EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 15, 2025, Planning Commission adopted a resolution (Reso. 2025-05-PC) denying a Design Study Application and associated Coastal Development Permit for the demolition of an existing single-family dwelling and construction of a new single-family dwelling. The denial was following the request from the applicant in order to purse an appeal and consideration of the project by the City Council.
The project had previously been considered at the Commission’s July 12, 2023, August 14, 2024, and December 11, 2024 hearings. At each hearing the item was continued with direction to make changes to the project, and at each the motion was to continue the hearing with direction for changes.
The unresolved issue with the project as found by the Commission in their adopted resolution were view impacts to the northern neighbor.
According to the applicant’s (appellant) appeal statement (Attachment 3), the applicant believes they have adequately responded to the Commission’s direction and is requesting consideration and approval by the Council on appeal.
BACKGROUND/ PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is a 4,000 square-foot lot developed with a 1,053 square-foot one story residence with a 205 square foot attached garage.
The existing one-story residence is finished primarily with board and batten siding with composition shingle gabled roof forms. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence and garage and construct a new two-story 1,793 square foot residence inclusive of a 288 square foot attached garage.
The new residence is proposed to be a combination of stone and stucco with wood windows and doors and a composition shingle roof. A concept design was previously considered at the Commission’s July 12, 2023, August 14, 2024, and December 11, 2024 hearings and all hearings were continued with direction to make changes to the project. The primary issues raised at the July 2023 hearing were in respect to privacy, views, light, and impacts to trees, and issued at the August 2024 hearing were in respect to carry over impacts from the July 2023 hearing primarily in respect to light and view impacts.
The December 2024 hearing was continued with direction to redesign the project as the Commission found the light and view impacts have not been adequately addressed. This hearing was also scheduled as a combined concept and final details hearing and there was no discussion or objection to the finish materials of the residence -all issues discussed were based around unresolved light and view impacts.
- July 12, 2023 Hearing (Concept)
- August 14, 2024 Hearing (Concept)
- December 11, 2024 Hearing (Combined Concept & Final)
Following continuation of the third concept hearing (December 11, 2024 hearing), the applicant contacted staff and stated they were unwilling to make any additional changes and wished to pursue an appeal to the City Council (refer to Attachment 2).
In accordance with Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.58.040.B.2, “Applicants unwilling to make the revisions directed by the [Planning Commission] in a provisionally accepted concept design or continued design concept may request denial of the project so that an appeal may be filed. A denial shall not be complete until findings are adopted.”
On January 15, 2025, the Planning Commission considered a Combined Concept and Final Design Study Application for the project and adopted a Resolution with findings for denial which had been prepared based on the deliberation of the unresolved issues from the previous three hearings (Resolution 2025-05-PC; refer to Attachment 4).
- January 15, 2025 Hearing (Combined Concept & Final)
On January 30, 2025, Angie Phares of Hastings Construction, on behalf of Liyoong Lim, submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Design Study and associated Coastal Development Permit. This staff report discusses appeal documents submitted as the basis for the applicant’s appeal (refer to Attachment 3).
The project is located in the Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay District (i.e. appeal jurisdiction) and therefore is appealable to the California Coastal Commission following a decision by the City Council.
The project plans for which the applicant is requesting City Council approval of were presented at the December 11, 2024 hearing and subsequently denied at the following hearing on January 15, 2025. Staff recommends the Council review the staff report and the video from the December 11, 2024 Planning Commission hearing for a detailed analysis and overview of the subject project as this report is centered on the appeal and no changes have been made to the project since the December 11, 2024 hearing.
- December 11, 2024 Hearing (Combined Concept & Final)
Analysis Summary:
The underlying questions for the Council to consider are:
Does the proposed residence substantially eliminate an existing significant view? Is the existing view a significant view? Is the project consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines pertaining to private views?
The Planning Commission found that the existing view enjoyed by the northern neighbor was a significant view and the proposed residence substantially eliminated the view, thus conflicting with the Residential Design Guidelines pertaining to private views. Because of this, the project was not able to meet the requisite findings for project approval.
The Appellant (project applicant) has appealed this decision and is requesting consideration by the Council. The Appellant attests in their appeal documents (Attachment 3) that the subject view is not significant nor important, the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines, and the applicant has followed the previous direction of the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Findings
The outstanding issue with the project for which the Commission was not able to adopt a finding for approval for were specifically related to private views and the impacts associated with the proposed development. The Commission was unable to adopt the findings for approval listed below based on the potential impacts of the proposed design as assessed by the Commission at the three prior concept hearings and adopted the following findings for denial of the project:
CMC Section 17.64.080.A – Concept Phase Approval Findings
Concept Finding #5.
The project is consistent with the City’s objectives for public and private views and will retain a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites. Through the placement, location and size of windows, doors and balconies the design respects the rights to reasonable privacy on adjoining sites.
Finding for Denial:
Finding: The plans submitted, or as recommended to be conditioned, do not support adoption of finding #5, based on the analysis provided below.
Analysis: The proposed project does not obstruct any public view, as defined in CMC Section 17.10.010.J, which relates to significant coastal views as seen from the right-of-way. There are no known significant coastal views visible from the adjacent or surrounding rights-of-way.
The proposed project meets the city’s design objective for privacy, as defined in CMC Section 17.10.010.G. There are no second story windows on the northern elevation nor exterior balconies facing north. A small second story balcony is proposed to be located on the southern elevation, however, this overlooks the neighbor’s roof to the south. The southern balcony feature was not a topic of discussion at the previous three public hearings nor has previously been an item of concern.
While solar access was previously a concern, the commission did not specifically address solar access at the December 11, 2024 hearing and the discussion was focused on, and limited to, impacts associated with views.
The proposed project does not meet the city’s design objectives related to private views access (CMC Section 17.10.010.L).
Private Views. Designs should respect views enjoyed by neighboring parcels. This objective is intended to balance the private rights to views from all parcels that will be affected by a proposed building or addition. No single parcel should enjoy a greater right than other parcels except the natural advantages of each site’s topography. Buildings which substantially eliminate an existing significant view enjoyed on another parcel should be avoided.
Analysis: The proposed project fails to respect the significant views enjoyed by the northern neighbor, as encouraged by the Residential Design Guidelines. The massing and placement of the structure obstructs the south-facing views from the northern neighbor's property, including views from their kitchen, dining room, and breakfast nook. The adjustments made to the building’s height, width, and setbacks do not sufficiently address the elimination of an existing significant view.
CMC Section 17.64.080.A – Concept Phase Approval Findings
Concept Finding #6.
The design concept is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies related to residential design in the general plan.
Finding: The project does not comply with Finding #6. The project does not comply with General Plan Policy P1-51 as that the project failed to meet the design objectives described in Finding #5.
Analysis: General Plan Policy P1-51 states:
Consider the effect of proposed residential construction on the privacy, solar access and private views of neighbors when evaluating design review applications. Avoid designs that are insensitive to the designs of neighboring buildings. Attempt to achieve an equitable balance of these design amenities among all properties affected by design review decisions. (LUP)
CMC Section 17.64.010.B, Coastal Development Permits
Coastal Development Permit Finding #1.
The project, as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with the certified City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Local Coastal Program.
Finding & Analysis: The project does not comply with the city’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) as the project does not meet the required findings for Design Study Approval (CMC Section 17.64.080), specifically concept finding #5. The project fails to meet concept finding as the project does not meet the design objectives outlined in CMC Section 17.10.010 and due to inconsistencies with the Residential Design Guidelines (pertaining to Views; Residential Design Guideline 5.0) – Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan Appendix C. The project also fails to meet the applicable policies of the city’s Land Use Plan, specifically Policy P1-51.
(Staff note: Concept Finding for Denial #6 was adopted through the motion at the January 15, 2025 hearing. Staff has included a supplemental finding to support the inclusion of finding #6 as part of the CDP denial which was not part of the original finding included in the staff report. This supplemental finding has been included in italics in the "findings & analysis" section, above.)
Grounds for Appeal
The applicant’s grounds for their appeal are included in Attachment 3. In part, the applicant states that “the proposed home complies with all City ordinances, zoning, codes and guidelines relating to height, materials, location, size, coverage, shared views, etc. The Commission's reasoning for repeated continuances and ultimate denial is they felt we had not made enough of an effort to address the view complaints of the northern neighbors. We disagree and feel the decision has not considered what is principally permitted
…
The view in question is of the forest and tree canopy. It is not a significant coastal view and is not an "important view" as described per the Design Guidelines sections 5.1-5.3 as it is not of oceans, canyons, or streets. Their view is not protected by legal means via an easement or deed restriction.
…
After 4 attempts, there is no compromise that can be reached with the northern neighbor's as they consider any impact to their view to be significant, which is not reasonable. Ms. Lim has every right, Per municipal code, to construct a home of this size, height, etc. and to deny a property owner their right to build on their own land within regulation is not reasonable or fair. Our hope is that by bringing this to City Council this project can be reviewed objectively and reasonably.”
Review Process and Considerations
The Residential Design Study (both Track 1 and 2) is a form of Design Review (CMC Section 17.58.040). In the Single-Family (R-1) Zoning District, all proposed site development, exterior alterations, rebuilding, rehabilitation and new construction shall require design review.
When reviewing a project there are two elements to consider: the objective standards and subjective standards. Objective standards are typically those provided in the zoning code, such as dimensional standards (floor area, height, setbacks, etc.). Subjective standards require the use of discretion, such as evaluating the project for consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines, for example, which may require modification to the proposed project to ensure consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines.
As provided in CMC Section 17.10.070, “Design review involves discretion and judgment regarding the appropriateness of each design within the context of site constraints and neighborhood character.” The same municipal code section also states that, “the dimensional standards established in [CMC Chapter 17.10] (e.g., height, setbacks, coverage, floor area) represent maximum or minimum limits and will not be achievable on every site.”
The Residential Design Guidelines are used to implement the city’s design objectives listed in CMC Section 17.10.010 (CMC 17.10.060). The design objectives listed in CMC 17.10.010 Section are those same objectives referenced in the Design Study Findings for Approval (finding #5 below, for example):
Concept Design Study Finding #5:
The project is consistent with the City’s objectives for public and private views and will retain a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites. Through the placement, location and size of windows, doors and balconies the design respects the rights to reasonable privacy on adjoining sites.
CMC Section 17.10.010 – Purpose and Design Objectives
Public Views. Buildings shall be located and designed to preserve significant coastal views from the public right-of-way in conformance with Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act. The protection of public views should not prevent reasonable development of the site, yet development shall not preclude reasonable protection of any significant coastal view.
Private Views. Designs should respect views enjoyed by neighboring parcels. This objective is intended to balance the private rights to views from all parcels that will be affected by a proposed building or addition. No single parcel should enjoy a greater right than other parcels except the natural advantages of each site’s topography. Buildings which substantially eliminate an existing significant view enjoyed on another parcel should be avoided.
Solar Access. Designs should preserve the rights to reasonable solar access on neighboring parcels. Excessively tall buildings, particularly those near a north property line, which would block the free passage of the sun onto neighboring solar collectors or south-facing windows on neighboring sites, should be avoided.
Privacy. Designs should respect the privacy of neighbors. The placement of windows, doors, balconies and decks should be sensitive to similar improvements on neighboring properties
When evaluating the project for private views, which is the basis for this appeal, the objective speaks to: respecting views, balancing the rights to private views, not substantially eliminating existing significant views.
These objectives are implemented through Residential Design Guidelines 5.0, 5.2 and 5.3 which state:
Residential Design Guideline 5.0 Privacy, Views, Light, and Air
- Objectives: To balance and share view opportunities to natural features and landmarks.
Views, Light, and Air: Views to natural features and landmarks are key features of Carmel's design traditions. Important views occur to the ocean, canyons, and along streets. Protecting views is an important community concern. This includes views from public ways as well as those through properties. Also note that the desire to maximize view opportunities from one's own property must be balanced with consideration of respecting views of others. The preliminary site analysis may help identify view opportunities as well as existing views enjoyed by others.
Residential Design Guideline 5.2. Maintain view opportunities to natural features that lie outside the property.
- Consider locating key building functions to make use of views.
- Also locate buildings so they will not substantially block views enjoyed by others.
Residential Design Guideline 5.3. Maintain views through a property to natural features when
feasible.
- Locate major building masses to maintain some views through the site from other properties.
- Consider keeping the mass of a building low in order to maintain views over the structure.
- Also consider using a compact building footprint to maintain views along the sides of a structure.
Figure 1. Image from Residential Design Guidelines: “Maintain view opportunities from a site to natural features outside the property.”
Figure 2. Image from Residential Design Guidelines: “Preferred: A new building is sited to maintain views from existing houses.”
As previously noted, the Commission found that “The proposed project [failed] to respect the significant views enjoyed by the northern neighbor, as encouraged by the Residential Design Guidelines. The massing and placement of the structure [would obstruct] the south-facing views from the northern neighbor's property, including views from their kitchen, dining room, and breakfast nook. The adjustments made to the building’s height, width, and setbacks [did] not sufficiently address the elimination of an existing significant view” (Concept Finding for Denial #5).
The appellant attests that the subject view is not a significant coastal view nor is it an "important view" as described per the Design Guidelines and the design is consistent with the previous direction of the Commission and Residential Design Guidelines.
“Important Views” are cited in the Residential Design Guidelines and provides an illustrative example of “views to the ocean, canyons, and along streets.” The Residential Design Guidelines also remind the reader to “remember that trees are part of the view and that views are often filtered or transitory because of the urban forest. City policy prohibits trimming trees for views.”
“Significant View” is cited in the General Plan/Land Use Plan in Policy P5-181 which states: “Preserve the significant coastal view from the intersection of Torres Street and Third Avenue and across Vista Lobos, the City owned land near this intersection for public benefit and enjoyment (LUP)” and is reiterated with substantially similar language in General Plan Policy P7-4. Significant view is only used in throughout the city’s planning documents in the context of coastal views.
Generally, a “view” (or “views”) is referenced throughout the city’s planning documents in generally the same context and meaning as a “vista.”
In staff’s opinion, the references provided above are examples of “important views” and “significant views” and are not inflexible definitions. For example, the Council or Planning Commission may find that another view (a view of the Pebble Beach Golf Course across Carmel Bay, for example) is a significant view.
Purpose and Design Objective found in CMC Section 17.10.010.K, states: Buildings which substantially eliminate an existing significant view enjoyed on another parcel should be avoided, however, if the only significant view were of Point Lobos, as designated in General Plan Policy P5-181, no view would be protected except that of Point Lobos.
The Residential Design Guidelines do suggest that it is inevitable that 1) new development will block some existing views, however, 2) existing views should also be considered, respected and protected.
Council Options/Alternatives:
- Deny Appeal – Adopt Resolution 2025-036 denying the appeal by Hastings Construction on behalf of Liyoong Lim, and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a Track 2 Design Study and associated Coastal Development Permit, DS 22-057 (Lim), as adopted in Planning Commission Resolution 2025-05-PC.
- Project denied consistent with Planning Commission’s decision.
- Grant Appeal - Adopt Resolution 2025-036 granting the appeal by Hastings Construction on behalf of Liyoong Lim, overturning the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a Track 2 Design Study and associated Coastal Development Permit, DS 22-057 (Lim), as adopted in Planning Commission Resolution 2025-05-PC, and approving a combined Concept and Final Design Study (DS 22-057) and Coastal Development Permit to allow the demolition of an existing 1,053 square-foot, one-story single-family residence, inclusive of a 205 square-foot detached garage, and the construction of a 1,793 square-foot, two-story single-family residence, inclusive of a 288 square-foot attached garage, in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay, and Beach/Riparian (BR) Overlay.
- Project approved as presented as the December 11, 2024 Planning Commission hearing.
- Should the Council be inclined to grant the appeal, a draft resolution has been included as Attachment 2 with the findings and conditions for project approval.
- Deny/Grant Appeal with Modification – 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.
- Deny project with amended findings.
- Approve project with amended findings/conditions.
Public Correspondence: At the time of writing this report, staff has not received any correspondence relating to the appeal.
Environmental Review: Staff recommends the City Council find the project Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). According to Section 15270 of CEQA, State CEQA guidelines, and local environmental regulations, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. This finding has been included in Attachment 1.
Should the Council grant the appeal (approving the Design Study and associated Coastal Development Permit), 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. The project consists of the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone and therefore qualifies for a Class 3 exemption. 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. This finding has been included in Attachment 2.