The applicant has revised the project based on direction from the Planning Commission. A detailed narrative has been prepared by the applicant and has been included as Attachment 3a. A general summary of the changes are itemized below:
- Basement: No changes have been proposed to the basement level.
- Ground Floor: Changes to the unit sizes of commercial spaces 102, 106, and 107 have been proposed. These changes are de minimis and do not change the visual character or use of the building from the previous hearing.
Unit 105 is proposed to be expanded by approximately 53 square feet and the occupancy is proposed to be changed from (A-2, assembly uses intended for food and/or drink consumption, to M, mercantile, used for the display and sales of merchandise). The tenant space is proposed to be shifted to the west and the expansion of the space will enclose an area previously proposed as an “outdoor space” associated with the unit.
Unit 104 is proposed to be expanded by approximately 82 square feet which is created by expanding a wall westward in the courtyard opposite of unit 105.
- Second Floor: The applicant has revised the project such that building massing has been removed from the 2nd floor at along Dolores Street. The cantilevered 2nd story building element which extended above the driveway has not entirely been eliminated, however, has been pushed away from the street. This element, which bridges the driveway, is now located entirely beyond the historic concrete wall (toward the interior of the site) allowing for additional clearance, separation, and views between the new development and the existing historic site elements when viewed from Dolores Street. The 2nd floor level of the building itself (the building closest to the Community Room fronting Dolores Street -Building 2) has also been stepped back away from the street frontage. The 2nd floor balconies in Building 1 (Apartment 2a) have also included additional recesses which have added elements of articulation to the façade.
To the rear, the apartment units immediately adjacent from the property to the rear (Units 2E, 2F, 2G) have been setback away from the property line an additional 4-feet. The rear 2nd floor building wall located across from the building to the rear is setback 8-feet whereas it was previously located 3-feet from the rear property line.
The interior floor plans of the proposed units have also been modified throughout, however, the total number of proposed units on the site has not been changed (8 units proposed). The proposed units range in size from 477 square feet to 1,661 square feet.
- Roof Plan: The roof plan has been revised and simplified throughout. The new roof plan includes no common connections between Buildings 1, 2, or 3 (discussed in detail in “floor area” section, below) resulting in less complex forms throughout the site.
The proposed roof top terraces previously associated with Unit 2G have also been eliminated and relocated to Unit 2B in an effort to maximize privacy for the surrounding neighbors.
- Elevations: The applicant has lowered the building elevation (by various heights) throughout the project site. While the two facades of the two buildings fronting Dolores Street are both proposed to be lowered by 0.7 feet, toward the rear of the site (between the Community Room and rear property line), the various buildings will be lowered up to 3.95 feet. The building elevations (Attachment 10, Sheet A6.0) show the former proposal outlined in red overlaid with the new building.
Consistency with the Secretary’s Standards: The project is located on Lots 6, 8, and 10 of block 91. The Northern California Savings and Loan Complex (“complex”), consisting of Lots 2, 4, 6, and 8 of Block 91, was listed on the Carmel Inventory and Register on April 4, 2023 by the City Council. Lot 10 is a separate lot of record not associated with the complex and is not a historic resource.
In accordance with the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC Chapter 17.32), the City contracted with qualified professional historian Seth Bergstein from PAST Consultants to prepare the Determination of Consistency (Phase II Evaluation; refer to Attachment 5). The evaluation concluded the project is consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. The Historic Resources Board considered the project at their July 17, 2023 meeting and adopted Resolution 2023-009-HRB issuing a Determination of Consistency. During the 10-day appeal period for the decision, the City Council enacted the City Council Right of Review (CMC Section 2.04.160) to review the decision made by the Historic Resources Board.
The City Council considered the project at their September 12, 2023 and October 3, 2023 hearings. The final action by the council was to adopt a resolution overturning the July 2023 decision of the Historic Resources Board (Reso. 2023-009-HRB) and issue an alternative Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, with new findings and conditions (Resolution 2023-099).
The applicant has included a response letter addressing the changes made to the plans in response to the City Council October 3, 2023 resolution/conditions of approval (Attachment 4; Resolution 2023-099) describing how the project has been redesigned to address these conditions (see below) based on the direction from the Planning Commission at the July 10, 2024 hearing (refer to Attachment 3a):
- Ornamented Concrete Wall. Prior to review by the Planning Commission, the Design Review plans shall be revised and submitted to the Community Planning and Building Department, so that the original ornamented concrete walls located adjacent to the Community Room are shown to remain in their original locations and configuration.
- Preservation of Spatial Relationships. Prior to review by the Planning Commission, the Design Review plans shall be revised and submitted to the Community Planning and Building Department, to preserve the existing spatial relationship of the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex. At a minimum, all proposed structural elements shall be located outside of the Preservation Buffer as depicted in Exhibit A of this resolution. Walkways, at grade stairways, landscaping, paving, and similar features may be allowed within the Preservation Buffer, however, building elements that are defined as building coverage (CMC 17.14.130) shall not be permitted to encroach. Building eaves shall be limited to an encroachment of 18 inches or less.
- Preservation of Site Context. To ensure the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex is not subordinated by the proposed development, prior to review by the Planning Commission, the Design Review plans shall be revised and submitted to the Community Planning and Building Department, to preserve the context of the site so that the Saving and Loan Complex remains a prominent feature as viewed from 7th Avenue and Dolores Street. Changes to be considered include but are not limited to: articulation of the front elevation to preserve and open the view from Dolores Street looking north, reducing and minimizing the mass of the structure(s) to maintain to not diminish the character of the complex, and further enhancing the open space around the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex.
Staff Analysis: The project has been revised as described by the applicant (refer to Attachment 3a and 3b). Staff has prepared a matrix of images comparing the various coverage plans, and floor area diagrams to illustrate how the site has been revised to respond to the preservation buffer and adjacent historic structures. These diagrams have been included as Attachment 11.
Condition 1:
The project includes preservation and protection of the original ornamented concrete walls located adjacent to the Community Room.
Condition 2:
The project generally complies with the requirement for adherence with the Preservation Buffer. While the primary building massing complies with the requirements of the buffer, there are 3 balconies that project 18-inches from the building face which do not comply with the preservation buffer -two located in Apartment 2H and one located in Apartment 2G (refer to Figure 2, below).
Condition #2 associated with Resolution 2023-099 states, in part: “Walkways, at grade stairways, landscaping, paving, and similar features may be allowed within the Preservation Buffer, however, building elements that are defined as building coverage (CMC section 17.14.130) shall not be permitted to encroach. Building eaves shall be limited to an encroachment of 18 inches or less.”
Balconies, regardless of their size, are expressly included in building coverage: “Building coverage includes exterior structures such as stairs, arcades, bridges, permanent structural elements protruding from buildings such as overhanging balconies, oriel windows, stories which overhang a ground level story, and covered carports.
Excluded from building coverage are roof eaves extending less than 30 inches from the face of the building, awnings or covered entryways and masonry walls not greater than six feet in height such as wing-walls, planter walls or grade-separation retaining walls. All site area not counted as building coverage shall be considered open space” (CMC section 17.14.130; emphasis added in bold).
However, the subject balconies are located directly under/below existing features including awnings/eaves which project from the building 18-inches or less, or are excluded from building coverage which are expressly permitted to encroach into the preservation buffer in accordance with Reso. 2023-099.
Staff is requesting feedback from the Commission as to whether these balconies are an acceptable encroachment into the preservation buffer.
A strict application of Resolution 2023-099 would find that the balconies, as a defined element of building coverage, shall be eliminated from the project or revised such that they are removed from the preservation buffer.
An alternative interpretation is that the balconies, being less than 18-inches deep and located under an eave and/or awning that is permitted to encroach into the preservation buffer, do not detract from or minimize the existing spatial relationship of the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex. Further, installation of the balconies provide safter egress from the units in emergency situations.
The Commission could either 1) accept the design as proposed, 2) include a condition to revise plans such that the balcony does not encroach into the preservation buffer, or 3) continue the project with direction to the applicant to eliminate the projection for the Commission to re-consider the revised plans.
Figure 2. Balconies in Apt-2H and 2G projecting into preservation buffer (red dashed line)
Condition 3:
The figures in Attachment 11 show the 2nd floor of the building has been pushed away from Dolores Street and the Community Room at the street frontage (refer to Attachment 11, Figures 2C and 3C). Staff notes that the Condition #3 (Resolution 2023-099) requires:
The Design Review plans shall be revised and submitted to the Community Planning and Building Department, to preserve the context of the site so that the Saving and Loan Complex remains a prominent feature as viewed from 7th Avenue and Dolores Street. Changes to be considered include but are not limited to: articulation of the front elevation to preserve and open the view from Dolores Street looking north, reducing and minimizing the mass of the structure(s) to maintain to not diminish the character of the complex, and further enhancing the open space around the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex.
The determination that the Planning Commission should be considering is: does the Savings and Loan Complex “[remain] a prominent feature as viewed from 7th Avenue and Dolores Street?”
The remaining portion of the condition provides examples of how the applicant could achieve this condition, however, the Commission is directly considering whether the Complex remains a prominent feature from both 7th Avenue and Dolores Street.
Land Use, Zoning, and Development Standards: This site is zoned Service Commercial (SC). CMC section 17.14.010.B states that the purpose of the SC Zoning District is: “To provide an appropriate location for services, offices, residential and limited retail activities that primarily serve local needs. This district is intended to provide a distinct transition between the more intense activities in the CC district and the less intense activities in the districts on its periphery. Mixed uses of commercial and residential activities are appropriate throughout this district.”
Staff notes that the reference regarding the SC zone district being a “transition” area specifically refers to land use (i.e. the type of businesses or uses which can occupy the site) and not the development standards for which the building can be constructed (i.e. how the building is constructed).
Building Sites in the Central Commercial and Service Commercial follow the same set of development standards (e.g. building can have the same FAR, height, setbacks, etc.), though the allowable uses differ between the two zone districts with the Service Commercial having less intense uses than the Central Commercial. As building sites move farther from the Central Commercial District (CC -> SC -> RC), they become less intense in their use.
The permitted and conditionally permitted uses for the SC zone district are established CMC section 17.14.030 Schedule II-B.
The General Plan indicates the Land Use Designation for the site as “Core Commercial.” As stated in the General Plan:
This area is intended to provide for a wide range of retail and service uses in scale with the overall residential character of the community. More intense commercial activities such as retail, restaurant and visitor commercial uses are appropriate in this area. Less intensive development may be appropriate to preserve the unique character and ambiance along Ocean Avenue. Mixed-use developments of commercial and multi-family residential uses at a maximum density of thirty-three (33) units per acre are allowed. This area is also appropriate for public service uses. Assuming an average population of 1.0 to 2.0 persons per unit, this allows a population density of 33 to 66 persons per acre.
Maximum building intensity in the core commercial area is limited to 95 percent and 135 percent floor area ratio for one and two story buildings, respectively. More open space and less floor area is required on larger sites. Throughout the Core Commercial area, floor area bonuses (up to 15 percent) and density bonuses (up to 35 percent) are allowed as incentives for affordable or senior housing and for special design amenities.
Building Site Area – CMC section 17.14.120:
There are no substantive changes from previous staff report or project. Refer to Planning Commission Staff Report from July 10, 2024 for discussion and analysis.
Conditions of Approval #62LM and #63LM have been included requiring the recordation of the lot merger prior to building permit issuance.
Building Coverage – CMC section 17.14.130:
Building coverage is defined as the total ground area of a site occupied by any building or structure as measured from the outside of its surrounding external walls or supporting members. Building coverage includes exterior structures such as stairs, arcades, bridges, permanent structural elements protruding from buildings such as overhanging balconies, oriel windows, stories which overhang a ground level story, and covered carports.
Between the July 2024 hearing and the present hearing, the project has been revised such that the building coverage has increased, however, the proposed building coverage is still below the maximum allowable building coverage limits for the site (refer to Table 2, below). Additionally, the required landscaping for the site has also increased between revisions.
|
Table 2. Building Coverage and Landscape Data
|
|
|
Previous Proposal
|
Proposed Project
|
Min/Max Allowed
|
|
Building Coverage
|
9,242 sf (77%)
|
9,433 sf (78.6%)
|
9,600 sf (80%)
|
|
Landscape
|
+1,410 sf (11.8%)
|
+1,466 sf (+12.2%)
|
1,200 sf (10%)
|
As discussed at the July 2024 hearing, there is no required setback within the CC and SC zoning districts, and buildings are permitted to be constructed up to the property lines on all sides of the property. In fact, the street-facing, ground-level facade of each building is required by the code to be established on the property line or within two feet of this line for at least 70 percent of each street frontage of the building (exceptions to this requirement are allowed for entrances to intra-block walkways or courtyards) with the remaining 30 percent or less of the building not constructed at the build-to line used for recessed shop entries, landscaping, building articulation or driveways.
At their October 3, 2023 meeting, the City Council adopted a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Reso. 2023-099), for the project with new findings and conditions. Of the adopted findings, the Council found that a waiver from the “build-to-line” requirement (CMC section 17.14.130) may be granted by the Planning Commission for portions of the proposed building located on Lot 8, for up to 5-feet from the property line. This waiver and creation of a Design Non-Conformity is granted in accordance with CMC section 17.32.100.D, Benefits Available to Historic Resources on the Register and is intended to be a benefit to the applicant and not a mandated requirement (refer to Attachment 4). This waiver was granted in an effort to protect from the new project obscuring views of the historic resource on the adjacent parcel.
The applicant has maintained the previously proposed build-to-line along the street-facing, ground-level facade of each building which was presented at the previous hearing (i.e. no change to build-to-line between hearings). The project meets the prescribed zoning code requirements pertaining to building coverage (CMC section 17.14.130) and build-to-line waiver requirements outlined in Resolution 2023-099.
Floor Area Ratio – CMC section 17.14.140:
Floor area (FAR) is defined as the total combined area included within the surrounding exterior walls of all floor levels. Floor area includes all floor spaces used for commercial, manufacturing, residential and miscellaneous land uses including space occupied by mezzanine floors, interior walkways, storage areas above ground, hallways, restrooms, and both interior and exterior wall thicknesses.
Staff generally agrees with the applicant’s floor area calculations except that the project data table reflects the commercial floor area being calculated based on the interior square footage of the space, and not the exterior, as described above:
Floor area includes all floor spaces used for commercial, manufacturing, residential and miscellaneous land uses including space occupied by mezzanine floors, interior walkways, storage areas above ground, hallways, restrooms, and both interior and exterior wall thicknesses (emphasis added in bold).
The applicant’s calculations primarily impacted the parking calculations, which have been modified and corrected by staff throughout, and does not impact or change the total square footage of the project (the total project square footage was calculated correctly).
The project is proposed to be less than the allowable square footage and is stated to be 13,663 square feet (including the existing 692 square foot Community Room), or 113.8% of the site area. An 852 square foot utility basement containing mechanical equipment, a janitor’s closet and restroom facilities for the building is also proposed. However, in accordance with CMC section 17.14.140, the basement is excluded from the FAR for the building site.
|
Table 3. Floor Area Ratio Data
|
|
|
Previous Proposal
|
Proposed Project
|
Max Allowed
|
|
Floor Area Ratio
|
13,428 sf (111.9%)
|
13,663 sf (113.9%)
|
16,200 (135%)
|
In accordance with CMC section 17.14.140.C, No single structure shall contain more than 10,000 square feet of floor area. Interaccessibility between adjacent structures on one or more building sites by any means that allows passage between structures without first exiting to an open space area shall not be allowed if the resulting floor area contained within the combined structures would exceed 10,000 square feet of area.
The project applicant has described the project as having three individual buildings, each less than 10,000 square feet as follows:
- Building 1: 9,544 sf
- Building 2: 3,427 sf
- Building 3: 692 sf (Community Room – Existing Structure)
At the previous hearing (July 2024), staff did not concur that the project, as illustrated in the plans, consisted of five separate structures, as represented by the applicant, primarily due to a shared roof connection between buildings (the applicant has since revised the project from 5 proposed buildings to 3). As such, staff recommended a Condition of Approval which required modification to the plans such that there is no shared roof connection between buildings over, or across, the second floor egress balcony to ensure there are multiple individual buildings no greater than 10,000 sf.
The applicant has revised the project such that there is no common roof or wall connection between buildings 1, 2, or 3, and the only physical connection between neighboring structures is a second floor egress balcony.
The Commission has previously interpreted that separate buildings could be connected with a second floor egress balcony. This interpretation is consistent with not only past approvals of other projects, but also the city’s zoning code which expressly defines interaccessability as well as open space types:
CMC section 17.70, Definitions – “Interaccessability”:
For Commercial Districts. The ability to move between structures on the same or an adjacent building site without first exiting to an open space.
CMC section 17.70, Definitions – “Open Space Types”:
Private Open Space. An open area outside a building adjoining and directly accessible to a dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests.
Usable Open Space. An outdoor or fenced area on the ground or on a roof, balcony, deck, porch, or terrace designed and accessible for outdoor living, recreation, pedestrian access, or landscaping, but excluding parking facilities, driveways, utility or service areas, or any required front or corner side yard, and excluding any space with a dimension of less than six feet in any direction or an area of less than 36 square feet.
Common Open Space. Land not individually owned or dedicated for public use that is designed and intended for the common use or enjoyment of the residents or occupants of a development.
The ground floor area between buildings 1 and 2 are greater than 6-feet apart and specifically designed for pedestrian access, which would qualify for as “Usable Open Space,” as defined above. The egress balcony on the second floor, intended to be used for the residential occupants of the buildings, would qualify as “Common Open Space,” as defined above. Interaccessability between buildings 1 and 2 (or 3) would require an individual to enter into an area of either usable open space or common open space before moving from one building to another.
Furthermore, the illustrative examples of open space types, such as balconies, decks, porches, would be included in building coverage provided it is outside the exterior walls of the building (i.e. not part of the floor area). In accordance with CMC section 17.14.130, “Building coverage includes exterior structures such as stairs, arcades, bridges, permanent structural elements protruding from buildings such as overhanging balconies…”. These elements could qualify as both building coverage and open space as they are not part of the structure which encloses floor area.
An argument was previously made at the July public hearing during public comment and written correspondence asserting that Buildings 1, 2 and the egress walkway are all connected, and therefore constitute single structure (based on the definition of a structure: CMC section 17.70 – Structure: A stable assembly of parts. The term "structure" includes, but is not limited to, any building, deck, garage, carport, arbor, fence, wall, stairway, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and distribution line). Within this context, the code defines “structure” individually and not cumulatively. That is: a structure is a building, as well as, a fence, or a stairway, or a road, or a pipe. A structure is not comprised of a building, and the fence connected to the building, and the pipe connected to the building, and the telephone line connected to the building, and the driveway, and the road connected to the driveway, etc.
As defined in the zoning code, a “structure” includes an individual building. CMC section 17.70 defines building as “A permanent structure providing shelter occupying an area of land and enclosing volume. This implies a roof supported by walls, posts, or columns. If walls entirely enclose the space within, there usually are doorways for access and windows for light. Roofs, walls, doors, and windows are essential features of buildings.” The egress walkway does not provide shelter just as a staircase, fence, nor deck provide shelter with a roof supported by walls posts, or columns.
In summary, the project consists of 3 separate buildings or “structures.” Building 1 encloses 9,544 square feet of floor area total. Building 2 encloses 3,427 square feet of floor area total. The connecting egress balcony between building 1 and 2 is an entirely separate structure, not defined as a building, that functions as an area of open space, as discussed above. Building 3 is completely detached from all other improvements on the site.
In the staff’s opinion the project is consistent with the requirements of CMC section 17.14.140.C as proposed, and a draft resolution for approval for approval has been prepared based on this analysis.
The Commission may wish to consider an alternative interpretation in which the definition cited above are not used, and rather, uses the code citation referenced in CMC section 17.14.170, which states: “Open space is an open area that is free of structures and is visually accessible from public ways or walkways.” This section (CMC section 17.14.170), which relates to courtyards and intra-block walkways.
While the citation provided in CMC section 17.14.170 states open space is an area “free of structures,” only courtyards are required to be entirely open to the sky above:
A courtyard is an open space on private property that is linked to an adjoining sidewalk or walkway in such a manner as to encourage public access. It must be enclosed on at least two sides by buildings and must remain open to the sky. To qualify for floor area bonus provisions the minimum width of a courtyard shall be 20 feet and the minimum area shall be 400 square feet (CMC section 17.14.170.B).
Intra-block walkways, on the other hand, do not have an explicit requirement regarding being open to the sky which implies they could circulate through and under various structural elements:
An intra-block walkway is a publicly accessible ground level pedestrian path providing a connecting route between two or more different streets around a block. Such walkways are often coordinated with courtyards and may involve more than one property ownership to complete. To qualify for floor area bonus provisions the minimum width of an intra-block walkway shall be four feet (CMC section 17.14.170).
While a courtyard nor intra-block walkway is proposed as part of the project (the applicant is proposing to establish a connection to the 7th & Dolores site by means of a staircase on the adjacent property which could provide circulation from Dolores Street to 7th Avenue, however, a true intra-block walkway is not proposed), the Commission may make the determination that the open space requirement previously described needs to be open to completely free of structures and open to the sky above based on the intent of the code. Should the Commission elect to pursue this route, staff recommends the Commission substantiate their finding with additional evidence for the record.
Building Height – CMC section 17.14.150:
Per CMC section 17.14.150, the maximum allowable building height shall be determined primarily by the design context established by the prevailing heights of nearby structures facing the same street or intersection and within the same pedestrian field of view (i.e., generally, within 100 feet to either side of, or across the street from the proposed structure). In the CC and SC districts the main building and roof form of all structures shall be limited to a maximum of 30 feet.
When measured from the adjacent sidewalk elevation, the building is proposed to 26.93-feet tall (measured from sidewalk elevation of 1,000.12 feet) with a maximum ridge elevation of 1,027.05 feet. The sidewalk elevation point correlated to an elevation point in the sidewalk located approximately between retail Units 101 and 106. The most restrictive singular point on the project site, as noted on the survey, is located at the southwest corner of the site at the property corner with an existing elevation of 998.53 feet. The building ridge is setback from this point, however, even when measured from the most restrictive point, the building is 28.5-feet tall, less than the maximum allowed.
The applicant has surveyed 23 of the surrounding buildings on Dolores Street, San Carlos Street, 7th Avenue, and 8th Avenue (refer to Attachment 6). Staff has also included simplified samples from the applicant’s table and included this in Tables 4 & 5, below. Using the adjacent sidewalk as reference, the applicant has noted that the tallest of the surveyed buildings is 34.67-feet tall (#19 – neighboring building to the south) and the shortest building is 12.83-feet tall (#16 – Carmel Realty Building at NEC Dolores & 8th Ave.).
The code establishes a maximum height of 30 feet, however, the actual height of the building shall be determined primarily by the design context established by the prevailing heights of nearby structures. Measures building heights using the adjacent sidewalk heights, as discussed above, may not be the best metric for determining the contextual height as suggested in CMC section 17.14.030 due to the surrounding streets slopes which will change how tall a building appears from the pedestrian field of view.
To establish a consistent contextual staff has re-ordered the list based on the ridge elevations (refer to Table 5, below). This table shows the highest ridge elevation (the tallest point of the building) as opposed to the overall height of the building. The intent of this table is to illustrate where the tallest point(s) of the subject project will align with the tallest point(s) of the surrounding properties -that being the ridges of the alignment of the roof lines.
For example, the ridge of the adjacent Saving’s and Loan Bank Building will sit approximately 7 feet above the ridge line of the subject project, although the bank building is only about 3-feet taller when measured from the adjacent sidewalk due to the sloping sidewalk along Dolores Street (refer to Tables 4, and 5, below).
Put simply:
- Table 4 displays the vertical height of the building from the sidewalk to the ridge. This best illustrates the total height and overall massing of the building when viewed from ground level.
- Table 5 displays the height of the ridge of the building from a benchmark elevation. This best illustrates the location of the how the ridges align or vary when viewing the composition of the street.
To quantify the context, staff has calculated the mean and standard deviation of the building heights and ridge heights for both buildings within 100-feet of the project site as well as the full sample of surveyed buildings.
The mean represents the average ridge elevation point of the buildings in the selected group. It's the central point around which the other elevation points tend to cluster. If you were to consider a "typical" or "representative" building from the buildings within 100 feet, its height would be 28.29 feet tall and its ridge elevation would be around 1026.86 feet. It gives you a sense of the overall elevation level of the buildings in this set. The subject development has a proposed height of 26.93 feet and an elevation of 1027.05 feet. Which the ridge elevation is above the mean, the overall building height is below the mean.
The standard deviation measures the spread or variability of the building height or ridge elevation points around the mean. It tells you how much the individual elevation points deviate, on average, from the mean elevation. If a data point is within one standard deviation of the mean, its value would not be too far from the average. Data points that fall outside of one standard deviation might be considered outliers.
Both the subject ridge and building height are within one standard deviation of the mean building and ridge heights for buildings within 100 feet of the site as well as the full data set. When reviewed quantitively, the data suggests the subject development is within context established by the prevailing heights of nearby structures facing the same street or intersection and within the same pedestrian field of view.
The applicant has also prepared physical models, renderings/photo simulations, and a video flythrough to further assist in making a determination in the appropriateness of the context of the building site.
Figure 3. West (Front) Elevation. View from Dolores Street. Red dashed line indicates previous building outline reviewed at previous Planning Commission hearing.
Figure 4. North Elevation. View from 7th Avenue through adjacent property. Red dashed line indicates previous building outline reviewed at previous Planning Commission hearing.
In accordance with CMC section 17.14.150.B, “Small areas not exceeding 10 percent of the proposed building coverage and occupied by special design features such as towers, steeples and ornamentation may exceed these heights if approved by the Planning Commission.” The applicant has included two chimneys that would project above the 30-foot height limit (refer to Figure 3, above). Three chimneys are proposed for the project, however, only two would exceed the height limit. The Commission should consider whether these projections should be permitted. As conditioned, staff has not required the omission of the proposed chimneys as these chimneys would be considered special design features, such as ornamentation, while also serving the purpose of providing the required exhaust clearances for fireplaces.
Lastly, the applicant has also prepared a shade study to determine the effect of the proposed project may have on the sunlight path on the east boundary towards Stone House Terrace (adjacent property to the rear) -refer to Attachment 9. The applicant concludes, “With data gathered from the study, Stone House Terrace from the hours of 9AM to 2PM will not be impacted by the proposed project year round. Concerning late afternoon, there is a slight impact on sunlight cast on the terrace in March, April, May, August, September, & October. For the months of June & July, there is no impact on existing sunlight. For the months of January, November, & December the proposed project impacts existing sunlight after 4PM.”
Staff concurs with the applicant’s analysis generally (pertaining to which months and general times of days impacts may/may not occur based on photo simulations), however, it is unclear at which times impacts are anticipated to begin. For example, the neighboring deck is shown in full shade at 4:00 PM in November, however, the applicant concludes “the proposed project impacts existing sunlight after 4PM.” As the deck is in full shade at 4:00 PM, it is likely impacts began sooner than 4:00 PM. However, solar impacts surrounding new development are typical during winter months when the sun is lower in the sky. The Commission should consider whether the applicant has adequately demonstrated that light will be preserved or if additional modification is necessary to preserve light to the neighbor to the rear.
Landscaping – CMC section 17.14.180:
As stated in CMC section 17.14.180, Landscaping shall be provided in conjunction with development in commercial zoning districts in accordance with CMC 17.34, Landscaping.
As provided in CMC section 17.34.080, A minimum of 50% of the required open space on each site shall be landscaped which may include nonliving materials such as garden benches, water features and patterned paving treatments as long as the combined total area of such plant alternatives is not used as more than 25% of the required landscaping on any site (for this site, 300 square feet (25%) may be non-living with 900 square feet (75%) being required to be living landscaping).
The project includes approximately 1,166 square feet of proposed living plant material within the project site with more than 300 square feet of non-living landscape improvements throughout the site.
|
Table 6. Landscape Data
|
|
|
Previous Proposal
|
Proposed Project
|
Min Required
|
|
Landscape
|
+1,410 sf (11.8%)
|
+1,466 sf (+12.2%)
|
1,200 sf (10%)
|
A comprehensive landscape plan has been provided on sheets L1.0-L1.3 (refer to Attachment 10) for the landscaped areas described in the “Building Coverage” section, above. The City Forester has reviewed the preliminary landscape plan and found the planting palate to be acceptable based on the city’s landscape standards. The final landscape plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the forester prior to issuance of a building permit.
Public Improvements – CMC section 17.14.190:
No substantive change from previous staff report or project. Refer to Staff Report from July 10, 2024 for discussion and analysis.
Conditions of Approval #43DR-#44DR have been included pertaining to the associated improvement of the right-of-way including consistency with the Public Way Design Standards and repair of the adjacent right-of-way as a result of the construction.
Parking Requirements – CMC section 17.14.200:
As outlined in CMC section 17.14.200, Surface parking, parking structures and driveways design shall be consistent with the provisions of CMC Chapter 17.38, Off-Street Parking Requirements. Additionally, one of the required findings for the Use Permit Approval for increase in commercial floor area (analysis below), requires consistency with the provisions of CMC Chapter 17.38.
Minimum Parking:
The General Plans states (Circulation Element; Page 2-15):
Existing developments are exempt from [meeting parking requirements]. However, if a development proposes remodeling or expansion, the new development would be required to comply with the above defined parking standards. In cases when unique circumstances such as site topography, shape or size, prevent a development from meeting the parking standard, City regulations allow for some flexibility, such as parking at another location.
The City also allows for payment of in-lieu of parking fees, as long as a development is not a hotel or a motel. The money goes into the City’s In-Lieu Parking Fund and is used only for the acquisition and development of off-street parking in or near the commercial district. The amount of the fee is determined based on current construction costs of a 400 square foot parking space, plus 50 percent to reflect the cost of land. This fee is required for each full in-lieu parking space.
As established in Urgency Ordinance 2020-003 and Resolution 2003-72, the current in lieu fee is $54,080 per parking space.
The table below (Table 1) sets forth the required parking for the proposed land uses in the subject zoning district, and is an abridged table that outlines all land uses and all zone districts (full table located in CMC section 17.38.020.C).
As described in the floor area section of this report, Commercial Floor Area is determined using both interior and exterior wall thickness, not only the interior floor space as depicted in the applicant’s plans. The staff analysis is based on the interior and exterior wall thickness.
|
Table 7. Minimum Parking Requirements
|
|
Land Use
|
Basis for Requirement
|
Land Use Parking Factor
|
|
SC District
|
|
Permanent Residential Use
|
Spaces per Unit
|
1
|
|
Commercial Retail or Service Uses Not Otherwise Specified in This Table
|
Spaces per 600 Square Feet of Commercial Floor Area or per Business/Shop Space, Whichever is Greater
|
1
|
Based on the parking factors for the SC District and proposed land uses, the site is required 17.6 (or 18) on-site parking spaces (8 residential parking spaces; 9.6 commercial parking spaces). The applicant has proposed 12 on-site parking spaces, which are proposed to be located in an at-grade covered parking area at the rear of the property. The applicant has indicated they will pursue the remaining 5.6 parking spaces through the City’s in lieu parking program (CMC section 17.38.040).
The proposed 12 on-site parking spaces will be provided across one (1) ADA accessible van space, one (1) standard parking space, and ten (10) compact spaces that utilize a parking lift system split between five (5) lifts.
Of important note, the commercial parking ratio has been determined using the square footage (1 space per 600 sf of commercial floor area) as this results in a greater number of parking spaces than the proposed number of commercial business spaces.
- 5,794.05 sf of commercial space / 1 parking space per 600 sf of commercial floor area = 9.6 parking spaces required => 10 spaces
- 7 proposed commercial spaces = 7 parking spaces required
At the previous Planning Commission hearing, the Commission gave direction that they were not supportive of the parking lifts or in lieu parking, and that all parking for the project should be provided on-site. The applicant has continued to pursue the participation in the in lieu parking program despite the previous direction of the Planning Commission. The Applicant has engaged with EMC Planning Group (“EMC”), land-use and environmental planning firm, to assist in preparing justification for participation in the in-lieu parking program (refer to Attachment 7).
The letter submitted by the applicant prepared by EMC states the primary need for participation in the in-lieu program is due to the development restrictions placed on the site for the protection of the Community Room and ornamented concrete wall. The letter states, in part (refer to Attachment 7):
City of Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) allows for exceptions to parking requirements for properties facing challenges such as limited space, irregular shape, topography, or existing buildings, enabling more flexible solutions like reduced parking, shared parking, or alternative methods while maintaining accessibility and functionality.
Protection of the historically ornamented wall requires the imposition of a ‘preservation buffer,’ and excavation of underground parking would subject the structure to damage as noted in the report by ESA Structural Engineering. This restriction limits the applicant’s ability to construct all of the required short-term parking on-site. The Planning Commission may allow the use of in-lieu fees to fulfill parking requirements through a use permit when on-site parking is impractical or prohibited by City policies (CMC 17.38.030C).
The letter referenced above (report by ESA Structural Engineering -attachment 7) found that excavation of a basement near or adjacent to the existing structure causes that structure to be susceptible to damage by ground disturbance.
The EMC letter also finds that “the applicant has diligently pursued meeting parking requirements on site and is restricted by the preservation buffer of the historic resources.”
An earlier iteration of the project included a fully excavated basement that would accommodate all parking on the site, however, this was proposed when the applicant was pursing the demolition and then subsequent relocation of the Community Room. Following the adoption of the Determination of Consistency that demolition and subsequent relocation of the Community Room was inconsistent with the Secretary’s Standards (Resolutions: Reso. 2021-03-HRB, Reso. 2021-043, Reso. 2023-02-HRB, Reso. 2023-052; Attachment 4), the applicant abandoned the basement (which included parking for the full project) and began to purse providing parking via the in-lieu program which is consistent with the provisions of the municipal code:
- The applicant has diligently pursued meeting parking requirements on site (CMC section 17.38.030.C.2);
- The parking for which the adjustment is sought is not required for serving hotel or motel uses (CMC section 17.38.030.C.1).
Though the Commission was previously not supportive of the in-lieu parking program, in lieu parking program is supported through the zoning code and the General Plan/Land Use Plan.
The Circulation Element of the General Plan/Land Use Plan provides the following Goals, Objectives, and Policies directly related to the in lieu parking program:
G2-1 Provide and maintain a transportation system and facilities that promotes the orderly and safe transportation of people and goods while preserving the residential character and village atmosphere of Carmel. (LUP)
O2-4 Recognize that it is not practical to provide sufficient parking that meets total demand at every location; but that it is desirable to provide, where practical, alternate parking where it could be removed from public view and in a scale appropriate to Carmel. (LUP)
O2-5 Require that all new developments provide sufficient off-street parking facilities. (LUP)
P2-28 Use off-site parking and fees in-lieu of parking to meet parking demand generated by downtown commercial land uses. (LUP)
Municipal Code Section 17.38.030 also states:
“It is recognized that some sites, due to size, shape, topography, existing buildings, the availability of land suitable for parking purposes or location within specific land use districts, may have difficulty meeting all parking requirements. Therefore, the following exceptions are provided to increase the flexibility in meeting parking requirements:
...
C. Parking Adjustment In-Lieu Fees. The Planning Commission may authorize the satisfaction of parking requirements through the granting of a use permit and the payment of in-lieu fees when on-site parking is not practical or when on-site parking is prohibited by City policies.”
In considering the Use Permit for in-lieu parking, the Commission should consider the following:
- Has the applicant diligently pursued meeting parking requirements on site to participate in the in-lieu program?
- Are parking lifts an appropriate use for the site? Are parking lifts an appropriate design for the site?
The Commission should consider that if parking lifts, as proposed, do provide additional on-site parking, than if they were to be eliminated from the scope of the project. For example, 12 parking space are able to be provided through in parking lift system and 5 through the in-lieu program.
If the parking lift system were to be eliminated, 7 spaces could still be provided in their same on-site and 10 spaces could be provided through the in-lieu program.
In staff’s opinion the applicant has adequately demonstrated they have diligently pursued meeting on-site parking requirements as on-site parking was previously proposed for the project and the in-lieu program was not pursued until the preservation buffer was established. Furthermore, the applicant has provided a letter from a structural engineer attesting that a basement near the Community Room could result in the building being susceptible to damage and could compromise the historic structure.
As such, staff has maintained Condition of Approval #61UP stating, prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall remit payment to the Community Planning and Building Department and Finance Department, as appropriate, for all fees related to the 5.6 parking spaces provided through payment into the city’s in-lieu fee program.
Should the Commission pursue alternative direction than prepared in the resolution (no parking lifts, or not supportive of the in-lieu program, for example), findings and direction should be provided to staff.
Use Permits
The proposal requires four use permits associated with the project. An analysis of each of the required use permits is provided below:
Use Permit #1 - Increase in Commercial Floor Area, Commercial Spaces or Business – CMC section 17.14.050
In accordance with CMC section 17.14.050.E, Any construction resulting in a net increase in the amount of commercial floor area shall require a conditional use permit and coastal development permit authorizing such increase. Prior to authorizing such increase, the Planning Commission shall make all findings listed in CMC section 17.64.100, Increase in Commercial Floor Area, Commercial Spaces or Business. The decision-making body may approve plans submitted or may approve such plans subject to specified changes or conditions.
As outlined in CMC section 17.64.100, The following findings are required for approval of an activity resulting in an increase in commercial floor area, commercial spaces or businesses:
- That the proposed development has been found consistent with Chapter 17.30 CMC related to the demolition of structures;
17.30.010 Demolition or Rebuilding of Buildings.
Staff Analysis: The demolition of the non-historic structure (Lot 10) includes the concurrent review and approval of replacement construction for the site (this subject application). No structure is proposed to be demolished on the historic Complex site. The project meets this standard.
17.30.020 Conversion or Demolition of Affordable Housing.
Staff Analysis: Affordable housing is not converted or demolished as part of this project. Refer to section 2A, below.
17.30.030 Minimum Standards.
Staff Analysis: The project includes the proposed merger of all underlying lots and therefore is exempt from this requirement.
- That the proposed development has been found consistent with CMC 17.14.050(A), (E) and (F), related to the demolition and conversion of residential uses;
A) No existing residential dwelling unit shall be converted or demolished unless replacement housing is provided in accordance with findings established in CMC 17.64.070, Demolition and Conversion of Residential Structures.
The city maintains record of one market rate unit located on the second floor of the building located at the rear of Lot 10. There are eight new apartment units proposed with the project resulting in a net increase of 7 market rate apartment units.
CMC 17.64.070 Demolition and Conversion of Residential Structures. The following special findings are required for demolition, or conversion of residential structures:
i. That the proposed action will not result in the conversion of any floor space occupied by residential dwelling units to nonresidential use located at any level above the first story in any commercial or R-4 zone; and
Staff Analysis: No new commercial uses are proposed for the second floor. All second floor uses are proposed to be residential apartments.
ii. That the proposed action meets all requirements of the Government Code of the State of California related to affordable housing including Government Code Section 65590.
Staff Analysis: The one (1) subject unit to be demolished and replaced is a market rate unit and therefore not subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 65590.
E) Any construction resulting in a net increase in the amount of commercial floor area shall require a conditional use permit and coastal development permit authorizing such increase. Prior to authorizing such increase, the Planning Commission shall make all findings listed in CMC 17.64.100, Increase in Commercial Floor Area, Commercial Spaces or Business. The decision-making body may approve plans submitted or may approve such plans subject to specified changes or conditions.
A Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit has been applied for and findings for approval have been made herein.
F) Except as provided for legally established motel units in CMC 17.14.040(M), Hotels and Motels, all newly constructed second story floor area, including area in new buildings, remodeled buildings and replacement, rebuilt or reconstructed buildings, shall be occupied by residential dwellings only and shall not be used for any commercial land use.
The subject site is not a hotel/motel use and all second floor uses are proposed to be residential. A Condition of Approval has been included stating any area located above the ground level shall not be used as a commercial use. In staff’s opinion, an acceptable exception is to allow for home occupation business for tenants of the apartments upon approval of a home occupation business, if permitted by the tenant’s lease agreement. The apartment would still be classified as a residential unit, and not a commercial business. Home occupations do not involve visits by customers, vendors, attendees, salespeople or employees of the business, but allow a tenant to use their residence as a home office or similar place of business.
3. That the proposed development has been found consistent with CMC 17.50.040, Effects of Allocation, related to water consumption;
As outlined in Condition of Approval #4, “Approval of this application does not permit an increase in water use on the project site without adequate supply. Should the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District determine that adequate water is not available for this site, this permit will be scheduled for reconsideration, and appropriate findings prepared for review and adoption by the Planning Commission.”
4. That parking will be provided to serve all new development on the site consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.38 CMC, Off-Street Parking Requirements;
As conditioned, the parking complies with the requirements outlined in CMC Chapter 17.38, as described above.
5. That all existing nonconformities on the property have been identified, that the proposal would not increase, expand or create any nonconformities, and that the proposal has been found consistent with Chapter 17.36 CMC, Nonconforming Uses and Buildings;
The project is for the construction of a new mixed-use development. All new construction is consistent with the underlying zoning or has received the appropriate waivers or adjustments (i.e. build-to-line waiver; parking in-lieu payment). The existing non-conformities exist in the form on the build-to line along Dolores Street where the Community Room is located, however, this nonconformity is required to be maintained consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance as correction of the non-conformity may have an adverse impact to a historic resource.
6. That the approximate square foot areas devoted to residential space, commercial space, landscaping and parking have been designated for guidance in reviewing any design plans that may be necessary and that such areas have been found consistent with Chapter 17.14 CMC, Commercial Zoning Districts.
The applicant has provided the appropriate information in respect to residential space, commercial space, landscaping, and parking in the project plans for review of the project. The project is consistent with the requirements of CMC Chapter 17.14, as described in the “Zoning District and Development Standards” section, above.
Use Permit #2 - Residential Density 22 du/ac –33 du/ac – CMC section 17.14.030
CMC Chapter 17.14 establishes the range of permitted and conditional uses that are allowed in the SC Zoning District. Multi-family projects between 0 and 22 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) are a permitted use. Projects between 22-33 du/acre require a conditional use permit and projects with densities between 34-44 du/acre require a conditional use permit with a finding that the project complies with State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915).
The applicant is proposing 8 residential (apartment) units on a 12,000 square foot site, which is a density of 29 du/acre and is therefore requires issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. In the Core Commercial, this is the maximum allowable density allowed without the need for a density bonus. Due to the number of units proposed, there is no required affordable housing requirement associated with the proposed residential density and requiring affordable units cannot be imposed. All 8 units are proposed to be long-term rental apartments with none being used as transient (short-term) rental units. CMC section 17.14.040.N requires 25% of the units shall be 400 to 650 square feet in size –with 8 units proposed, 2 units would need to be between 400 and 650 square feet. The proposed rental units range in size with 5 of the units being a one bedroom units that are 650 square feet or less and the largest being a 1,661 square foot two-bedroom unit.
The 3 larger (1,000+ sf) units are proposed to have two-bedrooms each and will are also proposed to have their own roof top decks accessed via a private stairway and roof top hatch.
While a Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed density, there are no specific findings required for the subject Use Permit aside from the findings required for all use permits (CMC section 17.64.010), described below.
Use Permit #3 - Underground floors – CMC 17.14.150.A:
CMC section 17.14.150.A states, No building shall have more than two stories above grade. Additional underground floors, not defined as a story, may be authorized by a use permit approved by the Planning Commission when the use of these floors is expressly limited to the parking of vehicles, noncommercial storage and mechanical equipment serving the building.
The applicant has proposed an 852 square foot basement that includes an electrical room, janitor’s closet, and restroom facilities for the building. The electrical and restrooms are all considered as part of the mechanical equipment that service the buildings. It has not been confirmed if the restrooms would be open to the public or just tenants of the buildings.
Like with the residential density, while a Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed density, there are no specific findings required for the subject Use Permit aside from the findings required for all use permits (CMC section 17.64.010), described below.
Use Permit #4 – In Lieu Parking – CMC section 17.38.030.C:
CMC section17.38.030.C states, The Planning Commission may authorize the satisfaction of parking requirements through the granting of a use permit and the payment of in-lieu fees when on-site parking is not practical or when on-site parking is prohibited by City policies. Parking adjustments shall not decrease the number of parking spaces required by this chapter. The practicality of providing parking on-site shall be evaluated by using the criteria set forth in subsection (B)(2) through (B)(4) of this section. Standards for participation in the in-lieu fee program are established in CMC 17.38.040, Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. Applicants for use permits authorizing the use of in-lieu fees to adjust on-site parking shall also demonstrate both of the following:
- The parking for which the adjustment is sought is not required for serving hotel or motel uses.
- The applicant has diligently pursued meeting the parking requirements both on-site and off-site, but has been unsuccessful in meeting the requirement, or that the site is located within the central commercial (CC) land use district where on-site parking is prohibited.
The findings for this Use Permit have been previously made in the discussion regarding parking for the project.
General Use Permit Findings
In its review of applications for use permits, the Planning Commission shall evaluate each proposed use in order to consider its impact on the City. No use permit shall be granted unless all of these general findings can be made:
- That the proposed use will not be in conflict with the City’s General Plan.
The proposed increase of commercial floor area, residential density, use of the basement level, and participation into the in-lieu parking program do not create any inconsistencies or conflicts with the City’s General Plan as outlined in this report.
- That the proposed use will comply with all zoning standards applicable to the use and zoning district.
The proposed increase of commercial floor area, residential density, use of the basement level, and participation into the in-lieu parking program comply with all applicable zoning standards as outlined in this report.
- That granting the use permit will not set a precedent for the approval of similar uses whose incremental effect will be detrimental to the City, or will be in conflict with the General Plan.
The proposed increase of commercial floor area, residential density, use of the basement level, and participation into the in-lieu parking program is not precedent setting. The use permits granted are all uses part of the established context and land use of the commercial districts and are consistent with exiting provisions established within the municipal code, General Plan, and Local Coastal Plan.
- That the proposed use will not make excessive demands on the provision of public services, including water supply, sewer capacity, energy supply, communication facilities, police protection, and fire protection.
The proposed project consists of 8 residential units, parking, and a commercial shell with up to 7 business spaces, which would be an increase in use at the site. However, these uses will not significantly adversely affect police or fire protection services. Utility services including wastewater, sewer, and landfill facilities have adequate capacity for the proposed project, or the project has been conditioned appropriately to verify adequate capacities or supply prior to building permit issuance.
- That the proposed use will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare.
The proposed increase of commercial floor area, residential density, use of the basement level, and participation into the in-lieu parking program will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare. The use permits granted are all uses part of the established context and land use of the commercial districts.
- That the proposed use will be compatible with surrounding land uses and will not conflict with the purpose established for the district within which it will be located.
The proposed increase of commercial floor area, residential density, use of the basement level, and participation into the in-lieu parking program will are all uses part of the established context and land use of the commercial districts and their inclusion are supported by the zoning code and General Plan.
- That the proposed use will not generate adverse impacts affecting health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties or uses.
The proposed increase of commercial floor area, residential density, use of the basement level, and participation into the in-lieu parking program will not generate adverse impacts affecting neighboring properties or uses as the zoning code has been written to ensure that impacts of these features to neighboring properties and uses are minimized.
Design Review
In accordance with CMC 17.14.110, Standard of Review and Design Guidelines, “To assist in the design and review process, the City Council has adopted commercial design guidelines. Proposed projects need not strictly comply with every guideline to be approved but deviations should be minor and reasonably related to good design principles and site conditions. When a proposed project involves construction of a new building or the replacement, significant enlargement, or modification of an existing building, applicants are encouraged, first, to consult the design guidelines and then to prepare and submit conceptual or preliminary drawings for review by the Planning Commission. This preliminary review can promote communication between project applicants and the City’s staff and decision-makers, facilitating an understanding of applicable design regulations and avoiding unnecessary expenditures in detailed plans.”
In 2019, the Planning Commission considered a preliminary review of a smaller project by the applicant, in conjunction with the property owner, proposed for Lot 10. The feedback received by the Applicant at this hearing was general position reception from the Commission for the Mediterranean/Spanish style of the building, among other comments and direction.
While the project has grown in scale, the applicant has taken the theme from the 2019 plan and has continued the motif across the other two lots. The applicant has provided a Design Narrative describing the design intent of the project and has described how the project addresses the Commercial Design Guidelines (refer to Attachment 3c).
The applicant has also provided a response letter addressing the changes made to the plans between hearings based on the direction from the Planning Commission as well as a response to the Commercial Design Guidelines (refer to Attachment 3a).
Figure 5. Material board. Refer to Attachment 10, Sheet A9.2.
Figure 6a. Inspiration Images. Refer to Attachment 10, Sheet A10.1.
Figure 6b. Inspiration Images. Refer to Attachment 10, Sheet A10.2.
In accordance with CMC 17.58.060.B, Findings for Design Review Approval, before approving an application for design review in any district, the Director, Historic Preservation Board, or the Planning Commission shall 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.
Staff supports the applicant’s response to how they have met the Commercial Design Guidelines and finds the project, as proposed and conditioned, consistent with applicable policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program and complies with the applicable provisions of the CMC, as previously described in this report. The Commission should consider whether the project is consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines, as proposed, or with additional conditions of approval and/or direction to the applicant.
Response to Prior Correspondence: On July 9, 2024, staff received correspondence from California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”). According to CalHDF, the purpose of the letter was to remind the Commission of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed housing development project including the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code,§65589.5; the“HAA), SB330 (Gov.Code,§65941.1), and CEQA Guidelines. At the July 10, 2024 hearing, the Commission requested staff review the letter and return with a response to the points raised.
- Housing Accountability Act: The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) limits a local government's ability to deny or reduce the density of housing projects that comply with objective zoning and general plan standards, aiming to combat California's housing shortage and encourage residential development.
The city has not taken any measures to reduce the total density of the project. Through every iteration of the project, eight (8) market rate residential units have been proposed with no direction to reduce, limit, or deny the residential density.
The HHA applies to projects where a housing development project is proposed. A “housing development project” means (emphasis added in bold): “a use consisting of residential units only, mixed use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use, or transitional or supportive housing.”
Staff notes there is an ambiguity as it is unclear as if the statute is intended to refer “square footage designed for residential use” or “floor area”. Floor area means the enclosed spaces within a building, however, square footage, which is not defined in the zoning code nor expressly in the state statute, could be interpreted to mean square footage of land area dedicated for a specific use.
If the project were to be based off of floor area alone (per the city’s definition of floor area), the project would not qualify as a housing development project as less than 2/3 the floor area is dedicated to residential floor area:
Total Floor Area: 13,663 sf
2/3 Total Floor Area of project (threshold for housing project): 9,108.65 sf
Residential (2nd Floor): 7,546 sf (55.2%) < 9,108.65 sf (66.67%)
Commercial (1st Floor): 6,117 sf
A similar finding can be made based on the plans presented at the July 10, 2024 Planning Commission hearing.
Alternatively, when the total square footage (not floor area) of all uses on the site are considered, the amount of square footage dedicated to residential uses, such as the dwelling units, egress balcony, stairs, and roof top decks, are far below the 2/3 threshold to be considered a housing development project. This takes into account the commercial circulation areas, the basement, elevator, and other integral components of the project that otherwise are not captured in floor area ratio but are part of the “square footage of the project.”
|
Table 8. Estimated Square Footages of Designated Uses.
|
|
|
Residential
|
Misc. Residential
|
Commercial
|
Misc. Commercial
|
Utility/General
|
Total
|
|
Basement
|
|
|
|
|
852 sf
|
852 sf
|
|
Ground Floor
|
113 sf
|
1669 sf
|
6,804 sf
|
1,153 sf
|
1767 sf
|
11506 sf
|
|
Second Floor
|
4,718 sf
|
583 sf
|
|
|
|
5301 sf
|
|
Roof
|
|
2307 sf
|
|
|
|
2307 sf
|
|
Total:
|
9,390 sf
|
10,576 sf
|
19,965 sf (2/3 = 13,308)
|
Notwithstanding the finding above, local governments must still comply with the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code) (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (e).) The HAA does not relieve the City from complying with the Coastal Act (GC 65589.5(e)). As noted on CalHDF’s website: “The California Coastal Act [applies] to housing development projects… The Coastal Act applies only within the coastal zone, and may empower local governments to disapprove or impose conditions on applications for housing development projects that receive HAA protections.”
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is located entirely within the boundary of the coastal zone and has a Certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). The California Coastal Commission gave final certification of the LCP on October 14, 2004 which includes a policy document, Land Use Plan (LUP), and a set of ordinances and resolutions to implement those policies, Coastal Implementation Plan (CIP). This means that generally, a housing development project within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea must comply with the City’s Local Coastal Program and would be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit.
In accordance with CMC section 17.64.010.B.1, approval of a Coastal Development Permit requires: “that 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.”
As described in the City’s General Plan,“Carmel’s General Plan has been combined with its Local Coastal Land Use Plan to ensure coordination of these two policy documents. The Coastal Land Use Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in Carmel-by-the-Sea consistent with Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (as amended through January 2003). Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act contains coastal resources planning and management policies that address public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, development, and industrial development.”
The City’s Land Use Plan describes the associated chapters in the following manner:
Community Character and Development. This Chapter of the General Plan covers topics required in the Land Use Element. This heading also includes policies for topics in sections 30244 and 30250 through 30254 of the Coastal Act.
Circulation. This Chapter or Element of the General Plan is one of the seven elements required by California Statutes. Several of the policies in this element also implement provisions of the Coastal Act.
Coastal Access and Recreation. This Chapter includes policies for topics covered in sections 30210 through 30224 (30210-30214; 30220-30224) of the Coastal Act.
Coastal Resource Management. This Chapter of the General Plan includes policies for topics in sections 30230 through 30243 (30230-30236; 30240-30243) and 30251 of the Coastal Act.
Appendices to the Land Use Plan include the:
- Forest Management Plan;
- Mission Trail Nature Preserve Master Plan;
- Final Results of the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Study Conducted for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (ESHA Study);
- Historic Context Statement, Carmel-by-the-Sea.
The Coastal Implementation Plan consists of the Carmel Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code) including;
- Appendix A: Shoreline Management Plan;
- Appendix B: Significant Tree Evaluation Worksheet;
- Appendix C: Residential Design Guidelines – Concept Review;
- Appendix D: Residential Design Guidelines – Final Details Review;
- Appendix E: Commercial Design Guidelines – Commercial Design Guidelines;
- Appendix F: Public Way Design Guidelines;
- Appendix G: Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format;
- Appendix H: Storm Water Standards and Programs;
- Appendix I: Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings;
- Appendix J: Del Mar Master Plan.
The City has complied with implementation of its Local Coastal Program through review of the project and associated Coastal Development Permit while not requiring a reduction in residential density nor denial of the project.
- SB 330: SB 330, also known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, streamlines housing development in California by limiting local governments' ability to downzone properties, imposing stricter timelines for project approvals, and strengthening the Housing Accountability Act to prevent unreasonable housing denials.
The provisions of SB 330 apply to Housing Development Projects, which maintain the same definition as the Housing Accountability Act. As demonstrated above, the project does not qualify as a Housing Development Project and therefore the project would not be subject to the requirements of SB 330.
- CEQA: CalHDF supported the use of a Categorical Exemption for the project. The associated environmental review has been prepared by staff and the analysis is provided below.
Public Correspondence: At the time of writing this report, staff has received two (2) correspondence letters regarding the proposed project. One letter was in support of the project and one raised concern regarding the project. Correspondence for the project received at the time of publication has been included as Attachment 12. Additional correspondence received after publication of the staff report will be forwarded to the Commission and attached to the agenda as late correspondence. Staff will be prepared discuss the points raised in all correspondence at the hearing.