CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project

Meeting Date: 2 November 2010
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carmel
Sands Redevelopment Project and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
Carmel Sands Lodge is located on the northeast corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth
Avenue. The appellant is Barbara Livingston.
Description: The project consists of the demolition of the existing 42-room Carmel Sands
Lodge and the construction of a new 42-room hotel that includes a 64-space underground
garage, a restaurant, a day spa and two retail spaces. The appellant is requesting that the
Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and is
requesting that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the project.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Important Considerations: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a
lead agency prepare an Initial Study for all projects that are not categorically or
statutorily exempt. An Initial Study is prepared to determine if a project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
The City prepared an Initial Study for this project and determined that all potentially
significant environmental impacts could be mitigated. The Planning Commission
therefore adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission approved the project and adopted a Mitigated
Negative Declaration on 14 July 2010. An appeal was filed on 27 July 2010.
Attachments:
• Staff Report dated 2 November 2010
• Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (submitted under separate cover)
• Appeal Information (Attachment “A”)
• Applicant’s Correspondence (Attachment “B”)
• Correspondence (Attachment “C”)
• Response to Comments (Attachment “D”)
• Planning Commission Findings and Conditions of Approval (Attachment “E”)
• Hotel Comparison Tables (Attachment “F”)
• Project Plans (Attachment “G”)
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
42
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD & COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 2 NOVEMBER 2010
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE CARMEL
SANDS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE CARMEL
SANDS LODGE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAN CARLOS STREET AND FIFTH AVENUE
THE APPELLANT IS BARBARA LIVINGSTON.
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
The Carmel Sands Lodge is located at the northeast corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth
Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District. The lodge consists of 42 guest rooms
and a 120-seat restaurant in three buildings. The site also includes a large surface parking
lot and a swimming pool. The buildings on the site are not considered historically
significant. A Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City’s Historic Inventory
was issued on 1 September 2006.
An application was filed in 2008 for the demolition of the existing hotel and the
construction of a new 57 room hotel. The Planning Commission (PC) reviewed this
project on August 13th, November 12th and December 10th, 2008. The PC continued the
project at its 10 December 2008 hearing. There is a cap on the number of hotel rooms
allowed in the City and the applicant had not yet identified where the additional 15 rooms
would come from. The PC indicated that more information was needed regarding the
addition 15 rooms.
The project was subsequently revised to eliminate the proposal to add 15 rooms. The
revised project was then reviewed by the PC at four separate meetings. On 10 March
2010 the PC approved the Design Concept, and on 14 July 2010 the PC approved all
development permits and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
An appeal was filed on 27 July 2010 by Carmel resident Barbara Livingston.
43
Carmel Sands Appeal
Staff Report
2 November 2010
Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing buildings on-site and construct a new
hotel (see project plans in attachment “G”). The redevelopment will include the
following features:
• 42 hotel rooms in four buildings
• Intra-block walkway and interior courtyard
• Two retail spaces
• Limited use restaurant
• 64-space underground garage
• Day spa facility
• A Porte Cochere vehicle entrance on San Carlos Street
PROJECT DATA FOR A 32,997 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations Allowed/Required Existing Proposed
Floor Area 44,546 sf (135%) 20,780 sf (63%) 39,077 sf (118%)
Building Coverage 31,347 sf (95%) 10,559 sf (34%) 25,052 sf (76%)
Building Height 30 ft. 26 ft. 30 ft.*
Parking 57 spaces 42 spaces 64 spaces
*Applicant is requesting height exceptions for tower elements per CMC 17.14.150.
APPEAL
The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the PC’s decision to approve
the project and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on two points, 1) an EIR
should have been prepared, and 2) the project has significant drawbacks (see attachment
“A”). It is important to note that many of the letters, emails and the petition attached to
the appellant’s submittal were addressing the previous proposal of a 57 unit motel, not
the current proposal.
EVALUATION
The following section addresses comments raised in the appellant’s letter. The numbers
below correspond to the numbers annotated on attachment “A”. Staff has summarized
the concerns raised by the appellant and has included a brief response.
1. The appellant argues that the applicant’s attorney stated in a letter that an EIR should
be required for the project.
Response: The letter in question was in reference to the previous proposal that included
15 new hotel rooms and not to the current proposal, which does not increase the room
44
Carmel Sands Appeal
Staff Report
2 November 2010
Page 3
count. The applicant’s attorney has submitted a letter to the Council indicating that the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for the project (see attachment
“B”).
2. The primary basis of the appeal is that an EIR should be prepared for the project.
Response: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a lead
agency prepare an Initial Study (IS) for all projects that are not categorically or statutorily
exempt. An IS is prepared to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment.
Based on the results of the IS, a lead agency may determine whether to prepare a
Negative Declaration (ND), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A MND can only be adopted if there is no
substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided. CEQA Guidelines Section
15384 defines substantial evidence as:
“…enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information
that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other
conclusions might be reached…Substantial evidence shall include facts,
reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by
facts.”
The City prepared an IS for this project and determined that a MND was appropriate as
all potentially significant impacts could be mitigated. The IS/MND was then circulated
for public comment. The City received 10 comments, most of which simply requested
that an EIR be prepared (see attachment “C”). Two comment letters raised questions as
to whether sufficient information had been provided in the IS/MND. The City then
prepared a Response to Comments that was subsequently reviewed by the PC (see
attachment “D”).
On 9 December 2009 and again on 10 February 2010 the PC determined that the MND
was appropriate for the project. The PC determined that the comments had been
responded to, and that no substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts had
been presented. The PC then adopted the MND on 14 July 2010 (see attachment “E”).
3. The appellant argues that the project could result in a canyon effect on San Carlos
Street if the properties north of Fifth Avenue were built out to the sidewalk.
Response: The ‘canyon effect’ referred to by the appellant is actually a desirable
attribute in the commercial district. The General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and
Commercial Design Guidelines all encourage properties in the SC District to be built at,
or close to the street to create a pedestrian wall (see O1-11, P1-64, & P1-68 of the
General Plan, CMC 17.14.130, & Commercial Design Guideline pg. 8).
45
Carmel Sands Appeal
Staff Report
2 November 2010
Page 4
Even if the City did determine that a canyon effect at this location could be detrimental,
the proposed project would not contribute any more to this effect than the existing twostory
structure on San Carlos Street already does, which is built to the sidewalk and
stretches from lot line to lot line.
4. The appellant argues that public comments were not responded to.
Response: The Planning Commission reviewed and considered all public comments,
both oral and written. The Commission determined that all of the comments were
appropriately addressed through the IS/MND, the Response to Comments (see
attachment “D”) and the deliberation of the Commission.
5. The appellant argues that the mass and scale of the project are inappropriate.
Response: The majority of commercial building sites in the City are between 2,500 and
8,000 square feet in size. Most of these small commercial sites were developed
independently with a wide array of architectural styles. The architectural variety and
small building sites contribute to the unique character of the City.
Apart from the Carmel Plaza, the majority of sites larger than 8,000 square feet are
occupied by hotels. While most of the commercial buildings are modest in size and
scale, many of the hotels are much larger in scale and generally consist of a single
architectural style. Hotels such as the Pine Inn, La Playa, and the Cypress Inn, for
example, are all developed on sites well over 8,000 square feet and are much larger in
scale than surrounding development. However, these buildings add diversity and
contribute significantly to the character of the City.
Tables A and B (see attachment “F”) provide some additional context as to site size,
number of rooms, density and height of many of the hotels in town, including most of the
hotels surrounding the Carmel Sands project. While the Sands is the second largest hotel
site in the City, the project height, number of rooms, and room density are very consistent
with many of the hotels in town, including those in the immediate vicinity.
The total proposed floor area ratio for the project is 118% and the total building coverage
is 76%. The floor area is 17% below the base allowed floor area for the site (135%) and
27% percent below the maximum allowed floor area with bonuses (145%). The building
coverage is 19% below the maximum allowed coverage (95%).
6. Traffic congestion at San Carlos and Fifth and overall parking has not been
adequately addressed.
Response: The analysis shows only slight changes to peak hour and daily trips to the
site. The existing surface parking lot accommodates 42 vehicles for the forty two-room
46
Carmel Sands Appeal
Staff Report
2 November 2010
Page 5
motel and the 120 seat restaurant. The site is currently nonconforming by approximately
six parking spaces. The proposed project exceeds the on-site parking requirement by 7
spaces, a 13-space improvement based on the City’s required parking standards. The
project also creates new on-street parking spaces by eliminating existing access points on
Fifth Avenue and on Mission Street. The Porte de Cochere will also allow vehicles to
pull off the street while checking in or out of the hotel, thus limiting congestion (see
attachment “D” for more information).
7. The appellant argues that it is unlikely an EIR would be required if this project is
approved and later additional hotel units are proposed.
Response: If a proposal were submitted to add additional units to this site, an IS would
be prepared. Based on the results of an IS, the City would then take the appropriate
action. Adding rooms would raise potential concerns related to parking and traffic along
with issues related to where the proposed new rooms were being transferred from. All of
these issues would need to be addressed in the environmental review. It is impossible to
know whether an EIR would or would not be required without a complete project
description.
8. The appellant argues that an EIR was required for the Plaza del Mar Project and
should therefore be required for this project.
Response: There are several aspects to this project that make it very different from the
Plaza del Mar Project (SE Cor. Dolores & 7th ). The Plaza del Mar project was located
adjacent to an historic district, involved a potentially significant architectural structure,
required the removal of significant trees, involved a significant intensification of use and
was requesting exceptions to several General Plan and Zoning standards.
The Carmel Sands project is not adjacent to an historic district, does not involve
historically or architecturally significant structures, does not include the removal of any
significant trees, is not significantly intensifying the use on the site, and is not requesting
any variances. There are two potential zoning discrepancies that do exist that are
discussed below. However, these discrepancies can easily be remedied and would not
alone justify the preparation of an EIR.
Planning Commission: On 14 July 2010, the Planning Commission approved the
project with a 4-1 vote. One of the primary topics of discussion was whether it was
appropriate to have each building include variations in materials, colors and styles, as
shown on the drawings. The concern expressed by the Commission was that having
several variations in materials and styles may appear unauthentic and contrived. The
Commission approved the project with a condition that all of the buildings be clad with
stucco siding with only slight color variations. The applicant is required to return to the
47
Carmel Sands Appeal
Staff Report
2 November 2010
Page 6
Commission for the final review of the exterior treatments prior to building permit
issuance.
This decision appears to conflict with CMC 17.14.120, which states that projects on
building sites larger than 12,000 square feet are required to be broken up into two or
more distinctively different developments to avoid the appearance of a single large
project. The project was designed with separate buildings with variations in materials
and styles specifically to address this issue. If the appeal is denied, the Council may want
to discuss whether it prefers a unified appearance, as conditioned by the Planning
Commission, or variations in materials and styles, as proposed by the applicant. The
Council could then provide direction to the Planning Commission on this issue.
Setbacks: An oversight was made regarding the front setback of the northern building
on San Carlos Street. The code requires a five foot setback for sites that abut the RC
District. The northwest building currently has no front setback. The applicant has
indicated that the plans can be revised to comply with this setback requirement. If the
Council denies the appeal, the Planning Commission could review the revised plans at the
same time it reviews the finished details for the project.
OPTIONS
The following are potential options for the Council to consider regarding this appeal:
Option 1: Deny the appeal in full
This option would uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and
adopt a MND.
Option 2: Grant the appeal in full
This option would void the Planning Commission’s approval of the project and would
require the preparation of an EIR before taking further action on the project.
Option 3: Grant the appeal in part
If the Council determines that an EIR is not required, but would like to see changes in the
project design and/or additional information in the MND prior to final approval, this
option could be selected. The Council could remand the project back to the Planning
Commission with instructions.
Option 4: Continue Consideration of the Appeal to a Future Date
This option would allow the City Council to request additional information prior to
making a final decision on the appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
Option 3: Deny the request to require an EIR but remand the design back to the Planning
Commission to address CMC Section 17.14.120 related to providing more distinction in
the project design and to address the front setback along San Carlos Street.