proposing a seismic retrofit and complete interior remodel of an historic building, known as the “China Arts Center”, into a private multi-story, music recording studio. The project includes the addition of a new elevator and stairway enclosure on the roof, a new skylight, new windows and doors, and a new glass “sound lock” entry on Dolores Street. The “sound lock” component of the project is effectively an enclosure of the front vestibule with glass, similar to the entry of Sunset Center, to prevent sound from escaping out into the public. 

The China Art Center is a multi-story commercial building constructed in the Mission Revival style. Designed by San Francisco architect H.H. Winner and built by Hugh Comstock.  The subject property is listed as a Carmel-by-the-Sea historic resource under the Historic Context Statement’s theme of Architectural Development in Carmel and is significant under California Criterion 3, in the area of architecture as an example of the Mission Revival Style. The character defining features of the building appear primarily on the front elevation and include:

• Gabled roof massing, with wide overhangs containing carved wood brackets;

• Clay-barrel tile roofing material;

• Quatrefoil window with deep recess in the gable end;

• Grand entrance beneath cement plaster Moorish arch with carved corner pilasters;

• Paired window openings flanking the entrance, containing steel industrial sash;

• Carmel stone base course; cement plaster wall cladding;

• Entrance vestibule accessed via carved wood gates and containing carved niches and cement plaster details;

• Mission Revival-style, wood entry gates with wrought iron hinges;

• Paired wood entrance doors beneath a pedimented, Moorish entrance with carved spiral pilasters;

• Arched window openings with steel industrial sash on the north elevation.

In addition to being a historic resource, the China Arts Center is located in the Downtown Conservation District (CD) Overlay.  As outlined in CMC 17.20.280, projects within the Downtown CD Overlay affecting any historic resource shall require approval by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) consistent with CMC 17.32, Historic Preservation.  Effectively, the HRB must find that the project as proposed is consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s standards and does not destroy or diminish the historic resource.    

On August 16, 2021, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) considered the project and adopted Resolution 2021-07-HRB issuing a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards subject to the adoption of the recommended Conditions of Approval (refer to Attachment 6). The staff report and associated attachments from the August 16^th hearing has been included as Attachment 3.  Attachment 3 provides an analysis and findings for the proposed modifications being consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as well as findings for the project’s consistency within the Downtown Conservation District.

On October 13, 2021, the project was presented to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval by staff.  Following deliberation, the project was continued with direction to the applicant to “explore providing a design that will have the sound lock on the interior of the building instead of the exterior of the vestibule”. The Commission was supportive of the proposed use as a music recording studio and did not provide additional direction regarding the other exterior modifications beyond exploring the relocation of the sound lock entry.  The staff report and associated attachments from the October 13^th hearing have been included as Attachment 4.  Attachment 4 provides an analysis of the proposed land use as a music recording studio as well as an analysis of the proposed changes and modifications.

On November 10, 2021, the project returned the Planning Commission for consideration. In response to the Planning Commission’s October 13^th direction, the applicant did not provide revised drawings showing the sound lock in an alternative location. However, the applicant did submit information to support their position that the location of the sound lock on the exterior of the building is more efficient for sound attenuation than if located in the interior.  The applicant also provided information to show that moving the sound lock to the interior would negatively impact the functionality of the recording studio.  The Staff Report and associated attachments from the November 10^th hearing have been included as Attachment 5.  Attachment 5 provides a discussion on the supplemental materials provided by the Applicant and considered at the November 10^th hearing.

At the November 10^th hearing staff presented a resolution for approval that would allow for the glass sound lock to be located on the exterior of the vestibule, as proposed by the applicant.  The Commission considered the location of the glass sound lock and whether its proposed location was appropriate on the exterior of the building or if it should be relocated to the interior of the building.  Following deliberation, a motion was made to adopt the resolution as prepared by staff, however, that motion failed on a 2-2 vote (1 commissioner absent). A second motion was made to adopt a resolution approving the Use Permit and Design Review Applications, but with the addition of Special Condition of Approval # 27 that stated:

The proposed glass sound attenuating vestibule shall be relocated to the interior of the building with no modifications made to the primary building elevation on Dolores Street. The existing wood gates shall remain, however, may be minimally repositioned to meet exiting (egress) requirements as required by the Building and Fire Codes.

The second motion passed 3-1.  Effectively, the adopted resolution approved the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Application, but required the plans to be revised so the sound lock would be located within the interior of the structure.

On November 11^th, the Robert Carver, on behalf of the property owner, filed a timely appeal objecting to the inclusion of Special Condition of Approval #27.

STAFF ANALYSIS

Although staff prepared a Resolution of approval for the Planning Commission’s consideration, it is the City staff’s long-standing practice to support the junior body’s recommendation to the City Council on appeal.

Planning Commission Findings

As part of the Planning Commission’s discussion about the merits of the project, they found that with the sound lock on the exterior of the building, certain required findings for Design Review approval could not be made.   This deliberation  led to the inclusion of Special Condition of Approval #27.   The findings which the Commission determined could not be made with the sound lock on the exterior of the building are:

From Commercial Design Guidelines:

• These guidelines establish a series of design statements intended to conserve the historical village character and pedestrian orientation of Carmel's central commercial district. The emphasis of this document is architectural, with special attention to building facades.
  •  The pedestrian wall should not be without relief; it should be punctuated by occasional offsets produced by entries, window projections, small planters, and entrances to courtyards and intra-block walkways.
  •  Large sheets of glass, unbroken by divisions, can appear too urban or modem and should be avoided.
  •  Conserve or create recessed entries. Should two business entries be close to one another in the same building, a single recess may be designed to accommodate both.
  •  Entrances to stores are typically recessed from the façade by creating a small alcove. This establishes a more definitive sense of entry and affords an alternative view of merchandise in display windows.

In addition to the findings made addressing the Commercial Design Guidelines, the following findings were made regarding the proposed project.

•  Dolores Street maintains the highest concentration of Historic Resources in the Downtown Conservation District within a one-block area.
•  Additions to historic structures are required to be differentiated, however, new materials and architectural styles to be more compatible with the historic structure.
•  The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. Distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be preserved. This (the vestibule) is not being preserved.

Grounds for Appeal

As stated in the appeal documents (Attachment 2) the grounds for appeal are stated as:  “One Commissioner (who appeared to be supportive of the project at the first hearing) was absent. The City’s Historian, the HRB, 2 of the 4 Commissioners present and the Staff all supported the design as submitted. The interior sound lock will not work for all the reasons outlined at the hearing.”   

Review Process

The following section will step through the review process for this project, which included first determining if the project would impact a historical resource, and then whether the design and change of use were consistent with the City’s regulations.

Step 1 – Determination of Consistency

In accordance with CMC 17.32.140, Determination of Consistency with the Secretary’s Standards: Consistency determinations for major alterations shall require an evaluation by a qualified professional and review and approval by the Historic Resources Board. Qualified professionals retained by the City to evaluate proposed alterations to historic resources shall be at the applicant’s expense. The Department shall determine whether the proposed project constitutes a minor or major alteration.

As part of the initial review of the application, staff determined the project qualified as a major alteration and therefore contracted with Seth Bergstein, of PAST Consultants, a qualified professional retained as one of the city’s historic consultants, to prepare a Phase II Evaluation of the proposed changes to the historic building.  The Phase II Evaluation found the proposed modifications consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation provided the recommendations in the report were carried out (refer to Attachment 3).

Step 2 – Historic Resources Board Review

For projects located within the Downtown Conservation District, in accordance with CMC 17.20.280, Procedures and Criteria for Review, Projects affecting any historic resource shall require approval by the Historic Resources Board consistent with Chapter 17.32 CMC. In its review, the Board shall apply the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and shall adopt the following findings:

1. The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. Distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be preserved.
2.  Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property will be preserved.
3.  The new work shall be subtly differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, and proportion and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
4.  The proposed development is consistent with the established design context of the conservation district and will not adversely affect any historic resources on the project site or on adjacent sites.

Furthermore, CMC 17.32.160 states, If a proposed major alteration is found by the qualified professional to be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards (previously described in Step 1, above), the project shall be presumed to be consistent for purposes of making a preliminary determination regarding any required environmental documentation and staff shall forward the application and evaluation to the Board for action. If the Board concurs with the evaluation, the Board shall issue a determination of consistency and adopt any appropriate conditions of approval. Any finding of compliance by the Board shall be supported by substantial evidence.

On a 3-2 vote, the HRB found the proposed modifications to be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards, adopted the findings listed above, and issued a Determination of Consistency (refer to Attachment 6). As part of the action, the HRB adopted the recommendations outlined in the Phase II report as recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. The Determination of Consistency issued by the HRB was subject to the 10-business day appeal period.  No appeals were filed regarding the Board’s determination.

Step 3 – Planning Commission Review

In accordance with CMC 17.20.280, Following action by the Historic Resources Board, the project shall then be scheduled for final review by the Planning Commission consistent with Chapter 17.58 CMC, Design Review. The Planning Commission, as the decision making body for this project, has authority to consider both the Use Permit and the Design Review application. Before approving an application for design review in any district, the Commission must find that the final design plans:

1. Conform to the applicable policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program;
2.  Comply with all applicable provisions of this code; and
3. Are consistent with applicable adopted design review guidelines (CMC 17.58.060).

Further, in accordance with CMC 17.14.220.A, Special Design Topics –Façade Remodels, when plans for remodels are reviewed for approval, the reviewing body must find the following to be true:

1. The proposed modification contributes to, restores or achieves consistency of architectural character and scale when considering the building or courtyard as a whole.
2. The proposed modification does not incorporate materials, patterns or other design elements that would:
   1. Call attention to the building.
   2. Create a form of advertising or sign through architectural treatment.
   3. Would render the storefront unusable by a different business occupant without further remodeling.
   4. Create a standardized identification with a particular business use.

Staff prepared and presented a Resolution for approval at the November 10^th Planning Commission hearing that found the findings listed above to be true (refer to Attachment 4).  After deliberation, the Commission ultimately found that the aforementioned required findings could only be made if the glass sound lock was relocated from the exterior vestibule to the interior of the building. As such, the project (both the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review) was approved on the condition that the sound lock be relocated to the interior of the building.

Consideration

This hearing is de novo, meaning that the entire decision of the Planning Commission is open for consideration by the City Council.  However, it should be noted that the scope of the appeal is limited to the Planning Commission’s inclusion of Condition of Approval #27 to move the sound lock indoors, and any other components of the overall design and proposed new use that were considered by the Commission.  Since the Historic Resources Board’s determination of consistency was not appealed, the scope if this appeal does not include whether an exterior glass sound lock is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards or consistent with the adopted findings by the HRB.  As the Historic Resources Board is the decision making authority for the Determination of Consistency, the proposed project would remain consistent with the Secretary of Interiors Standards whether the appeal is granted or denied.

The Council should consider whether the inclusion of the glass sound lock, as proposed by the applicant, is consistent with the associated Design Review findings (listed under “Step 3”, above).  If the Council finds that the glass sound lock is consistent with the established Design Review Findings, they may choose to grant the appeal.  If the Council agrees with the Planning Commission’s decision that the location of the glass sound lock located within the vestibule would not meet the associated Design Review Findings, the Council should deny the appeal. 

Council Options/Alternatives:

1. Deny Appeal – Adopt Resolution 2022-01 denying the appeal by Robert Carver (APP 21-415) and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review Application DR 21-114 and Use Permit UP 21-226 as adopted in Planning Commission Resolution 2021-60-PC.
   
   
2.  Grant Appeal - Adopt Resolution 2022-01 granting the appeal by Robert Carver.  Staff would prepare a revised resolution for adoption by the City Council based on the Planning Commission’s Resolution, Resolution 2021-60-PC (refer to Attachment 7) and remove Condition of Approval #27.
   
   
3.  Deny/Grant Appeal with Modification – As a de novo hearing, the City Council may either grant or deny the appeal with additional direction regarding other aspects of the project. Should the Council wish to address other aspects of the project related to design or use outside of the appeal, the Council should provide direction to staff to prepare a Resolution, as appropriate.

Public Correspondence: At the time of writing this report, staff has received one additional correspondence.  The correspondence was received following the filing of the appeal and, in summary, voices support for granting the appeal.

Multiple correspondences were received ahead of the November Planning Commission meeting including two petitions: one in favor of the inclusion of the sound lock and one against its inclusion. Additional correspondences received voice support for the proposed project.

All correspondences received, including those previously provided to the Planning Commission, have been included as Attachment #8.

Environmental Review: Staff recommends the project be found categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA guidelines, and local environmental regulations, pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Class 3 exemptions include the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.  The project consists of a seismic retrofit and remodel an historic building previously used as a museum/art gallery into a private multi-story, music recording studio. The project also includes a complete interior remodel with the addition of a new elevator and stairway enclosure on the roof, a new skylight, and new windows and doors. The proposed project does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact and no exceptions to the exemption exist pursuant to section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines.