APP (25115) Esperanza Carmel
JB Pastor Building
City Council Special Meeting
September 8, 2025
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 1
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 2
Background
• Dolores Street 2 SE 7th Avenue
• Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District
• Construction of a new 12,971-squarefoot, two-story mixed-use development • Approved by Planning Commission on
April 9, 2025
• Timely appeal filed -> Appeal Hearing
• Appellants: Krista Ostoich, on behalf of Mike Brown, Mike Cate, Don Goodhue, Steve Hillyard, Vins Koller, Courtney Kramer, Cindy Lloyd, Ian Martin, Rich Pepe, Kristi Reimers, and Julie Wendt.
• Specific Action Appealed: Approval of DR 23-140, LM 20-394, and UP 21-113, and finding that the Project is categorically exempt.
• Grounds for Appeal:
1. Project does not qualify as categorically exempt from CEQA.
2. Improper application of the term “structure” and interaccessability”; improper landscaping, parking and open space requirement.
3. Usage of in-lieu parking fees and failure to meet zoning standards and general plan.
4. Conditions of approval of City Council Resolution 2023-099 have not been met. 3 Appeal – Filed April 23, 2025
• Considered appeal on August 4, 2025
• Following deliberation, continued to Sept. 8 (today)
• Direction to staff:
• Prepare a new resolution reflecting the Council’s findings for formal adoption • Parking and Landscaping
• Recommend motions pertaining to the following:
• Maximum Floor Area, consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and CEQA *At the August 4th meeting, the City Attorney explained that a Resolution requires three (3) votes to be adopted and that for a Motion, a majority of the quorum is required to approve a Motion.
4 Previous Hearing
5 Resolution (Parking 1 of 2)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations in regard to theProject which is the subject of the appeal:
1. Parking:
A. City Municipal Code Section 17.38.030.C provides that the Planning Commissionmay authorize the satisfaction of parking requirements through the granting of ause permit and the payment of in-lieu fees when on-site parking is not practical orwhen on-site parking is prohibited by City policies. The City Council finds that theProject does not comply with City Municipal Code Section 17.38.030.C becausethere has not been a sufficient showing that on-site parking is not practical. i. The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that providing undergroundparking, as a means of satisfying the on-site parking requirement underCMC Section 17.38, is not practical. ii. The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that due to the topography,size, shape or peculiar conditions of the site or the existing developmenton the site would make the provision of on-site parking impractical tosupport participation in the in-lieu parking program (CMC section17.38.030.B.4). iii. The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the parking lift systemcan be operated safely. 6 Resolution (Parking 2 of 2)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations in regard to theProject which is the subject of the appeal:
1. Parking:
…
B. City Municipal Code Section 17.38.030.C.2 requires that an applicant diligently pursue meeting the parking requirements both on-site and off-site, but has been unsuccessful in meeting the requirement, or that the site is located within thecentral commercial (CC) land use district where on-site parking is prohibited. The City Council finds that the Project does not comply with City Municipal Code Section 17.38.030.C.2 because there has not been a sufficient showing that theapplicant has diligently pursued meeting the parking requirements both on-site and off-site.
i. The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that providing undergroundparking, as a means of satisfying the on-site parking requirement underCMC Section 17.38, is not practical. ii. The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that due to the topography,size, shape or peculiar conditions of the site or the existing developmenton the site would make the provision of on-site parking impractical tosupport participation in the in-lieu parking program (CMC section17.38.030.B.4). iii. The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the parking lift systemcan be operated safely. 7 Resolution (Landscaping)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations in regard to theProject which is the subject of the appeal:
2. Landscaping: City Municipal Code Section 17.34.080.A.1 requires minimum of 50percent of the required open space on each site shall be landscaped. The City Council finds that the Project does not comply with the City landscaping requirements in City Municipal Code Section 17.34.080.A.1, or the intent of those landscaping requirements, because the Project’s landscaping on the roof should not be included in the calculation of the 50% landscaping requirement because this landscaping would not be visually accessible and, without the inclusion of the landscaping proposed for the roof, the Project will have less than 50% of required open space landscaped. 8 Resolution (Action)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby remand this Project to the Planning Commission for further consideration of this Project based on the findings by the City Council in this Resolution and direction provided by the City Council through the Motions adopted at the City Council meeting on September 8, 2025.
• Summary:
• Project complies with the Maximum Floor Area Requirements • Project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards based on City Council Resolution 2023-099 and further directing City Staff to present to the PlanningCommission on remand additional analysis addressing the Project’s consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards • The project reviewed by the Council is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 (Class 31), Historical ResourceRestoration/Rehabilitation, and further directing the Planning Commission to consider the Project’s eligibility under that Class 31 exemption based on the additional analysis of the Project’sconsistency with the Secretary of Interior Standard. 9
Motions
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Staff recommends that the public be allowed to present comment on this agenda item for up to three minutes and after public comment that a representative of the Appellantsbe allowed to present a five minute rebuttal to the public comment and thereafter that a representative of the Applicant be allowed to present a five minute rebuttal to the public comment.
10 Recommendation (1 of 5)
Staff also recommends the City Council make the following motions:
Remand to Planning Commission, Parking, and Landscaping Motion to adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) of the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea Remanding This Project to the Planning Commission for further consideration based on the findings by the City Council in this Resolution (Appeal 25115, Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building) filed by Krista Ostoich 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 (Resolution No. 2025- 020-PC) of Design Review, DR 23-140 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), Use Permit, UP 21- 113 (EsperanzaCarmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), Lot Merger, LM 20-394 (EsperanzaCarmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building), and associated Environmental Determination for the JB Pastor Building Project 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 010-145012-000.
11 Recommendation (2 of 5)
Floor Area:
Motion finding for purposes of consideration by the Planning Commission upon remand, that the Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building Project, as considered by the City Council on August 4, 2025 and September 8, 2025, complies with the Maximum Floor Area Requirements of City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code Section 17.14.140.C.
12 Recommendation (3 of 5)
Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Motion finding for purposes of consideration by the Planning Commission uponremand, that the Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building Project, asconsidered by the City Council on August 4, 2025 and September 8, 2025, isconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards based on City CouncilResolution 2023-099 and further directing City Staff to present to the PlanningCommission on remand additional analysis addressing the Project’s consistencywith the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 13 Recommendation (4 of 5)
CEQA
Motion finding for purposes of consideration by the Planning Commission uponremand, that the Esperanza Carmel Commercial - JB Pastor Building Project, asconsidered by the City Council on August 4, 2025 and September 8, 2025,Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 (Class 31) - Historical ResourceRestoration/Rehabilitation and that no Exceptions to this Categorical Exemptioncontained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to negate this Exemptionand further directing the Planning Commission to consider the Project’s eligibilityunder that Class 31 exemption based on the additional analysis of the Project’sconsistency with the Secretary of Interior Standard. 14 Recommendation (5 of 5)
• 17.38.030(c) – “The City Municipal Code Section 17.34.080.A.1 requires that a minimum of 50 percent of the required open space on each site shall be landscaped. The City Council finds that “required open space” consists of the ground level portion of the site outside the maximum allowable building footprint (i.e., site coverage). Consequently, the City Council finds that the Project does not comply with the City landscaping requirements in City Municipal Code Section 17.34.080.A.1, or the intent of those landscaping requirements, because the Project’s landscaping on the roof should not be included in the calculation of the 50% landscaping requirement, since this landscaping would neither be at ground level nor visually accessible and, without the inclusion of the landscaping proposed for the roof, less than 50% of the required open space on the site would be landscaped.
Proposed landscaping finding
• 17.38.030(c) – “The Planning Commission may authorize the satisfaction of parking requirements through the granting of a use permit and the payment of in-lieu fees when on-site parking is not practical or when on-site parking is prohibited by City policies.” In-lieu parking only to be granted if on-site
parking “is not practical”
• The code (17.38.030) specifically states that “[t]he 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.” • Must satisfy at least one of the following criteria:
• (B)(2) → “The project site for which the parking requirement applies is 5,000 square feet or less in size and has less than 50 feet of street frontage.”
• (B)(3) → “The construction of required driveway(s) for on-site parking would result in the excessive loss of curb parking on street.” • (B)(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.”
What does the code mean by “practical”?
• Must satisfy at least one of the following criteria:
• (B)(2) → “The project site for which the parking requirement applies is 5,000 square feet or less in size and has less than 50 feet of street frontage.” • Subject site is 12,000 sf with ~75 feet of street frontage. • (B)(3) → “The construction of required driveway(s) for on-site parking would result in the excessive loss of curb parking on street.”
• Not the case here, as there are already two driveways with curb cuts. • (B)(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.”
• Topography: No. The site is flat.
• Size: No. At 12,000 sf, of 223 non-hotel commercial parcels, only 8 are larger. • Shape: No. Slight L-shape, but not a flag lot.
• Peculiar conditions or existing development: Applicant argues preservation buffer makes accommodating the parking impractical.
What does the code mean by “practical”?
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 4
2025 Plan:
12 Spaces
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
2023 Plan:
21 Spaces
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
17 18 19 20 21
1 14 15 16
2023 Plan With
Buffer Overlay
2023 Plan
Less Lost Space
Result:
17 Spaces
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17
… and likely
space for more.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17
• Must satisfy at least one of the following criteria:
• (B)(2) → “The project site for which the parking requirement applies is 5,000 square feet or less in size and has less than 50 feet of street frontage.”
• Subject site is 12,000 sf with ~75 feet of street frontage. • (B)(3) → “The construction of required driveway(s) for on-site parking would result in the excessive loss of curb parking on street.” • Not the case here, as there are already two driveways with curb cuts. • (B)(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.”
• Topography: No. The site is flat.
• Size: No. At 12,000 sf, of 223 non-hotel commercial parcels, only 8 are larger. • Shape: No. Slight L-shape, but not a flag lot.
• Peculiar conditions or existing development: No. 2023 plan indicates you could fit at least 17 of the 18 required spaces on site – likely more.
What does the code mean by “practical”?
• “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 on-site and off-site, but has been unsuccessful in meeting the requirement[…]”
A final requirement: diligent effort to meet the
parking requirements (on-site and off)
FY Owner No. of
spaces
Fees
Collected
Interest
Collected Total BLOCK LOTS AP# DESCRIPTION
72/73 Jack Wagner 2.000 $9,000 9,000.00 74 11&13 10-191-1 W/S Lincoln between Ocean & 7th 72/73 Dick Bruhn 1.000 4,500 4,500.00 77 5,7, 7 & 8 10-141-7 S/E Corner San Carlos & Ocean 73/74 Paul Laub 1.000 6,500 6,500.00 75 1,2,3, & 9 10-147-18 S/W Corner Dolores & Ocean 71 8, 9, Pt 10 10-133-5 N/E Corner San Carlos & Ocean
73/74 Clark-Santos 2.000 13,000 13,000.00 90 Pt 2 & 4 10-142-12 E/S San Carlos between 7th & 8th 73/74 F. M. Scott 1.000 4,500 $250.00 4,750.00 55 18 10-138-9 E/S Lincoln between 5th & 6th 74/75 Carmel Associates 3.000 19,500 19,500.00 76 13 & 15 10-146-3 W/S San Carlos between Ocean &
7th
74/75 Craig McFarland 1.000 6,500 6,500.00 56 13 10-135-26 W/S San Carlos between 5th & 6th 75/75 Interest to Account 3,837.00 3,837.00 INTEREST
76/77 F. M. Scott 1.000 8,000 8,000.00
76/77 Craig McFarland 1.000 8,000 8,000.00
76/77 Ausonio Construction 4.000 32,000 32,000.00 55 14 10-135-11 E/S Lincoln between 5th & 6th 76/77 Interest to Account 4,640.44 4,640.44 INTEREST
77/78 Gunnar Reimers 1.000 8,000 8,000.00 Reimers Danish Bakery 77/78 Orval Meade 3.000 41,250 41,250.00 75 14, Pt. 10 10-147-11 E/S Lincoln between Ocean & 7th 79/80 Neill Engineers 2.000 27,500 27,500.00 57 E. ½ 1 & 3 10-132-1 S/W Corner Mission & 5th 80/81 Ben Enea 1.000 13,750 13,750.00 74 Pt. 4 10-201-10 S/S Ocean between Monte Verde & Lincoln
80/81 Mel Kline (partial
payment) 8.000 27,500 27,500.00 57 7 & 9 10-132-3 W/S Mission between 5th & 6th 81/82 Mel Kline (partial
payment) 16,500 16,500.00 58 10 10-098-12 E/S Mission between 5th & 6th 82/83 Mel Kline (balance) 66,000 66,000.00 49 13 & 15 10-987-3 W/S Junipero between 4th & 5th 86/87 Monterey Capital Inc.
(Stratton) 1.000 20,865 20,865.00 51 16 10-136-11 E/S Dolores between 4th & 5th 89/90 Victorian Residential Care
Home 0.334 6,955 6,955.00 93 5 10-192-02 W/S Lincoln between 7th & 8th 90/91 Stella Biason 2.000 50,655.40 50,655.40 57 13 10-132-05 W/S Mission between 5th & 6th 91/92 William Mitchell (Schock
Gallery) 0.500 12,410.72 12,410.72 75 4 10-147-14 S/S Ocean between Lincoln & Dolores 91/92
Seaside Development
Corporation (General
Store/Forge in the Forest)
2.175 55,088.40 55,088.40 58 1 & 3 10-098-1 S/W Corner Junipero & 5th 96/97 J. Clampett-Jones 0.460 12,659 12,659.00 92 3 & 5 10-148-14 Dolores St. 2 S/W of 7th 99/00 Carmel Art Association 0.220 6,100.26 6,100.26 55 9 10-138-4 W/S Dolores between 5th & 6th 02/03 Cypress Inn Investors 1.950 53,664 53,664.00 75 16 & 18 10-147-8 75 20 & 22 10-147-9 S/W corner Dolores & Ocean
02/03 Reynolds & Brown 3.000 149,940 149,940.00 75 1, 2, 3, & 9 10-147-018 S/S Ocean between Lincoln & Dolores
75 4 10-147-015
03/04 Forge 0.476 25,740 25,740.00 58 1,3,5, & 7 10-098-019 S/W Corner Junipero & 5th 706,077.78 8,727.44 714,805.22
FY Owner No. of
spaces
Fees Collected Total BLOCK LOTS AP# DESCRIPTION
72/73 Jack Wagner 2.000 9,000.00 9,000 74 11&13 10-191-1 W/S Lincoln between Ocean & 7th 72/73 Dick Bruhn 1.000 4,500.00 4,500 77 5,7, 7 & 8 10-141-7 S/E Corner San Carlos & Ocean 73/74 Paul Laub 1.000 6,500.00 6,500 75 1,2,3, & 9 10-147-18 S/W Corner Dolores & Ocean 73/74 Clark-Santos 2.000 13,000.00 13,000 90 Pt 2 & 4 10-142-12 E/S San Carlos between 7th & 8th 73/74 F. M. Scott 1.000 4,500.00 4,750 55 18 10-138-9 E/S Lincoln between 5th & 6th 74/75 Carmel Associates 3.000 19,500.00 19,500 76 13 & 15 10-146-3 W/S San Carlos between Ocean & 7th 74/75 Craig McFarland 1.000 6,500.00 6,500 56 13 10-135-26 W/S San Carlos between 5th & 6th 76/77 F. M. Scott 1.000 8,000.00 8,000
76/77 Craig McFarland 1.000 8,000.00 8,000
76/77 Ausonio Construction 4.000 32,000.00 32,000 55 14 10-135-11 E/S Lincoln between 5th & 6th 77/78 Gunnar Reimers 1.000 8,000.00 8,000 Reimers Danish Bakery 77/78 Orval Meade 3.000 41,250.00 41,250 75 14, Pt. 10 10-147-11 E/S Lincoln between Ocean & 7th 79/80 Neill Engineers 2.000 27,500.00 27,500 57 E. ½ 1 & 3 10-132-1 S/W Corner Mission & 5th 80/81 Ben Enea 1.000 13,750.00 13,750 74 Pt. 4 10-201-10 S/S Ocean between Monte Verde & Lincoln 80/81 Mel Kline (partial payment) 8.000 27,500.00 27,500 57 7 & 9 10-132-3 W/S Mission between 5th & 6th 81/82 Mel Kline (partial payment) 16,500.00 16,500 58 10 10-098-12 E/S Mission between 5th & 6th 82/83 Mel Kline (balance) 66,000.00 66,000 49 13 & 15 10-987-3 W/S Junipero between 4th & 5th 86/87 Monterey Capital Inc. (Stratton) 1.000 20,865.00 20,865 51 16 10-136-11 E/S Dolores between 4th & 5th 89/90 Victorian Residential Care Home 0.334 6,955.00 6,955 93 5 10-192-02 W/S Lincoln between 7th & 8th 90/91 Stella Biason 2.000 50,655.40 50,655 57 13 10-132-05 W/S Mission between 5th & 6th 91/92 William Mitchell (Schock Gallery) 0.500 12,410.72 12,411 75 4 10-147-14 S/S Ocean between Lincoln & Dolores 91/92 Seaside Development Corporation (General Store/Forge in the Forest) 2.175 55,088.40 55,088 58 1 & 3 10-098-1 S/W Corner Junipero & 5th 96/97 J. Clampett-Jones 0.460 12,659.00 12,659 92 3 & 5 10-148-14 Dolores St. 2 S/W of 7th 99/00 Carmel Art Association 0.220 6,100.26 6,100 55 9 10-138-4 W/S Dolores between 5th & 6th 02/03 Cypress Inn Investors 1.950 53,664.00 53,664 75 16 & 18 10-147-8 75 20 & 22 10-147-9 S/W corner Dolores & Ocean
02/03 Reynolds & Brown 3.000 149,940.00 149,940 75 1, 2, 3, & 9 10-147-018 S/S Ocean between Lincoln & Dolores 75 4 10-147-015
03/04 Forge 0.476 25,740.00 25,740 58 1,3,5, & 7 10-098-019 S/W Corner Junipero & 5th