Agenda packet — Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council, August 4, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

WHEREAS, the City Council found that pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act CEQA regulations, the project is Categorically Exempt according to Section 15331 (Class 31) and Section 15332 (Class 32) of CEQA Guidelines and that no exceptions to the categorical exemptions contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to negate those exemptions; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the Council at the hearing date, including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-bythe-Sea does herby DENY the appeal submitted by Krista Ostoich (APP 25031) on behalf of Mike Brown, Mike Cate, Don Goodhue, Steve Hillyard, Vinz Koller, Courtney Kramer, Cindy Lloyd, Ian Martin, Rich Pepe, Kristi Reimer, and Julie Wendt (“Appellant(s)”) of the Planning Commission's approval (Resolution No. 2025-020-PC) of Design Review, DR 23-140 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), Use Permit, UP 21-113 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), Lot Merger, LM 20-394 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), and associated environmental determination for the JB Pastor Building located at Dolores Street 2 southeast of 7th Avenue.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby find the following Resolutions are also associated the site and associated development history with the project: 2021-03-HRB, 2021-043, 2023-01-HRB, 2023-051, 2023-052, 2023-09- HRB, 2023-099, and the findings of
the aforementioned resolutions shall be incorporated into this resolution by reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Design Review:

FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL
For each of the required findings listed below, the staff has indicated whether the application, either as proposed or with conditions, supports adopting the findings. For all findings checked "no," the staff report discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission’s decision-making. Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.

CMC Section 17.58.060, 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:

YES NO

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. ✔ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the USE PERMITS for Increase in Commercial
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 5 of 16 ends

Page 152 of 359 ends

Floor Area, Commercial Spaces or Business (CMC Section 17.14.050), Residential Density 22 du/ac –33 du/ac (CMC Section 17.14.030), and Underground Floors (CMC Section 17.14.150.A):

FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR USE PERMIT APPROVAL
For each of the required findings listed below, the staff has indicated whether the application, either as proposed or with conditions, supports adopting the findings. For all findings checked "no," the staff report discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission’s decision-making. Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.

CMC Section 17.64.010, Use Permit Findingsfor Approval
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:

YES NO

1. That the proposed use will not be in conflict with the City’s General Plan. ✔

2. That the proposed use will comply with all zoning standards applicable to the use and zoning district.
✔

3. 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.
✔

4. 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.
✔

5. That the proposed use will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare. ✔

6. 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. ✔

7. That the proposed use will not generate adverse impacts affecting health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties or uses.
✔
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby authorize participation in the City’s in lieu parking program (CMC Section 17.38.040) for 5.6 parking spaces, which was determined based on the 5794.05 square feet of commercial floor area on the site and a parking ratio of 1 space per 600 square feet of commercial floor area. There shall be 12 spaces located on-site and 10 of the on-site parking spaces shall be split between a parking list system and 2 (including 1 ADA space) shall be surface parking. The fees for the 5.6 parking spaces authorized through the in lieu program shall be paid in accordance with CMC Section 17.38.040.A.

BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Coastal Development Permit:

FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
For each of the required findings listed below, the staff has indicated whether the application, either as proposed or with conditions, supports adopting the findings. For all findings checked "no," the staff report discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission’s decision-making. Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.

CMC Section 17.64.010.B, Coastal Development Permits YES NO

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.
✔
ATTACHMENT 1 Page 6 of 16

Page 153 of 359 ends

N/A N/A
Finding 2. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea. This finding is not applicable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby FIND the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA guidelines and local environmental regulations, pursuant to Section 15331 (Class 31) – Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation, and Section 15332 (Class 32) – InFill Development and no exceptions to the exemption contained in Section 15300.2 can be made; and APPROVE the Design Review, DR 23-140 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), Use Permit, UP 21-113 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), Lot Merger, LM 20-394 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a new 12,971-square-foot, two-story mixed-use development with 8 apartment units and approximately 5,425 square feet of new commercial floor area, with a new 852-square-foot basement and a new surface parking area at the rear of the property with a total of 12 parking spaces with 10 of the 12 spaces sharing a parking a parking lift system and the remaining required parking being provided through the city's in-lieu parking program. The existing community room and ornamented concrete wall (part of the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex) are proposed to remain on the project site as part of the project. The total project floor area including that of the existing community room (existing and proposed structures) is 13,663 square feet. The project is located at Dolores Street 2 southeast of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District at Lots 6, 8, and 10 of Block 91 (APNs:
010-145-012/022/023) Approval of the project is subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
No. Standard Conditions

1. Authorization. Approval of this Design Review, DR 23-140 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), Use Permit, UP 21-113 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), Lot Merger, LM 20-394 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a new 12,971-square-foot, two-story mixed-use development with 8 apartment units and approximately 5,794 square feet of new commercial floor area, with a new 852-square-foot basement and a new surface parking area at the rear of the property with a total of 12 parking spaces with 10 of the 12 spaces sharing a parking a parking lift system and the remaining required parking being provided through the city's in-lieu parking program. The existing community room and ornamented concrete wall (part of the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex) are proposed to remain on the project site as part of the project. The total project floor area including that of the existing community room (existing and proposed structures) is 13,663 square feet. The project is located at Dolores Street 2 southeast of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District at Lots 6, 8, and 10 of Block 91, APNs: 010- 145-012/022/023. The project shall be constructed and uses carried out in substantial conformance with the plans, and application materials considered by the City Council as part of the August 4, 2025 City Council hearing, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval herein.

Page 7 of 16 ends

Page 154 of 359 ends

changed, or if any other changes are requested at the time such plans are submitted, such changes may require subsequent approval by the Planning Commission and additional environmental review.

3. Permit Validity. This approval shall be valid for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of action unless an active building permit has been applied for and maintained consistent with the requirements of the Building Division. Extensions to this approval may be granted consistent with CMC 17.52.170.C.

4. Water Use. 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.

5. Fire Sprinklers. Installation of an automatic fire sprinklersystem in accordance with the California Building and Fire Codes shall be required.

6. Water Supply – Fire Protection. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, documentation must be provided which verifies sufficient water supply for the fire sprinkler system and the proposed location of the underground fireline(s).

7. Electrical Laterals. All electrical service laterals to any new building or structure, or to any building or structure being remodeled when such remodeling requires the relocation or replacement of the main service equipment, shall be placed underground on the premises upon which the building or structure is located.

8. Sewer Laterals. Sanitary sewer lateral connection shall be reviewed and approved by CAWD, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea prior to installation.

9. Modifications Prior to Construction. The Applicant shall submit in writing, with revised plans, to the Community Planning and Building staff any proposed changes to the approved project plans prior to incorporating those changes into the project.

Minor changes to the approved project, plans, or use (ex. change in locations of exterior light fixtures, or changes in landscape material) may be approved administratively by the Director of Community Planning and Building upon submittal of a Design Review Application.

Major changes to the approved project, plans, or use (ex. changes in massing, roof forms, height, amendments to Conditions of Approval) shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and/or Historic Resourced Board/City Council, as appropriate. All major changes shall require submittal of a Design Review Application.

The determination of what constitutes a Major or Minor change shall be made by the Director of Community Planning and Building. All approved major and minor changes shall require a Building Permit Revision to incorporate the change into the approved building plan set.

10. Modifications During Construction. The Applicant shall submit in writing, with revised plans, to the Community Planning and Building staff any proposed changes to the approved project plans prior to incorporating those changes, as outlined in Condition of Approval #9. If the Applicant changesthe project without first obtaining City approval, the Applicant will be required to submit the change in writing, with revised plans, within 2 weeks of the City being notified. A cease work order may be issued any time at the discretion of the Director of Community Planning and Building until: a) either the Planning Commission or Staff has approved the change, or b) the property owner has eliminated the change and submitted the proposed change in writing, with ATTACHMENT 1

Page 8 of 16 ends

Page 155 of 359 ends

revised plans, for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance to the approved plans prior to final inspection.

11. Exterior Revisionsto Planning Approval Form. All proposed modificationsthat affect the exterior appearance of the building, site elements, or associated Use Permits shall be submitted on the “Revisions to Planning Approval” form on file in the Community Planning and Building Department. Any modification incorporated into the construction drawings that is not listed on this form, shall not be deemed approved upon issuance of a building permit.

12. Conflicts Between Planning Approvals and Construction Plans. It shall be the responsibility of the Owner, Applicant, and Contractor(s) to ensure consistency between the project plans approved by Planning Staff, the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal, and the construction plans submitted to the Building Division as part of the Building Permit review. Where inconsistencies between the Planning approval and the construction plans exist, the Planning approvalshall govern, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Community Planning & Building Director, or their designee.

When changes or modifications to the project are proposed, the Applicant shall clearly list and highlight each proposed change and bring each change to the City’s attention. Changes to the project that are incorporated into the construction drawings that were not clearly listed or identified as a proposed change shall not be considered an approved change. Should conflicts exist between the originally approved project plans and the issued construction drawings that were not explicitly identified as a proposed change, the plans approved as part of the Planning Department Review, including any Conditions of Approval,shall prevail.

13. Indemnification. The Applicant agrees, at his or her sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmlessthe City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns, from any liability; and shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred, resulting from, or in connection with any project approvals. This includes any appeal, claim, suit, or other legal proceeding, to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project approval. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any legal proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in any such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the Applicant of any obligation under this condition. Should any party bring any legal action in connection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of Monterey, California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for the resolution of all such actions by the parties hereto.

14. Hazardous Materials Waste Survey. A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with the Monterey Bay Air Resource District prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.

15. Cultural Resources. All new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if cultural resources are discovered on the site, and the Applicant shall notify the Community Planning & Building Department within 24 hours. Work shall not be permitted to recommence until such resources are properly evaluated for significance by a qualified archaeologist. If the resources are determined to be significant, prior to resumption of work, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and reviewed and approved by the Community Planning and Building Director. In addition, if human remains are unearthed during the excavation, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and distribution pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.

16. Encroachment Permit Required. Any construction, reconstruction, or closure of the right of way shall require approval of an encroachment permit.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 9 of 16 ends

Page 156 of 359 ends

17. Truck Haul Route. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall provide for City (Community Planning and Building Director in consultation with the Public Services and Public Safety Departments) review and approval, a truck-haul route, and any necessary temporary traffic control measuresfor the grading activities. The Applicantshall be responsible for ensuring adherence to the truck-haul route and implementation of any required traffic control measures.

18. Noise from Electrical and Mechanical Equipment. The fixed installation of any electrical or mechanical equipment shall be subject to the standards outlined in CMC 17.28.020.

19. USA North 811. Prior to any excavation or digging, the Applicant shall contact the appropriate regional notification center (USA North 811) at least two working days, but not more than 14 calendar days, prior to commencing that excavation or digging. No digging or excavation is authorized to occur on-site until the Applicant has obtained a Ticket Number and all utility members have positively responded to the dig request. (Visit USANorth811.org for more information)

20. BMP Tracking Form. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building and Public Works Departments a completed BMP Tracking form.

21. Semi-Permeable Surfaces. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building and Public Works Departments crosssection detailsforsemi-permeable surfaces.

22. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building and Public Works Departments an erosion and sediment control plan that includes locations and installation details for erosion and sediment control BMPs, material staging areas, and stabilized access.

23. Drainage Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building and Public Works Departments a drainage plan that meetsthe requirements of the City's drainage guidance, SOG 17-07. At a minimum, new and replaced impervious area drainage must be dispersed around the site rather than focused on one corner of the property; infiltration features must be sized appropriately and located at least 6 feet from neighboring properties. The drainage plan shall include information on drainage from new impervious areas and semi-pervious areas.

24. Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of the first construction-related permit, the applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for review and approval by the Community Planning and Building Director and Director of Public Works, and other relevant City departments as found necessary during the review of the CMP. The CMP shall contain measures to minimize potential construction impacts including measures to comply with all construction-related Conditions of Approval such as dust control, construction emissions, hazardous materials, construction days/hours, construction traffic control, waste reduction and recycling, stormwater pollution prevention, noise control, complaint management, and cultural resource management. The CMP shall provide project-specific information including descriptive procedures, approval documentation, and drawings (such as a site logistics plan, fire safety plan, construction phasing plan, proposed truck routes, traffic control plan, complaint management plan, construction worker parking plan, and litter/debris clean-up plan) that specify how potential construction impacts will be minimized and how each construction-related requirement will be satisfied throughout construction of the project.

25. Landscape Plan. All new landscaping shall be shown on a landscape plan and shall be submitted to the Community Planning & Building Department and to the City Forester prior to the issuance of a building permit.

ATTACHMENT 1 Page 10 of 16

Page 157 of 359 ends

26. Landscape Inspection and Maintenance. All approved landscaping shall be installed on-site prior to a final inspection. All required planting shall be permanently maintained in good growing condition and, whenever necessary, replaced with new plant materials to ensure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining planting in adjacent public rights-of-way consistent with the approved landscape plan. All required fences, walls, and irrigation systems shall be permanently maintained in good condition and, whenever necessary, repaired or replaced.

27. Tree Removal. Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the City Forester or Forest and Beach Commission, as appropriate; all remaining trees on site, or in the right-of-way immediately adjacent to the site shall be protected during construction by methods approved by the City Forester.

28. Significant Trees. All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. If any tree roots larger than two inches (2”) are encountered during construction, the City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots. The City Forester may require the roots to be bridged or may authorize the roots to be cut. If roots larger than two inches (2”) in diameter are cut without prior City Forester approval or any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity, the building permit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation by the City Forester has been completed. Six inches (6”) of mulch shall be evenly spread across the inside the dripline of all trees prior to the issuance of a building permit.

29. Tree Protection Measures. Requirements for tree preservation shall adhere to the following tree protection measures on the construction site.
● Prior to grading, excavation, or construction, the developer shall clearly tag or mark all trees to be preserved.
● Excavation within 6 feet of a tree trunk is not permitted. ● No attachments or wires of any kind, other than those of a protective nature shall be attached to any tree.
● Per Municipal Code Section 17.48.110, no material may be stored within the dripline of a protected tree including the drip lines of trees on neighboring parcels. ● Tree Protection Zone -- The Tree Protection Zone shall be equal to dripline or 18 inches radially from the tree for every one inch of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above the soil line, whichever is greater. A minimum of 4-foot-high transparent fencing is required unless otherwise approved by the City Forester. Tree protection shall not be resized, modified, removed, or altered in any manner without written approval. The fencing must be maintained upright and taught for the duration of the project. No more than 4 inches of wood mulch shall be installed within the Tree Protection Zone. When the Tree Protection Zone is at or within the drip line, no less than 6 inches of wood mulch shall be installed 18 inches radially from the tree for every one inch of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above the soil line outside of the fencing.
● The Structural Root Zone -- Structural Root Zone shall be 6 feet from the trunk or 6 inches radially from the tree for every one inch of trunk diameter at 4.5’ above the soil line, whichever is greater. Any excavation or changes to the grade shall be approved by the City Forester prior to work. Excavation within the Structural Root Zone shall be performed with a pneumatic excavator, hydro-vac at low pressure, or another method that does not sever roots.
● If roots greater than 2 inches in diameter or larger are encountered within the approved Structural Root Zone the City Forester shall be contacted for approval to make any root cuts or alterations to structures to prevent roots from being damaged.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 11 of 16 ends

Page 158 of 359 ends

If roots larger than 2 inches in diameter are cut without prior City Forester approval or any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity, the building permit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation by the City Forester has been completed and mitigation measures have been put in place.

30. Conditions of Approval. All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-size sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building Safety Division.

31. Condition of Approval Acknowledgement. The Condition of Approval Acknowledgement form, available from the Community Planning and Building Department, shall be signed by the appropriate parties prior to the issuance of a building permit. A signed copy of the acknowledgementshall also be printed in the building plan set.

32. Pre-Construction Meeting. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the contractor overseeing the project shall schedule a pre-construction meeting with the Project Planner for the purpose of reviewing the conditions of approval and expectations during construction.

Design Review (DR) Conditions of Approval

33. Setback and Height Certifications. A State licensed surveyorshallsurvey and certify the following in writing:
• The footing locations are in conformance with the approved plans prior to footing/foundation inspection; and
• The roof heights and plate heights of each building are in conformance with the approved plans prior to roof sheathing inspection. Roofs and plates shall not exceed the elevation points as identified in the approved project plans and the roofs include an appropriate allowance for roofing material thickness.

Written certifications prepared, sealed, and signed by the surveyor shall be provided prior to footing/foundation inspection and roof sheathing inspection. In the event that multiple footing/foundation pours are required, a survey letter shall be submitted for each separate section.

34. Exterior Lighting. All light fixtures shall not be directed toward the public right-of-way. Lighting intensity shall not exceed eight-candlefoot power at a point two feet beyond the storefront windows as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the ground or public walking surface. The manufacturer’s specifications, including illumination information, for each exterior light fixture shall be included in the construction drawings submitted with the building permit application.

35. Interior Storefront Lighting. Lighting intensity within the interior of the store space shall not exceed 30-candlefoot power at any point visible from the public right-of-way as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the floor or walking surface. The manufacturer’s specifications, including illumination information, for each exterior light fixture shall be included in the construction drawings submitted with the building permit application.

36. Stone Facades (including chimneys). Stone facades shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar masonry pattern. Setting the stones vertically on their face in a cobweb pattern shall not be permitted. All stonework shall be wrapped around building corners and terminated at an inside corner or a logical stopping point that provides a finished appearance. Termination of stonework shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Planning & Building Director or their designee. The masonry pattern shall be clearly identified in the construction drawings submitted with the building permit application.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 12 of 16 ends

Page 159 of 359 ends

37. Aluminum-Clad Wood Frame Windows and Doors. The Applicant shall submit product information for the aluminum-clad wood windows and doors prior to the issuance of a building permit. The window style shall be consistent with authentic wood windows and doors. When approved with divided lights, lights that appear to be true divided light including the use of internal and external mullions and muntins on insulated windows may be used. The painted finish shall be matte or low gloss. Removable, snap-in, or internal only mullions and muntins are prohibited.

38. Street Trees – Structural Cells. New street trees shall be planted in within structural cells that provide at least 100 cubic feet of un-compacted soil volume for the long term viability of new trees. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the plans shall be revised to include a note on the landscape plans to indicate structural cells shall be used, as well as details provided for the proposed structural cells.

39. Roof Mounted Mechanical Equipment. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be placed within a screened roof top enclosure or located below the parapet level and shall not be visible from the ground at any distance from the building.

40. Exterior Duct Work. Ducting, line sets, conduit and similar features associated with mechanical or electrical equipment shall be run through the interior of the structure. If not feasible, these elements shall be located on building faces that are not visible from publicly accessible areas and painted to match the color of the building wall upon which it is placed.

41. Exterior Lighting Location. No exterior light fixtures shall be installed or relocated which overhangs the public right-of-way. All light fixtures shall be located on the project site.

Modifications to the approved lighting plan shallrequire submission a photometric plan to ensure compliance with the requirements of Condition of Approval #34.

42. Exterior/Interior Lighting Intensity. Prior to building permit issuance, the plans shall be revised so the exterior lighting intensity for the site complies with Condition of Approval #34 (see trash enclosure area, for example).

43. Public Way Improvements – Public Works. Prior to building permit issuance, the following shall be adequately addressed and/or revised in the project plans:
• The applicant shall be responsible for repair of any damage to the adjacent public rightof-way or improvements (including by not limited to the street, sidewalk, utilities) during construction.
• All Public Way Improvements shall be constructed consistent with the requirements of the “Policy and Standards for Public Way Design”.

44. Public Way Improvements – Planning. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the following shall be adequately addressed, and/or revised in the project plans:
• The sidewalk paver(s)shall be clearly identified in the project plans. The sidewalk paver(s) shall:
o Be constructed from sand-set pavers that facilitate percolation using square, rectangular, hexagonal, cobble or creased-keystone shapes; o Use earthen, warm hues (tan, brown, warm grey); and
o Use a single hue or a mix of not more than two similar hues in paving areas. • Driveway colors and/or materials should match the adjacent sidewalk.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 13 of 16 ends

Page 160 of 359 ends

All Public Way Improvements shall be constructed consistent with the requirements of the “Policy and Standards for Public Way Design”.

45. Final Inspection. A final certificate of occupancy for any individual building or structure shall only granted upon completion of the entire project. All landscaping shall be installed, inspected, and approved prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the project. Construction and installation of all public way improvements approved as part of the proposed project shall be completed, inspected, and approved prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy of the project.

46. Fire Department Connections. All fire department connections (FDC) required for the project must be located on the exterior of buildings. They may not be covered or hidden, nor may they be located inside buildings. Fire risers, and other service equipment may be screened asrequired by Condition of Approval #47.

47. Utility Screening. All utilities, including but not limited to, fire service equipment, gas meters, electrical meters, and associated equipment shall be screened from public view in a location and method approved by the Community Planning and Building Department and Fire Department.

48. Master Sign Program. Prior to Final Inspection, the Applicant shall submit an application for a Master Sign Program. The purpose of the Master Sign Program shall be to coordinate the installation and location ofsignage on the subject site in an orderly and equitable manner among commercial tenants.

49. Exterior Business Uses. This approval does not authorize or pre-approve any land use or business to operate exterior business uses, such as outdoor seating, in conjunction with a proposed business. Any use not proposed to be located within an enclosed business space shall be reviewed for consistency with CMC 17.14, as applicable.

50. Garage Enclosure Location. The garbage enclosure shall remain located in an area outside of the “Preservation Buffer” as established in Resolution 2023-099. Relocation of, or expansion, the enclosure into the Preservation Buffer shall require an amendment of Resolution 2023-099 by the City Council.

51. Unused – Condition of Approval #51 is intentionally retained for numerical consistency. There is no Condition of Approval #51 which is applicable to the project.

Use Permit (UP) Conditions of Approval

52. Refuse Storage. The Property Owner shall provide readily accessible areas that serve all occupants and tenants of all buildings on the site and are identified for the storage and collection of recyclable materials container and organic materials container materials, consistent with the three-container collection program offered by the City, or comply with provision of adequate space for recycling for multi-family residential dwelling premises and commercial business premises pursuant to the California Green Building Standards Code (CMC Section 8.16.180).

53. Refuse Collection. The property owner shall adhere to the requirements established in CMC Sections 8.16.120-130, including but not limited to, subscribing to and paying for City’s threecontainer collection services and comply with requirements of those services for all recyclable materials, organic materials, and solid waste generated by the commercial and residential uses at the project site. The city shall have the right to review the number and size containers and frequency of collection to evaluate adequacy of capacity provided for each type of collection service for proper separation of materials and containment of materials. The property owner shall adjust the service level for collection services as requested by the City or its designee to maintain an appropriate level of collection.

ATTACHMENT 1 Page 14 of 16

Page 161 of 359 ends

54. Transient Rentals Prohibited. No residential unit shall be occupied on a transient rental basis.

Any unit rented, leased, or offered for occupancy to any party for any form of remuneration shall be for a period of not less than 30-calendar days.

55. Second Floor Commercial Uses. Commercial use may not take place or be occupied in any space above the ground floor except as allowed for home occupations within residential units as may be permitted by the Carmel Municipal Code.

56. Residential Unit Subdivision. No residential unit shall be further subdivided into any additional unit or units without review and approval by the Planning Commission.

57. Timeshare Prohibition. No apartment unitshall be sold, leased, rented, used, or occupied on any form of timeshare or interval basis.

58. Unused – Condition of Approval #58 is intentionally retained for numerical consistency. There is no Condition of Approval #58 which is applicable to the project.

59. Future Commercial Tenants. Future business will be reviewed through the standard Business License and/or Use Permit application process, as applicable. This approval does not approve or pre-authorize any land use or businessto operate at the subject site. All future tenantsshall also be required to comply with the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District requirements.

60. Commercial Signage. Commercial tenants shall be subject to the provisions of the Master Sign Program, identified in Condition of Approval DR#48.

61. In Lieu Parking Fees. 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 in accordance with CMC section 17.38.040.A. The value of the fee is as established in Urgency Ordinance 2020-003 and Resolution 2003-72.

Lot Merger (LM) Conditions of Approval

62. Nomenclature – Application Materials Revision. Prior to recordation of the required lot merger, which shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit, the legal description (as indicated in Attachment A of the Lot Merger Application Materials) of the lot merged shall be revised to reflect the description of the merged site as “Merged Lot 6A” to be consistent with the city’s naming convention for merged lots, as opposed to “Merged Lot A”.

63. Legal Description – Application Materials Revision. Prior to recordation of the required lot merger, which shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit, the legal description of the lot merged shall be revised include reference to a “Lot Merger Map – Exhibit B” and referenced within the legal description of for the merged property. The legal description and map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or engineer as appropriate.

Historic Preservation (HP) Conditions – From Reso. 2023-099

64. Ornamented Concrete Wall. The original ornamented concrete wall located at the southwest corner of the Community Room shall remain in its existing location and configuration. It shall remain unaltered and protected through construction. Site improvements shall not significantly obstruct the wall from public view and the wall shall remain accessible to the public as a piece of public art as part of a courtyard, interblock-walkway, or other means.

65. Community Room Repairs. If repairs or alteration of any nature are proposed for the Community Room, the applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building Department an application outlining the details of any proposed work for review and approval prior to commencement of work. Any deteriorated exterior elements for the Community Room should be repaired, rather than replaced whenever possible.

Acknowledgment and acceptance of conditions of approval.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 15 of 16 ends

Page 162 of 359 ends

Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date
Applicant Signature Printed Name Date

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 4th day of August 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
____________________________ ___________________________________ Dale Byrne Nova Romero, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 1 Page 16 of 16

Page 163 of 359 ends

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2025-020-PC

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA FINDING THE

SUBJECT PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), STATE CEQA GUIDELINES AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332 (CLASS 32) – IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT AND NO EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTION CONTAINED IN SECTION 15300.2 CAN BE MADE; AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW, DR 23-140 (ESPERANZA CARMEL COMMERCIAL - JB PASTOR BUILDING), USE PERMIT, UP 21-113 (ESPERANZA CARMEL COMMERCIAL - JB PASTOR BUILDING), LOT MERGER, LM 20-394 (ESPERANZA CARMEL

COMMERCIAL - JB PASTOR BUILDING), AND ASSOCIATED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 12,971-SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-STORY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITH 8 APARTMENT UNITS AND APPROXIMATELY 5,794 SQUARE FEET OF NEW COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA, WITH A NEW 852-SQUARE-FOOT BASEMENT AND A NEW SURFACE PARKING AREA AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WITH A TOTAL OF 12 PARKING SPACES WITH 10 OF THE 12 SPACES SHARING A

PARKING A PARKING LIFT SYSTEM AND THE REMAINING REQUIRED PARKING BEING PROVIDED THROUGH THE CITY'S IN-LIEU PARKING PROGRAM. THE EXISTING COMMUNITY ROOM AND

ORNAMENTED CONCRETE WALL (PART OF THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SAVINGS AND LOAN COMPLEX) ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN ON THE PROJECT SITE AS PART OF THE PROJECT. THE TOTAL

PROJECT FLOOR AREA INCLUDING THAT OF THE EXISTING COMMUNITY ROOM (EXISTING AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES) IS 13,663 SQUARE FEET. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT DOLORES STREET 2 SOUTHEAST OF 7TH AVENUE IN THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC) DISTRICT AT LOTS 6, 8, AND 10 OF BLOCK 91. APNS: 010-145-023-000, 010-145-024-000, AND 010-145-012-000.

WHEREAS, on October 25, 2019, International Design Group (“Applicant”) submitted an application on behalf of Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC (“Owner”) requesting approval of Track 2 Design Review application for the JB Pastor Building (“Design Review”); and WHEREAS, overtime, subsequent revisions and modifications to the project have been taken place and have been submitted under various Design Review Permit number, each superseding the previous; and
WHEREAS, the various Design Review numbers, in sequential order, are as follows: DR 19-156, DR 19-427, DR 20-395, DR 22-157, DR 23-140; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Application is accompanied by an associated Lot Merger Application (LM 20-394) and Use Permit application (UP 21-113); and WHEREAS, the combination of the Use Permit, Lot Merger, and Design Review are described herein as (“Application”); and
WHEREAS, the Application has been submitted for a 12,000-square-foot lot located at Dolores Street 2 southeast of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District; and

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 164 of 359 ends

Resolution No. 2025-020-PC

Page 2 of 14 ends

WHEREAS, the Applicant is proposing the construction of a 12,971-square-foot, two-story mixeduse development with 8 apartment units and approximately 5,425 square feet of commercial space; and WHEREAS, the total project floor area including all existing and proposed structures is 13,663 square feet; and
WHEREAS, parking is primarily proposed to provided on-site with the balance being provided through participation in the in-lieu parking program; and WHEREAS, the project was considered by the City Council at the October 3, 2023 meeting where the Council overturned the July 2023 decision of the Historic Resources Board (Reso. 2023-009-HRB) and Issued a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, with new findings and conditions (Resolution 2023-099); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.58.030 (Commercial Design Review), the construction of new buildings requires approval of a Commercial Track Two Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission when a Use Permit is also required; and WHEREAS, a Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission is required for each of the following four entitlements: Increase in Commercial Floor Area, Commercial Spaces or Business (CMC

17.14.050), Residential Density 22 du/ac –33 du/ac (CMC 17.14.030), In Lieu Fees (CMC 17.38.030.C), and Underground Floors (CMC 17.14.150.A); and
WHEREAS, a Coastal Development Permit is also required in accordance with CMC 17.52.090 (Coastal Development Permit Required); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CMC 17.52.090.B.2, a track two design review approval shall constitute a coastal development permit for any project subject to review under this section (CMC

17.52.090.B); and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including, without limitation, the information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the application; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2024, the Planning Commission continued the hearing with direction to the applicant to make changes to the project; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has revised the plans based on the direction given at the July 10, 2024 hearing and is requesting reconsideration by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on March 30, 2025, a notice of the public hearing scheduled for April 9, 2025, was published in the Carmel Pine Cone in compliance with State law (California Government Code 65091) and mailed to owners of real property within a 300-foot radius of the project indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 165 of 359 ends

Resolution No. 2025-020-PC

Page 3 of 14 ends

WHEREAS, on or before March 30, 2025, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before April 6, 2025, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including, without limitation, the information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the application; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”), together with State Guidelines (14 California Code Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”) and City Environmental Regulations (CMC 17.60) require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that pursuant to CEQA regulations, the Application is categorically exempt under Section 15332 (Class 32) – In-Fill Developments, and no exceptions to the exemption exist pursuant to section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines as found in Attachment 2 of the April 9, 2025 Planning Commission staff report submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the Commission at the hearing date, including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-TheSea does hereby find the following Resolutions are also associated the site and associated development history with the project: 2021-03-HRB, 2021-043, 2023-01-HRB, 2023-051, 2023-052, 2023-09-HRB, 2023- 099, and the findings of the aforementioned resolutions shall be incorporated into this resolution by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-TheSea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Design Review:

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 166 of 359 ends

Resolution No. 2025-020-PC

Page 4 of 14 ends

CMC 17.58.060, 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:

YES NO

1. Conform to the applicable policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program; ط

2. Comply with all applicable provisions of this code; and ط

3. Are consistent with applicable adopted design review guidelines. ط NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-TheSea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the USE PERMITS for Increase in Commercial Floor Area, Commercial Spaces or Business (CMC 17.14.050), Residential Density 22 du/ac –33 du/ac (CMC 17.14.030), and Underground Floors (CMC 17.14.150.A):

CMC 17.64.010, Use Permit Findings for Approval
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:

YES NO

1. That the proposed use will not be in conflict with the City’s General Plan. ط

2. That the proposed use will comply with all zoning standards applicable to the use and zoning district.
ط

3. 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.
ط

5. That the proposed use will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare. ط

6. 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. ط

7. That the proposed use will not generate adverse impacts affecting health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties or uses.
ط
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of CarmelBy-The-Sea does hereby authorize participation in the City’s in lieu parking program (CMC section

17.38.040) for 5.6 parking spaces, which was determined based on the 5794.05 square feet of commercial floor area on the site and a parking ratio of 1 space per 600 square feet of commercial floor area. There shall be 12 spaces located on-site and 10 of the on-site parking spaces shall be split between a parking list system and 2 (including 1 ADA space) shall be surface parking. The fees for the 5.6 parking space authorized through the in lieu program shall be paid in accordance with CMC section 17.38.040.A.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 167 of 359 ends

Resolution No. 2025-020-PC

Page 5 of 14 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-TheSea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Coastal Development Permit:

CMC 17.64.010.B, Coastal Development Permits YES NO

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.
ط

2. If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, the project conforms with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code). 1$ N/A
Finding 2. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea. This finding is not applicable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby FIND the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA guidelines and local environmental regulations, pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32) – In-Fill Development and no exceptions to the exemption contained in Section 15300.2 can be made; and APPROVE the Design Review, DR 23-140 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), Use Permit, UP 21-113 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), Lot Merger, LM 20-394 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), and associated Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a new 12,971-square-foot, two-story mixed-use development with 8 apartment units and approximately 5,425 square feet of new commercial floor area, with a new 852-square-foot basement and a new surface parking area at the rear of the property with a total of 12 parking spaces with 10 of the 12 spaces sharing a parking a parking lift system and the remaining required parking being provided through the city's inlieu parking program. The existing community room and ornamented concrete wall (part of the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex) are proposed to remain on the project site as part of the project.

The total project floor area including that of the existing community room (existing and proposed structures) is 13,663 square feet. The project is located at Dolores Street 2 southeast of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District at Lots 6, 8, and 10 of Block 91. APNs: 010-145-012/022/023, subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
No. Standard Conditions

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 168 of 359 ends

Resolution No. 2025-020-PC

Page 6 of 14 ends

lift system and the remaining required parking being provided through the city's in-lieu parking program. The existing community room and ornamented concrete wall (part of the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex) are proposed to remain on the project site as part of the project. The total project floor area including that of the existing community room (existing and proposed structures) is 13,663 square feet. The project is located at Dolores Street 2 southeast of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District at Lots 6, 8, and 10 of Block 91, APNs: 010- 145-012/022/023. The project shall be constructed and uses carried out in substantial conformance with the plans, and application materials considered by the Planning Commission as part of the April 9, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval herein.

2. Codes and Ordinances. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the Service Commercial (SC) zoning district. All adopted building and fire codes shall be adhered to in preparing the working drawings. If any codes or ordinances require design elements to be changed, or if any other changes are requested at the time such plans are submitted, such changes may require subsequent approval by the Planning Commission and additional environmental review.

5. Fire Sprinklers. Installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with the California Building and Fire Codes shall be required.

8. Sewer Laterals. Sanitary sewer lateral connection shall be reviewed and approved by CAWD, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea prior to installation.

Major changes to the approved project, plans, or use (ex. changes in massing, roof forms, height, amendments to Conditions of Approval) shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and/or

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 169 of 359 ends

Resolution No. 2025-020-PC

Page 7 of 14 ends

Historic Resourced Board/City Council, as appropriate. All major changes shall require submittal of a Design Review Application.

10. Modifications During Construction. The Applicant shall submit in writing, with revised plans, to the Community Planning and Building staff any proposed changes to the approved project plans prior to incorporating those changes, as outlined in Condition of Approval #9. If the Applicant changes the project without first obtaining City approval, the Applicant will be required to submit the change in writing, with revised plans, within 2 weeks of the City being notified. A cease work order may be issued any time at the discretion of the Director of Community Planning and Building until: a) either the Planning Commission or Staff has approved the change, or b) the property owner has eliminated the change and submitted the proposed change in writing, with revised plans, for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance to the approved plans prior to final inspection.

11. Exterior Revisions to Planning Approval Form. All proposed modifications that affect the exterior appearance of the building, site elements, or associated Use Permits shall be submitted on the “Revisions to Planning Approval” form on file in the Community Planning and Building Department. Any modification incorporated into the construction drawings that is not listed on this form, shall not be deemed approved upon issuance of a building permit.

Where inconsistencies between the Planning approval and the construction plans exist, the Planning approval shall govern, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Community Planning & Building Director, or their designee.

13. Indemnification. The Applicant agrees, at his or her sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns, from any liability; and shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred, resulting from, or in connection with any project approvals. This includes any appeal, claim, suit, or other legal proceeding, to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project approval. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any legal proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in any such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the Applicant of any obligation under this condition. Should any party bring any legal action in connection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of Monterey, California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for the resolution of all such actions by the parties hereto.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 170 of 359 ends

Resolution No. 2025-020-PC

Page 8 of 14 ends

14. Hazardous Materials Waste Survey. A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with the Monterey Bay Air Resource District prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.

16. Encroachment Permit Required. Any construction, reconstruction, or closure of the right of way shall require approval of an encroachment permit.

17. Truck Haul Route. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall provide for City (Community Planning and Building Director in consultation with the Public Services and Public Safety Departments) review and approval, a truck-haul route, and any necessary temporary traffic control measures for the grading activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to the truck-haul route and implementation of any required traffic control measures.

18. Noise from Electrical and Mechanical Equipment. The fixed installation of any electrical or mechanical equipment shall be subject to the standards outlined in CMC 17.28.020.

23. Drainage Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building and Public Works Departments a drainage plan that meets the requirements of the City's drainage guidance, SOG 17-07. At a minimum, new and replaced impervious area drainage must be dispersed around the site rather than focused on one corner of the property; infiltration features must be sized appropriately and located at least 6 feet from neighboring properties. The drainage plan shall include information on drainage from new impervious areas and semi-pervious areas.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 171 of 359 ends

Resolution No. 2025-020-PC

Page 9 of 14 ends

City departments as found necessary during the review of the CMP. The CMP shall contain measures to minimize potential construction impacts including measures to comply with all construction-related Conditions of Approval such as dust control, construction emissions, hazardous materials, construction days/hours, construction traffic control, waste reduction and recycling, stormwater pollution prevention, noise control, complaint management, and cultural resource management. The CMP shall provide project-specific information including descriptive procedures, approval documentation, and drawings (such as a site logistics plan, fire safety plan, construction phasing plan, proposed truck routes, traffic control plan, complaint management plan, construction worker parking plan, and litter/debris clean-up plan) that specify how potential construction impacts will be minimized and how each construction-related requirement will be satisfied throughout construction of the project

28. Significant Trees. All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand.

If any tree roots larger than two inches (2”) are encountered during construction, the City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots. The City Forester may require the roots to be bridged or may authorize the roots to be cut. If roots larger than two inches (2”) in diameter are cut without prior City Forester approval or any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity, the building permit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation by the City Forester has been completed. Six inches (6”) of mulch shall be evenly spread across the inside the dripline of all trees prior to the issuance of a building permit.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 172 of 359 ends

Resolution No. 2025-020-PC

Page 10 of 14 ends

must be maintained upright and taught for the duration of the project. No more than 4 inches of wood mulch shall be installed within the Tree Protection Zone. When the Tree Protection Zone is at or within the drip line, no less than 6 inches of wood mulch shall be installed 18 inches radially from the tree for every one inch of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above the soil line outside of the fencing.
● The Structural Root Zone -- Structural Root Zone shall be 6 feet from the trunk or 6 inches radially from the tree for every one inch of trunk diameter at 4.5’ above the soil line, whichever is greater. Any excavation or changes to the grade shall be approved by the City Forester prior to work. Excavation within the Structural Root Zone shall be performed with a pneumatic excavator, hydro-vac at low pressure, or another method that does not sever roots.
● If roots greater than 2 inches in diameter or larger are encountered within the approved Structural Root Zone the City Forester shall be contacted for approval to make any root cuts or alterations to structures to prevent roots from being damaged.

Design Review (DR) Conditions of Approval

33. Setback and Height Certifications. A State licensed surveyor shall survey and certify the following in writing:
x The footing locations are in conformance with the approved plans prior to footing/foundation inspection;
x The roof heights and plate heights of each building are in conformance with the approved plans prior to roof sheathing inspection. Roofs and plates shall not exceed the elevation points as identified in the approved project plans and the roofs include an appropriate allowance for roofing material thickness.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 173 of 359 ends

Resolution No. 2025-020-PC

Page 11 of 14 ends

exterior light fixture shall be included in the construction drawings submitted with the building permit application.

41. Exterior Lighting Location. No exterior light fixtures shall be installed or relocated which overhangs the public right-of-way. All light fixtures shall be located on the project site.

Modifications to the approved lighting plan shall require submission a photometric plan to ensure compliance with the requirements of Condition of Approval #34.

43. Public Way Improvements – Public Works. Prior to building permit issuance, the following shall be adequately addressed and/or revised in the project plans:
x The applicant shall be responsible for repair of any damage to the adjacent public rightof-way or improvements (including by not limited to the street, sidewalk, utilities) during construction.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 174 of 359 ends

Resolution No. 2025-020-PC

Page 12 of 14 ends

x All Public Way Improvements shall be constructed consistent with the requirements of the “Policy and Standards for Public Way Design”.

44. Public Way Improvements – Planning. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the following shall be adequately addressed, and/or revised in the project plans:
x The sidewalk paver(s) shall be clearly identified in the project plans. The sidewalk paver(s) shall:
o Be constructed from sand-set pavers that facilitate percolation using square, rectangular, hexagonal, cobble or creased-keystone shapes; o Use earthen, warm hues (tan, brown, warm grey);
o Use a single hue or a mix of not more than two similar hues in paving areas; x Driveway colors and/or materials should match the adjacent sidewalk.

All Public Way Improvements shall be constructed consistent with the requirements of the “Policy and Standards for Public Way Design”.

48. Master Sign Program. Prior to Final Inspection, the Applicant shall submit an application for a Master Sign Program. The purpose of the Master Sign Program shall be to coordinate the installation and location of signage on the subject site in an orderly and equitable manner among commercial tenants.

51. Unused – Condition of Approval #51 is intentionally retained for numerical consistency. There is no Condition of Approval #51 which is applicable to the project.

Use Permit (UP) Conditions of Approval

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 175 of 359 ends

Resolution No. 2025-020-PC

Page 13 of 14 ends

space for recycling for multi-family residential dwelling premises and commercial business premises pursuant to the California Green Building Standards Code (CMC section 8.16.180).

53. Refuse Collection. The property owner shall adhere to the requirements established in CMC sections 8.16.120-130, including but not limited to, subscribing to and paying for City’s threecontainer collection services and comply with requirements of those services for all recyclable materials, organic materials, and solid waste generated by the commercial and residential uses at the project site. The city shall have the right to review the number and size containers and frequency of collection to evaluate adequacy of capacity provided for each type of collection service for proper separation of materials and containment of materials. The property owner shall adjust the service level for collection services as requested by the City or its designee to maintain an appropriate level of collection.

54. Transient Rentals Prohibited. No residential unit shall be occupied on a transient rental basis.

Any unit rented, leased, or offered for occupancy to any party for any form of remuneration shall be for a period of not less than 30-calendar days.

56. Residential Unit Subdivision. No residential unit shall be further subdivided into any additional unit or units without review and approval by the Planning Commission.

57. Timeshare Prohibition. No apartment unit shall be sold, leased, rented, used, or occupied on any form of timeshare or interval basis.

58. Unused – Condition of Approval #58 is intentionally retained for numerical consistency. There is no Condition of Approval #58 which is applicable to the project.

59. Future Commercial Tenants. Future business will be reviewed through the standard Business License and/or Use Permit application process, as applicable. This approval does not approve or pre-authorize any land use or business to operate at the subject site. All future tenants shall also be required to comply with the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District requirements.

60. Commercial Signage. Commercial tenants shall be subject to the provisions of the Master Sign Program, identified in Condition of Approval DR#48.

Lot Merger (LM) Conditions of Approval

Historic Preservation (HP) Conditions – From Reso. 2023-099

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 176 of 359 ends

Resolution No. 2025-020-PC

Page 14 of 14 ends

Acknowledgment and acceptance of conditions of approval. ______________________________ ___________________________ __________ Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date
______________________________ ___________________________ __________ Applicant Signature Printed Name Date
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-THE-SEA this 9th day of April 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Ahlborn, Karapetkov, Locke, LePage
NOES:

ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Michael LePage Shelby Gorman
Chair Planning Commission Secretary

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 177 of 359 ends

Northern California Savings and Loan Complex & JB Pastor Project Timeline (2018-Present)
This timeline was prepared in part with the assistance of NotebookLM using published staff reports and adopted resolutions as source material.
2018
• November 19, 2018: Community Planning and Building Department issued four Certificate of Compliances (CoC’s) associated with lots 2, 4, 6, 8 of Block 91 finding that each lot was legally created and constitutes a single, separate lot of record and may be sold, leased, or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. Development of the parcel may require issuance of a permit or permits, or other grant or grants of approval. 2019
• April 17, 2019: International Design Group (IDG) submitted a Track 2 Design Review application, DR 19-156 (Esperanza Carmel) for the JB Pastor Building on behalf of Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC.

This project was proposed for lot 10 only. This was the initial application in a series of revisions for the project.

This project proposed the construction of one building totaling 5,362 square feet, with a 3,365 square foot basement.
• June 12, 2019: The Planning Commission conducted a Preliminary Review of the project (DR 19-156, Esperanza Carmel), providing feedback and generally expressing support with some recommendations for changes.
• June 28, 2019: The city received an application for concept review, CR 19-267 (CPines 7), for the development of the southern two lots (Lots 6 & 8) of the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex (“Complex”).

This project proposed the construction of two buildings totaling 9,030 square feet, a 7,300 square foot basement, and disassembly and reassembly of the community room including a 452 square-foot addition to the community room, and demolition of the ornamented concrete wall in its entirety (total proposed project floor area: 10,090 sf).

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 178 of 359 ends

• August 14, 2019: The Planning Commission conducted a Preliminary Concept Review of CR 19-267 (CPines 7), providing feedback and generally expressing support with some recommendations for changes.
• October 3, 2019: Margaret Clovis prepared an "Evaluation of Significance and Phase Two Report [for the complex]”. This report assessed the historical significance of the complex and evaluated proposed changes to the community room for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation associated with DR 19-463 (CPines 7) (formal application associated with CR 19-267 (CPines 7)) located on lots 6 &

8. The report found the bank building eligible for listing in the California Register for Historic Resources (CRHR), but not for the Carmel Historic Resources Inventory or the National Register due to age, which requires buildings under 50 years old to be exceptionally important for listing. The report also concluded that the proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. • November 4, 2019: City Council considers an Encroachment Permit (EN 19-152 (CPines 7)) application for a hydraulic driveway ramp with safety warning gates extending along the sidewalk associated with DR 19-463. According to the staff report, the purpose of the encroachment was to eliminate the curb cut that would be necessary for the driveway and to facilitate better access into the subgrade garage. The City Council denied the encroachment permit.
• November 18, 2019: The Historic Resources Board (HRB) determined that the Palo Alto Savings and Loan Complex was eligible for listing on the City’s Historic Inventory and moved to add the property to the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources. • November 26, 2019: An appeal (APP 19-486, CPines 7)) of the Historic Resources Board's (HRB) decision to add the Palo Alto Savings and Loan Complex to the City's Historic Inventory was filed with the city by the agent for DR 19-463 (CPines 7).

The basis for this appeal included arguments that the building was less than 50 years old and did not meet the "exceptional importance" standard, was not eligible under National Register Criterion G or the city's historic preservation ordinance, and that the City Council had previously determined in 2006 that the building was not historic. 2020
• February 4, 2020: The appeal (APP 19-486 (CPines 7)) was granted and a Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City’s Historic Inventory was issued for the complex by the City Council with the basis for the determination being that:

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 179 of 359 ends

o The property lacks sufficient age to be considered historic; o The property does not relate to historic themes or property types established in the Historic Context Statement for Carmel-by-the-Sea
o The property has no association with important events, people or architecture that are identified in the Historic Context Statement or that represent the historical/cultural evolution of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

The Determination of Ineligibility was dated to expire on October 26, 2022 when the building reached 50-years old.
• June 2020 (estimated): Ownership of Lots 6 & 8 transferred to Esperanza Carmel. 2021
• January 8, 2021: International Design Group (IDG) submitted a revised Track 2 Design Review application (DR 20-395, Esperanza Carmel) for the JB Pastor Building on behalf of Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC.

This project was proposed for lots 6, 8, and 10. This project proposed the demolition of all improvements across the three lots, including the demolition of the community room, and construction of a 16,898 square foot two story mixed-use development with a 11,371 square foot basement garage.
• March 1, 2021: Margaret Clovis prepared a Phase II report that found proposed amendments consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, provided recommendations were followed. This report indicated the complex was eligible for the CRHR and would be eligible for the Carmel Inventory in 2022. • April 19, 2021: The Historic Resources Board (HRB) held a public hearing to review Design Review Application DR 20-395 for the demolition of the Community Room. The HRB voted to continue the application and directed staff to prepare a resolution issuing a Finding of Noncompliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Board's rationale included that the bank building and community room are a historically related unit, integral to the original design, and that removing the community room would fundamentally alter the south elevation.
• May 17, 2021: The Historic Resources Board adopted Resolution 2021-03-HRB, issuing a Finding of Noncompliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the proposed demolition of the Palo Alto Savings and Loan Bank Community Room. • May 19, 2021: Christopher Mitchell filed an appeal (APP 21-179) on behalf of Esperanza Carmel Commercial of the HRB’s decision to adopt Resolution 2021-03-HRB.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 180 of 359 ends

• August 3, 2021: The City Council considered the appeal (APP 21-179). The City Council denied the appeal and upheld the HRB's decision to issue a Finding of Noncompliance (Resolution 2021-03-HRB) for the demolition of the Community Room. This decision was formalized in Resolution 2021-043.
2022
• May 24, 2022: International Design Group (IDG) submitted revised application DR 22- 157 on behalf of Esperanza Carmel, proposing the construction of a mixed-use building on Lots 6, 8, and 10.

This project was proposed for lots 6, 8, and 10. This project proposed the demolition of all improvements across the three lots, including the relocation of the community room to the east of the restaurant/bank building, and construction of a 16,898 square foot two story mixed-use development with a 11,371 square foot basement garage. • October 8, 2022: A second application, DR 22-310, was submitted by the applicant for the concurrent relocation of the Community Room to Lot 4 from Lot 6. • October 26, 2022: The previous Determination of Ineligibility expired, prompting a reevaluation of the Complex for local inventory eligibility as it reached 50 years old. • December 2022: PAST Consultants conducted an intensive survey, concluding that the Complex is eligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources and the CRHR under Criterion 3 due to its intact Bay Region Modern-stylistic elements and design by prominent local architects Walter Burde & Associates and Will Shaw & Associates.
2023
• January 12, 2023: PAST Consultants prepared a Phase II Evaluation, determining that the proposed relocation of the Community Room was not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The report recommended maintaining the original spatial relationship between the bank building and the Community Room. • January 23, 2023: The Historic Resources Board held a public hearing. o The HRB adopted Resolution 2023-01-HRB, adding the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex to the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources and Carmel Register of Historic Resources.
o HRB also adopted Resolution 2023-02-HRB, finding the proposed relocation of the Community Room inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 181 of 359 ends

• February 6, 2023: Esperanza Carmel Commercial filed an appeal (APP 23-031) of the HRB’s decision to adopt Resolution 2023-01-HRB and 2023-02-HRB. • May 2, 2023: The City Council considered the appeal (APP 23-031). The City Council denied the appeal and upheld the HRB's decision to Northern California Savings and Loan Complex to the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources and Carmel Register of Historic Resources (Reso. 2023-01-HRB) and find the proposed relocation of the Community Room inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Reso. 2023-02-HRB). These decisions were formalized in Resolutions 2023-052 and 2023-053, respectively.
• May 24, 2023: International Design Group (IDG) submitted revised application DR 23- 140 on behalf of Esperanza Carmel, proposing the construction of a mixed-use building on Lots 6, 8, and 10.

This project was proposed for lots 6, 8, and 10. This project submitted proposed the retention of the community room and demolition of other improvements on the site, and construction of a 15,351-square-foot, two-story mixed-use development (16,043 sf existing + proposed) with a 9,805 square foot basement. • June 30, 2023: PAST Consultants prepared a Phase II report, which found proposed amendments consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, provided recommendations were carried out.
• July 17, 2023: The Historic Resources Board adopted Resolution 2023-009-HRB, issuing a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the construction of a 15,351-square-foot mixed-use building with a subterranean garage. • August 3, 2023: Two City Council members requested a Right of Review of the HRB's decision (Resolution 2023-009-HRB).
• September 12, 2023: The City Council public hearing for the Right of Review. They decided to continue the project and directed staff to prepare findings and conditions to overturn the HRB's Determination of Consistency (Resolution 2023-009-HRB) and issue a new Determination of Consistency.
• October 3, 2023: The City Council adopted Resolution 2023-099, overturning the July 2023 decision of the Historic Resources Board (Resolution 2023-009-HRB) and issuing a new Determination of Consistency with new findings and conditions for the project.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 182 of 359 ends

2024
• July 10, 2024: The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the project and continued the hearing, directing the applicant to make changes to the project. 2025
April 9, 2025: The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2025-020-PC approving the associated Design Review, Use Permits, and Coastal Development Permits for the project.

The approved project included the retention of the community room and demolition of other improvements on the site, and construction of a 12,971-square-foot, two-story mixed-use development (13,663 sf existing + proposed) with an 852 square foot basement.
• April 23, 2025: Krista Ostoich filed an appeal (APP 25115) on behalf of Mike Brown, Mike Cate, Don Goodhue, Steve Hillyard, Vinz Koller, Courtney Kramer, Cindy Lloyd, Ian Martin, Rich Pepe, Kristi Reimer, and Julie Wendt of the Planning Commission's approval of Resolution No. 2025- 020-PC.

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 183 of 359 ends

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPEAL FORM
Appeals to a Board or Commission must be made by completing and submitting an Appeal Form with the City Clerk. Appeals shall be filed within 10 calendar days following the date of action and paying the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.

Appeals to the City Council must be made by completing and submitting an Appeal Form with the City Clerk. Appeals shall be filed within 10 working days fol/owing the date of action and paying the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.

See Attachment "A"
Name of Appellant
c/o Krista Ostoich Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 221211, Carmel, CA 93922 Mailing Address of Appellant
c/o Krista Ostoich Attorney at Law, (831) 250-7422 c/o Krista Ostoich Attorney at Law, [email protected] Phone Number Email address
Send correspondence to the following party {if different than Appellant):

See Attachment "A"
Name
Krista Ostoich, Attorney at Law
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 221211, Carmel, CA 93922 [email protected] Phone Number Email address
Planning Commission
Commission, Board, Official or Department whose action is being appealed . . Dolores St 2 Southeast of 7th Ave Physical location of property involved (street location or address)_· ______________ _ 6/8/10 91 010-145-012; 010-145--023; 010-145-024
Lot Block APN
D t fd . . b . 1 d April 9, 2025 a e o ecIsIon emg appea e : _;__ __________ _ Specific action or decision being appealed: Appeal of approval of DR 23-140, LM 20-394, and UP 21-113, and finding that Project is categorically exempt.

See Attachment 118
"
Grounds for appeal (attach additional pages if necessary):----------------- See Attachment "A"
Signature of Appellant
Reference Chapter 17. 54 of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code "Appeals" revised 1 /2020 ATTACHMENT 4

Page 184 of 359 ends

Attachment
''A''
ATTACHMENT 4

Page 185 of 359 ends

APPELLANT LIST AND SIGNATURES
Brown,
Mike
Cate,
Mike
Goodhue,
[email protected]
Don [email protected]
Hillyard,
Steve
Koller,
Vinz
Kramer,
Courtney
Lloyd,
Cindy
:vtarrin,
Ian
Pepe,
Rich
Reimers,
Kristi
Wendt,
Julie
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
lucindalloyd4 l@gmai I .com
[email protected]
[email protected]
kreimers i [email protected]
[email protected]
Date:

Apr 21, 2025
Date: ------
Date: 4 / �11 )' F ,
Apr 21, 2025
Date: _____ _
Apr 22, 2025
Date: _____ _
Apr 22, 2025
Date: _____ _
Apr 22,2025
Date: _____ _
Apr21,2025 Date: ------
Apr 21, 2025
Date: _____ _
Apr 22, 2025
Date: ------
Apr21,2025
Date: _____ _
Mike Cate
Don Goodhue
Steve Hillyard
Vinz Koller
Vinz Koller
Courtney Kramer
Cindy Lloyd
Jan tv1artin
�n}tt,aftin(AprlL:2n� !S-0.PM';
Ian Marting
��!�t,iE�l?.�m.

Rich,P
Julie Wendt
ATTACHMENT 4

Page 186 of 359 ends

''B''
ATTACHMENT 4

Page 187 of 359 ends

1. Project is not categorically exempt from CEQA as exceptions to the Categorical Exemption exist.

2. Appeal of approval of DR 23-140 is based on improper application of the term "structure" and "interaccessibility" which results in a structure with more than 10,000 sf of floor area; improper landscaping, parking and open space requirements.

3. Appeal of approval of UP 21-1 I 3 based on usage of in-lieu parking fees and failure to meet the zoning standards and general plan.

4. Appeal of finding that Project now addresses the conditions of approval set by the City Council in Resolution 2023-099.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 188 of 359 ends

May 13, 2025
Rich Pepe
PO Box 901
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Carmel City Council
City Hall
Monte Verde Street between Ocean and 7th Avenues
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Subject: Opposition to In-Lieu Parking Request – JB Pastor Building Site Dear Members of the Carmel City Council,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed use of in-lieu parking fees in place of providing adequate on-site parking for the JB Pastor Building project, currently under appeal following approval by the Planning Commission.

According to city requirements, new buildings in the Service Commercial (SC) zone must provide their own parking—either on-site or through the development of an underground facility.

The use of in-lieu parking fees may only be considered when it is demonstrated that providing such parking is technically or practically infeasible. In this case, the applicant has not made any such demonstration.

The project in question requires 18 parking spaces: eight for the residential units and ten for commercial use, including the newly acquired community room formerly part of the bank. While the calculated requirement is 17.6 spaces, the municipal code stipulates rounding up, thus requiring a total of 18 spaces.

Underground parking is clearly feasible for this site. Numerous nearby buildings, including two on the same block at 7th and Dolores, as well as the adjacent building to the south, have successfully constructed underground garages. Providing such parking on this site is not only possible but also consistent with precedent throughout downtown Carmel.

Instead, the applicant proposes installing a five-unit car-stacking system intended to accommodate ten vehicles. These systems are typically employed for long-term storage or specialized commercial uses, such as at mechanic shops or valet services. They are unsuitable for shared residential use—particularly for unrelated tenants—due to their size, operational complexity, and safety concerns. They do not provide a practical or functional substitute for standard parking in a busy, mixed-use downtown setting.

The primary motivation for this alternative appears to be cost savings, as in-lieu fees are considerably less expensive than constructing a compliant underground garage. However, financial considerations alone are not a valid justification for circumventing city requirements.

As former Planning Commissioner Bob Delves rightly observed when this proposal was previously denied: “This building needs to park itself,” expressing concern that the applicant had not fully accounted for the broader impact on our small village.

At the most recent Planning Commission hearing, Chairperson Michael LePage referenced a private home on Scenic Road utilizing a lift system as a precedent in support of the proposal.

This is an inappropriate and misleading comparison—akin to comparing apples to oranges.

ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 189 of 359 ends

Carmel is already grappling with serious parking challenges. The loss of public spaces under AB413, rising visitor traffic, and increasing delivery demands have all intensified the strain on available parking. Notably, six parking spaces were recently converted to Loading Zones Only at the heavily trafficked corner of 7th and Dolores. Compounding the issue, modern vehicles are, on average, 20–22% larger than those of past decades, while standard parking space dimensions have remained largely unchanged.

We must uphold the standards established in the General Plan and require that new developments meet their own parking needs responsibly and fully.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City Council to deny the in-lieu parking request and require the applicant to provide a fully code-compliant underground parking garage.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Rich Pèpe
ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 190 of 359 ends

Evan Kort <[email protected]>
Fwd: JB Pastor Building and Responsible Parking Management Evan Kort <[email protected]> Tue, May 20, 2025 at 9:19 AM To: Nova Romero <[email protected]>
2/2
Evan Kort
Senior Planner
Community Planning and Building
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Direct: (831) 620-2023
Dept. Main: (831) 620-2010
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ian Martin <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, May 20, 2025 at 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: JB Pastor Building and Responsible Parking Management To: <[email protected]>, Robert Delves <[email protected]>, Jeff Baron <[email protected]>, Hans Buder <[email protected]>, Alissandra Dramov <[email protected]> Cc: Chip Rerig <[email protected]>, Brandon Swanson <[email protected]>, Anna Ginette <[email protected]>, Brian Pierik <[email protected]>, Evan Kort <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
A clarification:

Esperanza wasn’t the developer at the time the Wiener letter was sent, however the analysis in the letter remains the same. The City should require the JB Pastor Building to accommodate eight of the restaurant’s parking spaces displaced by the development.
--Ian Martin
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:27 PM Ian Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Byrne and Council Members,
The JB Pastor Building should not only accommodate its own required parking, it must also accommodate eight of the 7th and Dolores restaurant parking spaces it will displace.* This was the City’s considered position in 2019. Marc Wiener, who was the Director of Building and Planning at the time, wrote to the person who owned the property then to say so. The City Attorney and the City Administrator were cc’d along with the property owner’s attorney. The letter is found in the planning file for the 7th and Dolores properties and is attached here for your convenience.

ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 191 of 359 ends

A key excerpt:
“The City cannot approve a project that creates a significant parking nonconformity. Failure to address the parking situation is a basis for denial of the subject development of the southern two lots, and could impact the restaurant Use Permit, should you choose to move forward with selling the two southern lots which would result in you losing control of the parking.”
Esperanza now owns the two lots mentioned above and intends to develop them as part of the JB Pastor Building.

Three years after the Wiener letter was sent, a Planning and Building Department memorandum (also attached) was issued. Wiener was no longer with the City at this point. This memorandum makes no mention of the Wiener letter and presents a rationale for waiving the restaurant’s parking requirement, using a municipal code provision that grandfathers in an existing use when a change in the law would otherwise forbid it. This rationale doesn’t work, because the law hasn’t changed.

It should still be the City’s position that those two lots have to accommodate the restaurant’s parking. The then property owner and his attorney were put on notice as to the City’s position. That information should have been disclosed to the buyer of the property when it was sold. Parking is a scarce public resource entrusted to the City to manage. Managing it responsibly means not simply giving it away.

Sincerely,
Ian Martin
*The restaurant interior needs seven spaces, the patio area needs one: see Planning Commission staff reports for UP 16- 191, October 12, 2016, and DR 17-365, December 13, 2017, respectively. The Community Room is not included in this eight-space calculation as it is now owned by Esperanza and must be accounted for in the parking requirements for the JB Pastor Building development.

ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 192 of 359 ends

MELBY-THESE
A
SEA,
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
-- COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

POST OFFICE DRAWER CO
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 620-2010 OFFICE
October 23, 2019
Jeff Peterson
2 N Santa Cruz Ave, #201
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Parking Requirement
Seventh and Dolores Restaurant (UP 17-020)
SE Cor. Dolores & 7th
Blk: 91, Lots: 2, 4, 6 & 8; APN: 010-145-020
Dear Mr. Peterson:

The subject property containing the Seventh and Dolores restaurant is composed of four separate lots of record. The main restaurant building is located on the northern two lots (Lots 2 & 4), while the southern two lots (Lots 6 & 8) are developed with a parking lot and a small restaurant building. The current restaurant Use Permit (UP 17-020) extends across all four lots of this property. The restaurant is currently required to provide 8 parking stalls and this number would be reduced to 7 if the smaller building is no longer part of the restaurant. The staff report and plans associated with the Use Permit identify that the restaurant has conforming parking.

You are in the process of selling the southern two lots to Fred Kern, who has submitted an application (CR 19-267) to develop these lots with a mixed-used building and subgrade parking garage. All of the restaurant parking would be eliminated with the development of the southern two lots. Eliminating the restaurant parking will create a parking nonconformity, and as such, you must either replace or maintain the restaurant parking at the site. Thismeans that you either have to create new parking stalls on the northern two lots to replace the lost parking stalls, or ensure that the development of the southern two lots includes the necessary parking for the restaurant.

You have inquired as to whether you can purchase the parking stalls through the City's parking in-lieu fee program. The City's Zoning Code does allow for a parking in-lieu fee, but includes a standard that this option be available when providing on-site parking is impractical (refer to Exhibit 1). In this case, the property has conforming parking, and the loss parking would be solely due to a proposed development project. In staff's opinion it would be very challenging for the Planning Commission or City Council to approved thisrequest. Additionally, based on the formula established in the City's Zoning Code, the price for 7-8 parking stalls would likely be in excess of one-million dollars.

MELBY-THESE
A
SEA,
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
-- COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 193 of 359 ends

The City cannot approve a project that creates a significant parking nonconformity. Failure to address the parking situation is a basis for denial of the subject development of the southern two lots, and could impact the restaurant Use Permit, should you choose to move forward with selling the two southern lots which would result in you losing control of the parking.

Please let me know if you have any questions. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss this letter.

Sincerely,
Marc Wiener, AICP
Community Planning and Building Director
Encl: CMC 17.38.030
CC: TonyLombardo, Property Owner's Attorney
Fred Kern, Project Applicant
Chip Rerig, City Administrator
Brian Pierik, City Attorney
The City cannot approve a project that creates a significant parking nonconformity. Failure to address the parking situation is a basis for denial of the subject development of the southern two lots, and could impact the restaurant Use Permit, should you choose to move forward with selling the two southern lots which would result in you losing control of the parking.

Please let me know if you have any questions. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss this letter.

Page 194 of 359 ends

Exhibit 1

17.38.030 Exceptions.

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 difficultymeeting all parking requirements. Therefore, the following exceptions are provided to increase the flexibility in meeting parking requirements:

A. On-Site Parking in the Central Commercial (CC) Land Use District. In contrast to the other districts within the City, on-site parking is prohibited in the central commercial (CC) land use district. This policy eliminates the need for curb cuts in sidewalks and the interference with free pedestrian traffic flow that would result from an excessive number of driveways. This policy is also intended to enhance the opportunities for creating intra-block courts and walkways between properties and buildings.

B. Use of Another Site. Parking requirements may be fulfilled by supplying the required parking on another site upon approval of a use permit. When use of another site for parking is authorized, such parking shall be located within the commercial district on property permitting such use. The land area required to provide such parking shall be legally committed for the full life of the structure for which the parking isrequired. The legal commitment shall be ofsuch a nature that it cannot be withdrawn for the life of the structure, without the consent of the City. Applicants applying for approval of a use permit authorizing the use of another site for parking purposesmust demonstrate one of the following conditions:

1. The property owners of two or more adjacent properties have proposed a combined development plan to provide the required parking for their properties, in accordance with the parking standards established in this chapter, on part of the severalsitesinvolved.

2. The project site for which the parking requirement appliesis 5,000 square feet or less in size and has less than 50 feet ofstreet frontage.

3. The construction of required driveway(s) for on-site parking would result in the excessive loss of curb parking on street.

4. The topography, size, shape or peculiar conditions of the site or the existing development on the site would make the provision of on-site parking impractical.

5. The site for which parking is required is located within the central commercial (CC) land use district where on-site parking is prohibited.

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. Parking adjustmentsshall not decrease the number of parking spacesrequired 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 ofin-lieu fees to adjust on-site parking shall also demonstrate both of the following

1. The parking for which the adjustment is sought is not required for serving hotel or motel uses.

Exhibit 1

17.38.030 Exceptions.

2. The project site for which the parking requirement appliesis 5,000 square feet or less in size and has less than 50 feet ofstreet frontage.

3. The construction of required driveway(s) for on-site parking would result in the excessive loss of curb parking on street.

4. The topography, size, shape or peculiar conditions of the site or the existing development on the site would make the provision of on-site parking impractical.

5. The site for which parking is required is located within the central commercial (CC) land use district where on-site parking is prohibited.

1. The parking for which the adjustment is sought is not required for serving hotel or motel uses.

ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 195 of 359 ends

2. The applicant has diligently pursuedmeeting 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. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).

17.38.040 Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.

When parking adjustments have been authorized by the PlanningCommission in conformance with CMC 17.38.030(C), required parking may be satisfied by the payment to the City of in-lieu fees. Funds collected by the City from such paymentsshall be deposited in a specific fund and used by the City to acquire and/or develop off-street parking. Such parking shall be available to the public and shall be in or nearthe business district of the City. Funds paid to the City for in-lieu parking shall not be refundable in the event of destruction or removal of the structure or land use for which the fundswere paid, but shall run with the land. The City shall maintain a record of all spaces credited to each property including all spaces paid through in-lieu fees,spaces physically provided on each property and all spaces represented by the existing parking nonconformity on each site.

A. Payment of In-Lieu Fees. All in-lieu parking fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first permit (any businesslicense or building permit) for which the in-lieu fees are required with one exception. The only exception arises when the number of in-lieu parking spaces exceeds five, in which case at least 40 percent ofthe total in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the project permit or license and the remaining balance shall accrue interest at the prime interest rate fixed on the date the first permit or license is issued. Any fees, including interest that will be subject to such delayed payments shall be evidenced by a promissory note. This promissory note shall provide for the payment of attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party and shall be secured by a deed of trust.

B. Determination of Value of Parking In-Lieu Fees. The amount to be charged for an in-lieu parking space shall be determined by using the current construction costs of public garages having Type I or Type II fire resistance and the regional modifier forthe San Francisco area assupplied by the "Building Standards" of the International Conference of Building Officials and a factor representing land costs. Four hundred square feetshall be used as the necessary area for a carto park and have maneuvering room with ingress and egress. The current construction costs per square footshall be multiplied by the modifierto determine the cost per square foot to construct the parking space. The cost of constructing the parking space shall then be increased by 50 percent to reflect land cost. This total shall be the fee paid for each full in-lieu parking space. A fee reduction of 25 percent shall be allowed for parking spaces required for newly established residential dwelling units. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).

17.38.040 Parking In-Lieu Fee Program.

ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 196 of 359 ends

BY-THE-SEA
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Memorandum
Date: October 20, 2021 BS From: Brandon Swanson, Community Planning and Building Director Subject: 7th and Dolores Restaurant Non-Conforming Parking (Block 91 - Lots 2,4,6, and 8) On October 12, 2016, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission approved a Use Permit and associated Coastal Development Permit to allow a full line restaurant called the "Seventh and Dolores Steakhouse", located on the southeast corner of 7th Avenue and Dolores Street (UP 16-191 - CPines 7, LLC). This Use Permit runs with the land, and remains in effect until such a time that the permit is either amended by the property owner or revoked by the City for reasons pursuant to Carmel Municipal Code (CMC)section 17.66.050. The main restaurant building is located on lots 2 and 4 of block 91, with an adjacent parking lot on lots 6 and 8. At the time of approval, all four lots were under the control of the same property owner. CMC section 17.38.020 (Table A)states that one parking space is required per 600 square feet of commercial floor area (restaurants are classified as "commercial" use and not separately categorized). At the time of project approval, the parking available on lots 6 and 8 satisfied the City's on-site parking requirements, which based on the square footage of the restaurant is nine (9) parking spaces. No conditions of approval were included with UP 16-191 requiring that Lots 6 and 8 were merged into lots 2 and 4 to ensure parking in perpetuity for the site. Lots 6 and 8 were subsequently sold to a different property owner in the following years.

This sale was not in violation of any conditions of approval associated with the restaurant's Use Permit. Lot 6 and 8 have continued to be used for restaurant parking in the intervening years despite different ownership of the properties. If in the future, development was to take place on lots 6 and 8, thereby reducing or removing parking spaces for the restaurant, this would create a 'non-conforming use' situation for the restaurant with respect to parking, since the land use entitlement waslegally granted for lots 2 and 4. CMC section 17.36.020,A states that "A building or structure that was lawfully established, but does not conform to existing zoning regulations, shall be deemed a nonconforming structure and may be used and maintained as provided in this chapter." Since lots 6 and 8 are separate properties, and under different ownership, a loss of restaurant parking, and this creation of a 'non-conforming use' is a reasonable possibility. In the event that this happens, the restaurant would still be allowed to continue operation without the creation of new parking spaces pursuant to CMC section

17.36.020.A. Continuation of the legal non-conforming restaurant use would also be allowed if lots 2 and 4 and the existing restaurant were to be sold in the future. CMC section 17.36.050.C, states in relevant part that: "
... A use that is nonconforming due to physical orstructural standards (e.g ., floor area, number of parking spaces, etc.) shall not be required to conform upon change of ownership of the use."

BY-THE-SEA
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

Page 197 of 359 ends

1 Comments to the City Council Hearing
JB Pastor Development, June 5, 2025
By Steve HIllyard
Table of Contents
Structure of hearing................................................................................................. 2 Basic premise ......................................................................................................... 2 Code interpretation................................................................................................. 3 Scope of comments ................................................................................................ 3 Design Review......................................................................................................... 3 Structures ....................................................................................................................... 3 Can this combination of structural elements be approved? ................................................................. 4 Can the term “open space” in building-mass-provision also be interpreted to mean “usable open space”? ............................................................................................................................................7 Landscaping...................................................................................................................10 Parking...........................................................................................................................10 Restaurant ......................................................................................................................................10 In-lieu Fee Alternative ......................................................................................................................12 Design Review Conclusions ............................................................................................15 Review of the Record Context...........................................................................................................15 De-novo Hearing Context.................................................................................................................16 CEQA.....................................................................................................................16 CEQA Purpose ................................................................................................................16 CEQA Process.................................................................................................................16 CEQA Process Followed for this Project ...........................................................................17 CEQA Categorical Exemption ..........................................................................................17 CEQA conclusions ..........................................................................................................22 Conclusion ............................................................................................................23 ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 198 of 359 ends

2 Structure of hearing
This commentator could find no code provision that either authorizes or demands that this appeal be configured as a de novo hearing. Thus, these comments are presented as a review of the record using a substantial-evidence standard, which is defined as:

Such credible and relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

In the appeal context, if Council agrees that the evidence doesn’t support the Planning Commission’s findings and conclusion, I assume that the application will be referred to the Planning Commission for appropriate action.

If the appeal is configured as a de novo hearing, I request that Council consider these arguments in that context. If Council agrees that development, as presented in the application, does not conform to the code and the LUP, I respectfully suggest that the application should be denied.1
Basic premise
The Planning Commission may interpret the zoning code but may not change or ignore it. It must obey the law. The relevant code sections read:

The Planning Commission as the designated planning agency of the City shall have the following power and responsibilities:

F. To interpret2 the meaning and intent of the City’s land use code. (CMC

17.52.060) Duties and Powers of the Planning Commission):

E. Decision. Decisions of the Planning Commission shall be reached by an aVirmative vote of a majority of its members present. A quorum for each approval body shall consist of three members. All Commission decisions shall be based on consideration of the facts presented to it by the applicant, City staV, and members of the public and consideration of all goals, objectives, policies, criteria and standards established in City planning documents and ordinances. Unless otherwise authorized under the municipal code, the Commission shall not have the authority to waive or modify the site development requirements of this title or the requirements of any other applicable City ordinances. (CMC 17.52.160 Planning Commission Procedures)
I respectfully submit that this Council is similarly empowered and restricted. The Council and Commission have very little discretion in these quasi-judicial hearings; both groups must enforce our laws—not remake them.
1 I am reminded of the caution given new planning commissions: don’t try to redesign the project for the applicant.
2 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is the authors
ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 199 of 359 ends

3 Code interpretation
Code interpretation is a carefully defined process that ensures that the boundary between modifying and clarifying is not breached. The fundamental goal of the process is to determine the intent of the provision under scrutiny.

To ensure that the interpretative process remains within the clarifying context, the process requires that the interpreters3 make findings on how their proposed interpretation reflects the code’s intent. The process also requires that interpreters cite evidence that supports those findings. This accepted interpretative process also prescribes methods to focus the inquiry on the relevant facts.4
The first inquiry determines if the code section is ambiguous. This inquiry analyzes the section using the ordinary meaning of the words in the current context. If the section is clear, the interpretation process stops.

If the section is ambiguous, the inquiry looks at the entire code for clarification of the section’s intent. If this is no help, the inquiry proceeds to other relevant documents such as the city’s land use plan.

Scope of comments
These comments are limited to the following:
• Do the plans present structures that can be approved
• Do the plans present a landscaping plan that can be approved • Do the plans present a parking arrangement that can be approved • The StaV and Planning Commission failed to follow CEQA requirements Design Review
Structures
The plans present two buildings separated by about six feet and attached to each other by an elevated walkway at their second floors. This walkway provides the only access to the second-floor apartments. Access to several retail shops lie beneath this walkway. This presents the issue:
3 The Planning Director also has the authority to interpret the code, but the same rules apply. 4 The interpretation process developed by the courts is wonderfully nuanced. The following is an abbreviated process that suits our current needs.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 200 of 359 ends

4 Can this combination of structural elements be approved? The applicable code section is zoning code5 section Carmel Municipal Code (CMC)

17.14.140.C:
6 C. Maximum Floor Area. 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.7
This section contains two provisions: one regulating the maximum floor area of a structure and another prohibiting a configuration of structures in terms of accessibility. These comments will deal with them in that order.

The first issue before you is:

Does this combination of two buildings and a second-floor, common walkway constitute a structure as defined by the code?
The staV report8 concludes that the combination of the two buildings and the walkway is not a structure as follows:

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.9
This argument can be summarized as interpreting the code to find that an combination of structures is not a structure. The staV reports supports this interpretation by observing that the phrase, “No single structure” in the building-mass-regulating-section is singular, so it could not refer to a combination of structures; each structure must be evaluated on it own.

An alternative interpretive process begins with determining if the section is ambiguous; is it unclear based on a reading using the ordinary meaning of the words. Consider the definition of structure
5 Further references to code section are to the zoning code. 6 Chapter 17.14 is entitled COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. 7 To provide clarity and ease of reading this section will be referred to as “building-mass-regulating-section” 8 These comments assume that the Council has a copy of the sta[ report for the meeting at which the Planning Commission approved this project. 9 These comments will discuss open space later but note that the sta[ report contends that the walkway is a structure as well as open space.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 201 of 359 ends

5 CMC 17.7010 defines structure as:

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
The Council should also consider these definitions provided by Microsoft’s drafting aid, Copilot:

Assembly: In the context of combining things, "assembly" refers to the process of putting together various components or parts to create a complete and functional unit. This can involve arranging, fitting, and joining diVerent elements in a systematic and organized manner to achieve a specific purpose or result. Assembly is commonly used in manufacturing, construction, and other fields where multiple parts need to be combined to form a finished product.

Part: In the context of an assembly, a "part" refers to an individual component or piece that, when combined with other parts, contributes to the creation of a complete and functional unit. Each part plays a specific role in the overall assembly, and its proper placement and integration are essential for the final product to work as intended.

With these definitions in mind, these comments contend that the code’s definition of structure is not ambiguous; it means a combination of components that create a complete and functional unit. There is no distinction between parts that are structures and parts that are not structures.

Applying these definitions to this application, Council should conclude that the three components of the structure—two buildings and a connecting, second-floor walkway that provides access to all apartments—constitute a combination of components that form a complete and functional unit. Thus,
The sta? report’s contention—upon which the Planning Commission is presumed to have relied—that an assembly of structures is not a structure is not supported by substantial evidence and incorrect.

The staV report notes that the floor area of this combination of structures is 12,971square feet. Thus, the floor area of the proposed structure exceeds the 10,000 square foot limit and cannot be approved. Council is invited to find:

For the purposes of CMC 17.14.140.C, structure as defined by CMC 17.70 includes a combination of structures and other components that create a complete and functional unit.
10 Chapter 17.70 contains a list of definitions related to the zoning code.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 202 of 359 ends

6 The proposed structure that consists of two building joined by a common, secondfloor walkway exceeds the 10,000 square foot limit and does not conform to code requirement.

This interpretation and finding demonstrate that the structure does not conform to the code and cannot be approved. However, to remove any doubt on this issue, the Council may wish to address the second provision of the code section under interpretation:

Does the ability to move between the two buildings using a common, elevated walkway render the complex prohibited?
To repeat, the second provision of 17.14.140.C (building-mass-regulating-section) cited above reads:

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 code section that defines interaccessibility in the context of the commercial districts also references “open space”:

For Commercial Districts. The ability to move between structures on the same or an adjacent building site without first exiting to an open space. (17.70.020 Definitions) So, the resolution of this issue depends on what the code’s intends by the term “open space” in the building-mass-section.

In its discussions of this issues, the staV report substitutes the term “usable open space” as defined in CMC 17.72.020 for the term “open space.” Then, it concludes that because “useable open space” is defined, in part, as “designed and accessible for outdoor living, recreation, pedestrian access, or landscaping” and includes bridges, that an elevated walkway is an open space.

However, the staV report presents no evidence to support this substitution and doesn’t mention references to “open space” in other sections of this code chapter, 17.14, which regulate developments in the commercial districts. The most significant of these sections is the Chapter’s definition of building coverage and open space:

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.

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.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 203 of 359 ends

7 All site area not counted as building coverage shall be considered open space. (CMC 17.14.130 first paragraph)
Because the phrase, “shall be considered open space” is not definitional according to the ordinary meaning of the words, it must be interpreted.

This section begins by defining “building coverage” in terms of “total ground area of the building site.” It gives examples of what are considered coverage and what aren’t. Without changing from this definitional mode, the section continues by referring to open space in terms of the portion of the site left over after building coverage is “counted”. Then, it commands that this left-over piece “shall be considered open space”. These comments contend that because this command is included a definitional code section, it should be interpreted as defining open space accordingly. These facts invite the Council to find that:

The code intends to define the term open space as that portion of the ground area of a building site that is not allocated to building coverage.

This definition identifies open space as a portion of the ground area of the building site.

Consequently, this definition would not include an elevated walkway. Thus, exiting to walkway between the two buildings would not constitute exiting to open space, and the configuration is not allowed. However, this does not completely resolve the issue.

As noted, without referring to the definitional code section analyzed above, the staV report’s uses the term “usable open space” in the building-mass-section to find that exiting to the elevated walkway constituted exiting to “open space.” The question now is:

Can the term “open space” in the building-mass-provision also be interpreted to mean “usable open space”?
Usable open space is defined in the general definitional section of the code under the heading, Open Space Types as follows:

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. (CMC 17.70.020)
The term “open space” is not defined in this general definitional code chapter.

If Council adopts the definition of open space oVered by these comments, these terms conflict;
11 one refers to ground area of a site and the other to places in the development from the ground to the roof. Council should determine which definition the code intend to apply to the building-mass-regulating-section. One clue is how both definitions are used in 11 Even without adopting the definition, Council must consider all areas of the site not counted as building to be open space.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 204 of 359 ends

8 the code, paying particular attention to uses in Chapter 17.14, Commercial Zoning Districts:

Chapter 17.14 Commercial Zoning Districts, refers to open space four times outside the section under consideration:

17.14.170.A. Open space is an open area that is free of structures and is visually accessible from public ways or walkways.

The subsection above defines open space in terms of being free of structures meaning it refers to the ground level of the site.

17.14.170.B. 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.

The subsection above refers to open space that is open to the sky, enclosed by buildings and linked to the sidewalk. This also suggests that it is referring to a place on the ground.

17.14.210 Parking Design
F. 4. Garages shall be ventilated to avoid the build-up of exhaust gases. When mechanical ventilation is used, noise mitigation measure shall be incorporated such as low-noise fans, insulated ductwork and vibration absorbing mounting systems. Ducts shall not exhaust toward any building openings or open space on any adjoining property nor toward any on-site or oV-site open space, pathway, street, place or park accessible to the public. Venting to the roof is generally preferred. Plans for underground garages shall be reviewed to ensure accessibility for Police and Fire Department personnel during emergencies. To the extent possible, utility meters, vaults and connections should be located within garages or driveways and away from pedestrian walking surfaces. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).

The subsection above uses open space in conjunction with other places normally found on the ground: pathway, street, and place or parks accessible to the public.

Section 17.14.180 states: Landscaping shall be provided in conjunction with developments in the commercial zone districts in accordance with CMD 17.34. Section

17.34.080 refers to open space once:

The following standards apply to all commercial districts in the City.

Page 205 of 359 ends

9 shall include upper canopy trees on-site and/or in the sidewalk in front of the property whenever possible. (CMC17.34.080.A.1)
Copilot defines landscape:

As a verb, "landscape" means to make a piece of land more attractive by altering the existing design, adding ornamental features, planting trees, shrubs, or flowers, and other similar activities.

Thus, the section on landscaping refers to open space as a piece of land that must be made more attractive by planting.

These references in the code chapter regulating developments in the commercial zoning districts describe a portion of the ground area of a building site that is free of structures, linked to an adjoining sidewalk, visible to the public, protected from garage exhaust and planted. This suggests that code intends that, in the context of development regulation in the commercia districts, open space refer to a distinct, ground level portion of building site that must be treated in specific ways. It is not a generic term, category or concept that needs further definition.

In contrast, the commercial district regulatory chapter does not refer to “usable open space”. Other chapters refer to “usable open space” three times—once in the general requirement of the code: CMC 17.020.060 Consistency with the General Plan and the Coast Land Use Plan (see section CMC 17.020.060.C.4.c). Two other references to usable open space are found in code chapter, 17.64.120 Motels – Existing Motel Uses and the Reconstruction of Motel Buildings in Commercial and R-4 Districts.

The term “open space” is used exclusively in the commercial districts’ regulatory chapter.

It consistently refers to places, attributes, and land treatments that focus on defining the visual characteristics of a potential development. The building-mass-regulating-section is a component of this regulatory scheme. Introducing “usable open space” in this regulatory scheme would be an outlier and given its definition, a dormant flaw. Moreover, if the City Council intended to insert the concept of usable open space into this regulatory scheme, they could have simply used the term. Thus, the evidence suggests that the code intends that open space, as defined, is a fundamental concept associated with regulating developments in the commercial districts. Thus, substituting usable open space, as defined, for open space in the building-mass-regulating-section is not supported by substantial evidence.

The term “open space” as used in the commercial districts differs starkly from the term “usable open space” as defined in the general code definitions chapter. Thus, an interpretation of the code that would substitute usable open space for open space in zoning code section 17.14.140.C is not supported by substantial evidence.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 206 of 359 ends

10 Then, the Council could and should conclude that:

An elevated walkway between buildings is not open space and the ability to move between the buildings (structures) using that elevated walkway means that that movement is without exiting to open space. Therefore, the development’s configuration is not allowed.

Landscaping
As noted above zoning code section 17.34.080 presents the landscaping requirement for developments in the commercial district including section 17.34.080.A.1:

1. A minimum of 50 percent of the required open space on each site shall be landscaped. Landscaping 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 percent of the required landscaping on any site. All landscaping improvements shall include upper canopy trees on-site and/or in the sidewalk in front of the property whenever possible. (CMC17.34.080.A.1)
The landscaping plans show living plants and benches that the staff report acknowledges meet the 50 percent requirement. However, up to 70 percent of that landscaping is located on the structure’s second story or roof—well above the ground level of the building site. If Council adopts the definition of open space offered in the preceding discussions, the proposed placement of the required landscaping does not meet code requirements.

Therefore, the Council should find:

Landscaping not located on the ground level of the building site cannot be used to satisfy the requirements of zoning code section CMC 17.34.080.A. Therefore, the development does not meet the requirements of that section.

Parking
Restaurant
If this development were approved and built to the current plan, it would eliminate seven parking spaces current used by the adjacent restaurant. Without those spaces, the restaurant would lack the number of parking spaced required to authorize a permit for this use. These parking spaces are located on the southern two of the four lots that formerly comprised the restaurant complex. Esperanza purchased these lots in 2020 and plans to build over the spaces.

On October 23, 2019, Marc Wiener, then current Community Planning and Building Director opined in a letter to the owner of the four lots that the loss of the parking spaces would render the restaurant use non-conforming. He also opinioned that the restaurant ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 207 of 359 ends

11 site could not meet the requirements for the in-lieu-fee alternative to providing actual spaces, so the restaurant would need to provide the seven parking places on the eastern portion of the remaining two lots if possible. He concluded that the city could not approve a development that would create this non-conformity.

On October 20, 2021, Brandon Swanson, then current Community Planning and Building Director, wrote an unaddressed memorandum. In it, he noted that the loss of the parking spaces would render the restaurant’s use non-conforming but argued the restaurant could continue operating. He wrote:

Since lots 6 and 8 are separate properties, and under diVerent ownership, a loss of restaurant parking, and this creation of a ‘non-conforming use’ is a reasonable possibility. In the event that this happens, the restaurant would still be allowed to continue operation without the creation of new parking spaces pursuant to CMC section 178.36.020.A.

Code section CMC 17.36.020.A reads:

A. A building or structure that was lawfully established, but does not conform to existing zoning regulations, shall be deemed a nonconforming structure and may be used and maintained as provided in this chapter. (For structural nonconformance, see CMC Title 15 and the Uniform Building Code.)
These comments respectfully submit that Mr. Swanson’s interpretation is unsupported.

The first condition for the continued use of a building or structure is that it must have been lawfully established. The second condition is that it does not conform to existing zoning regulations (it’s unlawful). Both conditions refer to the regulatory status of the “building or structure.” Thus, the event that allows a nonconforming building to continue operating is a change in the law or regulations, not a physical change to the property or structure. This legal transformation is well established and is generally known as grandfathering. The aVected property is usually characterized as “legal nonconforming” to distinguish it from a nonconforming property that does not enjoy this law-change accommodation.

Moreover, Mr. Swanson’s interpretation would allow owners and use-permit holders to unilaterally convert their properties from conforming to non-conforming and continue to use them as long as the conversion was reasonably foreseeable. But this interpretation would materially impair the enforcement of the city’s zoning code resulting land-use anarchy. This cannot be the intent of the zoning code. The purpose of this Chapter reads as follows:

17.36.010 Purpose.

Much of Carmel’s charm and uniqueness comes from the variety in design of its buildings. Many of its older buildings, although nonconforming, add to this overall charm and unique quality. The loss of such buildings could have a detrimental effect on the overall character of the City. It is the purpose of this chapter to regulate nonconforming buildings and nonconforming uses and to provide for the elimination of ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 208 of 359 ends

12 nonconformity, where its elimination will not have a detrimental effect on the City’s unique charm and the overall village character of the City.

These comments submit that Council should find that:

The zoning code and section 17.36.020.A intends to allow the continued use of a building or structure that previously conformed to all zoning code provisions, but as a result of a change in that code, the building or structure became nonconforming.

The Planning Director’s interpretation of zoning code section 17.36.050.A, dated October 20, 2021, is not supported by substantial evidence and is void.

Mr. Wiener’s letter states:

The City cannot approve a project that creates a significant parking nonconformity.

Failure to address the parking situation is a basis for denial of the subject development of the southern two lots, and could impact the restaurant Use Permit, should you choose to move forward with selling two southern lots which would result in you losing control of the parking.

These comments will not try to resolve the issue of whether the city can or cannot approve a development that creates a nonconformity on a neighboring site. But this commentator should note that the issue could be rendered moot by this developer providing replacement parking spaces for the restaurant in an underground garage constructed on its building site.

In-lieu Fee Alternative
As originally designed, this project included an underground parking facility that satisfied its parking requirements. The entrance to this facility was located close to a wall and structure that were later declared historic. The developer now maintains that it cannot proceed with the underground facility because excavating near the historic resource could damage those resources. It also argues that a five-foot “preservation buVer” around the resources prevents construction activity in that area. The developer intends to provide some surface parking including the use of parking lifts12 and use the In-lieu fee alternative for the balance of the required spaces. This presents the following issue:

Does the project qualify to use the in-lieu alternative? Resolving this issue requires assessing the suViciency of the evidence provided by the applicant to demonstrates it has used “diligence” to provide oV-street parking, but on-site parking is impractical. The relevant code sections read:13 12 These comments will not address the use of parking lifts but the code doesn’t mention them and instead calls for parking spaces of specified dimensions. Thus, to ensure the integrity of design review process, if parking lifts are to be considered as a viable means of meeting o[-street parking requirements, the code should be interpreted (or amended) to include lifts in the normal definition of parking spaces 13 This code process for establishing the requirement to qualify for the in-lieu accommodation is convoluted and tedious but the criteria becomes clear at the end.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 209 of 359 ends

13 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. 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:

1. The parking for which the adjustment is sought is not required for serving hotel or motel uses.

2. The applicant has diligently pursued meeting the parking requirements both onsite and o?-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. (CMC 17.38.030.C.2)
The standards cited above for participating in the in-lieu program (CMC 17.38.040) are as follow: (they are framed in terms of using parking spaces on another property):

B. Use of Another Site. Parking requirements may be fulfilled by supplying the required parking on another site upon approval of a use permit. When use of another site for parking is authorized, such parking shall be located within the commercial district on property permitting such use. The land area required to provide such parking shall be legally committed for the full life of the structure for which the parking is required. The legal commitment shall be of such a nature that it cannot be withdrawn for the life of the structure, without the consent of the City. Applicants applying for approval of a use permit authorizing the use of another site for parking purposes must demonstrate one of the following conditions:
…

4. The topography, size, shape or peculiar conditions of the site or the existing development on the site would make the provision of on-site parking impractical. (CMC 17.38.030.B.4)
This places the meaning of diligence and practical at issue.

To help evaluate the applicant’s evidence in support of its claimed entitlement to use the in-lieu-fee alternative, Council could adopt the following definitions:

Diligence: Diligence refers to careful and persistent work or eVort. It is often associated with thoroughness, attention to detail, and a strong commitment to completing tasks eViciently and eVectively.

Practical: something that is sensible, realistic, and useful in actual situations ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 210 of 359 ends

14 First, applicant’s claim that it cannot work within the Perseveration BuVer is disingenuous; the minimum building setbacks from the wall, community room and bank building are visual corridors created to preserve the public’s view of the historic structures. They have nothing to do with underground construction or parking.

To support its contention that providing oV-street parking is impractical, the applicant submits a letter from the president of ESA Structural Engineering Design Inc. That letter states in part:

In the figure [FIGURE A] it shows the minimum distance from the building where no shoring is required, or a shoring is required when the excavation is within the minimum distance from the existing building.

The letter continues:

With this classification [soil class] shoring is highly recommended when excavating is less than the minimum distance from the existing structure as indicated on the next page FIGURE A.

Applicant’s evidence also includes IDG’s paper, “Best construction practices for foundation excavation. [sic] Adjacent to existing historic buildings.” Those practices include:

2. Excavation Techniques & Safety:

Controlled Excavation:

Use precise excavation methods, such as hand digging or controlled mechanical equipment, to minimize disturbance
to adjacent structures.

Sloping and Benching:

Follow OSHA guidelines for sloping and benching to prevent cave-ins and ensure worker safety.

Sheet Piling or Retaining Walls:

Implement temporary support systems like sheet piles or retaining walls to prevent soil movement and protect adjacent structures.

Underpinning:

Consider underpinning or shoring techniques for additional support if needed, especially for shallow foundations of
adjacent buildings.

Vibration Monitoring:

Install vibration monitors and crack gauges to track ground movement and ensure that vibrations don't damage
adjacent structures.

Water Management:

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 211 of 359 ends

15 Implement proper drainage and water management systems to prevent water from accumulating near the excavation
site and causing instability.

3. Post-Excavation:

Grading and Leveling:

Level and grade the excavated area as needed, creating a smooth and even surface for the foundation construction.

Compaction:

Ensure proper compaction of the excavated soil to prevent future settlement and ensure stability.

Council can also take notice that:
• Contractors routinely excavate for driveways and underground parking near structures without damaging those structures.
• Prior plans for this development have shown that underground parking and access to that parking is practical
From applicant’s own evidence, Council should conclude that the applicant can adequately protect the historic resources during construction using standard construction practices including shoring of the site near the historic resources. Consequently, the applicant has not demonstrated that providing underground parking not sensible or unrealistic. It has also not demonstrated that it has used diligence in providing that parking. Therefore:

The sta?’s opinion, upon which the Planning Commission presumably relied, that “the applicant has adequately demonstrated that they have diligently pursued meeting onsite parking requirements” is not supported by substantial evidence.

The in-lieu-fee parking alternative is not available to applicant.

The parking arrangement presented in project plans do not satisfy the requirements of the zoning code.

Design Review Conclusions
Review of the Record Context
These comments demonstrate that the record does not support a conclusion that the project complies with zoning code requirements focused on building mass, landscaping and parking. Thus, Council should find and instruct as follows:

The record does not support the Planning Commission’s findings that:
• The project conforms to the applicable policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, and that
• The project complies with all applicable provisions of this [zoning] code ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 212 of 359 ends

16 The application is returned to Planning Commission to process it in conformance with the record of this hearing.

De-novo Hearing Context
These comments recommend the following findings and action:

Based on the finding above, the project:

Does not conform to all applicable policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program and does not comply with all provisions of the Zoning Code The application is denied.

CEQA
CEQA Purpose
CEQA is a process “to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant eVects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant eVects.” (PRC 21002) 14 (Note that the process has two elements identifying, (1) significant eVects and (2) feasible alternatives and mitigation measures.)
The city’s zoning code Chapter 17.60, Environmental Review, recognizes the city’s “responsibility” to comply with CEQA and states that: The [CEQA] procedures are intended to protect and assure that citizens of the community contribute to the preservation and the enhancement of the environment. (CMC 17.60.010 Purpose) The code goes on to incorporate all state CEQA regulations.

CEQA Process
Before an application is submitted, CEQA allows city staV and the applicant to meet and review the development’s potential impacts on the environment as well as potential mitigation measures and project alternatives. (14 CCR15060.5) 15 Under CEQA, after the city receives a development application, it has 30 days to determine if the application is “complete” and if the project is subject to CEQA. (14 CCR 1506(a), 14 CCR 15101)
16 If the project is subject to CEQA, staV reviews the project to determine if the character of the development renders it exempt from the CEQA review process. If it’s exempt, the city prepares a “notification of exemption. This ends the CEQA process. If the project does not qualify for an exemption, the city must begin the environmental assessment portion of the CEQA process with an “initial study”. 14 California Public Resource Code.
15 Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15060.5 16 City code gives the sta[ 30 day after receiving an application to determine if the application is complete, it is subject to CEQA, and decide if the nature of the project makes it exempt.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 213 of 359 ends

17 The initial study results in a document that identifies the project’s potential environmental impacts and determines whether each would exceed a usually-defined threshold of significance. If none of the potential impacts cross that threshold, the city issues a negative declaration and the CEQA process is complete. If the initial study identifies impacts that exceed their threshold of significance, the study identifies mitigating measures that would bring the impact to a level below the threshold. If the applicant accepts the mitigation measures and alters the project plans accordingly, the city will issue a mitigated negative declaration and the process is complete. If the applicant rejects the mitigation measures, the city must prepare an Environmental Impact Report.

In this process, the Planning Director determines if the project is exempt from CEQA (CMC

17.52.030.G), and does so without public involvement. On the other hand, the Planning Commission must approve negative declarations, initial studies, mitigated negative declarations, and environmental impact reports. (CMC 17.60.040.A) Since the commission can only act in a public hearing, the pubic is involved in identifying potential impact, assessing their level of significance and evaluating the adequacy of the identified mitigation measures.

CEQA Process Followed for this Project
StaV and the Planning Commission acted inconsistent with both city and state law by not starting the process when the developer filed its application. Rather than determining that the application was complete and that the project was exempt within 30 days of receiving the application, staV waited until the final design-review hearing and presented the Planning Commission with the opportunity to find that that the project was categorically exempt from the CEQA process as an “in-fill” project.

It is unclear why staV waited until the final design review hearing to formally address the CEQA process or why they referred the exemption issue to the commission. In fact, it is diVicult to reconcile this administrative policy/process with the clear provisions of state and city law. Moreover, it’s counter intuitive to make CEQA-applicability decisions at the end of an approval process that CEQA is designed to inform.

Proposed finding:

City sta? and planning commission failed to follow CEQA requirements when processing this application.

City sta? and the planning commission did not have su?icient information regarding the project’s impact on environment to make an informed decision on its environmental acceptability.

CEQA Categorical Exemption
As noted above, at the final hearing, staV argued, and the Planning Commission agreed, that the project was categorical exempt from the CEQA process.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 214 of 359 ends

18 Through the regulatory process, the state has identified categories of projects that, because of their defined characteristics, would not significantly impact the environment.

Projects that conform to the qualifying characteristics are exemptions from the CEQA process. The state has also identified circumstances in which these categorical exemption cannot be used. These are call exceptions. One exception is the Historic Resource Exception.

CEQA Historic Resource Exception
CEQA regulations state:
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. (14 CCR 15300.2) (Note the word, “may”.)
A portion of this project is located on a lot that includes the Community Room and a decorative wall associated with the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex—an historic resource listed on the city’s register. The Historic Resource Board reviewed the impacts on these resources and incorrectly found that the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Later, the City Council, using correct criteria, found that the project would adversely change the historic significance of these resources as well as the bank building itself; it recommended changes to the design.

Thus, it was apparent at the beginning of design review that the project may change the historic significance of the resources. Therefore, at the beginning of the design review process, the historic resource exception applied, and no categorical exemptions were allowed. This prohibition remained into the last design review hearing. Still, staV argued that the in-fill exemption could apply, and the Planning Commission agreed. They went on to find that the project qualified for that categorical exemption CEQA In-fill Exemption
To qualify for the in-fill exemption, a project must meet stated criteria. Those are found in the CEQA regulation 14 CCR 15332:
15332. IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section.
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 215 of 359 ends

19 (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant e?ects relating to tra?ic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

This presents two issues for the Council. The first is:

Is this project consistent with general plan policies and zoning code. 17 Attachment 2 to the staV report (Supplemental Categorical Exemption Findings) asserts, “The project conforms to General Plan policies and zoning regulations.” Presumably, staV relies on the discussions in the balance report as evidence for their finding. But as these comments argue, the project is inconsistent with numerous zoning code provisions including those that deal with:
• Building mass limits
• Landscaping requirements
• Parking requirements
If any of these arguments are correct, the staV report finding is not supported by substantial evidence and the criterion in subsection (a) of the infill exemption has not been satisfied; the project does not conform to General Plan policies and zoning regulations.

Thus, there is no substantial evidence in the record that supports a finding that: The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

The second issue for the Council is;
Would this project present no significant eTect on TraTic, Noise, Air Quality, Water Quality Again, this criterion reads: “Approval of the project would not result in any significant eVects relating to traVic, noise, air quality, or water quality.” These comments accept the staV’s evidence that the project will not significantly impact the environment on a continuing (operating) basis. However, the staV report did not correctly evaluate construction impacts.

In respect to construction-related air quality impacts, the staV report erred by using incorrect significance-threshold criteria. For the others, the report failed to identify or 17 It should be noted that by approving the project and checking the appropriate box, the approval resolution could be interpreted as normalizing all LUP and zoning code violation thus eliminating their factual inconsistency by check-mark fiat. But a check mark is not evidence.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 216 of 359 ends

20 estimate of the significance of the potential impacts. Instead, staV argued that the project would not significantly impact the environment because of the assumed mitigating eVects of regulatory requirements imposed in the future. As will be demonstrated, this assumption is not allowed.

TraTic, noise water quality
For traVic, the report asserted that the construction project must conform to a yet-to-bedefined construction plan and, therefore, would not significantly impact traVic. For construction noise and water quality, the report relied on the assertion that the project must comply with state and city rules again assuming that this would eliminate any significant impacts associated with these categories. Then, the report implicitly concludes that because of the presumed mitigating requirements in these rules and plan, the project’s environmental impacts would be reduced to below the relevant levels of significant. Thus, the project would satisfy this criterion and would qualify for the exemption.

Recall that the state established exemptions for some categories of projects, because, as defined, they would not have a significant impact on the environment. Thus, the lack of a significant impact is an inherent quality or characteristic of a category that justifies it for an exemption. In other words, the criteria in the CEQA in-fill exemption provision define a project that would not inherently have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, a project that requires mitigation to reduce the environmental impacts to less that significant doesn’t qualify for the exemption.
18 19
So, the Council should conclude that:

Because the sta? report, upon which the Planning Commission presumable relied, cites mitigating measures for its finding that the JB Pastor project would not significantly impact the environment in terms of construction noise, tra?ic and water quality, that finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

Air emissions
The staV report’s discussion of air emission impacts correctly references the local air district’s guidelines that set the significance thresholds for construction air emissions but cited the wrong standard.

The staV report referenced the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. This document sets threshold levels of various air pollutants and presents methods of estimates of those emissions. Of particular interest is particulate emissions.
18 In fact, resorting to mitigating measures to justify a project’s inclusion in the in-fill category implicitly admits that the project would cause a significant impact without that mitigation. 19 I believe that there is significant case law on this subject.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 217 of 359 ends

21 The guidelines set the significance threshold for construction particulate emissions at 82 lbs/day. To demonstrate that the project would not exceed this threshold, the staV report quotes Table 5-2 of the guidelines:
construction emissions could potentially impact local air quality if grading and excavation activities disturb more than 2.2 acres per day. Projects above this threshold may have a significant impact on air quality.

The staV report then concludes, “The project site is approximately .275 acres and is below the 2.2-acres of grading per day threshold and would not result in a significant eVect relative to air quality.” However, the guidelines state:

Table 5-2 identifies the level of construction activity that could result in significant temporary impact if not mitigated. The threshold should be use for screening purposes and does not represent a definitive threshold.

While the JB Pastor project does not involve earthmoving at the Table 5-2 level, it does include demolition. So, this screening threshold is inappropriate for estimating the total, short term particulate emissions of the project, particularly in an urban setting of sensitive receptors.20
The guidelines continue with detailed strategies for estimating construction emission including particulate matter. They demand a quantitative approach and ultimately recommend modeling. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) is one such model. This commentator ran the model with the following assumptions:
• New low rise residential building
• New building size 8000 sq. ft. (low)
• Building demolished 5399 sq. ft. (135% of a 4,000 sq. ft. lot.) • Project start January 1, 2026
As you can see below, the model estimates the max particulate emissions to be 174 lb/day for the first ten days of construction, well above the 82 lb/day threshold of significance. 20Sensitive receptors: A location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are located where there is reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure according to the averaging period for the ambient are quality standardd9 e.g. 24-hour, 8-hour, 1-hour). These locations include residents.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 218 of 359 ends

22 Caveat: This commentator doesn’t have the skills to run this model for the purpose of estimating the actual particulate emissions from this project. I present it to demonstrate that the staV report erred in using the grading criteria and if staV used the correct process, the emissions may well exceed the significance threshold. This also demonstrates the work required to qualify a project for inclusion in the in-fill categorical exemption.

The Council should find:

The sta? report, upon which the Planning Commission presumably relied, used an incorrect threshold for construction-related particulate emission to find that the project would not result in any significant e?ects relating to air quality. Thus, that finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

Recommended findings for in-fill exemptions:

The record does not contain substantial evidence to support a finding that the project qualifies for the CEQA in-fill exemption.

CEQA conclusions
The fact that the staV and Planning Commission didn’t follow CEQA does not resolve substantive design-review and building-use issues. CEQA is an informational tool and a failure to follow the process should not require a project denial. Nevertheless, this commentator recommends:

If this hearing is constructed as an appeal on the record and the project is referred to the Planning Commission, the referral should instruct the staV and commission to begin the CEQA process starting with an Initial Study.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 219 of 359 ends

23 If this hearing is a de-novo hearing and the Council denies or approves the application, Council might wish to instruct staV and the Planning Commission to reform their process.

Conclusion
This hearing’s import to the community far exceeds how it impacts this project. It highlights flaws the city’s land use regulatory process. The Land Use Element of the General Plan, zoning code and the regulatory process form a bulwark that resists the constant eVorts by some to gain a financial advantage or change our community to suit their preferences—one project at a time. If one part of this triad malfunctions, the bulwark is weakened.

Because of the constraints imposed by the legislative process, the regulatory process is the most vulnerable, and misinterpretation of the code presents the greatest threat; this stealth procedure changes the law. It allows the buildout of nonconforming designs and creates a precedent that others can exploit. Aside from these obvious impact on our community’s character, the uncertainty of what our rules mean and how they are applied, increases the workload on staV, the Planning Commission and this Council.

Unsympathetic developers may submit and resubmit a nonconforming project with minor tweaks hoping for regulatory exhaustion to set in and the code to be misinterpreted to meet their current design. This means more work for the staV, more meeting of the Planning Commission and more appeals to the Council.

No project should be used to make a statement, but this project presents an opportunity for the Council to dig in and set an example of how our code must be applied.

ATTACHMENT 5c

Page 220 of 359 ends

DR 16-032 (Leidig-Draper)
Del Dono
SWC Dolores and 5th
ATTACHMENT 6

Page 221 of 359 ends

ATTACHMENT 6

Page 222 of 359 ends

ATTACHMENT 6

Page 223 of 359 ends

DR 17-482 (Leidig-Draper)
Del Dono II
Dolores 2 SW 5th
ATTACHMENT 6

Page 224 of 359 ends

ATTACHMENT 6

Page 225 of 359 ends

DR 20-350 (Ulrika Plaza)
Ulrika Plaza
SWC Dolores and 5th
ATTACHMENT 6

Page 226 of 359 ends

ATTACHMENT 6

Page 227 of 359 ends

ATTACHMENT 6

Page 228 of 359 ends

Attachment 2 – Supplemental Categorical
Exemption Findings
Esperanza Carmel Commercial – JB Pastor Building – DR 23-140/UP 21-113/LM 20-394 Dolores Street 2 southeast of 7th Avenue
Planning Commission Agenda: April 9, 2025
This document provides supplemental information supporting the Categorical Exemption of the "JB Pastor" project (DR 23-140/UP 21-113/LM 20-394) from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA guidelines and local environmental regulations, pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32) – In-Fill Developments. This exemption is intended to promote infill development within urbanized areas which are consistent with local general plan and zoning requirements. This class is not intended to be applied to projects which would result in any significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality effects. Such projects must meet Part 1 conditions (a) through (e) described in the analysis below and must not trigger exceptions to the exemption in Part 2.

Part 1: Qualifications
The proposed project meets the following thresholds:

1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Core Commercial and is zoned SC, Service Commercial, which allows mixed-use development. The residential density, underfloor areas, participation in the in-lieu parking program, and the proposed increase in commercial floor area for the project both require a Conditional Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission. A lot merger application is associated with the project to merge the three underlying lots into a single lot of record. The project also includes a Coastal Development Permit to allow construction of the mixed-use building. The project conforms to General Plan policies and zoning regulations.

2. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The project site is located within the city limits, is 12,000 square feet (.275 acres) in size and is surrounded on all sides by urban uses, specifically commercial and residential development, including other mixed use developments.

3. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 229 of 359 ends

Esperanza Carmel Commercial – JB Pastor Building – DR 23-140/UP 21-113/LM 20-394 Supplemental Categorical Exemption Findings

Page 2 of 10 ends

The project site is not located within one of the city’s Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) Overlays. The Coastal Resource Management Element of the General Plan/Local Coastal Program describes that a 1995 study of the City’s ESHA areas, prepared by Jones & Stokes, identified the following endangered, rare or threatened species:
• Mission Trail Nature Preserve: Hickman’s onion; Monterey ducky footed wood rat – state and/or federal species of concern; as well as potential habitats for other special-status species.
• Carmel Beach: Tidestom’s lupine –state and federal listed endanged species; black legless lizard – state species of special concern; as well as potential habitat for other specialstatus species. • Pescadero Canyon: Pescadero Canyon is described as providing watershed protection and an important wildlife corridor but is not expressly identified as a habitat for protected species.

Additionally, the project site is currently developed with a mix of a surface parking lot, and commercial and residential structures. The site does not contain trees, vegetation, wetlands/ waters/riparian habitat that can support other Special Status Species.

4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
a. Traffic
i. The applicant has provided a Traffic Analysis of the proposed project (refer to Attachment 8 of the associated Staff Report). The Traffic Analysis was prepared ahead of the July 10, 2024 hearing for the same project, however, the findings, conclusions, and analysis remain unchanged based on the modifications to the project between the July 10, 2024 hearing and the April 9, 2025 hearing. The traffic analysis was prepared by Keith Higgins, PE, TE. The Traffic Analysis uses vehicle-miles-travelled (VMT) in the evaluation of environmental impacts under CEQA as required by SB 743. For the purposes of determining the significance of transportation impacts, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. The City has not adopted a VMT policy which would include a methodology for performing this analysis, therefore the analysis was based on the “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA,” published by the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, which provides implementation guidance for SB 743 for evaluating development proposals.

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 230 of 359 ends

Esperanza Carmel Commercial – JB Pastor Building – DR 23-140/UP 21-113/LM 20-394 Supplemental Categorical Exemption Findings

Page 3 of 10 ends

As suggested by the OPR Technical Advisory for mixed-use projects, the two main components of the project, residential and commercial (retail), are analyzed separately.

Traffic Report Summary:

Residential Significance Criterion - In accordance with the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.

Residential VMT Analysis - The 8 multi-family housing units are estimated to generate about 54 gross daily trips, which is below the 110 trips per day significance threshold. This component of the Project will not have a significant effect relative VMT impact.

Retail Significance Criterion - In accordance with the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA, retail development including stores larger than 50,000 square feet might be considered regional serving, and so lead agencies should undertake an analysis to determine whether the project might increase or decrease VMT.

Retail VMT Analysis – The retail component of the Project will include a total 9,000 netsquare feet of floor area with up to 7 separate units, which corresponds with a gross floor area of about 5,882 square feet. The overall floor area is far below the 50,000 square-foot threshold considered to be regional serving that would potentially result in a significant VMT impact. The types of uses anticipated in the Project will serve local clientele and visitors. The retail component of the Project will not have a significant effect relative to VMT impact.

During construction of the project, there will be additional vehicles near the project site, including construction equipment vehicles, deliveries and contractor personal vehicles. This would be a temporary condition and would not be part of the operational component of the project. In addition, the city’s Standard Conditions of Approval require implementation of a construction management plan to manage truck routes, construction vehicle circulation and parking, and potential sidewalk closures. With implementation of the construction management plan over the course of construction, traffic impacts during construction are anticipated to not have a significant effect on the environment. b. Noise
ATTACHMENT 7

Page 231 of 359 ends

Esperanza Carmel Commercial – JB Pastor Building – DR 23-140/UP 21-113/LM 20-394 Supplemental Categorical Exemption Findings

Page 4 of 10 ends

i. Most of the Commercial neighborhoods experience a daily average of well below 65 dB which is the upper threshold for multi-family uses for being considered a “Normally Acceptable” range as described in the General Plan. The upper limit for commercial uses at a normally acceptable range is 70 dB. The additional 8 residential apartments nor the additional commercial spaces would substantially result in exceeding noise levels in the area and would be consistent with the normally acceptable noise levels, required by General Plan policies and the Carmel Noise Ordinance. The project does not result in the addition of any new stationary noise sources outside of associated mechanical equipment, all of which would be required to comply with the city’s noise ordinance prescribed in CMC section 17.28.020.

Section 21085 of the CEQA Guidelines further finds that “for residential projects, the effects of noise generated by project occupants and their guests on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment.” Furthermore, all projects in the City are required to comply with General Plan Policy P9-4, which ensures that construction activities are managed to minimize overall noise impacts on surrounding land uses, and Policy P9-17, which enforces state laws regarding unmuffled or improperly muffled motor vehicles.

Additionally, all projects must comply with Carmel Municipal Code Section

15.08.180, which sets forth hours of construction as follows:

For projects requiring a building permit, the permitted hours of construction shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday unless other specified hours are approved or required by the Building Official or the Director of the Department of Community Planning and Building. These hours apply in all landuse districts. For the purpose of this section, the term “hours of construction” is defined as all times when builders, contractors, work crews, or other persons associated with the project are present on the property and engaged in any Class B noise activities related to or including construction.

CMC Chapter 8.56 defines Class B noise as “noise created or generated within or adjacent to residential property which is necessary and normally associated with property maintenance and construction. Class B noise includes, but is not limited to, noise created by power equipment and tools, appliances, workshops, vehicle repairs, and testing and construction projects.”
CMC section 8.56.040 states, “It shall be unlawful to create and emit Class B noise as defined in this chapter between the hours of 6:30 p.m. of one day and 8:00 a.m. of the following day.”
ATTACHMENT 7

Page 232 of 359 ends

Esperanza Carmel Commercial – JB Pastor Building – DR 23-140/UP 21-113/LM 20-394 Supplemental Categorical Exemption Findings

Page 5 of 10 ends

Adherence to all applicable General Plan policies and regulations of the Carmel Municipal Code will ensure that the project will not have a significant effect resulting from temporary noise increases during construction. c. Air Quality
i. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is located in the North Central Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). The District has regulatory authority over stationary sources of air emissions, monitoring air quality within the air basin, providing guidelines for analysis of air quality impacts pursuant to CEQA, and preparing an air quality management plan to maintain or improve air quality in the air basin. The District has developed thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants, which can be found in the District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008).

Emissions from construction activities represent temporary impacts that are typically short in duration. Per the Monterey Bay Air Resources District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (https://www.mbard.org/ceqa), construction emissions could potentially impact local air quality if grading and excavation activities disturb more than 2.2 acres per day. Projects above this threshold may have a significant impact on air quality. The project site is approximately .275 acres and is below the 2.2-acres of grading per day threshold and would not result in a significant effect relative to air quality.

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea requires all projects to adhere to Best Management Practices (BMPs) that include reducing emissions from construction equipment. Adherence to the BMPs has been maintained as part of the Standard Conditions of Approval.

A standard city requirement of all construction projects is the submission of a hazardous materials waste survey in conformance with Monterey Bay Air Resources District. Identification of any hazardous substances such as lead or asbestos are subject to State regulations for handling and disposal during construction.
d. Water Quality
i. CMC Chapter 17.43, Water Quality Protection Ordinance, intends to protect and enhance the coastal waters in accordance with policies in the City’s Local Coastal Plan, the California Coastal Act, and the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Permit requirements. Section 17.43.030 ATTACHMENT 7

Page 233 of 359 ends

Esperanza Carmel Commercial – JB Pastor Building – DR 23-140/UP 21-113/LM 20-394 Supplemental Categorical Exemption Findings

Page 6 of 10 ends

requires that during the construction phase of a development project, an erosion and drainage control plan shall be prepared and submitted. The plan shall include a site-specific erosion control plan that includes controls on grading, best management practices (BMPs) for staging, storage, and disposal of construction materials, design specification of sedimentation basins and landscaping/revegetation of graded or disturbed areas. All new development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the requirements in Chapter

17.43, Water Quality Protection Ordinance.

The applicant/project is required to comply with the NPDES water quality standards identified in the City’s Municipal Code and implementation of the City’s standard conditions of approval would ensure that applicable water quality standards are met. Therefore, construction activities associated with the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The project site is in a heavily developed urban area currently served by all required public utilities and services.

The proposed project consists of 8 residential units, parking, and a commercial shell with up to 7 business spaces, which would be a minor increase in utility and public service use at the site over what exists today. However, these uses will not significantly adversely affect police or fire protection services or result in the construction of new schools or parks and other public facilities and is allowable in the zoning ordinance and General Plan limits set forth for this building site.

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.

Part 2: Exceptions
Application of this exemption, as all categorical exemptions, is limited by the factors described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. None of these exceptions apply, as described in the discussion below.

1. Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -- a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 234 of 359 ends

Esperanza Carmel Commercial – JB Pastor Building – DR 23-140/UP 21-113/LM 20-394 Supplemental Categorical Exemption Findings

Page 7 of 10 ends

a. This possible exception applies only to CEQA exemptions under Classes 3, 4, 5, 6 or 11.

Since the project qualifies as a Class 32 Urban Infill exemption, this criterion is not applicable.

2. Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. a. No successive projects on the project site are proposed, known, or expected to occur over time that would result in cumulatively considerable impacts.

3. Unusual Circumstances. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
a. The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts due to unusual circumstances and remains in context and consistent with the existing conditions in the downtown area, General Plan policies, and zoning requirements, all of which supports mixed-use development.

4. Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
a. The three officially designated (adopted) scenic highways in Monterey County are:

Highway 1 from the San Luis Obispo county line to the Highway 68 interchange near the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, a distance of 78 miles; Highway 68 from Highway 1 to the Salinas River; and Highway 156 from 1 mile east of Castroville to Highway 101 near Prunedale.

The proposed project is not located within, immediately adjacent to, or visible from, a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.

5. Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to submit a list of (1) All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to former Article 11 (commencing with Section 25220) of Chapter

6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) All information received by the Department ATTACHMENT 7

Page 235 of 359 ends

Esperanza Carmel Commercial – JB Pastor Building – DR 23-140/UP 21-113/LM 20-394 Supplemental Categorical Exemption Findings

Page 8 of 10 ends

of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25242 of the Health and Safety Code on hazardous waste disposals on public land. (4) All sites listed pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 78760) of Chapter 4 of Part 2 of Division 45 of the Health and Safety Code.

On June 21, 2024, City staff reviewed the California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List of Data Sources (https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/) and confirmed that the project site is not on any of the following lists:
• Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/). • State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker for leaking underground storage tanks (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search).
• State Water Resources Control Board list of solid waste disposal sites (https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseListCurrentList.pdf). • State Water Resources Control Board list of solid waste disposal sites (https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseListCurrentList.pdf). • State Water Resources Control Board list of active discharge of waste or hazardous materials (https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseListCDOCAOList.xlsx). • Additionally, the project site has not been identified as a hazardous waste facility under Health and Safety Code Section 25187.5
(https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/).

6. Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. a. Section 15064.5(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines explains that a “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” Materially impaired is further defined in Section 15064.5(b)(2) and includes the following:

A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical ATTACHMENT 7

Page 236 of 359 ends

Esperanza Carmel Commercial – JB Pastor Building – DR 23-140/UP 21-113/LM 20-394 Supplemental Categorical Exemption Findings

Page 9 of 10 ends

resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

The Carmel Municipal Code furtherstatesthat’s that a “Substantial adverse change” (also “significant adverse impact or effect”) in the significance of an historical resources shall mean “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” per CEQA Guidelines (2003) Section 15064.5(4)(b)(1) and any subsequent amendments thereto.

Within the immediate vicinity, the only historic resources are the Northern California Saving and Loan Complex, and the Williams Building. The Williams Building is located across the street from the project site on Dolores Steet. The subject project does not result in a substantial adverse change to the Williams Building as the site is located across the street from the project site and no alterations are proposed to the Williams Building.

Lots 6 and 8 of the project site are located on a Historic Resource (“Northern California Saving and Loan Complex”, referred to herein as “Complex”) and were subject to the Historic Evaluation Process for Major Alterations, as prescribed in CMC section 17.32.160.

A qualified professional, PAST Consultants, found the project to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. October 3, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution issuing a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Resolution 2023-099) following a Council Right of Review (CMC section

2.04.160) of the Historic Resources Board issuance of a Determination of Consistency (Resolution 2023-09-HRB).

In accordance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC section 17.32), a “Determination of consistency” shall mean a finding adopted by the City that the proposed new construction, addition, alteration, and/or relocation complies with all of the provisions of this chapter (CMC section 17.32, Historic Preservation) and the Secretary’s Standards.

CMC Chapter 17.32 further defines the Secretary’s standards as: ““Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation” (also “Secretary’s Standards”) shall mean the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (1990, 36 CFR Section 67.7) and the ATTACHMENT 7

Page 237 of 359 ends

Esperanza Carmel Commercial – JB Pastor Building – DR 23-140/UP 21-113/LM 20-394 Supplemental Categorical Exemption Findings

Page 10 of 10 ends

publication of the National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1992, NPS) and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995, NPS), and any subsequent publication of the Secretary’s Standards by the NPS.”
As stated in Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines: “Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.” As stated in CMC section 17.32.160.D, If the Board issues a determination of consistency, the Director shall determine whether the project is eligible for a categorical exemption consistent with the CEQA Guidelines. Further environmental review may still be required to address other aspects of the project. The Department shall cause to be prepared the appropriate environmental documentation for the project and shall cause the processing of the permit application to continue pursuant to standard City practices. As such, the project does not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Lot 10 is not part of the Complex site and a Determination of Ineligibility was issued on June 27, 2019, and re-issued on June 27, 2024.

The project does not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and has been reviewed consistent with the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC Chapter 17.32).

Conclusion
Based on the evidence provided above, the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. The proposed project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA as it meets the conditions described in Article 19, Section 15332, Class 32, In-fill Development Projects, and none of the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 are applicable.

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 238 of 359 ends

P.O. Box 721
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
www.pastconsultants.com
Seth A. Bergstein
415.515.6224
[email protected]
________________________________________________________________________________ June 30, 2023
Evan Kort, Associate Planner
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
PO Box CC
Carmel, CA 93921
Re: SE Corner Dolores St. and 7th Ave., Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA APN 010-145-022/023/024; DR 23-140: Northern California Savings & Loan Dear Mr. Kort:

This letter evaluates the proposed alterations to the property located at the SE corner of Dolores Street and 7th Avenue, in Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA. PAST Consultants, LLC (PAST) completed a site visit to the property on June 20, 2023 to view the property’s existing conditions and to evaluate project drawings for proposed alterations to the subject property.

The subject property contains the Northern California Savings & Loan Complex, constructed in 1972 in the Bay Region Modern style. Designed and executed by prominent local architects Walter Burde & Associates and Will Shaw & Associates, the building complex consists of a primary bank building located on the southeast corner of Dolores Street and 7th Avenue and a detached Community Room, whose shed-roofed design complements the larger bank building. An elevated walkway connects the bank building to the Community Room, creating a complex of two buildings integrated within the site. In 2023, the building was listed on the Carmel Historic Resources Inventory as an outstanding example of Modernist design by a prominent architectural team.

Previously, the Northern California Savings & Loan project has been featured in numerous publications, including:
• Architecture of the Monterey Peninsula, a book/exhibit at the Monterey Peninsula of Art, 1976;
• Documentation and Conservation of the Modern Movement – Monterey: A tour of the Monterey Region’s iconic Modernist buildings conducted by DOCOMOMO, 2003; • Carmel, A History in Architecture, Kent Seavey, 2007; and • Carmel Modernism: A museum exhibit by the Monterey Area Architectural Resources Archive (MAARA) held at the Carl Cherry Center for the Arts, Carmel, 2016.

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 239 of 359 ends

Evan Kort, Associate Planner, Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 2
Northern California Savings & Loan, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA: Phase Two Historic Assessment June 30, 2023 Proposed project
The property owner proposes the construction a mixed-use, commercial and residential project on the lot containing the Community Room (APN 010-145-023) and the adjacent lot to the south (APN 010-145-024). The proposed design does not include construction on the lot containing the Bank Building (APN 010-145-022). Design drawings by Jun A. Sillano, AIA, of International Design Group and dated 5/11/2023, were the documents reviewed for this historic assessment.

The project will allow retention of the Bank Complex, which includes the Bank Building, the Community Room and the Elevated Walkway connecting the two building masses. However, to facilitate the proposed project, the ornamented concrete wall to the south of the Community Room will be removed.

The following Historic Assessment Report provides a methodology, summarizes the historic status of the subject property, provides a property description and building chronology and an evaluation of the proposed alterations for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Project Methodology
PAST reviewed all relevant project files located at the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea planning and building departments as part of the project. A review of the relevant sections of the Carmel by-theSea Historic Context Statement (Carmel Historic Context Statement) was also conducted. A site visit was completed on June 20, 2023 to assess the building’s existing conditions and to understand the proposed building alterations.

In addition, PAST performed research in local and regional repositories to determine the history of the ornamented concrete wall to the south and west of the Community Room.

Summary Property History
The subject property contains the Northern California Savings & Loan building complex.

Completed in 1972 by Walter Burde and Associates and Will Shaw and Associates, the subject property was listed on the Carmel Historic Resources Inventory in 2023 under the Historic Context Statement’s theme of Architectural Development in Carmel as a rare commercial example of the Bay Region Modern style. All relevant project data, property history and an evaluation of historic significance are presented on the DPR523 forms completed in January 2023.1

1 PAST Consultants, LLC. Northern California Savings and Loan (DPR523 forms), 1/3/2023. These forms update and replace the DPR523 forms prepared by Richard N. Janick, architectural historian in 2001.

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 240 of 359 ends

Evan Kort, Associate Planner, Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 3
Northern California Savings & Loan, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA: Phase Two Historic Assessment June 30, 2023 Property Description
The DPR523 forms provide a comprehensive set of photographs of the bank building and the Community Room. The following description focuses on the Community Room, and its surrounding ornamented concrete wall as the project proposes to remove one of the remaining site features dating to the building’s period of significance.

The ornamented concrete wall frames the Community Room and runs in an El-shaped pattern along Dolores Street and turns to the east within the lot. Designed by Brad Bowman and completed in 1972 by Ornamented Concrete, Inc. of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the wall was commissioned by Burde and Shaw as part of the overall project. Originally, the south section of the wall returned toward the Community Room. In 2014, the Dolores Street section of the ornamented concrete wall was cut down and the portion of the southern wall that returned toward the building was removed. A small stucco wall was also constructed (Figures 1 - 3).

Figures 1 and 2. Left image looks north at the site. Constructed in 2014, the wall in the foreground is not a historic addition to the site. The original ornamented concrete wall is shown with an arrow. Right image details the Community Room looking northwest, with the 2014 stucco wall shown.

Figure 3. View of Community Room taken from Dolores Street, showing the wall cut down (arrow). The southern section retains its original height.

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 241 of 359 ends

Evan Kort, Associate Planner, Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 4
Northern California Savings & Loan, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA: Phase Two Historic Assessment June 30, 2023 Community Room and Site Landscape: Building Chronology

1. Permit # 72-80, 10/26/1972: $250,000 for construction of bank and Community Room. Will Shaw and Associates and Walter Burde, architects; Carl Swenson, Inc., contractor. Landscape walls designed and constructed by Ornamental; Concrete, Inc. of Carmel

2. Permit # 78-132, 8/4/1978: $30,000 for interior remodel. Holowinski & Blevins, planning architect; Hampshire Construction, contractor.

3. Permit #13-170C, 9/5/2013: Interior remodel. Adam Jeselnick, architect; Hare Construction, contractor. Design review for this permit completed in 2014.

7. Permit #DR 14-23C. As built drawings submitted and design review approved for interior remodel of Community Room and site landscape modifications:
- Site: Install new asphalt overlay, install two freestanding trellises between Bank Building and Community Room. Remove original wall at southwest corner of site and install new concrete planter. Remove existing wood fence at south property line and install new stucco wall. Install small concrete wall and planter southeast of Community Room. Install new trash bin enclosure at southeast corner of site.
- Ornamented Concrete Wall: Modify original ornamented concrete wall: cut down section running along Dolores Street; removes section of ornamented concrete wall south of the Community Room where it returns to the building. Construct new stucco wall to the east (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Detail of March 15, 1972 Site Plan showing the original layout of the ornamented concrete wall. The top arrow indicates the section of wall that was removed. Bottom arrow indicates the remaining intact wall section.

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 242 of 359 ends

Evan Kort, Associate Planner, Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 5
Northern California Savings & Loan, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA: Phase Two Historic Assessment June 30, 2023 Ornamented Concrete Wall: History
Ornamented Concrete, Incorporated was founded by Brad Bowman of Carmel Valley. The company specialized in handmade site alterations rendered in concrete and stucco. Ornamented concrete became popular with Mid-Century architects as Brad Bowman perfected his process in the late 1950s. On the Northern California Savings and Loan complex, the method was applied to the landscape walls framing the Community Room, and to the east wall of the Bank Building. The use of the ornamented concrete method on both the Bank Building and the site originally linked the building to its surroundings (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Looking northwest at the east elevation of the Bank Building, the ornamented concrete wall shown.

The Ornamented Concrete firm’s work also includes site work and fountains for Edward Durell Stone’s Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, as well as ornamented concrete site features and the decorative shell motifs installed on the Shell Gas Station on San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue, designed by Burde and Shaw and listed on the Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Resources Inventory.2
A camouflage expert during World War II, Brad Bowman pioneered a process for using exposed aggregate concrete in construction projects, developing a methodology for using various aggregate combinations to create artistic compositions that were used as building walls, concrete paving or landscape walls. Brad Bowman used a simple technique: a V-shaped blade stamped patterns within the concrete, a term he labeled “Ornamented Concrete.” Exposed aggregate, rocks or pebbles were inserted into the wet concrete in various patterns. This revolutionary process labeled Brad Bowman the “father of stamped concrete.”
Bowman formulated his stamped-concrete idea when he practiced imprinting patterns in wet sand on the beach at the end of Ocean Avenue in Carmel. Early commissions included ornamented concrete driveways for luxury homes in Carmel and Pebble Beach. In 1970 Brad Bowman founded the Bomanite Corporation in Madera, California. He patented his early ornamented concrete process

2 See Carmel Pine Cone, 4/19/1962, p4; “Brad Bowman,” Carmel Valley Outlook, 10/18/1962, p8 and “Rustic Atmosphere,” Carmel Pine Cone, 5/12/1966, p20, courtesy Harrison Memorial Library, Carmel.

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 243 of 359 ends

Evan Kort, Associate Planner, Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 6
Northern California Savings & Loan, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA: Phase Two Historic Assessment June 30, 2023 as “Bomanite” and developed international licenses in the 1980s and 1990s. The Bomanite Corporation remains in business today. In 2012, Brad Bowman was honored with induction into the Decorative Concrete Hall of Fame.3
For the subject building, a 1972 photograph of the wall’s installation appeared in local newspapers.

While Brad Bowman designed these site features, his daughter, Tani Bowman assisted in design and application. Local newspapers indicate that the selection and placement of each rounded stone was meticulous, with each stone’s size and shape being important to the overall pattern (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Image of Tani Bowman adding stones to the ornamented concrete wall during project construction in 1972 (Courtesy: Harrison Memorial Library, Carmel)4
Historic Integrity of the Site Features
The original parking lot paving, including the indication of individual parking stalls, both of which used contrasting exposed aggregate concrete, has been removed and/or covered with asphalt paving as part of the 2014 site improvements. Sand finish concrete also served as paving around the Bank Building and between the Bank Building and the Community Room. This finish was also replaced in 2014. Original fencing on the south and east property lines and most original tree plantings have been removed.

3 Polk’s City Directories: 1958 – 1970; “Bowmanite’s Culture of Invention with Concrete,” Joe Maty, Concrete Décor, Vol. 16, No. 1, January 2016.
4 Image from the Carmel Valley Outlook, 10/19/1972, p15, courtesy Harrison Memorial Library, Carmel.

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 244 of 359 ends

Evan Kort, Associate Planner, Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 7
Northern California Savings & Loan, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA: Phase Two Historic Assessment June 30, 2023 In 2014, the ornamented concrete wall around the Community Room’s southeast corner was altered with the Dolores Street-facing wall cut down and the south section removed where it returned toward the Community Room building. A poorly designed stucco wall was placed to the east of the original wall at this time (Figures 1 and 2).

Based on the numerous alterations to the site and the original Burde/Shaw landscape design, this report concludes that the original landscape design south and east of the Community Room has lost substantial historic integrity. However the south portion of the ornamented concrete wall remains intact enough to reveal the original stone pattern.

Evaluation of Proposed Alterations
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) provides the framework for evaluating the impacts of additions and alterations to historic buildings.

The Standards describe four treatment approaches: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. The Standards require that the treatment approach be determined first, as a different set of standards apply to each approach. For the proposed project, the treatment approach is rehabilitation. The Standards describe rehabilitation as:

In Rehabilitation, historic building materials and character-defining features are protected and maintained as they are in the treatment Preservation; however, an assumption is made prior to work that existing historic fabric has become damaged or deteriorated over time and, as a result, more repair and replacement will be required. Thus, latitude is given in the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation to replace extensively deteriorated, damaged, or missing features using either traditional or substitute materials. Of the four treatments, only Rehabilitation includes an opportunity to make possible an efficient contemporary use through alterations and additions.5
The ten Standards for rehabilitation are:

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

5 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (accessed via http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/).

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 245 of 359 ends

Evan Kort, Associate Planner, Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 8
Northern California Savings & Loan, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA: Phase Two Historic Assessment June 30, 2023

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Evaluation of Proposed Alterations
Comments on Design Drawings
Based on a review of the design drawings, the following is recommended:
• Sheet A1.0, Site Plan: Elevated walkway between Community Room and Bank Building is not shown. Please indicate the elevated walkway clearly.
• Sheet A1.1, Site Demolition Plan: Elevated walkway appears to be shown as dashed lines.

Please add note that the elevated walkway is to remain. Add to note in middle of drawing: “All structures & pavement inside property lines shall be demolished U.O.N. except for existing Community Room Building and Elevated Walkway.
• Sheet A6.0, West Elevation. Recommend the removal of decorative ceramic tile from the west elevation of Building 2 and replace it with the same stucco finish as Building 1. This will allow the proposed west elevation to read like an arcaded block and will allow the Community Room building to stand out.

Evaluation of Proposed Project
The proposed building alterations do not include construction on the lot containing the Bank Building (APN 010-145-022). Proposed alterations to the adjacent southern lot containing the Community Room (APN 010-145-023) include the removal of the ornamented concrete wall south of the Community Room and the proposed project to the south and east of the Community Room.

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 246 of 359 ends

Evan Kort, Associate Planner, Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 9
Northern California Savings & Loan, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA: Phase Two Historic Assessment June 30, 2023 The following lists the ten Standards for rehabilitation in italics, with an evaluation given below each Standard.

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

Although the subject property has changed from a commercial bank to a commercial restaurant use, the subject building’s current use has required minimal changes to its distinctive exterior materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships in keeping with this Standard.

The original spatial relationship between the bank building and the Community Room is a primary character-defining feature of the site. The proposed project allows the spatial relationship between the Bank Building and the Community Room to remain, as well as the elevated walkway connecting the two buildings.

The distinctive concrete site features, original paving and fencing have been removed to the south and east of the Community Room, with the exception of the ornamented concrete wall. A recommendation for the ornamented concrete wall’s removal is proposed and included at the end of this document.

The proposed project is in conformance with this Standard.

The proposed project does not add conjectural features or elements from other historic properties that would confuse the remaining character-defining features of the subject property. The project is consistent with this Standard.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

This Standard does not apply because no changes to the property have acquired historic significance.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

With the exception of the ornamented concrete wall, the original landscape and paving features of the 1972 Burde/Shaw design have been removed or obscured. Maintaining the entirety of the Bank Complex, including the Bank Building, the Community Room and the elevated walkway connecting the buildings, is in conformance with this Standard. A recommendation for the removed section of the ornamented concrete wall is included at the end of this document.

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 247 of 359 ends

Evan Kort, Associate Planner, Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 10 Northern California Savings & Loan, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA: Phase Two Historic Assessment June 30, 2023

It is recommended that any deteriorated exterior cladding and roof elements for the Community Room be repaired, rather than replaced, in conformance with this Standard.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

Physical treatments to repair exterior cladding for the Community Room shall use the safest methods for a given substrate, in conformance with this Standard.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

This Standard does not apply, as the identification of archaeological features is not within the scope of work for this Phase Two historical report.

This Standard does not apply as no alterations are proposed for the Bank Complex, with the exception of the removal of the ornamented concrete wall.

This Standard does not apply as no alterations are proposed for the Bank Complex, with the exception of the ornamented concrete wall.

Conclusions on Proposed Project
The proposed project is in conformance with the Standards because they allow Bank Complex, including the Bank Building, the Community Room and the elevated walkway connecting the buildings to remain. This will retain the original spatial relationships between the separate building masses and provide sufficient historic integrity for the Building Complex to maintain listing on the Carmel Historic Resources Inventory.

However, the proposed project removes the remaining intact section of the ornamented concrete wall south of the Community Room. A recommendation for this loss is proposed below.

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 248 of 359 ends

Evan Kort, Associate Planner, Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 11 Northern California Savings & Loan, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA: Phase Two Historic Assessment June 30, 2023 Ornamented Concrete Wall: Proposed Recommendation for Project Consistency Figure 7. Remaining intact section of the ornamented concrete wall.

The remaining intact section of the Bowman-designed ornamented concrete wall is shown above (Figure 7). This section still reveals its original stone pattern and sand finish. This report recommends that the removed section of the wall be preserved and replaced at another location on the site. A potential location would be in the parking lot within proximity of the ornamented concrete wall on the east elevation of the Bank Building. This location would allow interpretation of the removed feature on the original site and provide a link to the original Burde/Shaw design.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the proposed project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Rehabilitation Standards.

Please contact me if you have any questions about this evaluation.

Sincerely,
Seth A. Bergstein, Principal
ATTACHMENT 8

Page 249 of 359 ends

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-099

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA OVERTURNING THE JULY 2023 DECISION OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD (RESO. 2023-009-HRB) AND ISSUING A DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS, WITH NEW FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS,

FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE

ON A PORTION OF THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SAVINGS & LOAN COMPLEX SITE LOCATED AT DOLORES STREET 2 SOUTHEAST OF 7TH AVENUE IN THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC) ZONING DISTRICT. APNS 010-145-012, 010-145-023, 010-145-024 WHEREAS, on May 11, 2023, Jason Diaz of International Design Group (IDG), ("Applicant") submitted an application (DR 23-140) on behalf of Esperanza Carmel, on May 24, 2022 requesting the construction of a mixed use building located on Lots 6, 8, and 1 0 of Block 91; and
WHEREAS, the project is partially location on a historic property is known as the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex ("Complex") which is listed on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resource and Carmel Register of Historic Resources; and WHEREAS, the Complex consists of Lots 2, 4, 6, and 8 located on Block 91 and is currently comprised of Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs: 010-145-002, 010-145-023, 010-145- 024); and
WHEREAS, APN 010-145-002 is comprised of lots 2 & 4 and is owned by D&K Dolores, LLC ("D&K Dolores"). APN 010-145-023 and 010-145-024 are comprised of lot 6 and 8 respectively. Both lots 6 & 8 are owned by Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC ("Esperanza Carmel"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to construct a portion of a 15,351-square-foot mixed-use building with a 9,805-square-foot subterranean garage on lots 6 and 8 of the Northern California Savings & Loan Complex site; and
WHEREAS, the project qualifies as a Major Alteration to a Historic Resource pursuant to CMC 17.32.160; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CMC 17.32.120 (Alteration of Historic Resources), a determination of consistency with the Secretary's Standards shall be obtained prior to altering, remodeling, demolishing, grading, relocating, reconstructing or restoring any historic resource; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CMC 17.32.120.B, determinations of consistency for major alterations shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall be supported by written documentation that (1) identifies which of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are applicable to the project, (2) reviews the proposed project, and (3) explains the basis of the determination; and
ATTACHMENT 9

Page 250 of 359 ends

Resolution 2023-099

Page 2 of 8 ends

WHEREAS, a Phase II report was prepared by a qualified professional, Seth Bergstein of PAST Consultants, dated June 30, 2023, and found the proposed amendments to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation provided the recommendations outlined in the report were carried out; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2023, the Historic Resources Board held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Determination of Consistency for the application, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the application; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2023, the Historic Resources Board adopted Resolution 2023- 009-HRB issuing a Determination of Consistency for the construction a 15,351-square-foot mixeduse building with a 9,805-square-foot subterranean garage on a portion of the Northern California Savings & Loan Complex site; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2023, during the 10-business day appeal period of the Historic Resources Board's decision, two City Council members requested the Council's Right of Review of the Historic Resources Board's decision consistent with CMG 2.04.160; and WHEREAS, the Right of Review hearing was scheduled for the next available hearing date, September 12, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2023, a notice of the public hearing scheduled for September 12, 2023, was published in the Carmel Pine Cone in compliance with State law (California Government Code 65091) and mailed to owners of real property within a 300-foot radius of the project indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before September 1, 2023, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 2023, the City Council held a de nova public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Determination of Consistency for the application, including without limitation, information provided to the City Council by City staff and through public testimony on the application; and
WHEREAS, as part of a Right of Review hearing, the City Council may uphold the decision of the board, commission, or committee, amend the decision and/or conditions attached to the decision, overturn the decision, or remand the matter to the board, commission or committee for further consideration (CMG 2.04.160.B); and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2023 the City Council moved to continue the project with direction to staff to prepare specific findings and conditions based on the Council discussion overturning the previous Historic Resources Board Determination of Consistency (Resolution 2023-009-HRB), with new findings of Consistency and Conditions of Approval for the project to ATTACHMENT 9

Page 251 of 359 ends

Resolution 2023-099

Page 3 of 8 ends

be brought back for adoption at the October 3, 2023 hearing in accordance with CMC

17.32.160.B.1.a; and
WHEREAS, while the request for the Right of Review was initiated due to concerns surrounding the ornamented concrete wall ("Wall") at the southwest corner of the Community Room, additional concerns were raised regarding the proposed projects siting and spatial relationships to the Northern California Saving and Loan Complex ("Complex") as a whole; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2023, a notice of the public hearing scheduled for October 3, 2023, was published in the Carmel Pine Cone in compliance with State law (California Government Code 65091) and mailed to owners of real property within a 300-foot radius of the project indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before September 22, 2023, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on October 3, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Determination of Consistency for the application, including without limitation, information provided to the City Council by City staff and through public testimony on the application; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon evidence presented to the City Council at the hearing including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that to allow the remaining original intact portion of the ornamented concrete wall to be visible from the public right-of-way, a waiver from the buildto-line requirement (CMC 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 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; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgement to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA"), together with State Guidelines (14 California Code Regulations§§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines") and City Environmental Regulations (CMC 17.60) require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
ATTACHMENT 9

Page 252 of 359 ends

Resolution 2023-099

Page 4 of 8 ends

WHEREAS, adoption of a finding of consistency is "not a project" pursuant to section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. Adoption of a finding of consistency does not grant any permits or entitlements approving a project which would result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-theSea makes the following findings regarding the project:

City Council Findings
No.
l. The use of the ornamented concrete method of construction was used on both the Bank Building and the site walls, and originally linked the building to its surroundings.

2. The south portion of the ornamented concrete wall remains intact enough to reveal the original stone pattern design and retain its historical significance.

3. The decision to move the concrete wall is a major alteration to a historic resource and affects the entire Northern California Savings and Loan Complex.

4. Breaking apart or moving portions of a historic resource destroys the integrity of the resource.

5. The subject concrete wall is considered a work done by a master craftsman, Brad Bowman, with careful and deliberate thought in the placement of the stones and sand finish.

6. Moving the subject concrete wall, and in turn the project, would violate three of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards:
l. Standard #2: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
a. Council Finding: The ornamented concrete walls are an original landscape element from the 1972 design that still stands substantially intact today.

Further, the spatial relationship between the Community Room and Bank Building are character defining features of the site. These spatial relationships extend beyond the building walls and include the ornamented concrete walls which were part of the original design concept and define the functional space of the complex from the parking lot.

2. Standard #5: Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. a. Council Finding: The wall exhibits distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques and is an outstanding landscape feature of the 1972 design.

ATTACHMENT 9

Page 253 of 359 ends

Resolution 2023-099

Page 5 of 8 ends

3. Standard #9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
a. Council Finding: The proposed new construction will destroy historic materials if the wall is moved from its intended position. The spatial relationships that bring light and space to the entire complex, and are a character defining feature of the resource, will be forever dwarfed by the overly large and looming structure in the adjoining buildings. The Bank Building and Community Room were designed to be viewed from all four sides. Further, the complex exists on a corner in the downtown area and the environment that surrounds that building, including such landscape features, are also important. The ornamented concrete wall is significant for both its spatial significance on the site as well as the artistic value.

7. The same reasons for not moving the Community Room, which were found by the City Council on May 2, 2023 (Resolution 2023-052), also apply to the relocation of the wall.

8. The original intent of the architect's (Burde & Shaw, whom are listed in the City's Historic Context Statement) 1972 design must be respected which included the walls as an integral part of the design.

9. The important spatial relationships of the Northern California Saving and Loan Complex will be altered. The proposed project will loom over the Community Room. Removal of the remaining original concrete wall that shelters the community room on the south side would leave the Community Room windows looking out at the site of a new building instead of the artistic interior of the pebble wall, and eliminate and diminish the character defining spatial relationships of the site.

10. The ornamented concrete wall is a distinctive feature of the site and a piece of publicly viewed art on private property and is a character defining feature of the site.

11. The size of the proposed project itself demeans the existing Savings and Loan complex not by changing it, but rather by minimizing it into less significance. The proposed project does not subordinate to the complex but actually overwhelms it and confuses the composition of the entire block.

12. The proposed project does not respect the space of the environment and the project needs to be modified so that the Bank Building and Community Room maintain their spatial relationships and are not subordinated by the proposed development.

13. The site is a Historic Resource in the heart of downtown Carmel By the Sea. It is important that the City preserves Historic Resources consistent with municipal code section 17.32.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that an application to repair the damage to the original ornamented concrete walls as a result of the nails being installed in the wall and used to support the story poles shall be submitted to the Community Planning and Building Department within 30- calendar days of the date of this action. Failure to submit an application within 30-calendar days may result in further enforcement pursuant with CMC 17.32.190.

ATTACHMENT 9

Page 254 of 359 ends

Resolution 2023-099

Page 6 of 8 ends

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, based on the above findings and evidence, that the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby overturn the July 2023 decision of the Historic Resources Board (Reso. 2023-009-HRB) and issue a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the construction of a mixed-use building with subterranean garage on a portion of the Northern California Savings & Loan Complex site. This Determination of Consistency is further predicated on the following Recommendations and Draft Conditions of Approval being incorporated into the project, and accepted and approved by the City of Carmel-by-the-sea Planning Commission as part of the discretionary permit and approval for this project:

City Council Conditions
No.

Conditions for Consistency with Secretary's Standards

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 J
th Avenue and Dolores Street. Changes to be considered
should 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.

Conditions of Approval

4. Ornamented Concrete Wall. The original ornamented concrete wall located at the southwest corner of the Community Room shall remain in its existing location and configuration. It shall remain unaltered and protected through construction. Site improvements shall not significantly obstruct the wall from public view and the wall shall remain accessible to the public as a piece of public art as part of a courtyard, interblock-walkway, or other means.

5. Community Room Repairs. If repairs or alteration of any nature are proposed for the Community Room, the applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building Department an application outlining the details of any proposed work for review and approval prior to commencement of work. Any deteriorated exterior elements for the Community Room should be repaired, rather than replaced whenever possible.

ATTACHMENT 9

Page 255 of 359 ends

Resolution 2023-099

Page 7 of 8 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA this 3rd day of October, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Baron, Oramov, Ferlito, and Mayor Potter NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Mayor Pro Tern Richards (recused)
APPROVED: ATTEST:

Mayor
(Exhibit A attached)
ATTACHMENT 9

Page 256 of 359 ends

Resolution 2023-099

Page 8 of 8 ends

__ ..---
-------- ..._
Exhibit A
Preservation Buffer Area
¥i r
ii
,:
�
§ ...__., IJ ii
'
� .r
., itf ,,,,,.-
I
1� Iii
' i
! g � i �i
' I f §I
��g __:::=!�¥��=Wi:::;;;i!!M,;;;==1=-==='!a�=:=dd� , �, 11---r--!hx ' wo.=� • _ ___,,_,_- _ --; - ,-- Figure 1. Preservation Buffer from Condition #2 illustrated in red. Build-to-Line waiver area from recitals is shown in yellow.

The buffer includes:
• A minimum setback of 5' from the exterior of the original of the ornamented concrete wall;
• Maintaining the minimum separation around the community room on the south and east side as measured as the minimum distance from Community Room to the non-original (staff estimates 7'6" is the minimum distance from the Community Room to the non-original wall};
• Maintaining the minimum separation between the community room and the bank building (staff estimates this distance is 8'5"}; and
• Keeping a 50% buffer of the minimum separation between the community room and the bank building from the northern property line adjacent to the Bank Building site (approximately 50% of the width of separation between the Bank Building and Community Room; staff estimates this distance is 4'3"}.

ATTACHMENT 9

Page 257 of 359 ends

Reso. 2023-009-HRB Amended July 17, 2023
July 17, 2023

Page 1 of 4 ends

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2023-009-HRB

A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ISSUING A DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S

STANDARDS FOR ADOPT A RESOLUTION ISSUING A DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION A 15,351-SQUAREFOOT MIXED-USE BUILDING WITH A 9,805-SQUARE-FOOT SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE ON A

PORTION OF THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SAVINGS & LOAN COMPLEX SITE LOCATED AT DOLORES STREET 2 SOUTHEAST OF 7TH AVENUE IN THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC) ZONING DISTRICT. APNS 010-145-012, 010-145-023, 010-145-024
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2023, Jason Diaz of International Design Group (IDG), (“Applicant”) submitted an application (DR 23-140) on behalf of Esperanza Carmel, on May 24, 2022 requesting the construction of a mixed use building located on Lots 6, 8, and 10 of Block 91; and WHEREAS, the project is partially location on a historic property is known asthe Northern California Savings and Loan Complex (“Complex”); and; and WHEREAS, the Complex consists of Lots 2, 4, 6, and 8 located on Block 91 and is currently comprised of Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs: 010-145-002, 010-145-023, 010-145- 024); and
WHEREAS, APN 010-145-002 is comprised of lots 2 & 4 and is owned by D&K Dolores, LLC (“D&K Dolores”). APN 010-145-023 and 010-145-024 are comprised of lot 6 and 8 respectively. Both lots 6 & 8 are owned by Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC (“Esperanza Carmel”); and
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to construct a portion of a 15,351-square-foot mixed-use building with a 9,805-square-footsubterranean garage on lots 6 and 8 of the Northern California Savings & Loan Complex site; and
WHEREAS, the project qualifies as a Major Alteration to a Historic Resource pursuant to CMC 17.32.160; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CMC 17.32.120 (Alteration of Historic Resources), a determination of consistency with the Secretary’s Standards shall be obtained prior to altering, remodeling, demolishing, grading, relocating, reconstructing or restoring any historic resource; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CMC 17.32.120.B, determinations of consistency for major alterations shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall be supported by written documentation that (1) identifies which of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A807153-6389-4F80-A9E4-14A5A689EDFB ATTACHMENT 9

Page 258 of 359 ends

Reso. 2023-009-HRB Amended July 17, 2023
July 17, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

Rehabilitation are applicable to the project, (2) reviews the proposed project, and (3) explains the basis of the determination; and
WHEREAS, a Phase II report was prepared by a qualified professional, Seth Bergstein of PAST Consultants, dated June 30, 2023, and found the proposed amendments to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation provided the recommendations outlined in the report were carried out; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2023, a notice of the public hearing scheduled for July 17, 2023, was published in the Carmel Pine Cone in compliance with State law (California Government Code 65091) and mailed to owners of real property within a 300-foot radius of the project indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on or before July 7, 2023, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2023, the Historic Resources Board held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Determination of Consistency for the application, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the application; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon evidence presented to the Board at the hearing including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and WHEREAS, the Historic Resources Board did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgement to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, etseq., “CEQA”), together with State Guidelines(14 California Code Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”) and City Environmental Regulations (CMC 17.60) require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, adoption of a finding of consistency is “not a project” pursuant to section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. Adoption of a finding of consistency does not grant any permits or entitlements approving a project which would result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A807153-6389-4F80-A9E4-14A5A689EDFB ATTACHMENT 9

Page 259 of 359 ends

Reso. 2023-009-HRB Amended July 17, 2023
July 17, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

NOW THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, based on the above findings and evidence, that the Historic Resources Board of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby issue a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standardsforthe construction a 15,351-square-foot mixed-use building with a 9,805-square-foot subterranean garage on a portion of the Northern California Savings & Loan Complex site being in general conformance with the attached sketches and plans, all being attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. This Determination of Consistency is further predicated on the following Recommended Condition(s) of Approval being accepted and approved by the City of Carmel-bythe-sea Planning Commission as part of the discretionary permit for this project:

Recommended Conditions of Approval
No.

1. Community Room Repairs. If repairs or alteration of any nature are proposed for the Community Room, the applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building Department an application outlining the details of any proposed work for review and approval prior to commencement of work. Any deteriorated exterior elements for the Community Room should be repaired, rather than replaced.
✔

2. Concrete Wall. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall seek options to preserve the remaining original intact section of the concrete wall on the south end of the Community Room as detailed in the Historic Resources Board staff report dated July 17th, 2023 ("Wall"). Options for preservation shall be explored in the following order:
1) Make a good faith effort to work with the adjacent property owner (D&K Dolores, LLC, or owner at the time) to find an option for moving the Wall to the 7th & Dolores Restaurant site as detailed in the Historic Resources Board staff report dated July 17th, 2023. This relocation is subject to all separate required City approvals and permits.
2) Make a good faith effort to find an off-site location to place the Wall that is acceptable to the Community Planning and Building Department. This relocation is subject to all separate required City approvals and permits. Prior to exploring this option, the applicant will provide the Community Planning and Building Department with a signed written explanation of the efforts taken to satisfy Option 1, and the reason why an agreement could not be reached with the adjacent property owner.
3) If the applicant is unable to find a suitable location for placement of the Wall after the good faith efforts listed in options 1 and 2 above, the applicant will provide the Community Planning and Building Department with a signed written ✔
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A807153-6389-4F80-A9E4-14A5A689EDFB ATTACHMENT 9

Page 260 of 359 ends

Reso. 2023-009-HRB Amended July 17, 2023
July 17, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

explanation of the efforts taken to satisfy both Options 1 and 2, and the reasons why the wall could not be relocated. The subject wall shall not be demolished or relocated prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the City.

3. Conditions of Approval. The Conditions of Approval listed above (HRB Conditions of Approval) shall be incorporated into the Design Review Conditions of Approval and any action taken by the Planning Department or Planning Commission, as necessary.
✔

4. Concrete Wall Fronting Dolores Street. The portion of the concrete wall fronting (parallel to) Dolores Street is to be preserved up to the southernmost edge of the Community Room.
✔
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-THE-SEA this 17th day of July, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Dyar, Pomeroy, Hall
NOES: Goodhue
ABSENT: Chroman
ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

Karyl Hall Leah Young
Vice Chair Historic Resources Board Secretary
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A807153-6389-4F80-A9E4-14A5A689EDFB ATTACHMENT 9

Page 261 of 359 ends

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-052

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DENYING THE APPEAL BY ESPERANZA CARMEL COMMERCIAL LLC (APP 23-031) AND

UPHOLDING THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD'S DECISION TO ISSUE A FINDING OF

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR THE

RELOCATION OF THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SAVINGS AND LOAN COMPLEX COMMUNITY ROOM FROM APN 010-145-023 TO APN 010-145-002
WHEREAS, the subject site is known as the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex ("Complex"); and
WHEREAS, the Complex consists of Lots 2, 4, 6, and 8 located on Block 91 and is currently comprised of Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs: 010-145-002, 010-145-023, 010-145- 024); and
WHEREAS, APN 010-145-002 is comprised of lots 2 & 4 and is owned by D&K Dolores, LLC ("D&K Dolores"). APN 010-145-023 and 010-145-024 are comprised of lot 6 and 8, respectively. Both lots 6 & 8 are owned by Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC ("Esperanza Carmel"); and
WHEREAS, International Design Group (IDG), ("Applicant'') submitted an application (DR 22-157) on behalf of Esperanza Carmel on May 24, 2022, requesting the construction of a mixeduse building located on Lots 6, 8, and 10 of Block 91; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted a second application (DR 22-310) on October 3, 2022, on behalf of D&K Dolores for the relocation of the Community Room to Lot 4 from Lot 6 of Block 91, associated with the proposed improvements shown as part of the application, DR 22-157; and WHEREAS, an intensive survey of the Complex dated December 2022, prepared by PAST Consultants, concluded that the Complex is eligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources as the property is representative of the theme of Architectural Development in the Context Statement; retains all of its original character-defining features and has retained a high degree of integrity; is greater than 50 years old; and, meets the requirements of Criteria 3 for listing; and
WHEREAS, the survey concluded further that the subject property is eligible for listing in the Carmel Inventory because it is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) under Criteria #3, Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values for its intact Bay Region Modern-stylistic elements designed by prominent local architects Walter Burde & Associates and Will Shaw & Associates, in addition to meeting the criteria for listing on the local inventory as outlined in CMC 17.32.040; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the Historic Resources Board adopted Resolution 2023- 001-HRB, listing the Complex on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources and Carmel Register of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the adoption of Resolution 2023-001-HRB, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), sites determined to be eligible for listing on ATTACHMENT 9

Page 262 of 359 ends

Resolution 2023-052

Page 2 of 5 ends

the CRHR are a historic resource for the purpose of CEQA and therefore subject to the requirements of the city's historic preservation ordinance (CMG 17 .32); and WHEREAS, the proposed relocation of the Community Room constitutes a major alteration to a historic resource; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CMG 17.32.160.B, determinations of consistency for major alterations shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall be supported by written documentation that (1) identifies which of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are applicable to the project, (2) reviews the proposed project, and (3) explains the basis of the determination. If an evaluation concludes that a proposed alteration is not consistent with the Secretary's Standards, the report shall list aspects of the project that are not consistent, along with guidance for modifying the project to comply with the Secretary's Standards; and WHEREAS, the City retained the services of PAST Consultants ("PAST"), a contracted qualified professional, to prepare a Phase II Evaluation ("Phase II") to determine whether the proposed relocation of the Community Room is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards; and
WHEREAS, PAST evaluated the project for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Ten Standards for Rehabilitation in a Phase II dated January 12, 2023. PAST found that Standards #1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9; and 1 0 are applicable to the project. The evaluation concluded that the project, as proposed, is not consistent with Standards #2, 5, 9, and 10 and therefore is not consistent with the Secretary's Standards: and
WHEREAS, the Phase II recommends as part of the conclusion: The project under consideration proposes the relocation of a primary character-defining feature of the building complex 's original design: the spatial relationship between the bank building and the Community Room. To maintain the integrity of the subject historic site and its environment, this report respectfully recommends a new design approach that allows the original Burde/Shaw design and the building complex's corresponding character-defining features to remain in place; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the Historic Resources Board held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including without limitation, information provided to the Historic Resources Board by City staff and public testimony on the project in accordance with CMG 17.58.040.B; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the Historic Resources Board adopted Resolution 2023- 02-HRB, issuing a Finding of Noncompliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the relocation of the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex Community Room; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2023, a timely appeal (APP 23-031) of the decision to adopt a finding of non-compliance by Esperanza Carmel; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2023, notice of the public hearing was published in compliance with State law (California Government Code 65090) indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed de novo public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the appeal, including without limitation, information provided to the City Council by City staff and through public testimony on the proposed project; and ATTACHMENT 9

Page 263 of 359 ends

Resolution 2023-052

Page 3 of 5 ends

WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon evidence presented to the Council at the May 2, 2023 hearing including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgement to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA"), together with State Guidelines (14 California Code Regulations§§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines") and City Environmental Regulations (CMC 17.60) require the review of certain projects for environmental impacts and preparation of environmental documents; and
WHEREAS, the listing of the subject property on the Carmel Inventory is "not a project" pursuant to section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. Adopting a Finding of Noncompliance does not grant any permits or entitlements approving a project that would result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. However, CEQA requires environmental review for alterations to historic resources that are not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Consistent with CMC 17.32.160.C and CEQA, if the applicant does not choose to modify the project to comply with the Secretary's Standards, the Department shall require preparation of environmental review documents to further analyze and mitigate any impacts to the historic resource. These CEQA documents would be required prior to issuance of any discretionary permits for the project, and could include up to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Carmel-bythe-Sea does hereby DENY the appeal by Esperanza Carmel (APP 23-031) and uphold the Historic Resources Board's decision to issue a Finding of Noncompliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the relocation of the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex Community Room, as found in Historic Resources Board Resolution: Resolution 2023-02-HRB adopted on January 23, 2023.

Findings for Denial of Appeal
No.

1. The appeal filed by the Appellant (included as Attachment XX to the subject staff report) is without merit as it fails to address why the action taken by the Historic Resources Board is incorrect or should be overturned based on factual evidence that was applicable to the decisions made by the HRB at the subiect hearina.

2. The subject site is determined to be a historic resource. Historic resources are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Generally, under CEQA, a project that follows the Standards for Rehabilitation contained within The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is considered to have mitigated impacts to a historical resource to a less-than-significant level (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5)
ATTACHMENT 9

Page 264 of 359 ends

Carmel-by-the-Sea City CouncilAugust 4, 2025

Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
August 4, 2025