CITY COUNCIL: Findings for City Council's Decision on Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project & Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)

Meeting Date: 7 December 2010
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of Findings for the City Council’s Decision on an appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval of the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and the adoption
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
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, and the adoption of an MND. The
proposed findings were written to reflect the basis for the Council’s decision to deny the
appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the attached Findings.
Important Considerations: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report when a fair argument can be made, based
on substantial evidence, that a project may have a significant adverse environmental
impact. The Council determined that a fair argument, based on substantial evidence, can
not be made that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact, and
upheld the Planning Commission’s decision.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission approved the project and adopted an MND on 14
July 2010. An appeal was filed on 27 July 2010. The City Council denied the appeal on
2 November 2010.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
26
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
FINDINGS FOR DECISION
UP 08-2/DR 08-9
Barbara Livingston Appeal
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
NE Cor. San Carlos & 5th
Block 50, Lots Part 12 & 13-20
CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of Findings for the City Council’s Decision on an appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval of the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and the adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This site is 32,997 square feet in size and is comprised of a portion of lot 12 and all of
lots 13-20 of Block 50 in the Service Commercial (SC) District of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Evidence
• City of Carmel-by-the Sea property file and Monterey County Assessor’s
records.
• Official Zoning Map of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
2. This site is developed with a 42-unit motel known as the Carmel Sands Lodge and
includes a 120-seat full service restaurant.
Evidence
• City of Carmel-by-the Sea property file and business license records.
3. The existing buildings on the site are not considered historically significant. The City
issued a Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City’s Historic Inventory on 1
September 2006.
Evidence
• Determination of Ineligibility dated 1 September 2006.
• Letter dated 17 August 2010 from Preservation Consultant Kent Seavey.
4. The property owner submitted an application for the demolition of the existing motel
and the construction of a new 57-unit motel on 21 March 2008.
Evidence
• Application Materials on file at City Hall.
27
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 2
5. The City circulated an Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) for the
project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) from 13
November 2008 through 3 December 2008.
Evidence
• Draft IS/MND dated 10 November 2008.
• Notice of Intent filed with Monterey County Clerk on 11/12/2008.
• Carmel Pine Cone Public Notice.
6. The Planning Commission reviewed the IS/MND on 10 December 2008 and continued
the project to a future meeting.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Minutes for 12/10/2008.
7. The applicant subsequently revised the project to reduce the number of rooms to 42,
which necessitated the preparation of a new IS.
Evidence
• Application materials on file at City Hall
8. The City prepared a revised IS/MND based on the new project description and
circulated it from 4 November 2009 through 24 November 2009. The IS/MND
identified 20 Mitigation Measures to address potentially significant impacts.
Evidence
• IS/MND dated 11/2/2009.
• Notice of Intent filed with Monterey County Clerk on 11/5/2009.
• Carmel Pine Cone Notice.
9. Ten comments were submitted during the public comment period. Staff issued a
“Response to Comments” on 9 December 2009 responding to questions and concerns
raised in comment letters.
Evidence
• Comment letters on file at City Hall.
• Planning Commission Packet dated 12/9/09.
28
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 3
10. On 9 December 2009 and again on 10 February 2010 the Planning Commission
determined that the IS/MND was adequate for the project and that no substantial
evidence existed that the project might have a significant effect on the environment.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Minutes for 12/9/2009 and 2/10/2010.
11. On 10 March 2010 the Planning Commission accepted the Design Concept for the
project and determined that the proposed scale, massing and site design were
appropriate for the project. The Commission also determined that the proposed mass
and scale of the project was consistent with other hotels in the City and with other
projects in the vicinity.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Minutes for 3/10/2010.
• Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments dated 3/10/2010.
12. On 10 March 2010 the Planning Commission determined that the requested height
exceptions for the tower elements that exceed 30-feet in height were appropriate for the
project and consistent with the Municipal Code.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Minutes for 3/10/2010.
• CMC Section 17.14.150.B.
13. On 14 July 2010 the Planning Commission approved all project permits and adopted a
MND.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments dated 7/14/2010.
• Planning Commission Minutes for 7/14/2010.
14. An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt an MND and approve the
project was filed by Barbara Livingston on 27 July 2010. The appellant requested that
the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and require an
Environmental Impact Report for the Project. The appellant further argued that the
project had drawbacks that should lead to its denial.
Evidence
• Appeal Application dated 7/27/10.
• Appeal Letter and Attachments dated 9/7/10.
29
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 4
15. On 2 November 2010 the City Council received both oral and written testimony on the
appeal and voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision
with a 5-0 vote.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report and Attachments dated 11/2/10.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
16. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows a lead agency to adopt a
MND only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment,
and that the MND reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
Evidence
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.b.
17. As defined by CEQA, a “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or
potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area
affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna ambient noise,
and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.
Evidence
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15382.
FINDINGS FOR DECISION:
1. The Planning Commission adopted 40 Findings related to project approval on 14 July
2010. The City Council’s decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission’s decision reaffirms these findings.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments dated 7/14/10.
• City Council Staff Report and Attachments dated 11/2/10.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
2. Based on a review of the whole record, including public testimony given orally and in
writing on 2 November 2010, the City Council determined that a fair argument, based
on substantial evidence, can not be made that the project will have a significant adverse
effect on the environment.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report and Attachments dated 11/2/10.
30
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 5
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
• Definition of “Substantial Evidence” in CEQA Guidelines Section 15384.
3. The existing surface parking lot includes 42 parking spaces for the 42-room 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 seven
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. A
fair argument, based on substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will
result in a significant adverse effect on traffic and parking.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report and Attachments dated 11/2/10.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
• Adopted IS/MND and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
4. Noise impacts are adequately addressed in the IS/MND. A fair argument, based on
substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will result in significant
adverse noise impacts.
Evidence
• MND Mitigation Measures 11-1 through 11-3.
• Planning Commission Special Conditions of Approval #’s 31 and 42.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
5. 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. The proposed project is consistent with these policies,
standards and guidelines.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report dated 11/2/10.
• General Plan Objective 01-11.
• General Plan Policies P1-64 and P1-68.
• CMC Section 17.14.130.
• Commercial Design Guidelines pg. 8.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
31
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 6
6. The IS/MND adequately addresses public and private views. A fair argument, based on
substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will result in significant
adverse impacts to public and/or private views.
Evidence
• Adopted IS/MND section I (aesthetics).
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
7. The IS/MND adequately addresses air quality and global warming issues. Greenhouse
gas emissions associated with the project are negligible and all potential impacts are
appropriately addressed through the adopted mitigation measures. A fair argument,
based on substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will result in
significant adverse air quality and/or global warming impacts.
Evidence
• Adopted IS/MND section III (Air Quality).
• Mitigation Measures 3-1 through 3-3.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
8. 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%). The
project is significantly less massive than could be allowed under the zoning standards
for the SC District. The variations in setbacks, building heights, and the separation of
buildings reduce the overall mass of the project. A fair argument, based on substantial
evidence, has not been made that the project will result in significant adverse impacts
on community character due to mass and bulk.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report dated 11/2/10.
• Approved Project Plans.
• CMC Sections 17.14.130 and 17.14.140.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
9. The argument that additional rooms could be added to the site creating additional
impacts is premature as it is not part of the current project proposal. If a proposal to
add additional hotel units on this site were submitted, it would constitute a new project
under CEQA and require the appropriate review.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report dated 11/2/10.
32
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 7
• City Council minutes for 11/2/10.
• CEQA Guidelines.
10. Short term impacts related to project construction are adequately addressed in the
IS/MND and the Planning Commission Special Conditions of Approval. A fair
argument, based on substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will result
in significant adverse impacts due to short term construction activities.
Evidence
• Adopted IS/MND.
• Mitigation Measures 3-1, 3-2, 8-1, and 11-1 through 11-3.
• Planning Commission Special Conditions of Approval #’s 32, 33 and 42.
11. As conditioned by the City Council, the project shall include a five foot setback for the
first 40 feet along San Carlos Street beginning at the northwest corner of the site. This
ensures that the project complies with the intent and requirements of the General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and Commercial Design Guidelines.
Evidence
• CMC Section 17.14.160.
• Commercial Design Guidelines.
• City Council minutes for 11/2/10.