Agenda packet — Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council, September 12, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

______________________
26385 Carmel Rancho Boulevard, Suite 200, Carmel, California 93923 The project is designed to be fully consistent with the General Plan and LUP, including retaining the existing land use pattern and providing a transitional R-4 designation buffering the R-1 district.

Key Proposal Features –
• Solves the long-recognized problem of a commercial atmosphere unsuitable to residential purposes on these R-1 designated lots
• R-4 planning and zoning designation creates a transitional buffer between commercial and residential districts (LUP Policy P1-59, P1-70)
• Facilitates superior community design compared to what base R-1 district regulations allow
• Facilitates development that is compatible with design standards reflecting increased onstreet parking, reduction in curb cuts, increased setbacks, preservation and improvement of public views of the ocean from community facilities, preservation of trees, and increased open space and landscaping (LUP Policy P1-70) • Elimination of off-street surface parking would minimize unrelieved expanses of pavement devoted to parking (CMC Section 17.64.120.D)
• Net reduction of one lodging unit is consistent with numerical unit cap (LUP Policy P1- 17; Table 17.56.A)
• Designation of one workforce housing unit for on-site management • No change in commercial/residential boundary (LUP Policy P1-2) • Maintains existing mix of commercial uses (LUP Objective O1-4) • Proposal is for allowed uses in the R-4 District (CMC Section 17.02.060.A) • Consistent with the GP/LUP, Camel Municipal Code, design guidelines and compatible with surrounding development
• No debit to city’s water allocation or increased demand on city services (CMC Section

17.56.060.A.7)
• Small increase in parking spaces per unit and consistent with CMC Section 17.38.020, Table A parking requirements
• No creation, increase or expansion of any non-conformities (CMC Section 17.64.100.E) • GPA tied to a specific project approval provides certainty and complete city control over any future use/development. Neither precedential nor detrimental to the city (CMC Section 17.64.010.A.3)
The precise project description can be stated as follows:

CUP/Coastal Permit for reconstruction of Pine Inn commercial parking structure located on Block 54, Lots 18 and 20, including: converting 21 surface parking spaces to 21 covered and underground parking spaces on the ground level; reducing the total number of existing Pine Inn rooms by one; relocating and reconstructing eight of the remaining lodging units to the second level of the new structure on Lots 18 and 20, including Attachment 3

HORAN LLOYD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
June 21, 2023

Page 3 ends

______________________
26385 Carmel Rancho Boulevard, Suite 200, Carmel, California 93923 conversion of one guest room to workforce housing for an on-site manager; remodeling of eight of the forty-one remaining lodging units in the Pine Inn; changing the zoning designation of Lots 18 and 20 from their current R-1 designation to R-4 multi-family residential; and adoption of a Community Plan Overlay District designation; GPA to revise the Land Use Map; and adoption of a Specific Plan.

The accompanying letter from Dyar Architecture describes the proposal from an architectural and aesthetic perspective. Staff has received a thorough policy and regulatory consistency analysis.

Respectfully submitted,
Mark Blum
MAB/ab Mark A. Blum
Attachment 3

DYAR ARCHITECTURE
P.O. Box 4709 Carmel, CA 93921 831.250.7378 [email protected] www.dyararchitecture.com June 30, 2023
Mayor Potter and Members of the City Council
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
P.O. Box CC
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, 93921
RE: Proposed Pine Inn Cottage Suites and Garage Project Description

Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members,
This letter is to give an introduction and description of what we are calling the Pine Inn Cottage Suites and Garage project, located at Block 54, Lots 18 and 20 at the NE corner of Monte Verde Street and Sixth Avenue, directly across the street from the Pine Inn.

BACKGROUND
The property was rezoned for a commercial Pine Inn parking structure back in 1960 and has been utilized consistently from then until today for this use. While having a parking structure adjacent to the 49-room, historic Pine Inn has been functionally important, a large, open parking area with parked cars and exposed asphalt has really been an eye-sore for this area of town. The current condition provides a poor relationship to the adjacent First Murphy Park to the East, with tall retaining walls dropping to asphalt; does not provide a proper transition from the downtown core to the residential district; and certainly does not contribute to the design sensibilities of the town nor comply with the commercial design guidelines.

Over the years since the purchase of the property in the 1980’s, City officials, Staff and the owner, Richard Gunner, have discussed remedying this condition by creating a covered parking structure here with a few hotel units above. Mr. Gunner, in fact, did successfully pursue and construct a project to cover an open asphalt parking lot with hotel units and green roofs for the directly adjacent Tally Ho Inn to the West. It can be said there was, for many, a general consensus that a project on this parcel which maintained the same amount of parking spaces, covering them with a structure which also had green roofs, open space and hotel units above would be a significant improvement over the existing condition.

The existing zoning (R-1) is a strange aberration and is not consistent with the existing use nor the current community design objectives which would discourage large, open parking areas in R-1 district.

Attachment 4

DYAR ARCHITECTURE
2 This property is directly adjacent to the very large Pine Inn structure and across the street from the Tally Ho Inn, both zoned Commercial and up against the large, Christian Science Church. It has never made sense to have this island of R-1 in the middle of this kind of density. The way Carmel-by-the-Sea has developed and been planned is clearly based on having the most density and mass at the central commercial district centered along Ocean Avenue with the gradual reduction of density, transitioning this out toward the residential neighborhoods-- Central Commercial, Service Commercial, Residential Commercial, R-4, then R-1. The zoning of our Pine Inn parking lot property has always seemed some sort of mistake from the beginning. There are virtually no other examples of Central Commercial being directly up against R-1 zoning, except at the Carmel Plaza which is separated by the wide Junipero Street boulevard from the First Presbyterian Church.

A change in the zoning and planning designation of this property is the only way to solve a currently highly unsatisfactory situation for the City. Having an empty, open asphalt parking structure in this wonderful part of downtown Carmel is not only under-utilized and inappropriate, but really a waste of what could provide a much more vital and important contribution to the City. We can do much better Our proposal addresses the following:

1. It maintains the number of existing parking places while covering and obscuring the parked cars and asphalt from public view, while adding one additional street parking space along Sixth Avenue.

2. It enhances the pedestrian path from First Murphy Park down to Monte Verde while providing a subtle, easy transition from park into the project.

3. It dramatically improves the transition from the commercial downtown core to the residential district with a more natural and consistent reduction of mass and scale from Ocean Avenue to the residential neighborhood, as well as, enhancing the visual quality of this property with the elimination of the inappropriate parking lot from public view, and replacing it with a structure with beautiful natural materials, forms and scale that are generated from the residential character of Carmel.

4. It creates a new workforce/employee housing unit on the property.

Attachment 4

DYAR ARCHITECTURE
3 5. It maintains all the existing trees on the site, including the planter along Sixth Avenue and provides open space through the use of terraces, the open courtyard and the “landscape buffer” between First Murphy Park and the cottage site.

6. It provides a landscaped courtyard which is open to the public and does provide an intra-block walkway through the property from the SE corner on Sixth to the NW corner on Monte Verde.

7. The project upgrades a portion of the current hotel room stock in the Pine Inn, while not increasing the number of rooms.

8. The project follows and exemplifies the Commercial Design Guideline which states, “new buildings should not imitate styles of the past but strive to achieve compatibility with the old.”
Parking
The project keeps the same number of parking spaces as the existing structure while meeting current accessibility and EV regulations. In order to do this, while maintaining the existing trees and planters, the spaces need to be in the approximately same existing location. This does require the parking structure, in order to cover the spaces, to extend to the property line at Monte Verde. Please note, even while the lower stone form extends to the front property line, the hotel rooms above are setback 11’-4” from this front property line. The existing parking area entrance and curb cut is maintained on Monte Verde, while the curb cut along Sixth Avenue is eliminated thereby adding one additional public parking space.

Water Use, Number of Hotel Rooms and Workforce/Manager’s Unit The water for the project is provided by consolidating and upgrading 18 of the hotel rooms in the existing 49-room Pine Inn, reducing the number of rooms in the existing Pine Inn to 40. The project proposes transferring (7) hotel rooms to the adjacent parking lot property (which is considered by MPWMD to be the same site, is owned by the same entity, and is currently used as part of the Pine Inn for their parking). The additional water provided by the (2) other rooms eliminated will be used for a workforce/employee housing unit and landscaping. The MPWMD has verified that this is consistent with their rules and regulations.

Enhancing the Pedestrian Path
As discussed above, First Murphy Park currently abruptly terminates into the subject property with retaining walls dropping to asphalt. The meandering path through First Murphy just meets an unimproved concrete sidewalk. This project has its courtyard level and landscape “buffer” at the approximate same elevation at the property line as the park. This allows for the much subtler, easy transition from Attachment 4

DYAR ARCHITECTURE
4 park to hotel property. In terms of building mass, only the smaller elevator form is near this corner; the rest of this area on our parcel is given to landscape which creates the perception of a merging of park with the new development. As a pedestrian walks down the path through the park, they look towards landscape plantings and trees within the development site and then meet, instead of swaths of concrete like the existing condition, another path of permeable pavers which meanders downhill with Carmel stone planters and garden/park-like landscaping toward Monte Verde.

After walking through the park, pedestrians can also stroll up the steps and walk through the open, landscape courtyard. They can turn back or can also take the steps down exiting to Monte Verde Street, thus providing another of Carmel’s intrablock walkways. Many hotels have these open courtyards and this design continues this tradition exemplified with such properties as the Pine Inn, Lobos Lodge, Lamp Lighter Inn, and Cypress Inn.

Transition from Central Commercial
This project proposes a relatively modest density, only using 7 rooms of the 49- rooms in the main hotel structure (with 1 new workforce housing unit) and uses forms and materials derived from the residential character of the town, stays withing the residential 24-foot height limit, and allows for generous open space with the courtyard, the terraces and landscape buffer toward the park. All this while providing a new structure that is of an appropriate use and Per General Plan Policy I-60: enhances the visual quality of the area and improves the transition between the commercial and R-1 districts. The large stone planters are maintained and enhanced on Sixth Avenue, as well as, on the North and East property lines to preserve trees while greatly improving the landscaping.

The Architecture
Rather than the rooms being within a larger solid like the adjacent Pine Inn, this project breaks down the mass so that the individual rooms are expressed in form, as a way to connect more to the human scale and aid in transitioning to the residential neighborhood. The rooms along Monte Verde Street use gable forms with slate roofs and wood ceilings revealing the warm interior, while the rooms facing Sixth Avenue are stone with flat green roofs. These forms will seem to emerge from the existing stone planters and, with a flat roof, stay low so the view from the First Murphy Park deck is maintained and enhanced. This deck will now look out beyond our site toward a peek of the ocean as it did before, but instead of looking at parked cars and asphalt, people will look down on green roofs, garden courtyards and slate roofs.

Attachment 4

DYAR ARCHITECTURE
5 The stone two-story structure at the NE corner of the property, pulls back from the existing terraced planters, but still stays clear from interfering with the views from the First Murphy deck. This stone form will still be very much screened by the existing trees. The 2nd story, room no. 7, is clearly above the underground portion of the garage and thus cannot be considered a 3rd story. While still under the 24- foot height limit, it is the most vertical form proposed and we see it as inspired by Jeffer’s Tor House and Hawk’s tower.

In many ways, the proposed design is inspired by the historic architecture of Carmel. The gable forms of the front room relate to the town’s myriad of cottages and the nearby Seven Arts building and the Lamp Lighter Inn. The use of the slate roofs to the English and Storybook architecture in the village. The use of stucco connects to the Pine Inn, the Tally Ho Inn addition and the Lobos Lodge, but also to the Cypress Inn and the many Spanish colonial buildings. The use of the stone connects the building back to the existing site with its stone retaining walls and planters, as well as, to the wonderful tradition of stone masonry seen throughout Carmel—the Fire Station, the garden walls of the Art Association, the Tor House and Frank Lloyd Wright Walker house. The window design incorporates narrow muntins creating rectilinear window lights which can be seen across the street at the Pine Inn; custom wood shutters will be integrated into the streetfacing doors and windows to provide warm privacy screening.

As explained, the architecture is indeed inspired by the history and context of Carmel making a new interpretation and striving for, yes, compatibility, but more to the point, creating a rich dialog with the past while creating something new and appropriate for the present and future.

Sincerely,
Erik D. Dyar, AIA
Attachment 4

DYAR ARCHITECTURE
P.O. Box 4709 Carmel, CA 93921 831.250.7378 [email protected] www.dyararchitecture.com June 28, 2023
Pine Inn Cottage Suites and Garage Data:

Proposed Building Coverage
Garage Level Above Ground** = 2,858 sf
Main Hotel Structure Above = 1,739 sf
Underground garage
Workforce Unit and Room 7 = 608 sf
Elevator = 80 sf
Total Proposed Building Coverage = 5,285 sf or 66%

Max. Allowable Building Coverage in R-4 = 5,440 sf or 68%*** ** Per Section 17.14.210.F.1. The maximum height of the finished floor level above an underground parking garage facing any public street, way, place or park, shall not be higher than five feet above the existing grade or the official street grade, whichever measurement results in the lower height.
***Per Section 17.14.130
Proposed Floor Area
Rooms 1-6 = 3,701 sf
Upper Level Room 7 = 390 sf
Workforce/Employee Unit = 518 sf
Elevator = 80 sf
Garage Area Above Grade = 2,507 sf
Total Proposed Floor Area = 7,196 sf or 89.9%

Max. Allowable Floor Area **** = 7,200 sf or 90.0%
**** Per Section 17.14.140.B. Courtyard and Intrablock Walkway bonus Attachment 4
Attachment 4

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
September 12, 2023

PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Evan Kort, Associate Planner
APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT:

Review the Historic Resources Board’s July 17, 2023 decision to issue 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 9,805-square-foot subterranean garage on a portion of the Northern California Savings & Loan Complex site, and consider adoption of Resolution 2023-091 upholding the Determination of Consistency and conditions of approval for the construction project DR 23-140 (Esperanza Carmel Commercial – JB Pastor Building)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution issuing a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 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 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
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to construct a mixed-use building with subterranean garage on a portion of the Northern California Savings & Loan Complex site. This project has been considered multiple times before in other forms which have included the demolition or relocation of the Community Room. Those projects were not support by the Historic Resources Board nor City Council on appeal. The applicant is no longer proposing to move or alter the Community Room building but build around it.

While the Northern California Savings & Loan Bank Building and Community Room are proposed to be preserved, construction is proposed on the southern two lots of the complex site (lots 6 & 8) and therefore the Board is required to adopt a Determination of Consistency for the project.

The Historic Resources Board considered the project at their July 17, 2023 meeting and adopted Resolution 2023-009-HRB issuing a Determination of Consistency. During the 10-day appeal period for the decision, the two members of the City Council enacted the City Council Right of Review (CMC

2.04.160) to call up and review the decision made by the Historic Resources Board.

BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Palo Alto Savings and Loan Complex (“complex”), consisting of Lots 2, 4, 6, and, 8, of Block 91 is located at the southeast corner of 7
th Avenue and Dolores Street. The complex was listed on the Carmel Inventory and Register on April 4, 2023 by the City Council, following the denial of an appeal (APP 23-031) by Esperanza Carmel Commercial appealing the HRB’s January 23, 2023 decision to list the property on the Carmel Inventory and Register.

The complex, designed by noted architects Walter Burde and William Shaw, is representative of the Bay Region Modern Style and maintains the following character defining features:

Building integrated with surrounding landscape;
Horizontal or Vertical massing with shed roofs;
Existing spatial relationship between the bank building and Community Room; Detached Community Room building connected by a wood-clad upper walkway; Projecting shed or boxy volumes;
Exposed structural elements;
Wide expanses of glass set within wood frames;
Wood siding as exterior cladding; and
Copper sheet roof cladding.

The applicant is proposing to construct a 15,351-square-foot mixed-use building with a 9,805-square-foot subterranean garage on a portion of the complex site. The project is proposed to be constructed on lots 6 and 8, as well as lot 10 – lot 10 is not part of the complex site. While the community room is located on lot 6, the project is proposed to be built around the community room leaving the structure intact with no alteration proposed to the Bank Building or Community Room. However, the proposed project does require the ornamented concrete wall to the south of the Community Room to be removed. The potential for relocation of this wall to the Bank Building or some other site is discussed later in this report.

The application was considered by the Historic Resources Board at their July 17, 2023 meeting. The Board adopted Resolution 2023-009-HRB issuing a Determination of Consistency for the project. During the 10-day appeal period for the decision, two members of the City Council, Council Member Ferlito and Council Member Dramov, enacted the City Council Right of Review (CMC 2.04.160) to review the decision made by the Historic Resources Board both specifically noting the relocation of the concrete wall as the primary concern in the written request for the review. Both Council Member will address their specific concerns during the hearing.

In accordance with CMC 2.04.160.B, when a project is called up by the Council, “the Council may uphold the decision of the board […], amend the decision and/or conditions attached to the decision, overturn the decision, or remand the matter to the board […], for further consideration.” As a de novo hearing, the Council has full review authority of the entirety of the project (not just limited to the concerns surround the concrete wall). Effectively, Council is acting in the capacity of the Historic Resources Board in making a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary’s Standards on the proposed project.
“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 17.32) and the Secretary’s Standards. (CMC 17.32.230.L)

STAFF ANALYSIS
Evaluation Process
Although the proposed project does not include any alterations to the Bank Building or Community Room , it still constitutes a “major alteration” to a historic resource as defined in CMC 17.32.160.A since the project is taking place on the overall Palo Alto Savings and Loan “Complex”. In accordance with CMC 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’s Standards are applicable to the project, (2) reviews the proposed project, and (3) explains the basis of the determination. If a proposed major alteration is found by the qualified professional to be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards, the project shall be presumed to be consistent for purposes of making a preliminary determination regarding any required environmental documentation and staff shall forward the application and evaluation to the Board for action.”
The City contracted with qualified professional historian Seth Bergstein from PAST Consultants to prepare the Determination of Consistency (Phase II Evaluation; refer to Attachment 3). The evaluation concluded the project is consistent with the Secretary’s Standards –evaluation provided below.

As prescribed in CMC 17.32.160.B.1, the Council, taking the place of the Historic Resources Board, may take one of two actions:

1. If the Board [Council] concurs with the evaluation, the Board [Council] shall issue a determination of consistency and adopt any appropriate conditions of approval. Any finding of compliance by the Board [Council] shall be supported by substantial evidence.

2. If the Board [Council] does not concur, the Board [Council] may request additional information prior to issuance of a determination of consistency, or may issue a finding of noncompliance with the Secretary’s Standards. Any finding of noncompliance by the Board [Council] shall be supported by substantial evidence.

As noted above, the Council may:

1. uphold the decision of the board;

2. amend the decision and/or conditions attached to the decision;

3. overturn the decision; or,

4. remand the matter back to the Historic Resources Board for further consideration.

In keeping with past practice relating to decisions of junior boards and commissions, staff supports the decision of the the Historic Resources Board decision recommends the Council uphold the decision, as found in Attachment 1.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: To render a decision about whether a project will have an impact on a historic resource, the Historic Resources Board (HRB), or in this case, the City Council, must consider and make findings of consistency related to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards).

The 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.

In preparing for this determination to be made, the City’s practice is to have one of its professional contracted historians evaluate the proposed project for consistency prior to the hearing by the HRB.

Seth Bergstein, of PAST Consultants, evaluated the project for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Ten Standards for Rehabilitation (Attachment 3). Mr. Bergstein found that Standards #1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are applicable to the project. The evaluation concluded that the project as proposed is consistent with all applicable standards.

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.

Phase II Response: “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.”
Staff Response: Staff concurs with the Phase II response.

Standard 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 the property will be avoided.

Phase II Response: “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.”
Staff Response: Staff concurs with the Phase II response.

Standard 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.

Phase II Response: “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.” Staff Response: Staff concurs with the Phase II response.

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

Phase II Response: “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.” Staff Response: Staff concurs with the Phase II response. An analysis in respect to the concrete wall is provided below as well as an associated Condition of Approval for the recommended preservation of said wall included in the resolution. Moving and retaining the wall is not required for consistency with the secretary’s standards -it is only a recommendation.

Standard 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.

Phase II Response: “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.” Staff Response: Staff concurs with the Phase II response. Repairs or alterations have not been proposed to the exterior of the community room as part of this project. Should repairs be proposed in the future, staff has included Condition of Approval #1 stating the applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building Department an application outlining the details of any proposed repairs for review and approval prior to commencement of work.

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.

Phase II Response: “Physical treatments to repair exterior cladding for the Community Room shall use the safest methods for a given substrate, in conformance with this Standard.” Staff Response: Staff concurs with the Phase II response. As noted under Standard 6, repairs have not proposed to the exterior of the Community Room as part of this project. Should repairs be proposed in the future, staff has included Condition of Approval #1 stating the applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building Department an application outlining the details of any proposed repairs for review and approval prior to commencement of work.

Concrete Wall: While the Phase I evaluation (Attachment 4) notes the site landscaping as a character defining feature of the site, the Phase II report (Attachment 3) describes numerous alterations to the site and the original Burde/Shaw landscape design. The Phase II report concludes that the original landscape design south and east of the Community Room has lost substantial historic integrity with the exception of the south portion of the ornamented concrete wall remains intact enough to reveal the original stone pattern.

According to the Phase II report, the concrete wall was designed and built by Ornamented Concrete, Incorporated, [which] was founded by Brad Bowman of Carmel Valley. The company specialized in handmade site alterations rendered in concrete and stucco. 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. 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 Bowman the “father of stamped concrete.”
At the subject site, 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 (refer to Attachment 3, page 6).

In review of the property file, permit history, and online records for the Complex, staff notes the following regarding the timeline wall (the information below is not intended to be an all-encompassing timeline, but is intended to provide additional context to materials and information already provided in the past staff reports and attachments) - See Attachment 8 for information and records located in the property file, permit history, and online records.

As noted in the Phase II report, a remaining intact section of the Bowman-designed ornamented concrete wall is located on the south side of the community room. This section still reveals its original stone pattern and sand finish. The report prepared by PAST recommends that the original intact section of the wall proposed for removal 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. This recommendation has been included as Condition of Approval #2. Moving and retaining the wall is not required for consistency with the secretary’s standards -it is only a recommendation.

The applicant does not have control of the bank building site (lots 2 and 4), so the exact location of the wall cannot be conditioned or guaranteed. The locations identified below (refer to Figure 1-3, below) are just two of many options, and would be subject to the two property owners working together at a civil level.

However, at the July 17, 2023 HRB hearing, the property owner noted that had begun conversation with the owner of the 7
th and Dolores property and the proposed re-location of the wall seemed to be favorable.

Figure 1. Potential wall locations on the Bank Building site. Blue and red lines in figure above denote approximate possible location for the relocation of the concrete wall. The wall is not limited to these locations but would ideally be preserved and replaced on the site.

Figure 2. Approximate location of blue line shown in Figure 1, above. Location related to adjacent pebbled concrete wall on adjacent building. Blue wall in Figure 2 is not to scale –for illustrative purposes only.

Figure 3. Approximate location of red line shown in Figure 1, above. Red wall in Figure 3 is not to scale –for illustrative purposes only.

Historic Evaluation Summary: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires environmental review for alterations to historic resources that are not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The proposed alterations to the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex were reviewed by the City’s Historic Preservation Consultant and a Phase II Historic Assessment was prepared for the project (refer to Attachment 3). The Assessment includes an analysis of the proposed changes based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Assessment concludes that the project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for rehabilitation. The proposed alterations to the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex do not impact the character-defining features or overall historic integrity of the complex.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the consideration of a Determination of Consistency. Staff time associated with processing this application is captured in the adopted FY2022-23 budget.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

The City Council has not previously considered a Determination of Consistency for this specific project.

However, the Council has considered a number of items for the Complex previously.

The City Council considered adding the property to the Carmel Historic Inventory in 2006 when the property was 34 years old and determined it was not eligible for listing as a historic resource at that time.

In 2020, the City Council made the determination that that a property does not qualify for the Carmel Inventory and issued a "Determination of Ineligibility" for the property. The item was brought before the City Council following the appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to add the property to the City’s Historic Inventory. The associated Determination of Ineligibility expired on October 26, 2022.

In 2021, the City Council adopted a Resolution (Reso. 2021-043), denying an appeal by Christopher Mitchell (APP 21-197) and upholding the Historic Resources Board’s decision to issue a Finding of Noncompliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the demolition of the Palo Alto Savings and Loan Bank Community Room. While the Determination of Ineligibly described in the paragraph above was still valid, this project was required to be reviewed by the HRB as the complex is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources, as previously described.

In 2023 the Council adopted two Resolutions at their April 4, 2023 hearing:

1. Resolution 2023-051 denying the appeal by Esperanza Carmel (APP 23-031) and upholding the Historic Resources Board’s decision to list the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources and Carmel Register of Historic Resources, and

2. Resolution 2023-052 denying the appeal by Esperanza Carmel (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 demolition of the Palo Alto Savings and Loan Bank Community Room.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1) Resolution 2023-091
Attachment 2) Adopted HRB Resolution - Reso. 2023-009-HRB Attachment 3) Phase II Evaluation
Attachment 4) DRP 523A
Attachment 5) Project Plans
Attachment 6) Renderings
Attachment 7) Story Pole Plan
Attachment 8) Property file, permit history, and online supplemental records and information

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2023-091

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ISSUING A DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE 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 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 as the 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-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 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
Attachment 1
Resolution 2023-091

Page 2 of 3 ends

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, 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 mixed-use 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 CMC 2.04.160; and WHEREAS, the Right of Review hearing was scheduled for the next available hearing date, August 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 novo 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 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 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 Attachment 1
Resolution 2023-091

Page 3 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

NOW THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, based on the above findings and evidence, that the City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby issue a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 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, and upholding the Historic Resources Board decision made on July 17, 2023, as found in by the Historic Resources Board Resolution 2023-009-HRB including the adopted Conditions of Approval.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 12th day of September, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Dave Potter Nova Romero
Mayor City Clerk
Attachment 1
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 2
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 2
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 2
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 2
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 3
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 3
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 3
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 3
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 3
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 3
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 3
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 3
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 3
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 3
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 3
P.O. Box 721
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
www.pastconsultants.com
Seth A. Bergstein
415.515.6224
[email protected]
________________________________________________________________________________ January 3, 2023
Evan Kort, Associate Planner
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
PO Box CC
Carmel, CA 93921
Re: Phase One Historic Assessment, SE Corner Dolores St. and 7th Ave., Carmel-by-the-Sea APN. 010-145-022/023/024
Dear Mr. Kort:

This letter presents the results of our historic assessment of the property located at the SE Corner of Dolores Street and 7th Avenue, in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. PAST Consultants, LLC (PAST) completed the site visit, conditions assessment, historic research and report preparation during December 2022. The attached DPR523 forms provide the formal assessment of the subject property and conclusions of historic significance.

The subject property encompasses Block 91, Lots 2,4,6 and 8. The lots contain the following:
• Lot 2, APN 010-145-022: Contains northern portions of the bank building and east portions of the parking lot.
• Lot 4, APN 010-145-022: Contains southern portions of the bank building and east portions of the parking lot.
• Lot 6, APN 010-145-023: Contains the southern edge of the bank building, the Community Room, the elevated walkway connecting the bank building with the Community Room, and east portions of the parking lot.
• Lot 8, APN 010-145-024: Contains the south portions of the parking lot.

The bank building, Community Room and associated parking lot contain the Northern California Savings and Loan Bank Complex (formerly the Palo Alto Savings and Loan) designed and executed by the prominent regional architectural team of Walter Burde & Associates/Will Shaw and Associates in 1972. The site contains a bank building and detached Community Room – the complex being an intact and outstanding example of the Bay Region Modern style in downtown Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Attachment 4
Evan Kort, Associate Planner, Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 2
SW Corner Dolores St. and 7th Ave., Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA: Phase One Historic Assessment January 3, 2023 The buildings’ significant Modernist design has been featured in various architectural exhibits and/or journals, 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.

In 2006, State of California Historic Preservation Officer Milfred Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, wrote a letter to Carmel Mayor Sue McCloud and the Carmel City Council advocating for the building. His letter states:

The former Palo Alto Savings Building, designed by noted architect Walter Burde at the southeast corner of Dolores and Seventh in Carmel, represents an important period in the City of Carmel’s and the State of California’s architectural heritage. The sixties and seventies formed a period when many financial institutions hired prominent architects to design buildings intended as iconic architectural statements. The Palo Alto Savings Building was one of only two such buildings to be built in the City of Carmel by the Sea; the second, designed by Olaf Dahlstrand and built in the sixties, was the Wells Fargo Building on San Carlos Street (Letter from Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, State Historic Preservation Officer to Mayor Sue McCloud, April 28, 2006, Carmel Planning Department Files).

The subject bank complex is in largely unaltered condition and possesses all seven aspects of historic integrity. Our historic assessment concludes that the subject property is eligible under the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 in the area of architecture and eligible for listing on the Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) supporting the theme, “Architectural Development in Carmel.” Please see the attached DPR523 forms for detailed property description, list of character defining features and evaluation of historic significance.

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

Sincerely,
Seth A. Bergstein, Principal
Attachment 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

Page 1 of 11 ends

P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: n Not for Publication o Unrestricted *a. County: Monterey and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: N/A Date: N/A T ; R ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; M.D. B.M. c. Address: SE Corner Dolores St. and 7th Ave. City: Carmel-by-the-Sea Zip: 93923 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate): APN. 010-145-022 (Lots 2 & 4); APN. 010-145-023 (Lot 6); APN. 010-145-024 (Lot 8)
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The subject property contains a one-and one-half story, steel and wood framed commercial building constructed in the Bay Region Modern style. The building features a primary gable roof, with a large, east-facing shed-roofed dormer. Building walls consist of alternating stucco blocks and full-height glass walls framed with Redwood and steel. The roof contains wide overhangs with exposed beams. The Dolores Street elevation contains the primary entrance, sheltered by a deep overhang supported by dramatic Redwood rafters and columns. Walls consist of alternating blocks of stucco, steel-framed glass curtain walls and expanses of vertical Redwood siding boards. An elevated, Redwood-clad walkway leads to the stucco-clad, shed-roofed Community Room south of the bank building and facing Dolores Street. See continuation sheets, pages 3 - 5, for copies of plans and current photographs (Figures 1 - 8).
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP13: Community Center *P4. Resources Present: nBuilding oStructure oObject oSite oDistrict oElement of District oOther (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date,
accession #)
North and West Elevations, 2022
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
nHistoric oPrehistoric oBoth
1972
*P7. Owner and Address:

APN 010-145-022 APN 010-145-023/024
D & K Dolores, LLC Esperanza Carmel
1777 S. Bascom Ave. P.O. Box 134
Campbell, CA 95008 Carmel, CA 93921
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address)
Seth A. Bergstein, Principal
PAST Consultants, LLC
P.O. Box 721
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
*P9. Date Recorded: 12/30/22
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Owner-requested

*P11. Report Citation: None
*Attachments: oNONE oLocation Map oSketch Map nContinuation Sheet nBuilding, Structure, and Object Record oArchaeological Record oDistrict Record oLinear Feature Record oMilling Station Record oRock Art Record oArtifact Record oPhotograph Record o Other (List):

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) Attachment 4
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD

Page 2 of 11 ends

*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Northern California Savings & Loan Complex B1. Historic Name: Palo Alto Savings & Loan Complex
B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Commercial Bank B4. Present Use: Commercial Restaurant *B5. Architectural Style: Bay Region Modern
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The Permit Record is: 1. Permit #72-80, October 26, 1972: Construction of bank building and Community Room. See continuation sheet, page 6, for the complete construction history.
*B7. Moved? nNo oYes oUnknown Date: Original Location: Same *B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect: Walter Burde & Associates/Will Shaw & Associates b. Builder: Carl Swenson, Inc. *B10. Significance: Theme: Architectural Development Area: Carmel-by-the-Sea Period of Significance: 1972 Property Type: Commercial: Bank Applicable Criteria: CR#3 (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) See continuation sheets, pages 7-11.

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP13: Community Center *B12. References:
• Architecture of the Monterey Peninsula, Monterey Peninsula Museum of Art, 1976. • AIA, Monterey Bay, A Guide to Contemporary Architecture of the Monterey Bay Region 1947-2008, 2008. • Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Department Files (original building and landscape specifications present). • Carmel Modernism: A Retrospective, Carl Cherry Center for the Arts, 2016. • Carmel Pine Cone: 3/23/1972; 8/10/1972.
• Grimes, Teresa, Leslie Heumann, Architectural Resources Group, PAST Consultants, LLC.

Historic Context Statement Carmel-by-the-Sea, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2022. • Janick, Richard N., Northern California Savings and Loan (DPR523 Forms), 2001. • Seavey, Kent, Carmel, A History in Architecture, 2007.

B13. Remarks::
*B14. Evaluator: Seth A. Bergstein, Principal
PAST Consultants, LLC
*Date of Evaluation: 12/30/22

(This space reserved for official comments.)
Attachment 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 11 ends

*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 12/30/22 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3a. Description: Historic Drawings
Figure 1. 1972 Site and Floor Plan.

Figure 2. 1972 Rendering of Dolores Street (West) elevation.

Attachment 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 4 of 11 ends

*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 12/30/22 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3a. Description: Site Description and Photographs
The subject property encompasses Block 91, Lots 2,4,6 and 8. The lots contain the following:
• Lot 2, APN 010-145-022: Contains northern portions of the bank building and east portions of the parking lot.
• Lot 4, APN 010-145-022: Contains southern portions of the bank building and east portions of the parking lot.
• Lot 6, APN 010-145-023: Contains the southern edge of the bank building, the Community Room, the elevated walkway connecting the bank building with the Community Room, and east portions of the parking lot.
• Lot 8, APN 010-145-024: Contains the south portions of the parking lot.

Figure 3. North and west elevations. Figure 4. North (7th Ave.) elevation.

Attachment 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 5 of 11 ends

*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 12/30/22 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3a. Description: Current Photographs

Figure 5. North and east elevations. Figure 6. South elevation, with Community Room.

Figure 7. South and east elevations of Community Room. Figure 8. Walkway connecting bank to Community Room.

Attachment 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 6 of 11 ends

*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 12/30/22 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B6. Construction History:

1. Permit # 72-80, 10/26/1972: $250,000 for construction of bank and community room. Will Shaw and Associates, architects; Carl Swenson, Inc., contractor.

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

3. Permit #83-103, 7/27/1983: $15,500 for installation of ATM machines.

4. Permit #86-9, 1/8/1986: $3,700 for repair of roof beams.

5. Permit #11-232C, 12/2/2011: $5,000 for repair to beams due to truck collision.

6. 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 and site 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 concrete wall. Modify original site wall and install small concrete wall and planter southeast of Community Room. Install new trash bin enclosure at southeast corner of site.
- Bank Building West Elevation: Install new-paired entrance doors; install new sconces on exterior columns; install exhaust kitchen vents on upper part of elevation. - Bank Building East Elevation: Replace ATM openings with windows for menus; install new four-panel door for entrance to raised outdoor seating area; install exhaust kitchen vents. - Bank Building North Elevation: Install restaurant signage. - Community Room: Install fireplace vent on east elevation; replace entrance doors on north and south elevations.

8. Permit #UP16-191, 10/12/2016. Use permit granted for “Seventh and Dolores Steakhouse.” Character Defining Features:

The Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Context Statement lists the following character defining features of the Bay Region Modern style (page 59), with an evaluation in italics:
- Building integrated with surrounding landscape. Yes.
- Horizontal or Vertical massing with shed roofs. Horizontal massing with dramatic shed roofs present.

Community Room serves as an additional shed-roofed mass, integrated with the bank building through its volume, massing and connection to the bank building with an elevated, wood-clad walkway. - Existing spatial relationship between the bank building and Community Room. - Detached Community Room building connected by a wood-clad upper walkway. - Projecting shed or boxy volumes. Present.
- Exposed structural elements. Present, particularly with the dramatic expression of structural elements on the northwest building envelope.
- Wide expanses of glass set within wood frames. Present, integrating the building and its landscape. - Wood siding as exterior cladding. Present.
- Copper sheet roof cladding.

Attachment 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 7 of 11 ends

*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 12/30/22 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*B10. Significance:

The present bank building complex replaced the first Palo Alto Savings and Loan building constructed on the same lot, as shown on the 1962 Sanborn map (Figure 9).

Figure 9. 1962 Sanborn map, showing the previous bank on the subject property (arrow).

The Carmel Pine Cone covered the demolition of the building and construction of the present bank complex consistently beginning in November of 1971, when the plans for the Burde/Shaw complex were presented formerly to the Planning Commission. The Carmel Pine Cone noted the demolition of the former and aesthetically unpopular bank building in March of 1972, stating, “Hard to believe anyone could be nostalgic about a hulking building, which back in 1957, created rage and outcry among the Carmel citizenry.” (“Notes on the Yellow Brick Wall,” Carmel Pine Cone, 3/23/1972, p.4) Disdainful comments about the former structure’s boxy appearance, clad with yellow clay tile and often compared to a shower stall, were common as the former building’s appearance was not popular, particularly given its prominent location on Dolores Street and 7th Avenue.

Carmel would receive one of its more significant Modernist buildings shortly thereafter. Designed by the local architectural team of Walter Burde and Will Shaw, a partnership that contributed numerous buildings in the region, the duo envisioned a commercial example of the Second Bay Region style, one that embraced the surrounding street views of the Carmel landscape; and designed two-building complex – a bank building and detached Community Room – with soaring vertical spaces, wide expanses of glass and an elevated walkway connecting the bank to the Community Room. Charles Lent, Jr., the bank’s new manager noted:
“Heavy beams, 24 new trees in a landscaping package, much more Carmelish style, that will fit in with what is already here.” (“Notes on the Yellow Brick Wall,” Carmel Pine Cone, 3/23/1972, p.4).

Attachment 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 8 of 11 ends

*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 12/30/22 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*B10. Significance:

Copies of original plans in the Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Department files include a site plan and colored renderings of the elevations (see Figures 1 and 2). The Dolores Street elevation shows the building set within the numerous trees designed for the surrounding landscape. Copies of circa-1970s photographs of the building show the building was painted with a much more active color palette than seen today. Walter Burde’s design included the painting of the roof beams a bright orange color, an homage to Burde’s ongoing interest in Japanese design. Other aspects of Japanese design include the detached Community Room building, whose shed-roofed massing integrates seamlessly with the larger bank building. The Community Room serves as a Japanese pavilion, a detached public space that connects to the bank building via an elevated walkway, a feature that allows patrons to take in views of the Carmel streetscape.

Construction of the bank complex was completed in September 1972. A photograph of the Community Room under construction appeared in the Carmel Pine Cone on August 10, 1972. The caption states: “The Community Room is a daytime reading room, with free coffee, cookies, magazines and The Wall St. Journal provided. The room will be available in the evening for the use of groups in the community, without charge (Carmel Pine Cone, 8/10/1972, p.30). The caption also notes the contributions of the architects, Walter Burde & Associates the primary designer; and Will Shaw & Associates, design and execution of the bank complex.

Walter Burde and Will Shaw, Architects
Walter Burde (FAIA) graduated from the Miami University (Ohio) School of Architecture in 1934 and began his career locally designing hospitals and residences in the Toledo, Ohio area. Following World War II, he began his private practice in 1950, as chief designer for Robert Jones, AIA, aiding design in the award winning Monterey Airport. Walter Burde has won numerous architectural awards, including the American Institute of Architects (AIA) National Honor Award (1969), the Governor’s Design Award (1966), the Monterey Bay Chapter Awards of Merit (1959 and 1976), and became a Fellow at the American Institute of Architects in 1987. His work has been published in numerous architectural journals. Walter Burde was active in the local community and held every office in the Monterey Bay Chapter of the AIA, receiving the Robert Stanton, FAIA award in recognition of his outstanding service. He designed numerous commercial, civic and residential buildings in the region and collaborated with fellow architect Will Shaw under the firm name Burde Shaw Associates.

Born in Los Angeles in 1924, William Vaughn Shaw (FAIA) received his Bachelor of Architecture at the University of California, Berkeley in 1950. Shortly thereafter, he moved to Carmel, where he established his own firm. Will Shaw was admitted to the American Institute of Architects in 1957, served as president of the local Monterey Chapter in 1964 and was awarded his fellowship to the AIA in 1984. Will Shaw was active in local community development and served in various civic capacities. In 1978 Will Shaw, along with Ansel Adams and Fred Farr, founded the Big Sur Foundation, dedicated to the preservation of the Big Sur coastal environment.

Attachment 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 9 of 11 ends

*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 12/30/22 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*B10. Significance:

Walter Burde joined Will Shaw’s practice in Carmel, California in 1953 when the latter renamed the firm Burde, Shaw and Kearns, Associates (later Burde Shaw Associates). The partners developed a symbiotic partnership, with Walter Burde reportedly being the more artistic of the two partners and Will Shaw the pragmatist. The firm designed numerous successful and significant commercial, civic and residential projects in the greater Monterey Peninsula area. In Carmel, significant commercial buildings include the Palo Alto-Salinas Savings and Loan Association building (the building’s original name) on the corner of Dolores Street and Seventh Avenue (1972); and the Shell Oil Gas Station on the corner of San Carlos Street and Fourth Avenue (1963). The latter project received a Governor’s Design Award in 1966 for its outstanding design. In 1969, the partners split the two firm offices, with Walter Burde retaining the Carmel office; and Will Shaw retaining the Monterey office. However, the two continued to collaborate both professionally and in their various civic endeavors (Grimes, Teresa, Leslie Heumann, Architectural Resources Group, PAST Consultants, LLC, Historic Context Statement Carmel-by-the-Sea, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2022, p.116).

Historic Integrity
With the exception of entrance-door modifications and selective window glazing replacement, the exterior of the bank complex is essentially intact, with no square footage additions to the original footprints of both the bank building and the Community Room. Interior alterations in 1978, 2013 and 2018 have removed the original bank infrastructure and finishes. The following is the historic integrity assessment:

1. Location. The bank complex is in its original location and maintains integrity of location.

2. Design. The bank complex maintains integrity of design with the presence of all of its exterior characterdefining features.

3. Setting. The setting within the shopping district of downtown Carmel-by-the-Sea remains intact.

4. Workmanship. Integrity of workmanship is retained and highlighted by the dramatic expression of structural elements, the exterior wall cladding and the wide expanses of glass of the bank building and Community Room.

5. Materials. Original materials of steel, glass, wood structural elements and wood wall cladding remain on the building, giving it integrity of materials.

6. Feeling. The building complex maintains integrity of feeling as a commercial building complex designed in the Bay Region Modern style, as reflected by its intact design elements and retention of character defining features.

7. Association. The building complex maintains integrity of association as a commercial building complex designed in the Bay Region Modern style, as reflected by its intact design elements and retention of character defining features
Attachment 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 10 of 11 ends

*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 12/30/22 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*B10. Significance:

California Register of Historical Resources (CR) Significance Criterion 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

The subject property is not eligible under this Criterion, as no specific event led to the development of the bank complex. The subject bank complex was designed to replace the first Palo Alto Savings & Loan building at the same location and not because of a specific historic event.

Criterion 2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.

The subject property is associated with significant local architects Walter Burde and Will Shaw who designed the building in 1971 and supervised its construction in 1972. According to California Register criteria, associations with significant architects, landscape architects, or builders should be under Criterion 3.

Criterion 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.

The building complex on the subject property is significant under this Criterion as an example of the Bay Region Modern style in Carmel-by-the-Sea, designed by the prominent architectural partnership of Walter Burde, AIA and Will Shaw, AIA. The partners worked together in a combined practice before forming separate architectural firms in 1969. In 1971, the two partners combined for the design and execution of the buildings on the subject property.

The building complex’s soaring roof forms, dramatic expression of structure, wide expanses of glass, use of native Redwood for structural framing and exterior wall cladding and the integration of the structures within the landscape are all character defining features of the Bay Region Modern style in Carmel. The two buildings are nearly intact on the exterior and retain all seven aspects of historic integrity.

Criterion 4. Has yielded, or has potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

Referred to as the archeological criterion, the subject property does not have the potential to yield any important prehistorical information.

California Register Significance Conclusion
The subject property is eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3, in the area of architecture, for its intact Bay Region Modern-stylistic elements designed by prominent local architects Walter Burde & Associates and Will Shaw & Associates. The building complex, consisting of a bank building and detached Community Room connected by an elevated walkway, maintains all of its character defining features and possesses all seven aspects of historic integrity.

Attachment 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 11 of 11 ends

*Recorded by: PAST Consultants, LLC *Date: 12/30/22 n Continuation o Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance:

Carmel-by-the-Sea HRI Significance
The subject property satisfies all four aspects of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Resources Inventory (HRI):

A. Should be representative of at least one theme included in the Historic Context Statement.

Completed in 1972, the subject bank complex supports the theme, Architectural Development in Carmel, as a commercial property type constructed in the Bay Region Modern style, a significant architectural style noted in the Carmel Historic Context Statement.

B. Shall retain substantial integrity according to the Federal definition and evaluation methodology for historic integrity as detailed in National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

The bank complex maintains all seven aspects of historic integrity, as described previously on Page 9.

C. Should be a minimum of 50 years of age and shall meet at least one of the four criteria for listing on the California Register at a national or statewide level of significance (primary resource) or at a regional or local level of significance (local resource) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3).

The bank complex on the subject property is greater than 50 years old and is California-Register eligible.

D. To qualify for the Carmel Inventory, an historic resource eligible under California Register Criterion No. 3 (subsection (C)(3) of this section) only, should have been designed and/or constructed by an architect, designer/builder or contractor whose work has contributed to the unique sense of time and place recognized as significant in the Historic Context Statement.

The bank complex was designed and executed by the partnership of Walter Burde, AIA and Will Shaw, AIA, listed as significant architects in the Carmel Historic Context Statement. The bank complex represents one of the few intact examples of a commercial building complex constructed in downtown Carmel-by-theSea in the Bay Region Modern style. It is eligible under California Register Criterion 3, in the area of architecture, as an outstanding example of Modernist design by a significant team of California architects.

Attachment 4
&1.14'5564''6 $7+.&+0)Ä $7+.&+0)Ä $7+.&+0)Ä $7+.&+0)Ä '
$7+.&+0)Ä 5+6' 2.#0 # &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) FOREST & BEACH COMMISSION NOTES: Attachment 5

LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS

DOLORES STREET
81003.61' CP 8 /MAG SHINER 8" Tree (6' canopy) 1003.09' SIGN 1003.09' GUY 1003.05' GUY 1002.98' JOINT UTILITY POLE SCO 1002.82' SCO 1002.59' SIGN-"Parking" 1002.52' 24" Pine (15' canopy) W
SO 1002.41' WV
W
SO 1002.41' WV
S O
W 1003.59' ICV Roof Peak Elev = 1024.26' SCO1003.49' SCO MH 1003.58' MH-GREASE TRAP MH 1003.67' MH-GREASE TRAP 1003.89' SIGN S O
W1003.92' ICV
S O
W 1003.91' ICV Roof Peak Elev = 1034.21' S00° 00' 00"W 160.00' R1 N90° 00' 00"W 100.00' R1 1002'
1003'
1002'
1003'
1001'
1002'
1004'
1004'
1004'
1004'
1004'
1004'
1002'
1003'
1003'
1002'
1003' 2-STORY COMMERCIAL %UIL'ING 'RIVEWAY ACCESS
D

Y H MH SCO SSMH S O
W
1 1 SHEET SHEET OF
DRAWN BY :

DATE:

LAST REVISED:

REVISED BY:

PJM
N/A
12/21/18
SCALE: 1" = 8'
JOB NUMBER: 19-47
PREPARED FOR:

INTERNATIONAL DESIGN
GROUP, INC.
721 LIGHTHOUSE AVE

PACIFIC GROVE, CA

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
DOLORES, 2SE OF 7TH
LOTS 6, 8, & 10
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 7/27/20
CJS
Attachment 5
&1.14'5564''6 # &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) HISTORIC BUILDING PROTECTION PLAN KEY NOTES 5+6'&'/1 *+5614+%$.&) 2416'%6+102.#0 Attachment 5 2#4-+0) )#4#)' 5( 5/ 4#/2 64#5* '.'8#614 5( 5/ 5614#)'Ä 5( 5/ %144+&14 .1$$; '.'8#614 /#%*+0'4; 5( 5/ 5614#)'Ä 5( 5/ /'%*#0+%#. '.'%64+%#. 5( 5/ 5( 5/ 5( 5/ 56#+4Ä ,#0+614 /'05 4'56411/ 5( 5/ 91/'05 4'56411/ 5( 5/ 1%%72#065 *%8#0 2#4-+0) % % % 5 5 5 56#+4Ä % % % % % % % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 4#/2 '.'8#614 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 56#+4Ä %144+&14Ä 9#.-9#;Ä 9#.-9#;Ä
9#.-9#;Ä 56#+4Ä 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ %144+&14Ä 1%%72#065 %1746;#4& 5( 5/ #26Ä# 5( 5/ #26Ä& 5( 5/ #26Ä$ 5( 5/ #26Ä) 5( 5/ #26Ä( 5( 5/ #26Ä' 5( 5/ #26Ä% 5( 5/ $'&411/Ä $'&411/Ä $'&411/Ä $'&411/Ä $'&411/ $'&411/ $'&411/ $'&411/Ä $'&411/Ä -+6%*'0 -+6%*'0 -+6%*'0 -+6%*'0 -+6%*'0 -+6%*'0 $#6* .#70&4; $#6* $#6* $#6* $#6* $#6* '.'8#614 12'0 $'.19 12'0 $'.19 -+6%*'0 6'44#%' 6'44#%' 12'0 $'.19 5( 5/ 5614#)' 5614#)' 56#+4Ä 56#+4Ä 6'44#%' $#.%10; 1%%72#065 '/'4)'0%; ')4'55 12'0 $'.19 12'0 $'.19 $'&411/Ä $'&411/Ä $#6* #26Ä* 5( 5/ $'&411/ -+6%*'0 &+0+0) 0'9.1(6 5( 5/ $#.%10; $7+.&+0) 5( $7+.&+0) 5( $7+.&+0) 5( $7+.&+0) 5( $7+.&+0) 5( $7+.&+0) 5( $7+.&+0) 5( $7+.&+0) 5( $7+.&+0) 5( $7+.&+0) 5( $7+.&+0) '
5( $7+.&+0) 5( 9#.-9#;5Ä5( &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) # ':+6+0)(#4 $7+.&+0)%18'4#)' &+#)4#/5 Attachment 5 2#4-+0) )#4#)' 5( 5/ 4#/2 64#5* '.'8#614 5( 5/ 5614#)'Ä 5( 5/ %144+&14 .1$$; '.'8#614 /#%*+0'4; 5( 5/ 5614#)'Ä 5( 5/ /'%*#0+%#. '.'%64+%#. 5( 5/ 5( 5/ 5( 5/ 56#+4Ä ,#0+614 /'05 4'56411/ 5( 5/ 91/'05 4'56411/ 5( 5/ *%8#0 2#4-+0) % % % 5 5 5 56#+4Ä % % % % % % % 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) $#5'/'06 2.#0 # Attachment 5 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 4#/2 '.'8#614 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ 56#+4Ä %144+&14Ä 9#.-9#;Ä 9#.-9#;Ä
9#.-9#;Ä 56#+4Ä 70+6 5( 5/ 70+6 5( 5/ %144+&14Ä %1746;#4& 5( 5/ &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) )4170& (.1142.#0 # Attachment 5 #26Ä# 5( 5/ #26Ä& 5( 5/ #26Ä$ 5( 5/ #26Ä) 5( 5/ #26Ä( 5( 5/ #26Ä' 5( 5/ #26Ä% 5( 5/ $'&411/Ä $'&411/Ä $'&411/Ä $'&411/Ä $'&411/ $'&411/ $'&411/ $'&411/Ä $'&411/Ä -+6%*'0 -+6%*'0 -+6%*'0 -+6%*'0 -+6%*'0 -+6%*'0 $#6* .#70&4; $#6* $#6* $#6* $#6* $#6* '.'8#614 12'0 $'.19 12'0 $'.19 -+6%*'0 6'44#%' 6'44#%' 12'0 $'.19 5( 5/ 5614#)' 5614#)' 56#+4Ä 56#+4Ä 6'44#%' $#.%10; 12'0 $'.19 12'0 $'.19 $'&411/Ä $'&411/Ä $#6*#26Ä* 5( 5/ $'&411/ -+6%*'0 0'9.1(6 &+0+0) 5( 5/ $#.%10; &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) 5'%10& (.1142.#0 # Attachment 5 6'44#%' #26# 6'44#%' #26) 6'44#%' #26&51.#42#0'.5

51.#4

51.#4

6'44#%' #26$ &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) 411( 2.#0 # DENOTES A DOOR DENOTES A WINDOW Attachment 5 EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) '.'8#6+105 # Attachment 5 EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) '.'8#6+105 # Attachment 5 EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND )#4#)' 70+6 #26Ä# $'&411/Ä #26Ä# $'&411/Ä 70+6 #26Ä) )#4#)' 70+6 56#+4Ä #26Ä# $'&411/Ä #26Ä# $'&411/Ä #26Ä* -+6%*'0 70+6#26Ä* $#6* &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) '.'8#6+105 5'%6+105 # Attachment 5 EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND )#4#)' /'05 4'56411/ 64#5* %144+&14 70+6 #26Ä& $'&411/Ä #26Ä& .+8+0) )#4#)' 70+6 #26Ä) $'&411/Ä #26Ä) .+8+0) &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) '.'8#6+105 5'%6+105 # Attachment 5 EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND #26Ä) .+8+0) #26Ä) $'&411/Ä )#4#)' 70+6 70+6 )#4#)' 64#5* /'05 4'56411/ #26Ä& .+8+0) #26Ä& $'&411/Ä &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) '.'8#6+105 5'%6+105 # Attachment 5 5614#)' 64#5* 411/ 5614#)' '.'8 5*#(6 70+6 #26Ä# 70+6 #26Ä$ 9#.-9#; 61 )#4#)' )#4#)' 70+6 70+6 70+6 70+6 #26Ä) #26Ä( #26Ä' #26Ä& &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) 5'%6+105 # Attachment 5 &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) 6'44#%' &'6#+.5 # Attachment 5 &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) 6'44#%' &'6#+.5 # Attachment 5 Attachment 5
Attachment 5
&1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) %1.14 /#6'4+#. 5#/2.'5 # /+55+1056;.'%#2 2#0%.#;6+.'411(6;2 .+)*6(+:674'5Ä6;2 $7+.&+0)Ä#%%'065 .+/'5610'6+.' &4+8'9#;2#8'45 2.#06'4%'4#/+%6+.' 2#+06'&+4104#+.+0)5$410<'%1.14Ä6;2 41/#056;.'%#2 2#0%.#;6+.'411($7+.&+0)Ä 5+/7.#6'&.+/'5610'5744170&5 #%%'065 2#+0659#6%*Ä6;2 2#+0659#6%*Ä$7+.&+0)Ä &114 9+0&19%1.14Ä6;2 &114 9+0&19%1.14Ä$7+.&+0)Ä /'6#.%.#&':6'4+14&1145 9+0&195Ä6;2 2#+06'&)#.8#0+<'& )766'45 &190521765 ':6'4+144#0&1/ 5610'8'0''4 $7+.&+0)Ä Attachment 5 &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) 564''65%#2' 4'0&'4+0)5 # Attachment 6 &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) 564''65%#2' 4'0&'4+0)5 # Attachment 6 6'44#%' #26# 6'44#%' #26) 6'44#%' #26&51.#42#0'.5

51.#4

51.#4

6'44#%' #26$ &1.14'50&5' 1(6* %#4/'.%# ,$2#5614 $7+.&+0) 411( 2.#0 # DENOTES A DOOR DENOTES A WINDOW Attachment 7 In review of the property file, permit history, and online records for the Complex, staff notes the following regarding the timeline wall (the information below is not intended to be an all-encompassing timeline, but is intended to provide additional context to materials and information already provided in the past staff reports and attachments). • Plans from a 1978 office remodel (BP# 78-132) show the wall running parallel to Dolores Street, making a 90-degree turn east following the driveway, then making another 90-degree turn north, returning to the building. Heights of the wall are not noted.

Figure 1. Partial Floor Plan.
• On November 10, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review Application (DR 99-35) to “remove concrete wall.” Photos of existing wall from application materials below (see Figures 2-3) o The application submitted by the applicant at the time states the design objective project was for “accessibility and greater versatility of the building instead of an ugly concrete wall.” Figure 2. Partial Site Plan
Figure 3a. Photo of original concrete wall submitted as part of application materials for DR 99-35.

Figure 3b. Photo of original concrete wall submitted as part of application materials for DR 99-35.

Figure 3c. Photo of original concrete wall submitted as part of application materials for DR 99-35.

Figure 3d. Photo of original concrete wall submitted as part of application materials for DR 99-35.

Figure 3e. Photo of original concrete wall submitted as part of application materials for DR 99-35. • “Four-foot concrete walls define a small garden area visible through floor to ceiling windows on the south facade of the community room.” (Richard Janick, Historic Evaluation – DPR Form, 2001) o Height of walls noted above is unclear. Existing walls (measured from inside of courtyard area) range between ~3’6” – ~5’6” though the four-foot height may allude to the height of the wall fronting Dolores Street. Staff presumes the walls had been cut/demolished as part of the November 1999 approval when the 2001 Janick report was prepared. • Photo from Google Street View – Jan 2008:

Figure 4. Wall viewed from Dolores Street. January 2008. Image shows wall had been cut down on Dolores Street Elevation with planter on top.
• Photo from Google Street View – June 2011:

Figure 5. Wall viewed from Dolores Street. June 2011. Image shows wall had been cut down on Dolores Street Elevation with planter on top. Portion of wall returning to Community Room visible beyond. • On August 27, 2013, a Design Review Application (DR 13-24) for “the installation of new glass doors on the east elevation, construction of two new wood trellises and restoration of the concrete wall along the west property line.” o From email correspondence from project applicant regarding the project: “Please find copied below photographs of the existing concrete site walls. We propose to remove the existing 12" planter (photo 1+2) from the top of the west wall, and repair the finish to match the original concrete design with exposed rock aggregate (photo 3). We will submit samples for approval prior to completing this work.”
o It is unclear as to when the planter was installed on the top portion of the wall (record could not be located). It also appears that the wall was partially covered with plaster.

Figure 6a. Photos from application materials submitted with DR 13-24 (Photo 1). Photo is a of the northern most portion of the wall fronting Dolores Street where the wall connects to a steel gate (see Figure 5, above). Wall has been installed with a planter, a lip has been added to the top area around the planter, and the wall appears to have been partially plastered over.

Figure 6b. Photos from application materials submitted with DR 13-24 (Photo 2). Photo is of the mid-section of the wall fronting Dolores Street (see Figure 5, above). Wall has been installed with a planter, a lip has been added to the top area around the planter, and the wall appears to have been partially plastered over. Original aggregate is shown on the right with plastered area shown on the planter lip and left side of the wall.

Figure 6c. Photos from application materials submitted with DR 13-24 (Photo 3). • In July 2014, a Design Review Application, DR 14-23C was submitted. The approval included recognition of “as-built” drawings for interior remodel and site modifications. The as-built drawings show the wall in its current configuration with the portion of the wall returning to the building demolished, and the new eastern (non-original) wall addition. It is unclear if the walls were demolished as part of this approval or previously.

Figure 7. Partial as-built approved site plan. Wall shown in existing configuration. Return to community room demolished and new wall addition constructed.
• Photo from Google Street View – December 2016:

Figure 8. Wall viewed from Dolores Street. December 2016. Wall on fronting Dolores is repaired. All wall portions appear to be painted or stained from previous condition (see Figures 3, 5, and 6) • Photo from Google Street View – October 2018:

Figure 9. Wall viewed from Dolores Street. October 2018. • The existing concrete walls were proposed to be demolished entirety as part of a 2019 proposal to construct a multi-family project on the southern two lots of the complex site (DR 19-463). As part of the HRB’s consideration of the project, HRB also listed the site Carmel Inventory.
o The project (including the demolition of the walls) was found to be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards, however, the decision to list the property on the local inventory was appealed to the City Council and the appeal was granted (APP 19-486). While the Determination of Consistency was granted by the HRB, formal Design Review Approval was never sought and an entitlement for the project was never granted. Ownership of the property was transferred to the current property owner who has proposed an alternate project (this subject application).

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
September 12, 2023

PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Swanson, Community Planning & Building Director APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT:

Introduction of Ordinance No. 2023-006 (first reading), which would amend the Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Title 17 (Zoning) by repealing and replacing chapter

17.46 (Telecommunications and Wireless Facilities) and making conforming amendments to Zoning Code sections 17.08.040, 17.12.020, 17.14.030, 17.14.220,

17.18.030, 17.40.070, 17.52.150, 17.54.010, 17.54.040, 17.54.080, 17.58.030,

17.58.040, 17.68.070, 17.70.010 and 17.70.020 and to municipal code sections

12.08.050, 12.08.060, 13.28.070; and finding the same exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and in full conformance with the City’s Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal Act
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Request the City Attorney to read the title of Ordinance 2023-006

2. Waive further reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2023-006, which would amend the Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Title 17 (Zoning) by repealing and replacing chapter 17.46 (Telecommunications and Wireless Facilities) and making conforming amendments to Zoning Code sections 17.08.040, 17.12.020,

17.14.030, 17.14.220, 17.18.030, 17.40.070, 17.52.150, 17.54.010, 17.54.040, 17.54.080, 17.58.030,

17.58.040, 17.68.070, 17.70.010 and 17.70.020 and to municipal code sections 12.08.050, 12.08.060,

13.28.070; and finding the same exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and in full conformance with the City’s Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal Act.

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

Background
At the Direction of City Council, the Community Planning and Building Department, with support from the City Attorney and special outside Counsel, has been drafting updates to the City’s telecommunications and wireless facility regulations. From the outset, the policy direction from City Council was to draft the strongest wireless ordinance possible to protect the special and unique characteristics of Carmel-by-the-Sea while remaining consistent with relevant State and Federal Telecommunication Laws. Since that time, multiple drafts of the ordinance package have been prepared for community and Planning Commission feedback, ultimately leading to a final draft that is now being considered by Council.

In an effort to walk City Council through this progression, staff has prepared three (3) matrices that show comments received on each draft package, along with if/how those comments were addressed in the subsequent draft package. Ultimately, the process resulted in a final-draft ordinance that is attached to this report as a “clean” version (Attachment 1) and “redline” version which shows all of the changes being recommended by the Planning Commission to the first-draft that was released in mid-February, 2023 (Attachment 2). A “redline” version showing the changes from the City’s existing wireless ordinance was not prepared, since Ordinance No. 2023-006 would fully repeal and replace those regulations.

The following sections are meant to show the progression of the wireless ordinance package leading up to Council’s consideration at the September 12
th hearing:

First Draft
At their March 29
th
, 2023 Special Workshop, the Planning Commission (PC) was presented with a firstdraft wireless ordinance package consisting of an ordinance amending Chapter 17.46 of the Carmel Municipal Code, and “companion” administrative documents* comprised of Application Checklists, Design Guidelines, Standard Conditions of Approval, and an Application Form. This package had been released to the public and PC for review on February 17
th 2023. At the March workshop, staff received specific comments from the PC in addition to those received from the public over the preceding month. The full staff report package, including all of the first-draft documents that were presented on March 29 th
, 2023 can
be found by clicking HERE.
*It should be noted that unlike the ordinance amending Chapter 17.46, the “companion” administrative documents mentioned above only required PC approval, since they do not amend the City’s Municipal Code. Section 17.46.020 ‘General Development Standards’ grants authority to the Planning Commission to establish application submittal standards via resolution for Telecommunication and Wireless Facilitates. These documents, however, were part of the overall “ordinance package” that is explained in this report and have received comments and edits throughout the various draft versions leading up to their approval by the Planning Commission in August, 2023.

Second Draft:

Following the March 29
th PC Workshop, staff worked with the City’s outside legal counsel, Gail Karish of the firm BBK, LLP, to prepare a second-draft version of the wireless ordinance package. The second-draft sought to address substantive comments received from both the public and the Planning Commission on the first-draft ordinance package. These comments were collected, and placed into a document called “Comment Matrix #1” (Attachment 3). Many of the comments received were addressed through edits to one or more of the documents in the first-draft ordinance package. Some comments, however, were not incorporated for various reasons. The comment matrix includes a brief explanation of how and why comments were addressed in the second-draft ordinance package. This second-draft package was released for review by the public and PC approximately three weeks prior to a Special PC hearing on August 23
rd
, 2023. The full staff report package, including all of the second-draft documents, correspondences, and materials distributed at the PC hearing on August 23 rd
, 2023 can be found by
clicking HERE.

In the days just prior to the August 23
rd PC hearing, the City received substantive last minute comment letters on the second-draft ordinance package from three wireless carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon) and the local citizen group known as “Stop Cell Towers in Carmel Neighborhoods”, (SCTCN). To assist the PC in digesting these late comments, staff prepared a second comment matrix called “Comment Matrix #2” (Attachment 4). This second comment matrix was formatted the same as the first one, and was used to illustrate if/how each late comment was addressed in a second set of redline documents that were presented at the hearing (these last minute redlines can also be found in the August 23 rd staff report linked
above by clicking on “Materials Provided to the Commission at the August 23rd Hearing”).

Final Draft
At the August 23
rd
, 2023 PC hearing, the Commission considered the second-draft (released three-weeks prior on August 5
th
), along with the late comment letters and testimony received at the hearing. Ultimately, the PC approved a final draft for recommendation to Council which was a blend of the second-draft released on August 5
th
, and edits in response to the late correspondences received just before the hearing. For the most part, the ordinance version being recommended by the PC is the same as the version released on August 5
th
. However, since some minor changes were made in response to the late correspondences, staff has prepared a third comment matrix called “Comment Matrix #3” (Attachment 5).

This third matrix represents all of the additional changes made by the PC to the second-draft ordinance package that was originally released on August 5
th
.

Hearing Process
Only Ordinance No. 2023-006 requires a formal decision by the City Council, which is comprised of a first and second reading of the ordinance for adoption. The “companion” administrative documents mentioned earlier in this report have already been approved by the PC as part of their action at the August 23 rd
, 2023
hearing in accordance with section 17.46.020 of the Carmel Municipal Code. This section explains approval paths for both Ordinance No. 2023-006 and the “companion” administrative documents.

Ordinance - For all ordinances amending the City’s Zoning Code (Title 17), the Planning Commission must adopt a resolution which provides a formal recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the subject ordinance. Attached to this report is Resolution No. 2023-044-PC (Attachment 6) which was adopted by the Planning Commission at their August 23 rd hearing. This is
the formal recommendation from the OC for the City Council to adopt Ordinance No. 2023-006. The Council now must conduct a first and second reading of the ordinance at two separate hearings. If the Council approves as-is, or only makes minor modifications to the final-draft ordinance at the first reading, then the second reading will take place the following month for adoption. If the Council wishes to make substantive changes to the final-draft being recommended by the PC, then a revised draft will either need to return to Council for another first reading, or be remanded back to the PC with direction from Council. Following approval at a first, and adoption at a second reading by Council, the ordinance must still be considered and certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as part of a Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment prior to becoming effective. The ordinance would become effective immediately upon certification by the CCC. “Companion” Administrative Documents – As previously mentioned, the remainder of the “companion” administrative regulatory documents in the wireless ordinance package (Application Checklist, Design Guidelines, etc.) required only Planning Commission approval at a public hearing to become effective. Review and approval by City Council or the Coastal Commission is not needed for these documents to become effective or to be amended in the future. In other words, the formal ordinance and the companion regulatory documents are not tied to the same approval process. The major benefit of these companion regulatory documents requiring only Planning Commission approval, is the efficiency with which they can be amended in the future if needed. For example, if new State or Federal laws take effect that create a gap in the Application Checklist, the document can be amended in one to two months since only Planning Commission approval would be required. If amendments needed to be made within the ordinance (Title 17), this would require a formal recommendation by the Planning Commission, two readings by the City Council, and approval by the Coastal Commission, which would take approximately one-year.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff time associated with development and processing of the wireless ordinance amendments is covered in the City’s adopted FY 2023-24 budget. Time spent by the City’s outside legal counsel is covered as part of specialized legal services, under the Contract Support line item for City Attorney services in the FY 2023-24 adopted City Budget.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1) Chapter 17.46 Ordinance (CLEAN)
Attachment 2) Chapter 17.46 Ordinance (REDLINE SHOWING CHANGES FROM FIRST DRAFT) Attachment 3) Comment Matrix #1 (Changes after March 29 PC Workshop) Attachment 4) Comment Matrix #2 (Changes the Day Before August 23 PC Hearing) Attachment 5) Comment Matrix #3 (Changes made by PC at August 23 Meeting) Attachment 6) Comment Matrix #3 (Changes made by PC at August 23 Meeting) CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 1 of 35 ends

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-006

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING THE CARMEL MUNICIPAL CODE (CMC) TITLE 17 (ZONING) BY REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 17.46 (TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND WIRELESS

FACILITIES) AND MAKING CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO ZONING CODE SECTIONS 17.08.040, 17.12.020, 17.14.030, 17.14.220, 17.18.030, 17.40.070,

17.52.150, 17.54.010, 17.54.040, 17.54.080, 17.58.030, 17.58.040, 17.68.070,

17.70.010 AND 17.70.020 AND TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 12.08.050,

12.08.060, 13.28.070; AND FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea currently regulates the placement of wireless facilities throughout the City under Title 17, Chapter 17.46 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 17.46 was last amended in 2004; and
WHEREAS, there have been significant changes in state and federal law affecting local authority over wireless siting since Chapter 17.46 was last amended, including the passage of new federal laws and state laws, the adoption of new Federal Communications Commission regulations and orders, the amendment of California Public Utility Commission orders related to utility infrastructure, and various judicial decisions interpreting those laws and regulations; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the various changes in state and federal law, local governments continue to retain authority to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities, subject to those matters where local authority has been limited or removed by state or federal law; and WHEREAS, Carmel-by-the-Sea has made longstanding and sustained efforts to preserve its distinct “village in a forest, by the sea” character, the natural beauty of its shoreline environment, and its charm as a popular visitor destination, by not allowing incompatible development that degrades the visual and economic value of adjoining properties, especially in residential areas; and
WHEREAS, Carmel-by-the-Sea’s topography, forested nature, location partially within and partially adjacent to California’s High Fire-Threat District (HFTD), and narrow streets, with few gutters or sidewalks or streetlights, gives rise to many unique concerns Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 2 of 35 ends

and situations relating to fire safety, traffic circulation, parking and pedestrian safety; and
WHEREAS, if not adequately regulated, the installation of personal wireless services facilities within the City can pose a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; traffic and pedestrian safety hazards; negative impacts to trees; creation of visual and aesthetic blights and potential safety concerns arising from improper design or excessive size, heights, noise, or lack of camouflaging; and WHEREAS, the City therefore intends to exercise its powers to regulate personal wireless service facilities to the maximum extent allowed by law, to protect its residents and visitors, promote public health, safety and community welfare, preserve the natural resources and unique scenic quality of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and protect the character of the City’s residential neighborhoods, while nonetheless respecting and adhering to the law as it is today and may change in the future; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint special meeting on wireless regulation on February 28, 2022 to receive an update on changes to the law, to receive public feedback and to provide general direction to staff on an update to the City’s wireless regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public workshop on a draft of the wireless regulations (ordinance, design guidelines, standard conditions of approval, and application forms) on March 29, 2023 to receive public feedback; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed ordinance, design guidelines, standard conditions of approval, and application forms on August 23, 2023 at which it took public testimony, held a discussion, and voted to adopt the design guidelines, standard conditions of approval, and application forms, and to recommend that City Council adopt of the proposed code amendments (Resolution No.2023.044-PC);
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2023 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed code amendments;
WHEREAS, the City determined this ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in full conformity with the City’s Local Coastal Plan and the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Section 30510 et seq.)
SECTION 1. CEQA Review. This Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly. The Ordinance does not authorize any specific development or installation on any specific piece of property within the City’s boundaries. Moreover, when and if an Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 3 of 35 ends

application for installation is submitted, the City will at that time conduct preliminary review of the application in accordance with CEQA. Alternatively, even if the Ordinance is a “project” within the meaning of State CEQA Guidelines section 15378, the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA on multiple grounds. First, the Ordinance is exempt CEQA because the City Council’s adoption of the Ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3)). That is, approval of the Ordinance will not result in the actual installation of any facilities in the City. In order to install a facility in accordance with this Ordinance, the applicant would have to submit an application for installation of the wireless facility. At that time, the City will have specific and definite information regarding the facility to review in accordance with CEQA. And, in fact, the City will conduct preliminary review under CEQA at that time.

The City Council therefore directs that a Notice of Exemption be filed with the County Clerk of the County of Monterey within five working days of the passage and adoption of the Ordinance.

SECTION 2. Repeal and Replacement of Chapter 17.46. Chapter 17.46 of Title 17 of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following:

Chapter 17.46

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND WIRELESS FACILITIES
Sections:

17.46.010 Purpose and Findings.

17.46.020 Definitions.

17.46.030 Applicability.

17.46.040 General Development Standards.

17.46.050 Wireless Application Types and Submittal Requirements.

17.46.060 Application Review Procedures.

17.46.070 Public Notices, Public Hearings and Appeals.

17.46.080 Findings Required.

17.46.090 Standard Conditions of Approval.

17.46.100 Violations

17.46.010 Purpose and Findings.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish comprehensive requirements and development standards for the siting, design, construction, maintenance and modification of wireless facilities in Carmel-by-the-Sea, including on public and private property and in public rights-of way, in order to manage their deployment and minimize adverse aesthetic impacts to Carmel-by-the-Sea’s unique village character, consistent with and to the full extent of the City’s authority under federal and California law.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 4 of 35 ends

B. Findings. The City Council hereby finds that:

1. Limitations on the placement of wireless facilities within the City limits are necessary to:
a. Protect Carmel-by-the-Sea’s distinct “village in a forest, by the sea” character with its centralized commercial core surrounded by residential land uses. b. Protect Carmel-by-the Sea’s charm as a popular visitor destination, known as much for its spectacular coast as for its unique community character. c. Recognize and respect that Carmel-by-the-Sea is among a limited number of California coastal communities where nearly the entire shoreline from the first public road to the sea is open to the public and easily accessible, and that over the years, Carmel has maintained a balance between preserving the beauty of the shoreline environment and adding the physical improvements that make the Carmel shoreline accessible and enjoyable to the public, keeping the entire beach and bluff as natural appearing as possible consistent with public access, habitat protection, safety and provision of limited recreational support facilities. d. Recognize and respect that Carmel-by-the-Sea’s streets are narrow in width, 26 to 34 feet, with few gutters or sidewalks and that this lack of formal development of streets throughout Carmel (with the exception of some of the downtown thoroughfares) has been a conscious effort on the part of residents to maintain a “village in a forest” atmosphere, and gives rise to many unique situations relating to traffic, circulation, parking and pedestrian safety.

2. Personal wireless services can serve as an important and effective part of Carmelby-the-Sea’s emergency response and communications.

3. The regulations contained herein are designed to promote public health, safety and community welfare, preserve the natural resources and scenic quality of Carmel-bythe-Sea and protect the character of the City’s residential neighborhoods, recognizing that the preservation of the residential character in Carmel is central to all land uses, consistent with the findings in (1) and (2), while regulating managed development of wireless infrastructure throughout the City.

4. The provisions of this chapter are intended to:
a. Comply with all applicable goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, the City’s Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal Act. b. Minimize adverse aesthetic impacts associated with wireless facilities in all districts.
c. Preserve Carmel’s primarily residential character by keeping business and commerce subordinate to its residential character.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 5 of 35 ends

d. Comply with all federal law, Federal Communications Commission rules, regulations and standards, California law, and California Public Utilities Commission regulations and standards.
e. Ensure the safe installation and maintenance of wireless facilities to protect against fire hazards made more prevalent by Carmel’s unique urbanized forest, topography and accessibility.

17.46.020 Definitions.

The definitions in this Section apply to this chapter. Undefined terms shall have the meaning assigned to them in Chapter 17.70. Per Section 17.02.090(C), to the extent that this chapter quotes or paraphrases any State or Federal Statute for convenience and any conflict is discovered, or is created through amendment, the State or Federal Statute shall control and shall be cause for an amendment to this chapter.

A. Generally Applicable Definitions

1. “accessory equipment” means equipment other than antennas used in connection with a wireless facility. The term includes transmission equipment.

2. “amateur station” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

97.3, which means a station in an amateur radio service consisting of the apparatus necessary for carrying on radio communications. This term includes amateur radio antennas and related facilities used for amateur radio services.

3. “antenna” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

1.6002(b), which means an apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radiofrequency (RF) radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission authorization, for the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled information services.

4. “base station” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

1.6100(b)(1), which means:

A structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower or any equipment associated with a tower.
(i) The term includes, but is not limited to, equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 6 of 35 ends

(ii) The term includes, but is not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems and small-cell networks).
(iii) The term includes any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under this section, supports or houses equipment described in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(1)(i) through (ii) of 47 C.F.R. §

1.6100 that has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support.
(iv) The term does not include any structure that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under this section, does not support or house equipment described in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(1)(i)–(ii) of 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100.

5. “collocation” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

1.6002(g), which means (1) Mounting or installing an antenna facility on a preexisting structure; and/or (2) Modifying a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing an antenna facility on that structure. For eligible facilities requests, the definition of collocation in B.1 below applies instead of this definition.

6. “CPUC” means the California Public Utilities Commission established in the California Constitution, Article XII, § 5, or its duly appointed successor agency.

7. “Director” means the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Community Planning and Building Director or the Director’s designee.

8. “EFR” or “eligible facilities request” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(3) which means any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, involving: (i) collocation of new transmission equipment; (ii) removal of transmission equipment; or (iii) replacement of transmission equipment.

9. “FCC” or “Commission” means the Federal Communications Commission, as constituted by the Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L: 73-416, 48 Stat. 1064, codified as 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq. or its duly appointed successor agency.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 7 of 35 ends

10. “Fire Safety Authority” means the Chief Building Official of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea or the Fire Safety Authority’s designee.

11. “historic resource” means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the “Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources” or the “Carmel Inventory” as defined in code Section 17.32.230, the “Carmel Register of Historic Resources” or the “Carmel Register” as defined in code Section 17.32.230, or any “historic resource” or “historical resource” as defined in code Section 17.32.230. The term includes artifacts, records and remains related to or located within such properties. The term also includes properties with traditional religious and/or cultural importance to any Native American tribe.

12. “OTARD” means any “over-the-air reception device” subject to the FCC rules in 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.4000 et seq., which generally includes satellite television dishes and antennas, and certain fixed wireless antennas not greater than one meter in diameter.

13. “personal wireless service facility” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(i) which means an antenna facility or a structure that is used for the provision of personal wireless service, whether such service is provided on a stand-alone basis or commingled with other wireless communications services.

14. “personal wireless services” means the same as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C)(i) which means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services.

15. “public right-of-way” or “public rights-of-way” means land or an interest in land which by deed, conveyance, agreement, easement, dedication, usage, or process of law is reserved for or dedicated to or open to the use by the general public for road or highway purposes. The term does not include private or public utility easements unless such easement is reserved for or dedicated to or open to the use by the general public for road or highway purposes.

16. “reviewing authority” means the City official or appointed/elected body responsible for application review and vested with authority to approve, approve with modifications and/or conditions, or deny such applications.

17. “RF” means radiofrequency.

18. “small wireless facility” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(l), which means a personal wireless service facility that meets each of the following conditions:

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 8 of 35 ends

(a) The facilities (i) are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas; or (ii) are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures; or (iii) do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
(b) Each antenna associated with the deployment is no more than three (3) cubic feet in volume, excluding associated antenna equipment; (c) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any preexisting associated equipment, cumulatively total no more than twentyeight (28) cubic feet in volume; (d) The facility does not require antenna structure registration under 47 CFR Part 17 (Construction, Marking and Lighting of Antenna Structures); (e) The facility is not located on tribal land; and
(f) The facility will not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable FCC safety standards set forth within Table 1 of 47 CFR §1.1310(E)(1).

19. “FCC shot clock” means the time defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

1.6003 or 1.6100(c) (as applicable) in which a state or local government must act on an application or request for authorization to place, construct or modify personal wireless services facilities.

20. “stealth” means concealment elements, measures and techniques that mimic or blend with the underlying structure, surrounding environment and adjacent uses to screen all transmission equipment from public view and integrate the wireless facility into the built or natural environment such that, given the particular context, the reasonable person would not recognize the structure as a wireless facility. Stealth concealment techniques include, without limitation:
(1) transmission equipment placed completely within existing or replacement architectural features such that the installation causes no visible change in the underlying structure; (2) new architectural features that mimic or blend with the underlying or surrounding structures in style, proportion and construction quality such that they appear part of the original structure’s design; and (3) concealment elements, measures and techniques that mimic or blend with the underlying structure, surrounding environment or adjacent uses

21. “structure” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

1.6002(m) which means a pole, tower, base station, or other building, whether or not it has an existing antenna facility, that is used or to be used for the provision of personal wireless service (whether on its own or comingled with other types of services). A tree including live, dead, partially cut down or limbed tree is not a structure and may not be used for placement of wireless facilities.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 9 of 35 ends

22. “tower” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

1.6100(b)(9) which means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul, and the associated site.

23. “transmission equipment” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(8) which means equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service, including, but not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply. The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul.

24. “Type I application” means an application type that shall be limited to applications wherein an applicant seeks to place a new small wireless facility upon an existing structure and either (i) the structure is not an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) or (ii) the structure is an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) but the proposed facility does not qualify as an EFR. If the completed facility would still meet the physical limits and requirements to meet the definition of a small wireless facility after the installation of the new equipment, then the application to install such new equipment is a Type I application.

25. “Type II application” means an application type that shall be limited to applications wherein an applicant is seeking to place a new personal wireless service facility upon an existing structure which does not meet the definition of a small wireless facility or which will not meet the definition of a small wireless facility if and when the proposed new personal wireless service equipment is installed upon the existing facility and/or structure and either (i) the structure is not an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) or (ii) the structure is an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) but the proposed facility does not qualify as an EFR.

26. “Type III application” means an application type that shall be limited to applications seeking to install and/or construct a new small wireless facility that involves placement of a new or replacement structure.

27. “Type IV application” means an application type that shall include any applications for the installation of a new personal wireless service facility which does not meet the criteria for Type I, Type II, Type III or Type V.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 10 of 35 ends

28. “Type V application” means an eligible facilities request or EFR as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(3), which is any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, involving: (i) collocation of new transmission equipment; (ii) removal of transmission equipment; or (iii) replacement of transmission equipment.

29. “utility pole” means a wood or steel vertical structure in the public right-ofway designed to support electric, telephone and similar utility lines. A tower is not a utility pole.

30. “visibility triangle” means that portion of both the public and private property at any corner bounded by the curb line or edge of roadway of the intersecting streets and a line joining points on the curb or edge of roadway a distance in feet equivalent to the width of the roadway from the point of intersection of the extended curb lines or edges of roadway.

31. “wireless facility” means the transmitters, antenna structures and other types of installations used for the provision of wireless services at a fixed location, including, without limitation, any associated tower(s), structure(s), and base station(s).

B. Additional Definitions Applicable to Eligible Facilities Requests (EFRs) Only

1. “collocation” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

1.6100(b)(2), which means the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes.

2. “eligible support structure” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(4) which means any tower or base station, provided that it is existing at the time the relevant eligible facilities request application is filed with the State or local government.

3. “existing” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

1.6100(b)(4) which means a constructed tower or base station is “existing” for purposes of an EFR, if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition.

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 11 of 35 ends

any access or utility easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. The current boundaries of a site are the boundaries that existed as of the date that the original support structure or a modification to that structure was last reviewed and approved by a State or local government, if the approval of the modification occurred prior to the Spectrum Act or otherwise outside of the Section 6409(a) process.

5. “substantial change” or “substantially change” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(7), which establishes different criteria based on the particular facility type and location. For clarity, the definition in this chapter reorganizes the FCC’s criteria and thresholds for a substantial change according to the facility type and location.
a. For towers outside the public rights-of-way, a substantial change occurs when:
i. the proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height more than 10% or the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest antenna not to exceed 20 feet (whichever is greater); or
ii. the proposed collocation or modification increases the width more than 20 feet from the edge of the wireless tower or the width of the wireless tower at the level of the appurtenance (whichever is greater); or
iii. the proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of more than the standard number of equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four; or
iv. the proposed collocation or modification involves excavation or deployment outside the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the wireless tower by more than 30 feet in any direction. The site boundary from which the 30 feet is measured excludes any access or utility easements currently related to the site.
b. For towers in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations, a substantial change occurs when:
i. the proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height more than 10% or 10 feet (whichever is greater); or Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 12 of 35 ends

ii. the proposed collocation or modification increases the width more than 6 feet from the edge of the wireless tower or base station; or iii. the proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground when there are no existing ground-mounted equipment cabinets; or
iv. the proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new ground-mounted equipment cabinets that are ten percent (10%) larger in height or volume than any existing ground-mounted equipment cabinets; or
v. the proposed collocation or modification involves excavation or deployment outside the area in proximity to the structure and other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground.
c. In addition, for all towers and base stations wherever located, a substantial change occurs when:
i. the proposed collocation or modification would defeat the existing concealment elements of the eligible support structure as determined by the reviewing authority; or
ii. the proposed collocation or modification violates a prior condition of approval, provided however that the collocation need not comply with any prior condition of approval related to height, width, equipment cabinets or excavation that is inconsistent with the thresholds for a substantial change described in this definition. d. The thresholds for a substantial change outlined above are disjunctive.

The failure to meet any one or more of the applicable thresholds means that a substantial change would occur. The thresholds for height increases are cumulative limits from the originally-permitted eligible support structure. For sites with horizontally separated deployments, the cumulative limit is measured from the originally-permitted eligible support structure without regard to any increases in size due to wireless equipment not included in the original design. For sites that existed prior to February 22, 2012, the cumulative limit for vertically separated deployments is measured from the permitted site dimensions as they existed on February 22, 2012—the date that P.L. 112-96 was signed into law.

17.46.030 Applicability.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 13 of 35 ends

A. General. This chapter applies to all requests for the City’s regulatory authorization to construct, install, operate, collocate, modify, relocate, remove or otherwise deploy wireless facilities on property within the City’s territorial and jurisdictional boundaries, unless expressly exempted pursuant to subsection (B).

This includes permit applications submitted to the City for decision in its regulatory capacity for wireless facilities on property or structures owned or controlled by the City and located within the City, including in public rights-ofway; provided, however, that this chapter does not govern whether or under what terms and conditions the City, in its capacity as the property or structure owner, would lease, license or otherwise allow a wireless facility on such property or structures.

B. This chapter shall not be applicable to the following:

1. wireless facilities installed completely indoors and used to extend personal wireless services into a business or the subscriber’s private residence, such as a “femtocell” or indoor distributed antenna system;

2. OTARD antennas which are regulated pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Antennas and Satellite Dishes);

3. antennas and related transmission equipment used in connection with a duly authorized amateur station operated by a federally licensed amateur radio operator as part of the Amateur Radio Service; provided, that its maximum height does not exceed the height requirements of the zoning district;

4. wireless facilities or other transmission equipment owned and operated by CPUC-regulated electric companies for use in connection with electrical power, generation, transmission and distribution facilities subject to CPUC General Order 131-D;

5. temporary wireless facilities parked in a fixed location within the public rightsof-way for no longer than 10 days under an approved special events permit pursuant to Chapter 12.48.

17.46.040 General Development Standards.

A. Location Standards. When considering compatibility of a location and structure for Type I, Type II, Type III and Type IV wireless facilities, the City requires applicants to propose those that will be the least intrusive to community character and values. Subsection B provides a ranking that describes Zoning Districts where wireless facilities are least compatible to most compatible with other uses.

Subsection C provides the City’s preference for placements on parcels over public rights-of-way. Subsection D provides structure rankings. Subsection E provides additional special considerations for site selection on public right-ofway.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 14 of 35 ends

B. Ranked Locations. Applicants must propose placement in locations with the least intrusive land use designation (i.e.: Zoning) technically feasible and potentially available. Applications proposing placement in Tier I or II must include a written justification as part of the application submittal, supported by factual and verifiable evidence, that shows no location in a Tier III land use tier is technically feasible and available. The following land use tiers are ranked from least compatible to most compatible:

Tier I (Least Compatible):

Senior Citizen Facility (A-3), Multi-Family Residential (R-4), Single-Family Residential (R-1), and Residential and Limited Commercial (RC).

Tier II:

Improved Parklands (P-2), Natural Parklands and Preserves (P-1), and Theatrical (A-1).

Tier III (Most Compatible):

Central Commercial (CC), Service Commercial (SC), and Community and Cultural (A-2).

C. Preference for Placement on Public and Private Parcels Over on Public Right-of-Way.

Placement on public and private parcels is strongly preferred over placements in the public rights-of-way because Carmel’s public rights-of-way are narrow in width (26 to 34 feet), with few gutters or sidewalks. Limiting wireless facilities in public rights-of-way is necessary: (i) to ensure that the flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, including ingress to, or egress from, any residence, public building, or place of business or from the street to the sidewalk, by persons exiting or entering parked or standing vehicles is maintained; (ii) to provide reasonable access for the use and maintenance of sidewalks, pathways, hydrants, restrooms, trash receptacles, firefighting apparatus, as well as access to locations used for public transportation services; (iii) to ensure no interference to the performance of police, firefighter, and other emergency medical personal; and (iv) to maximize public access in the commercial districts and along the coast which have unusually high pedestrian and vehicular traffic volumes.

Applications proposing placement in the public right-of-way must include a written justification as part of the application submittal, supported by factual and verifiable evidence, that shows placement on a parcel is not technically feasible and available
D. Structure Selection. Applicants shall propose placement on the mostcompatible structure that is technically feasible and available. Any application to place a wireless facility on a structure other than the most compatible structure Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 15 of 35 ends

must include a written justification, based on factual and verifiable evidence, that shows no more compatible structure is technically feasible and available.

1. Structure Selection on Parcels. The following structures are ranked from least compatible to most compatible on parcels:
a. new (non-replacement) structures.
b. residential historic structures
c. existing building rooftops.
d. existing (or replacement) non-building structures without existing wireless facilities.
e. existing non-building structures with existing wireless facilities.

2. Structure Selection on Public Rights-of-Way. New (non-replacement) structures of any type (pole or non-pole) are the least compatible structures to use on public rights-of-way. Existing (or replacement) utility poles are the most compatible structures. Selection of structures/locations in the public right-of-way is also subject to the limitations in Subsection E below.

E. Additional Special Considerations for Locations in the Public Right-of-Way.

1. Highly Incompatible Locations in the Public Right-of-Way. Applicants shall not propose to install wireless facilities in/on a highly incompatible location in the public right-of-way unless the application is accompanied by a request for a special exception finding under Subsection 17.46.080(C). The following is a list of highly incompatible locations:
a. any location in the public right-of-way within the Single-Family Residential Zoning District.
b. any location in the public right-of-way that would trigger review of consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for potential impacts to a historic resource on a residential parcel in any Tier I zone in B above;
c. any location in the public right-of-way within the area depicted in Figure 1 below.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 16 of 35 ends

FIGURE 1

2. Additional Public Right-of-Way Location Selection Standards. Applicants shall not select existing structures and shall not propose new (nonreplacement) structures in the following locations unless the application includes a written justification, based on factual and verifiable evidence, that shows no structure/location is technically feasible and available outside these locations:
a. directly in front of the areas which are five feet in either direction from the centerline of each entry door or window in the front façade of any occupied residential building.
b. within a 500-foot radius from another wireless facility within the public rights-of-way.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 17 of 35 ends

e. Any location within 10 feet away from any driveways for police stations, fire stations, or other emergency responder facilities. f. Any location that would physically interfere with or impede access to any:
(i) above-ground or underground infrastructure for traffic control, or public transportation, including, without limitation, any curb control sign, parking meter, vehicular traffic sign or signal, pedestrian traffic sign or signal, barricade reflectors; (ii) public transportation vehicles, shelters, street furniture, or other improvements at any public transportation stop; (iii) above-ground or underground infrastructure owned or operated by any public or private utility agency; (iv) fire hydrant or water valve; (v) doors, gates, sidewalk doors, passage doors, stoops, or other ingress and egress points to any building appurtenant to the right-of-way; or (vi) fire escape.

F. Design Standards

1. General Requirements. This subsection establishes generally applicable design standards for all Type I, Type II, Type III and Type IV wireless facilities in all locations. The design of Type I, Type II, Type III and Type IV wireless facilities must also comply with applicable administrative guidelines adopted by the Planning Commission pursuant to subsection 17.46.040(B)(2), Chapter

17.58, and the City Council pursuant to subsection 17.58.020(E). a. Stealth/Concealment. All wireless facilities must be stealth to the maximum extent feasible. Colors and materials for wireless facilities shall be muted, subdued, non-reflective and chosen to minimize visibility to the greatest extent feasible.
b. Overall Height. On public and private parcels, wireless facilities may not exceed more than 10 feet above the maximum height allowed by this code for the underlying zoning district where the facility is proposed. In the public rightof-way, wireless facilities on an existing pole may not have an overall height that exceeds the height of the existing pole by more than 10 feet and wireless facilities that involve a replacement pole or a new pole may not have an overall height that is more than 10 feet above the height of the replaced pole or existing poles in the vicinity unless additional height necessary to comply with CPUC safety standards such as General Order 95.
c. Finishes. All exterior surfaces shall be painted, colored, and/or wrapped in flat, muted, subdued, non-reflective hues that match the underlying structure or blend with the surrounding environment. All exterior surfaces on wireless facilities shall be constructed from, or coated with, graffiti-resistant materials.

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 18 of 35 ends

code. The reviewing authority may require the applicant to incorporate appropriate noise-baffling materials and/or noise-mitigation strategies to avoid any ambient noise from equipment reasonably likely to exceed the applicable noise regulations.
e. Lights. Wireless facilities may not include exterior lights other than as may be required under Federal Aviation Administration, FCC, other applicable federal or state governmental regulations. All exterior lights permitted or required to be installed must be installed in locations and within enclosures that mitigates illumination impacts on other properties to the maximum extent feasible. Any lights associated with the electronic equipment shall be appropriately shielded from public view. Any light beacons or lightning arresters shall be included in the overall height calculation.
f. Trees and Landscaping. Wireless facilities shall not be installed (in whole or in part) on new poles within any tree drip line. Wireless facilities may not displace any existing tree or landscape and/or hardscape features. All wireless facilities proposed to be placed in a landscaped area must include landscape and/or hardscape features (which may include, without limitation, trees, shrubs and ground cover) and a landscape maintenance plan. The existing native vegetation shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. The reviewing authority may require additional landscape features to screen the wireless facility from public view, avoid or mitigate potential adverse impacts on adjacent properties or otherwise enhance the stealth techniques required under this chapter. All plants proposed or required must be reviewed as part of a formal landscaping plan and approved by the City. g. Signage; Advertisements. All wireless facilities must include signage that accurately identifies the equipment owner/operator, the owner/operator’s site name or identification number and a toll-free number to the owner/operator’s network operations center. Wireless facilities may not bear any other signage or advertisements unless expressly approved by the reviewing authority, required by law or recommended under FCC or other federal governmental agencies for compliance with RF emissions regulations.
h. Security Measures. To prevent unauthorized access, theft, vandalism, attractive nuisance or other hazards, reasonable and appropriate security measures, such as fences, walls and anti-climbing devices, may be approved.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 19 of 35 ends

i. Fire Safety. All wireless facilities shall be designed by qualified, licensed persons to provide the maximum protection that is technically feasible to prevent electrical and fire hazards. All wireless facilities shall be proactively monitored and maintained to continue and if possible, improve the safety design.
j. Compliance with Laws. All wireless facilities must be designed and sited in compliance with all applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, rules, restrictions and conditions, which includes without limitation the California Building Standards Code, Americans with Disabilities Act, general plan and any applicable specific plan, this code and any conditions or restrictions in any permit or other governmental approval issued by any public agency with jurisdiction over the project.
k. View Protection. Wireless facilities shall be located and designed to preserve significant coastal views from the public right-of-way in conformance with Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act. The protection of public views should not prevent reasonable development of the site, yet development shall not preclude reasonable protection of any significant coastal view. Designs should respect views enjoyed by neighboring parcels and should not present excess visual mass or bulk to public view or to adjoining properties. Wireless communications facilities, to every extent possible, should be sited to not create visual clutter or negatively affect important public or private views as determined by the reviewing authority.

Collocation is encouraged when it will decrease visual impact. This objective is intended to balance the private rights to views from all parcels that will be affected by a proposed wireless facility. No single parcel should enjoy a greater right than other parcels except the natural advantages of each site’s topography. Wireless facilities which substantially eliminate an existing significant view enjoyed on another parcel should be avoided.

2. Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines. The Planning Commission may develop, and from time to time amend, Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines consistent with the generally applicable design standards contained in this ordinance to clarify the aesthetic and public safety goals and standards in this chapter for City staff, applicants and the public. The Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines shall provide more detailed standards to implement the general principals articulated in this section and may include specific standards for particular wireless facilities or site locations, but shall not unreasonably discriminate between functionally equivalent service providers.

If a conflict arises between the development standards specified in this chapter and the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines, the development standards specified in this chapter shall control.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 20 of 35 ends

G. Standards Applicable to Type V Wireless Facilities. Type V applications are evaluated under the criteria for an eligible facilities request established by federal law and FCC regulations to determine whether or not the request involves a “substantial change” to an “eligible support structure” as these terms are defined in Section

17.46.020. Type V applications also must comply with any generally applicable law, regulation, rule or standard or permit condition reasonably related to public health or safety.

17.46.050 Wireless Application Types and Submittal Requirements.

A. Application Types

1. Conditional Use Permit Applications. There shall be four (4) specific types of applications for conditional use permits under this section, which shall include Type I, Type II, Type III, and Type IV applications. The Planning Commission is the initial reviewing authority for Type I-IV applications. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council.
a. Type I Applications: Collocations of Small Wireless Facilities. Type I applications shall be limited to applications wherein an applicant seeks to place a new small wireless facility upon an existing structure and either (i) the structure is not an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) or (ii) the structure is an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) but the proposed facility does not qualify as an EFR. If the completed facility would still meet the physical limits and requirements to meet the definition of a small wireless facility after the installation of the new equipment, then the application to install such new equipment is a Type I application.
b. Type II Applications: Collocations which do not qualify as a Small Wireless Facility Collocation or EFR. Type II applications shall be limited to applications wherein an applicant is seeking to place a new personal wireless service facility upon an existing structure which does not meet the definition of a small wireless facility or which will not meet the definition of a small wireless facility if and when the proposed new personal wireless service equipment is installed upon the existing facility and/or structure and either (i) the structure is not an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) or (ii) the structure is an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) but the proposed facility does not qualify as an EFR.
c. Type III Applications: New Small Wireless Facilities on New or Replacement Structures. Type III applications shall be limited to applications seeking to install and/or construct a new small wireless facility that involves placement of a new or replacement structure.
d. Type IV Applications: New Towers and All Other Wireless Facilities, Except EFRs. Type IV applications shall include any applications for the Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 21 of 35 ends

installation of a new personal wireless service facility which does not meet the criteria for Type I, Type II, Type III or Type V applications.

2. Administrative Use Permit Applications. There shall be one type of application for an administrative use permit under this section, which shall be a Type V application. The Director is the initial reviewing authority for Type V applications.

Decisions of the Director may be appealed to the City Council. a. Type V Applications: Eligible Facilities Requests or EFRs. Type V applications shall include any applications that purport to meet the criteria for an eligible facilities request under federal law and FCC regulations.

B. Submittal Requirements.

1. Application Content. All applications for a permit under this Chapter must include all the information and materials required by the Application for Wireless Facility form and the applicable Wireless Facility Application Checklist adopted by resolution of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is authorized to develop, publish and from time-to-time update or amend permit application requirements, forms, checklists, guidelines, informational handouts and other related materials that the Planning Commission finds necessary, appropriate or useful for processing any application governed under this chapter.

All such requirements must be in written form and publicly stated and available.

All applications shall, at a minimum, require the applicant to submit probative evidence to demonstrate that the proposed project will be in compliance with all applicable health and safety laws, regulations or other rules, which includes without limitation all building codes, electric codes and all FCC rules for human exposure to RF emissions. It shall be the obligation of any applicant to use the correct forms and explicitly and correctly identify which type of application they are filing.

2. Application Fee/Deposit. The applicant shall submit with its written materials the full application fee or deposit amount established by City Council resolution. If no application fee has been adopted at the time of application, then the applicant must submit a signed written statement that acknowledges that the applicant will be required to submit a deposit estimated by the Director to reimburse the City for its reasonable costs incurred in connection with the application, including costs of consultants retained by City. Should the deposit be inadequate an additional deposit shall be required. If the deposit exceeds the actual costs, the difference will be refunded to the applicant.

3. Application Submittal. All applications submitted under this chapter must be submitted to the City during the office hours specified for intake of applications submitted under this chapter as established by the Community Planning and Building Department and posted on the City’s webpage. Applicants may submit one application or multiple applications whenever feasible and not prejudicial to other applicants. Any application received in a different manner or outside those Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 22 of 35 ends

established intake hours, whether delivered in-person, by mail or through any other means, will not be considered duly filed whether the City retains the submitted materials or not.

4. Other Permits and Reviews That May Be Required. In addition to any permit required by this Chapter, the applicant must obtain all other permits and regulatory approvals as may be required by any other federal, state, or local laws or regulations for the construction of the proposed facility, which includes, without limitation, any applicable permits or reviews listed below:
a. Forest and Beach Commission Review. Any proposed project that involves a request to remove or prune any tree type identified in Chapter

17.48 must be approved by the Forest and Beach Commission prior to determining completeness of the application.
b. Historic Resources Board Review. In accordance with Section

17.32.220, facilities proposed within a historic district or within the boundaries of an historic property included in the inventory are subject to additional review under Chapter 17.32 prior to consideration by the Planning Commission.
c. Coastal Development Permit Review. In accordance with Section

17.52.090, any person wishing to undertake any development in the coastal zone shall obtain a coastal development permit unless excluded from coastal permit requirements pursuant to Section 17.52.100.

5. Voluntary Community Meetings. The City strongly encourages, but does not require, prospective applicants and applicants to schedule, notice, arrange, and attend one or more voluntary community meetings with all interested members of the public. Community meetings may be conducted before or after application submittal. This community meeting is intended to give applicants the opportunity to hear from members of the public regarding the proposed project and any alternative locations or designs. Voluntary community meetings do not cause any FCC shot clock to begin.

17.46.060 Application Review Procedures.

A. Completeness Review by Director

1. In addition to exercising other duties and powers listed in Section 17.52.030 and elsewhere in this Title relevant to the application, the Director shall review each application and determine whether or not the application is complete and inform the applicant in writing that the application is complete or that additional information is needed to complete the application consistent with timeline in Section 17.52.020 and the applicable FCC shot clock.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 23 of 35 ends

2. If the Director determines that the application is defective or incomplete, they shall promptly deliver a Notice of Incompleteness to the applicant in order to pause the applicable FCC shot clock.

3. The Director may take such other steps as may be required for the City to timely act upon applications for placement of wireless facilities, including entering into agreements with applicants to extend the time for action on any application under the applicable FCC shot clock.

B. Consultants

1. Use of Consultants. Where deemed reasonably necessary by the City, the City may retain the services of professional consultants to assist the City in carrying out its duties in reviewing and making decisions on applications. The applicant and private landowner, if applicable, shall be jointly and severally responsible for payment of all the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the City for such services. The City shall provide the Applicant with a detailed invoice of time spent and the nature of the review. In no event shall that responsibility be greater than the actual cost to the City of such engineering, legal, or other consulting services.

2. Advance Deposits for Consultant Costs. The City may require advance periodic monetary deposits held by the City on account of the applicant or landowner to secure the reimbursement of the City's consultant expenses. The City Council shall establish policies and procedures for the fixing of escrow deposits and the management of payment from them. When it appears that there may be insufficient funds in the account established for the applicant or landowner by the City to pay current or anticipated vouchers, the City shall cause the applicant or landowner to deposit additional sums to meet such expenses or anticipated expenses in accordance with policies and procedures established by the City Council. No reviewing agency shall be obligated to proceed unless the applicant complies with escrow deposit requirements.

3. Independent Consultants Retained by Fire Safety Authority. The Fire Safety Authority has the authority to select and retain an independent consultant with expertise and/or specialized training in fire safety and fire hazard mitigation and prevention satisfactory to the Fire Safety Authority in connection with any application. The Fire Safety Authority may request independent consultant review on any matter committed to the Fire Safety Authority for review or approval.

Subject to applicable laws, if the Fire Safety Authority elects to retain an independent consultant in connection with any permit application, the applicant shall be responsible for the actual and reasonable costs in connection with the services provided, which may include without limitation any actual and reasonable costs incurred by the independent consultant to attend and participate in any meetings or hearings. The same procedures for fee deposits, cost reimbursements and refunds to the applicant as described in this Section shall be applicable to independent consultant review required by the Fire Safety Authority.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 24 of 35 ends

D. Director Denial Without Prejudice Due to Failure to Respond to Notice(s) of Incompleteness. To promote efficient review and timely decisions, any application governed under this chapter regardless of type may be denied by the Director without prejudice when the applicant fails to tender a substantive response to the City within 120 calendar days after the Director deems the application incomplete in a written notice to the applicant. The Director, in the Director’s discretion, may grant a written extension for up to an additional 30 calendar days when the applicant submits a written request prior to the 120th day that shows good cause to grant the extension. Good cause for an extension shall include, without limitation, delays due to circumstances outside the applicant’s reasonable control.

E. Environmental Review. Environmental review of the proposed project to protect and assure that citizens of the community contribute to the preservation and the enhancement of the environment shall be performed in accordance with Chapter 17.60 of the City’s Municipal Code.

F. Fire Safety Authority Review. After submittal by the applicant, the relevant application materials shall be transmitted to the Fire Safety Authority for their review and any recommended conditions.

G. Staff Report and Recommendations. A staff report shall be prepared for Type I-IV applications involving a public hearing. Staff reports shall evaluate the compliance of the proposed project with the applicable City policies, regulations and requirements.

The report shall recommend, with appropriate findings, the approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the application, based on the project evaluation. The report and supporting materials will be made available to the public in advance of the public hearing.

17.46.070 Public Notices, Public Hearings, Decision Notices and Appeals.

A. Application Submittal Notices – For Types I-V

1. Posted and Hand-Delivered Notices. Within five days after an application is duly filed with the Director, the applicant shall (1) post notice on the proposed project site in a location near to and visible from the public rights-of-way or in the public right-of-way if the project site is in the public right-of-way; (2) provide a hand-delivered postcard notice to neighbors within 100-feet radius of the site; and (3) provide the Director an affidavit that such notice has been posted and hand-delivered. The applicant is responsible for maintaining and replacing the posted notice as necessary during the duration of the application review process until the reviewing authority acts on the application. The posted notice shall be composed from durable quality and weather-resistant materials that will not deteriorate under normal circumstances for the duration of the notice period. The posted notice shall be no more than two square feet and not violate Section 17.40.070. The notice/sign shall not be placed in any Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 25 of 35 ends

location where it would obstruct travel or visibility for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians or other users in the public right-of-way. The City encourages applicants to consult with the department on placement locations to avoid any potential hazards.

2. City Website Notice. Within 10 days after an application is duly filed with the department, the Director shall post notice of the submittal on the City’s website.

3. Notice Content. The notices required by this Section 17.46.070(A) shall include: (1) the project location with both an approximate street address and GPS coordinates; (2) the City’s permit application number; (3) the application type and a general project description with photo simulations; (4) the applicant’s contact information as provided on the application submitted to the City; (5) a URL for the City’s website page where application information can be obtained once uploaded in accordance with Section 17.46.070(A)(2); and (6) a statement as to whether a public hearing will be required for the application.

B. Public Hearing Notices (For Types I-IV). Public hearing notices shall be provided consistent with the requirements of Section 17.52.110, except that the mailing radius shall be 500 feet.

C. Public Hearings (For Types I-IV). The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing upon each conditional use permit application, consistent with the procedures in §17.52.160.

D. Decision Notices.

1. For Types I-V. Within five calendar days after the Planning Commission makes a decision on a Type I, II, III or IV application or the Director makes a decision on a Type V application, the Director shall: (1) deliver a written decision notice to the applicant; (2) post written notice of the decision at the proposed project site; (3) provide a hand-delivered written notice of the decision to neighbors within 100-feet radius of the site; and (4) post the decision on the City’s website.

2. Content of Decision Notices for Types I-V. The written notice sent to the applicant, posted at the proposed project site and hand-delivered to neighbors must contain: (1) the decision made (approval or denial); (2) either the reasons for the decision or where the reasons for the decision are available; (3) if the decision is a denial, a statement whether the denial is with prejudice or without prejudice for the purposes of CMC

17.52.170(D); and (4) instructions for how and when to file any appeal.

3. For Director Denials Without Prejudice. The Director must send a written notice to the applicant to deny an application without prejudice due Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 26 of 35 ends

to failure to respond to notice(s) of incompleteness pursuant to Section

17.46.060(D)(1). The written notice shall state: (1) the number of days that have passed without the applicant tendering a substantive response to the City after the Director last deemed the application incomplete in a written notice to the applicant; (2) a statement that denial is without prejudice; and (3) instructions for how and when to file any appeal.

E. Appeals.

1. For Types I-V. Within ten calendar days after the Director issues the decision notices pursuant to Section 17.46.070(D)(1) or (3), any interested person may file a written appeal for cause in accordance with the provisions in Chapter 17.54; provided, however, that (1) the time for filing an appeal and the notice provisions in this chapter shall control over those in Chapter 17.54 and (2) appeals from an approval shall not be permitted when based solely on environmental effects from RF emissions exposure from the approved facility that was found compliant with applicable FCC regulations and guidelines.

2. For Director Denials Without Prejudice. Within ten calendar days after the Director issues the decision notice pursuant to Section

17.46.070(D)(3) denying an application without prejudice, the applicant may file a written appeal for cause in accordance with the provisions in Chapter 17.54; provided, however, that the time for filing an appeal and notice provisions in this chapter shall control over those in Chapter 17.54.

3. Appeals to City Council. The City Council shall be the appellate authority for all appeals in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 17.54. The City Council shall issue a written decision that contains the reasons for the decision, and such decision shall be the final action of the City and not subject to any further administrative appeals.

17.46.080 Findings Required.

A. Types I to IV Applications

1. Required Findings for Approval. The reviewing authority may approve wireless facility applications only when the reviewing authority makes all the following findings:
a. the proposed wireless facility will not result in adverse visual impacts because it complies with all applicable development standards in Section

17.46.040 and the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines;
Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 27 of 35 ends

b. if applicable, to the extent the proposed wireless facility does not comply with all applicable development standards in Section 17.46.040 and the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines, the applicant has requested a special exception and the findings for granting a special exception pursuant to Section 17.46.080(C) can be made; c. the proposed wireless facility will comply with all applicable FCC regulations and guidelines for human exposure to RF emissions and will not, either individually or cumulatively with other transmitters in the vicinity, result in RF exposures that exceed the FCC’s maximum permissible exposure level for the general population;
d. the proposed wireless facility will comply with all applicable fire safety and public safety standards;
e. the proposed wireless facility will comply with fall zone requirements in the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines; f. all public notices required for the application have been given; g. all the findings required for a use permit pursuant to Section 17.64.010; h. all the findings for discretionary design review approval pursuant to Section 17.58.060;
i. if applicable, all the findings required for a Coastal Development Permit.

2. Conditional Approvals. Subject to any applicable federal or state laws, nothing in this chapter is intended to limit the reviewing authority’s ability to conditionally approve any application governed under this chapter as may be necessary or appropriate to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare, and to advance the goals or policies in the general plan and any applicable specific plan, this code, or this chapter.

B. Type V Applications (EFRs)

1. Required Findings for Approval. The reviewing authority may approve or conditionally approve an application for an EFR administrative design review approval when the reviewing authority finds that the proposed project:
a. involves collocation, removal or replacement of transmission equipment on an existing wireless tower or base station; and
b. does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the existing wireless tower or base station in that it meets each and every one of the applicable criteria for an eligible facilities request stated in the definition of Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 28 of 35 ends

“substantial change,” after application of the definitions in 47 C.F.R.

1.6100(b). The reviewing authority shall make an express finding for each criterion.

2. Findings for Denial. The reviewing authority may deny without prejudice any application for an EFR administrative design review approval when the reviewing authority finds that the proposed project:
a. does not meet the findings required in Section 17.46.080(B)(1); b. involves the replacement of the entire eligible support structure; or c. violates any generally applicable law, regulation, rule or standard or permit condition reasonably related to public health or safety.

3. Conditional Approvals. Subject to any applicable limitations in federal or state law, nothing in this chapter is intended to limit the reviewing authority’s authority to conditionally approve an application for an EFR administrative design review approval to comply with all generally applicable laws and to protect and promote the public health and safety.

C. Special Exceptions for Federal or State Preemption or Minor Deviations in Design (Types I to IV only)

1. Preface. The provisions in this section establish the circumstances under which the City may grant a special exception to the standards in this chapter, Chapter 17.58 or the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines, but only if specifically requested by the applicant in writing at the time of application submittal and only to the extent necessary to avoid conflict with applicable federal or state law or it is a minor deviation that achieves all of the applicable design objectives of this Chapter, as well as, or better than, would be achieved by adherence to the adopted Design Guidelines. An exception granted in one instance shall not be deemed to create a presumption or expectation that an exception will be granted in any other instance.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 29 of 35 ends

b. the special exception requested by the applicant does not compromise or excuse compliance with any fire safety or other public health and safety requirements; and
c. the special exception is narrowly tailored such that any deviation from the requirements of this chapter is only to extent necessary for compliance with federal or state law or to achieve all of the applicable design objectives of this Chapter, as well as, or better than, would be achieved by adherence to the adopted Design Guidelines.

3. Evidentiary Standard. The applicant shall have the burden to prove to the reviewing authority that an exception should be granted pursuant to this section. The standard of evidence shall be the same as required by applicable federal or state law for the issue raised in the applicant’s request for a special exception.

17.46.090 Standard Conditions of Approval.

A. Wireless Facility Standard Terms and Conditions. All wireless facilities approved under this chapter or deemed approved by the operation of law shall be automatically subject to the Wireless Facility Standard Terms and Conditions adopted by the Planning Commission by resolution, unless modified by the reviewing authority in an approval decision.

B. Modified Approval Conditions. The reviewing authority, when granting approval of a permit application, may modify, add to or remove standard conditions set forth in the Wireless Facility Standard Terms and Conditions adopted by the Planning Commission by resolution, as the reviewing authority deems necessary or appropriate to: (1) protect and/or promote the public health, safety and welfare; (2) tailor the standard conditions to the particular facts and circumstances associated with the project; and/or (3) memorialize any changes to the proposed project needed for compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, generally applicable health and safety requirements and any other applicable laws.

17.46.100 Violations
Any use or condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of this chapter shall be and hereby is declared a public nuisance and may be subject to administrative citations as set forth in Chapter 18.04 of this code, summary abatement pursuant to Chapter 15.57 of this code, California Code of Civil Procedure § 731, or any other remedy available to the City.

SECTION 3. Conforming Amendments to Title 17. The following Sections of Title 17 of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code are amended as follows (all other sections remain unchanged):

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 30 of 35 ends

Section 17.08.040: the residential uses table listing for “Communications” uses in the Transportation, Communications and Utilities uses table shall read:

Transportation, Communication and Utilities
Antennas and Transmission Towers – Telecommunications C C See Chapter 17.46 for findings Antennas and Transmission Towers – Other - C
Facilities Within Buildings C C
Section 17.12.020.H. shall read:
“H. Outdoor Antennas. Except as provided in Chapter 17.46 CMC, Telecommunications and Wireless Facilities and antennas used by Federal Communications Commission licensed ham operators or operators certified by RACES or ARES, both of which are excluded from the application of these provisions, antennas erected in the R-4 land use district shall be subject to the following standards:

1. No antenna or its supporting structure shall be located in the area between the front property line and the portion of the main structure or building located closest to the front property line.

2. No antenna shall be roof-mounted except on a flat portion of the roof structure with parapets, and/or architecturally matching screening plan.

3. All ground-mounted antennas shall be camouflaged by walls, antenna color, fences, or landscaping. Landscaping shall be of a type and variety capable of growth within one year to a landscape screen that obscures the visibility of the antenna. The landscaping plan shall be approved by the City Forester before it is implemented.

4. No antenna shall be erected within the public viewshed as identified in CMC

17.12.050, Preservation of Public Viewshed.

5. No part of any antenna shall be higher than 24 feet.” Section 17.14.030: the commercial uses table listing “Communications” uses in the Transportation, Communications and Utilities uses table shall read:

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 31 of 35 ends

Section 17.14.220.F. shall read:
“F. Antennas. Except for antennas preempted by Federal law, antennas in the commercial districts shall be located and screened to reduce their visibility from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties. All antenna installations must be reviewed and approved through the commercial design review procedures. Except as provided in Chapter 17.46 CMC, Telecommunications and Wireless Facilities, antennas located in any commercial land use district shall conform to the following standards:

1. All ground-mounted antennas shall be required to maintain their supporting structures at least three feet from any property line.

2. All ground-mounted antennas shall be screened by walls, color, fences or landscaping.

Landscaping shall be of a type and variety capable of growing within one year to a landscape screen, which obscures the visibility of the antenna. The landscaping plan shall be approved by the City Forester before it is implemented.

3. No part of any antenna shall be higher than the maximum height allowed in the underlying land use district.

4. A maximum of one antenna shall be allowed on a building site.

5. All roof-mounted antennas are prohibited except as provided in CMC 17.46.020(E)17.46.030(B) (general development standards).” Section 17.18.030: the public and quasi-public uses table listing for “Communications” uses in the Transportation, Communications and Utilities uses table shall read:

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 32 of 35 ends

decisions pursuant to CMC 17.46.050(A)(2) and 17.46.060(D) which may only be appealed to the City Council.”
Section 17.54.010.E. shall read:
“E. The findings and actions of the Planning Director shall be final and conclusive from and after the date of final action unless an appeal is filed with the Planning Commission Secretary pursuant to CMC 17.54.040(A), Appeals to the Forest and Beach Commission or the Planning Commission, or CMC 17.54.040(B), Appeals to the Historic Resources Board, or with the Coastal Commission pursuant to CMC 17.54.040(D) and

17.54.050, or with the City Clerk pursuant to CMC 17.54.040(C), Appeals to City Council. “
Section 17.54.040.C. shall read:
“C. Appeals to the City Council. Decisions to approve or deny projects made by the Planning Commission, Forest and Beach Commission, or the Historic Resources Board may be appealed to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal in writing in the office of the City Clerk within 10 working days following the date of action by the decision-making body and paying the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, decisions for projects subject to Chapter 17.46 (Telecommunications and Wireless Facilities) made by the Planning Director or by the Planning Commission must be appealed within the time periods specified in CMC

17.46.070(E). “
Section 17.54.080.A. shall read:
“A. Appeals of Decisions on Permits. Any decision to approve, deny or conditionally approve any permit made by the Director (except for denials without prejudice made pursuant to CMC 17.46.060(D)), the City Forester, the Planning Commission, or the Historic Resources Board may be appealed by any aggrieved party. Coastal Commissioners may appeal these decisions pursuant to CMC 17.54.020 and

17.54.050.”
Section 17.58.030.B.1.d. shall read:
“d. Installation of antennas and associated equipment.” Section 17.58.040.B.1 and the introductory part of B.2 shall read:

B. Residential Track Two Design Study. Track two is a discretionary review process for projects that require a public hearing with the Planning Commission. All track two projects shall require public notice and a hearing pursuant to CMC 17.52.110, Notice of Public Hearing.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 33 of 35 ends

1. Applicability. Residential district track two design review is for the construction of new dwellings, rebuilds, substantial alterations, installation of antennas and associated equipment, and other projects that comply with applicable zoning standards and design review guidelines but do not qualify for track one processing.

2. Procedures. Except for the installation of antennas and associated equipment which shall be subject to the procedures in CMC 17.58.030.B.2, dDesign review for track two projects is a three-phase process requiring: (1) preliminary site assessment, (2) design concept review, and (3) final details review. The application shall not be deemed complete until the preliminary site assessment has occurred and the City has received a complete application for design concept review. When a use permit, variance, or other land use permit is required, the application shall not be deemed complete until design concept review is completed and the City has received a complete application for final details review and for the applicable land use permit. The procedure for track two projects includes the following:

Section 17.68.070 “Communication Facilities” uses shall read:

Antennas and Transmission Towers - Telecommunications. Communication services accomplished through electronic or telephonic mechanisms, as well as structures designed to support one or more reception or transmission systems. Examples of transmission towers - telecommunications are limited to telephone exchange or microwave relay towers, and cellular telephone transmission or personal communications systems towers.

Antennas and Transmission Towers - Other. Broadcasting, recording, and other communication services accomplished through electronic or telephonic mechanisms, as well as structures designed to support one or more reception or transmission systems.

Examples of transmission towers- other are limited to radio towers, television towers, telephone exchange or microwave relay towers, and cellular telephone transmission or personal communications systems towersand other towers that are not used for telecommunications.

Facilities Within Buildings. Includes radio, television, or recording studios and telephone switching centers; excludes antennas and transmission devices.

Section 17.70.010 and Section 17.70.020 shall be amended to repeal the following listed terms and corresponding definitions:

Amateur Radio Antenna (See Antenna);
Antenna; Monopole (See Telecommunications Terms);
Satellite Antenna (See Antenna);
Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 34 of 35 ends

Telecommunications Facility, Co-Located (See Telecommunications Terms); Telecommunications Facility (See Telecommunications Terms); Telecommunications Terms (Building-Mounted Telecommunications Facility; Monopole; Telecommunications Facility; Telecommunications Facility, Co-Located).

Section 17.70.010 shall be further amended to add to the listed terms the following:
“Telecommunications and Wireless Terms. See Chapter 17.46.” SECTION 4. Conforming Amendments to Titles 12 and 13. The following Sections of Title 12 and 13 of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code are amended to read (all other sections remain unchanged):

Section 12.08.050 shall be amended to add a new subsection E as follows:
“E. Notwithstanding Section 12.080.040.A. and Section 12.08.050.A, B, C and D, for applications that are subject to both Ch. 17.46 and Ch. 12.08, the reviewing authority under Ch. 17.46 shall process and decide both applications concurrently under the procedures in Ch. 17.46, including any appeals.”
Section 12.08.060 shall be amended to add a new subsection I as follows:
“I. For applications that are subject to both Ch. 17.46 and Ch. 12.08, only the standards in Ch. 17.46 and the applicable administrative guidelines shall apply.” Section 13.28.070.E. shall be amended to read as follows:
“E. Antennae, associated equipment that is within the supporting structure or integrated with the antennae, and supporting structures, used by a utility for furnishing communication services.”
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption by the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and after approval by the California Coastal Commission.

SECTION 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, provision, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be illegal or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall be severable, and shall not affect or impair any remaining sections, subsections, provisions, sentences, clauses, phrases or words of this Ordinance.

INTRODUCED at a Regular City Council Meeting on September 12, 2023.

Attachment 1
CC MEETING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2023

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT

Page 35 of 35 ends

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ______________________
Mayor City Clerk
Attachment 1
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
1 of 36

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING THE CARMEL MUNICIPAL CODE (CMC) TITLE 17 (ZONING) BY REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 17.46 (TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND WIRELESS

FACILITIES) AND MAKING CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS [TBD];ZONING CODE SECTIONS 17.08.040, 17.12.020, 17.14.030, 17.14.220,

17.18.030, 17.40.070, 17.52.150, 17.54.010, 17.54.040, 17.54.080, 17.58.030,

17.58.040, 17.68.070, 17.70.010 AND 17.70.020 AND TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 12.08.050, 12.08.060, 13.28.070; AND FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea currently regulates the placement of wireless facilities throughout the City under Title 17, Chapter 17.46 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 17.46 was last amended in 2004; and
WHEREAS, there have been significant changes in state and federal law affecting local authority over wireless siting since Chapter 17.46 was last amended, including the passage of new federal laws and state laws, the adoption of new Federal Communications Commission regulations and orders, the amendment of California Public Utility Commission orders related to utility infrastructure, and various judicial decisions interpreting those laws and regulations; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the various changes in state and federal law, local governments continue to retain authority to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities, subject to those matters where local authority has been limited or removed by state or federal law; and WHEREAS, Carmel-by-the-Sea has made longstanding and sustained efforts to preserve its distinct “village in a forest, by the sea” character, the natural beauty of its shoreline environment, and its charm as a popular visitor destination, by not allowing incompatible development that degrades the visual and economic value of adjoining properties, especially in residential areas; and
WHEREAS, Carmel-by-the-Sea’s topography, forested nature, location partially within and partially adjacent to California’s High Fire-Threat District (HFTD), and narrow streets, with few gutters or sidewalks or streetlights, gives rise to many unique concerns Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
2 of 36
and situations relating to fire safety, traffic circulation, parking and pedestrian safety; and
WHEREAS, if not adequately regulated, the installation of personal wireless services facilities within the City can pose a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; traffic and pedestrian safety hazards; negative impacts to trees; creation of visual and aesthetic blights and potential safety concerns arising from improper design or excessive size, heights, noise, or lack of camouflaging; and WHEREAS, the City therefore intends to exercise its powers to regulate personal wireless service facilities to the maximum extent allowed by law, to protect its residents and visitors, promote public health, safety and community welfare, preserve the natural resources and unique scenic quality of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and protect the character of the City’s residential neighborhoods, while nonetheless respecting and adhering to the law as it is today and may change in the future; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint special meeting on wireless regulation on February 28, 2022 to receive an update on changes to the law, to receive public feedback and to provide general direction to staff on an update to the City’s wireless regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public workshop on a draft of the wireless regulations (ordinance, design guidelines, standard conditions of approval, and application forms) on [TBD]March 29, 2023 to receive public feedback; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed ordinance, design guidelines, standard conditions of approval, and application forms on [TBD]August 23, 2023 at which it took public testimony, held a discussion, and voted to adopt the design guidelines, standard conditions of approval, and application forms, and to recommend that City Council adopt of the proposed code amendments (Resolution No.__);
WHEREAS, on _____________,September 12, 2023 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, etc on the proposed code amendments; WHEREAS, the City determined this ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in full conformity with the City’s Local Coastal Plan and the California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Section 30510 et seq.)
SECTION 1. CEQA Review. This Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
3 of 36
or indirectly. The Ordinance does not authorize any specific development or installation on any specific piece of property within the City’s boundaries. Moreover, when and if an application for installation is submitted, the City will at that time conduct preliminary review of the application in accordance with CEQA. Alternatively, even if the Ordinance is a “project” within the meaning of State CEQA Guidelines section 15378, the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA on multiple grounds. First, the Ordinance is exempt CEQA because the City Council’s adoption of the Ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3)). That is, approval of the Ordinance will not result in the actual installation of any facilities in the City. In order to install a facility in accordance with this Ordinance, the applicant would have to submit an application for installation of the wireless facility. At that time, the City will have specific and definite information regarding the facility to review in accordance with CEQA. And, in fact, the City will conduct preliminary review under CEQA at that time.

The City Council therefore directs that a Notice of Exemption be filed with the County Clerk of the County of Monterey within five working days of the passage and adoption of the Ordinance.

SECTION 2. Repeal and Replacement of Chapter 17.46. Chapter 17.46 of Title 17 of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following:

Chapter 17.46

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND WIRELESS FACILITIES
Sections:

17.46.010 Purpose and Findings.

17.46.020 Definitions.

17.46.030 Applicability.

17.46.040 General Development Standards.

17.46.050 Wireless Application Types and Submittal Requirements.

17.46.060 Application Review Procedures.

17.46.070 Public Notices, Public Hearings and Appeals.

17.46.080 Findings Required.

17.46.090 Standard Conditions of Approval.

17.46.100 EnforcementViolations

17.46.010 Purpose and Findings.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish comprehensive requirements and development standards for the siting, design, construction, maintenance and modification of wireless facilities in Carmel-by-the-Sea, including on public and private property and in public rights-of way, in order to manage their deployment and minimize adverse aesthetic impacts to Carmel-by-the-Sea’s unique Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
4 of 36
village character, consistent with and to the full extent of the City’s authority under federal and California law.

B. Findings. The City Council hereby finds that:

2. Personal wireless services can serve as an important and effective part of Carmelby-the-Sea’s emergency response and communications.

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
5 of 36
c. Preserve Carmel’s primarily residential character by keeping business and commerce subordinate to its residential character.
d. Comply with all federal law, Federal Communications Commission rules, regulations and standards, California law, and California Public Utilities Commission regulations and standards.
e. Ensure the safe installation and maintenance of wireless facilities to protect against fire hazards made more prevalent by Carmel’s unique urbanized forest, topography and accessibility.

17.46.020 Definitions.

A. Generally Applicable Definitions

1. “accessory equipment” means equipment other than antennas used in connection with a wireless facility. The term includes transmission equipment.

2. “amateur station” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

3. “antenna” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

4. “base station” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

1.6100(b)(1), which means:

A structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower or any equipment associated with a tower.
(i) The term includes, but is not limited to, equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
6 of 36
and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. (ii) The term includes, but is not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems and small-cell networks).
(iii) The term includes any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under this section, supports or houses equipment described in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(1)(i) through (ii) of 47 C.F.R. §

5. “collocation” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

6. “CPUC” means the California Public Utilities Commission established in the California Constitution, Article XII, § 5, or its duly appointed successor agency.

7. “Director” means the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Community Planning and Building Director or the Director’s designee.

9. “FCC” or “Commission” means the Federal Communications Commission, as constituted by the Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L: 73-416, Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
7 of 36
48 Stat. 1064, codified as 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq. or its duly appointed successor agency.

10. “Fire Safety Authority” means the Chief Building Official of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea or the Fire Safety Authority’s designee.

12. “non-pole concealment structure” means a structure within the public rights-of-way, other than a pole, that can be adapted (either in its current form or through a replacement) to conceal antennas and/or accessory equipment for wireless facilities. Examples may include, without limitation, monuments, kiosks, bus shelters and other street furniture.

13.12. “OTARD” means any “over-the-air reception device” subject to the FCC rules in 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.4000 et seq., which generally includes satellite television dishes and antennas, and certain fixed wireless antennas not greater than one meter in diameter.

14.13. “personal wireless service facility” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(i) which means an antenna facility or a structure that is used for the provision of personal wireless service, whether such service is provided on a stand-alone basis or commingled with other wireless communications services.

15.14. “personal wireless services” means the same as defined in 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(C)(i) which means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services.

16.15. “public right-of-way” or “public rights-of-way” means land or an interest in land which by deed, conveyance, agreement, easement, dedication, usage, or process of law is reserved for or dedicated to or open to the use by the general public for road or highway purposes. The term does not include private or public utility easements unless such easement is reserved for or dedicated to or open to the use by the general public for road or highway purposes.

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
8 of 36

17.16. “reviewing authority” means the City official or appointed/elected body responsible for application review and vested with authority to approve, approve with modifications and/or conditions, or deny such applications.

18.17. “RF” means radiofrequency.

19.18. “small wireless facility” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6002(l), which means a personal wireless service facility that meets each of the following conditions:
(a) The facilities (i) are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas; or (ii) are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures; or (iii) do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
(b) Each antenna associated with the deployment is no more than three (3) cubic feet in volume, excluding associated antenna equipment; (c) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment associated with the antenna and any preexisting associated equipment, cumulatively total no more than twentyeight (28) cubic feet in volume; (d) The facility does not require antenna structure registration under 47 CFR Part 17 (Construction, Marking and Lighting of Antenna Structures); (e) The facility is not located on tribal land; and
(f) The facility will not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable FCC safety standards set forth within Table 1 of 47 CFR §1.1310(E)(1).

20.19. “FCC shot clock” means the time defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

1.6003 or 1.6100(c) (as applicable) in which a state or local government must act on an application or request for authorization to place, construct or modify personal wireless services facilities.

21.20. “stealth” means concealment elements, measures and techniques that mimic or blend with the underlying structure, surrounding environment and adjacent uses to screen all transmission equipment from public view and integrate the wireless facility into the built or natural environment such that, given the particular context, the average, untrained observerreasonable person would not recognize the structure as a wireless facility. Stealth concealment techniques include, without limitation: (1) transmission equipment placed completely within existing or replacement architectural features such that the installation causes no visible change in the underlying structure; (2) new architectural features that mimic or blend with the underlying or surrounding structures in style, proportion and construction quality such that they appear part of the original structure’s design; and (3) concealment elements, measures and techniques that mimic or Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
9 of 36
blend with the underlying structure, surrounding environment andor adjacent uses

22.21. “structure” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

23.22. “tower” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

24.23. “transmission equipment” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(8) which means equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service, including, but not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply. The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul.

25. “Type I application” means a collocation of a small wireless facility on an existing structure.

26. “Type II application” means a collocation on an existing structure which does not qualify as a Type I small wireless facility collocation or a Type V EFR.

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
10 of 36
small wireless facility or which will not meet the definition of a small wireless facility if and when the proposed new personal wireless service equipment is installed upon the existing facility and/or structure and either (i) the structure is not an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) or (ii) the structure is an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) but the proposed facility does not qualify as an EFR.

27.26. “Type III application” means an application type that shall be limited to applications seeking to install and/or construct a new small wireless facility onthat involves placement of a new or replacement structure.

28.27. “Type IV application” means a new tower or an application type that shall include any otherapplications for the installation of a new personal wireless service facility that iswhich does not ameet the criteria for Type I, Type II, Type III, or Type V application.

29.28. “Type V application” means an eligible facilities request or EFR as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(3), which is any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, involving: (i) collocation of new transmission equipment; (ii) removal of transmission equipment; or (iii) replacement of transmission equipment.

30.29. “utility pole” means a wood or steel vertical structure in the public right-ofway designed to support electric, telephone and similar utility lines. A tower is not a utility pole.

31.30. “visibility triangle” means that portion of both the public and private property at any corner bounded by the curb line or edge of roadway of the intersecting streets and a line joining points on the curb or edge of roadway a distance in feet equivalent to the width of the roadway from the point of intersection of the extended curb lines or edges of roadway.

32.31. “wireless facility” means the transmitters, antenna structures and other types of installations used for the provision of wireless services at a fixed location, including, without limitation, any associated tower(s), structure(s), and base station(s).

B. Additional Definitions Applicable to Eligible Facilities Requests (EFRs) Only

1. “collocation” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
11 of 36

3. “existing” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. §

4. “site” means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(6), which means that for towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. The current boundaries of a site are the boundaries that existed as of the date that the original support structure or a modification to that structure was last reviewed and approved by a State or local government, if the approval of the modification occurred prior to the Spectrum Act or otherwise outside of the Section 6409(a) process.

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
12 of 36
iii. the proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of more than the standard number of equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four; or
iv. the proposed collocation or modification involves excavation or deployment outside the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the wireless tower by more than 30 feet in any direction. The site boundary from which the 30 feet is measured excludes any access or utility easements currently related to the site.
b. For towers in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations, a substantial change occurs when:
i. the proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height more than 10% or 10 feet (whichever is greater); or ii. the proposed collocation or modification increases the width more than 6 feet from the edge of the wireless tower or base station; or iii. the proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground when there are no existing ground-mounted equipment cabinets; or
iv. the proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new ground-mounted equipment cabinets that are ten percent (10%) larger in height or volume than any existing ground-mounted equipment cabinets; or
v. the proposed collocation or modification involves excavation or deployment outside the area in proximity to the structure and other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground.
c. In addition, for all towers and base stations wherever located, a substantial change occurs when:
i. the proposed collocation or modification would defeat the existing concealment elements of the eligible support structure as determined by the reviewing authority; or
ii. the proposed collocation or modification violates a prior condition of approval, provided however that the collocation need not comply with any prior condition of approval related to height, width, equipment cabinets or excavation that is inconsistent with the thresholds for a substantial change described in this definition.

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
13 of 36
d. The thresholds for a substantial change outlined above are disjunctive.

17.46.030 Applicability.

B. This chapter shall not be applicable to the following:

1. wireless facilities operated by the City for public purposes;

2.1. wireless facilities installed completely indoors and used to extend personal wireless services into a business or the subscriber’s private residence, such as a “femtocell” or indoor distributed antenna system;

3.2. OTARD antennas which are regulated pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Antennas and Satellite Dishes);

4.3. antennas and related transmission equipment used in connection with a duly authorized amateur station operated by a federally licensed amateur radio operator as part of the Amateur Radio Service; provided, that its maximum height does not exceed the height requirements of the zoning district; Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
14 of 36

5.4. wireless facilities or other transmission equipment owned and operated by CPUC-regulated electric companies for use in connection with electrical power, generation, transmission and distribution facilities subject to CPUC General Order 131-D;

6.5. temporary wireless facilities parked in a fixed location within the public rightsof-way for no longer than 10 days under an approved special events permit pursuant to Chapter 12.48.

17.46.040 General Development Standards.

Tier I (Least Compatible):

Senior Citizen Facility (A-3), Multi-Family Residential (R-4), and Single-Family Residential (R-1), and Residential and Limited Commercial (RC).

Tier II:

Improved Parklands (P-2), Natural Parklands and Preserves (P-1), and Theatrical (A-1).

Tier III (Most Compatible):

Central Commercial (CC), Service Commercial (SC), and Community and Cultural (A-2), Residential and Limited Commercial (RC)).

C. Preference for Placement on Public and Private Parcels Over on Public Right-of-Way.

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
15 of 36
Placement on public and private parcels is strongly preferred over placements in the public rights-of-way because Carmel’s public rights-of-way are narrow in width (26 to 34 feet), with few gutters or sidewalks. Limiting wireless facilities in public rights-of-way is necessary: (i) to ensure that the flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, including ingress to, or egress from, any residence, public building, or place of business or from the street to the sidewalk, by persons exiting or entering parked or standing vehicles is maintained; (ii) to provide reasonable access for the use and maintenance of sidewalks, pathways, hydrants, restrooms, trash receptacles, firefighting apparatus, as well as access to locations used for public transportation services; (iii) to ensure no interference to the performance of police, firefighter, and other emergency medical personal; and (iv) to maximize public access in the commercial districts and along the coast which have unusually high pedestrian and vehicular traffic volumes.

E. Additional Special Considerations for Locations in the Public Right-of-Way.

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
16 of 36
request for a special exception finding under Subsection 17.46.080(C). The following is a list of highly incompatible locations:
a. any location in the public right-of-way within the Single-Family Residential Zoning District.
b. any location in the public right-of-way that would trigger review of consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for potential impacts to a historic resource on a residential parcel in any Tier I zone in B above;
c. any location in the public right-of-way within the area depicted in Figure 1 below.

FIGURE 1

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
17 of 36
b. within a 250500-foot radius from another wireless facility within the public rights-of-way.

3. Public Right-of-Way Location Safety Considerations. Applicants shall not propose adding new structures in the following locations:
a. Any location that would create a hazard to public health or safety. b. Any location that would adversely affect the normal drainage of surface water, unless an acceptable mitigation is included that will be advantageous to the general public.
c. Any location that would adversely affect vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic or the parking of vehicles including placements in any visibility triangle that obstructs or restricts the view necessary for the safe operation of motor vehicles as determined by the Traffic Safety Committee. d. Any location that would adversely affect any public property, including existing vegetation or itsthe root structure of any existing trees, or significantly reduce greenbelt area that may be used for tree planting. e. Any location within 10 feet away from any driveways for police stations, fire stations, or other emergency responder facilities. f. Any location that would physically interfere with or impede access to any:
(i) above-ground or underground infrastructure for traffic control, or public transportation, including, without limitation, any curb control sign, parking meter, vehicular traffic sign or signal, pedestrian traffic sign or signal, barricade reflectors; (ii) public transportation vehicles, shelters, street furniture, or other improvements at any public transportation stop; (iii) above-ground or underground infrastructure owned or operated by any public or private utility agency; (iv) fire hydrant or water valve; (v) doors, gates, sidewalk doors, passage doors, stoops, or other ingress and egress points to any building appurtenant to the right-of-way; or (vi) fire escape.

4. Encroachments Over Parcels. No wireless facility, antenna, accessory equipment, or other improvements associated with a wireless facility placed in the public right-of-way, and no RF emissions that would render any portion of any private or public parcel outside the public right-of-way inaccessible to the general public or hinder future development of the parcel, may extend onto or over such parcel without the property owner’s prior written consent.

F. Design Standards
Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
18 of 36

17.58, and the City Council pursuant to subsection 17.58.020(E). a. Stealth/Concealment. All wireless facilities must be stealth to the maximum extent feasible. Colors and materials for wireless facilities shall be muted, subdued, non-reflective and chosen to minimize visibility to the greatest extent feasible.
b. Overall Height. To maintain the natural forested character of the communityOn public and private parcels, wireless facilities may not exceed more than 10 feet above the average height of mature natural trees within the vicinity or the maximum height allowed by this code for the underlying zoning district where the facility is proposed, whichever is more restrictive.. In the public right-of-way, wireless facilities on an existing pole may not have an overall height that exceeds the height of the existing pole by more than 10 feet and wireless facilities that involve a replacement pole or a new pole may not have an overall height that is more than 10 feet above the height of the replaced pole or existing poles in the vicinity unless additional height necessary to comply with CPUC safety standards such as General Order 95. c. Finishes. All exterior surfaces shall be painted, colored, and/or wrapped in flat, muted, subdued, non-reflective hues that match the underlying structure or blend with the surrounding environment. All exterior surfaces on wireless facilities shall be constructed from, or coated with, graffiti-resistant materials.

All finishes shall be subject to the reviewing authority’s prior approval. d. Noise. All wireless facilities must be compliant with all applicable noise regulations, which includes, without limitation, any noise regulations in this code. The reviewing authority may require the applicant to incorporate appropriate noise-baffling materials and/or noise-mitigation strategies to avoid any ambient noise from equipment reasonably likely to exceed the applicable noise regulations.
e. Lights. Wireless facilities may not include exterior lights other than as may be required under Federal Aviation Administration, FCC, other applicable federal or state governmental regulations. All exterior lights permitted or required to be installed must be installed in locations and within enclosures that mitigates illumination impacts on other properties to the maximum extent feasible. Any lights associated with the electronic equipment shall be appropriately shielded from public view. Any light beacons or lightning arresters shall be included in the overall height calculation.

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
19 of 36
f. Trees and Landscaping. Wireless facilities shall not be installed (in whole or in part) on new poles within any tree drip line. Wireless facilities may not displace any existing tree or landscape and/or hardscape features. All wireless facilities proposed to be placed in a landscaped area must include landscape and/or hardscape features (which may include, without limitation, trees, shrubs and ground cover) and a landscape maintenance plan. The existing native vegetation shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. The reviewing authority may require additional landscape features to screen the wireless facility from public view, avoid or mitigate potential adverse impacts on adjacent properties or otherwise enhance the stealth techniques required under this chapter. All plants proposed or required must be reviewed as part of a formal landscaping plan and approved by the City. g. Signage; Advertisements. All wireless facilities must include signage that accurately identifies the equipment owner/operator, the owner/operator’s site name or identification number and a toll-free number to the owner/operator’s network operations center. Wireless facilities may not bear any other signage or advertisements unless expressly approved by the reviewing authority, required by law or recommended under FCC or other federal governmental agencies for compliance with RF emissions regulations.
h. Security Measures. To prevent unauthorized access, theft, vandalism, attractive nuisance or other hazards, reasonable and appropriate security measures, such as fences, walls and anti-climbing devices, may be approved.

Security measures shall be designed and implemented in a manner that enhances or contributes to the overall stealth, and the reviewing authority may condition approval on additional stealth elements to mitigate any aesthetic impacts, which may include, without limitation, additional landscape or hardscape features. Barbed wire, razor ribbon, electrified fences or any similar security measures are prohibited. Alarm systems shall not include any visible alarms or audible sirens or other sounds.
i. Fire Safety. All wireless facilities shall be designed by qualified, licensed persons to provide the maximum protection that is technically feasible to prevent electrical and fire hazards. All wireless facilities shouldshall be proactively monitored and maintained to continue and if possible, improve the safety design.
j. Compliance with Laws. All wireless facilities must be designed and sited in compliance with all applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, rules, restrictions and conditions, which includes without limitation the California Building Standards Code, Americans with Disabilities Act, general plan and any applicable specific plan, this code and any conditions or restrictions in any permit or other governmental approval issued by any public agency with jurisdiction over the project.

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
20 of 36
k. View Protection. Wireless facilities shall be located and designed to preserve significant coastal views from the public right-of-way in conformance with Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act. The protection of public views should not prevent reasonable development of the site, yet development shall not preclude reasonable protection of any significant coastal view. Designs should respect views enjoyed by neighboring parcels.Designs should respect views enjoyed by neighboring parcels and should not present excess visual mass or bulk to public view or to adjoining properties. Wireless communications facilities, to every extent possible, should be sited to not create visual clutter or negatively affect important public or private views as determined by the reviewing authority. Collocation is encouraged when it will decrease visual impact. This objective is intended to balance the private rights to views from all parcels that will be affected by a proposed wireless facility. No single parcel should enjoy a greater right than other parcels except the natural advantages of each site’s topography.

Wireless facilities which substantially eliminate an existing significant view enjoyed on another parcel should be avoided.

17.46.020. Type V applications also must comply with any generally applicable law, regulation, rule or standard or permit condition reasonably related to public health or safety.

17.46.050 Wireless Application Types and Submittal Requirements.

A. Application Types
Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
21 of 36

1. Conditional Use Permit Applications. There shall be four (4) specific types of applications for conditional use permits under this section, which shall include Type I, Type II, Type III, and Type IV applications. The Planning Commission is the initial reviewing authority for Type I-IV applications. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council.
a. Type I Applications: Collocations of Small Wireless Facilities. Type I applications shall be limited to applications wherein an applicant seeks to place a new small wireless facility upon an existing structure and either (i) the structure is not an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) or (ii) the structure is an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) but the proposed facility does not qualify as an EFR. If the completed facility would still meet the physical limits and requirements to meet the definition of a small wireless facility after the installation of the new equipment, then the application to install such new equipment is a Type I application.
b. Type II Applications: Collocations which do not qualify as a Small Wireless Facility Collocation or EFR. Type II applications shall be limited to applications wherein an applicant is seeking to place a new personal wireless service facility upon an existing structure which does not meet the definition of a small wireless facility or which will not meet the definition of a small wireless facility if and when the proposed new personal wireless service equipment is installed upon the existing facility and/or structure and either (i) the structure is not an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) or (ii) the structure is an existing tower or base station (as defined for EFR purposes) but the proposed facility does not qualify as an EFR.
c. Type III Applications: New Small Wireless Facilities on New or Replacement Structures. Type III applications shall be limited to applications seeking to install and/or construct a new Smallsmall wireless facility that involves placement of a new or replacement structure.
d. Type IV Applications: New Towers and All Other Wireless Facilities, Except EFRs. Type IV applications shall include any applications for the installation of a new personal wireless service facility which does not meet the criteria for Type I, Type II, Type III or Type V applications.

B. Submittal Requirements.

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
22 of 36

All such requirements must be in written form and publicly stated and available.

3. Application Submittal. All applications submitted under this chapter must be submitted to the City at a pre-scheduled appointment withduring the office hours specified for intake of applications submitted under this chapter as established by the Community Planning and Building Department. and posted on the City’s webpage. Applicants may submit one application per appointment but may schedule successive appointments foror multiple applications whenever feasible and not prejudicial to other applicants. The Community Planning and Building Department shall use reasonable efforts to provide the applicant with an appointment in writing within five working days after the Community Planning and Building Department receives a written request. Any application received without an appointmentin a different manner or outside those established intake hours, whether delivered in-person, by mail or through any other means, will not be considered duly filed whether the City retains the submitted materials or not.

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
23 of 36
a. Forest and Beach Commission Review. Any proposed project that involves a request to remove or prune any tree type identified in Chapter

17.48 must be approved by the Forest and Beach Commission prior to determining completeness of the application.
b. Historic Resources Board Review. In accordance with Section

17.46.060 Application Review Procedures.

A. Completeness Review By Director

2. If the Director determines that the application is defective or incomplete, they shall promptly deliver a Notice of Incompleteness to the applicant in order to pause the applicable FCC shot clock.

B. Consultants
Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
24 of 36

3. Liability for Consultant Expenses. For an application to be complete, the applicant shall provide the written consent of all owners of the subject real property, both authorizing the applicant to file and pursue land development proposals and acknowledging potential landowner responsibility, under this section, for engineering, legal, and other consulting fees incurred by the City. If different from the applicant, the owner(s) of the subject real property shall be jointly and severally responsible for reimbursing the City for funds expended to compensate services rendered to the City under this section by private engineers, attorneys, or other consultants. The applicant and the owner shall remain responsible for reimbursing the City for its consulting expenses, notwithstanding that the escrow account may be insufficient to cover such expenses. No conditional use permit, building permit or other permit shall be issued until reimbursement of costs and expenses determined by the City to be due. In the event of failure to reimburse the City for such fees, the following shall apply:
a. The City may seek recovery of unreimbursed engineering, legal, and consulting fees by court action in an appropriate jurisdiction, and the defendant(s) shall be responsible for the reasonable and necessary attorney's fees expended by the City in prosecuting such action. b. Alternatively, and at the sole discretion of the City, a default in reimbursement of such engineering, legal and consulting fees expended by the City shall be remedied by charging such sums against the real property that is the subject of the conditional use permit application, by Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
25 of 36
adding that charge to and making it a part of the next annual real property tax assessment roll of the City. Such charges shall be levied and collected simultaneously and in the same manner as City-assessed taxes and applied in reimbursing the fund from which the costs were defrayed for the engineering, legal and consulting fees. Prior to charging such assessments, the owners of the real property shall be provided written notice to their last known address of record, by certified mail, return receipt requested, of an opportunity to be heard and object before the City Council to the proposed real property assessment, at a date to be designated in the notice, which shall be no less than 30 days after its mailing.

4.3. Independent Consultants Retained by Fire Safety Authority. The Fire Safety Authority has the authority to select and retain an independent consultant with expertise and/or specialized training in fire safety and fire hazard mitigation and prevention satisfactory to the Fire Safety Authority in connection with any application. The Fire Safety Authority may request independent consultant review on any matter committed to the Fire Safety Authority for review or approval.

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
26 of 36
G. Staff Report and Recommendations. A staff report shall be prepared for Type I-IV applications involving a public hearing. Staff reports shall evaluate the compliance of the proposed project with the applicable City policies, regulations and requirements.

17.46.070 Public Notices, Public Hearings, Decision Notices and Appeals.

A. Application Submittal Notices – For Types I-V

2. City Website Notice. Within 10 days after an application is duly filed with the department, the Director shall post notice of the submittal on the City’s website.

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
27 of 36
B. Public Hearing Notices (For Types I-IV). Public hearing notices shall be provided consistent with the requirements of Section 17.52.110, except that the mailing radius shall be 500 feet.

C. Public Hearings (For Types I-IV). The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing upon each conditional use permit application, consistent with the procedures in §17.52.160.

D. Decision Notices.

17.52.170(D); and (4) instructions for how and when to file any appeal.

3. For Director Denials Without Prejudice. The Director must send a written notice to the applicant to deny an application without prejudice due to failure to respond to notice(s) of incompleteness pursuant to Section

E. Appeals.

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
28 of 36

2. For Director Denials Without Prejudice. Within ten calendar days after the Director issues the decision notice pursuant to Section

17.46.080 Findings Required.

A. Types I to IV Applications

17.46.040 and the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines;
b. if applicable, to the extent the proposed wireless facility does not comply with all applicable development standards in Section 17.46.040 and the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines, the applicant has requested a special exception and the findings for granting a special exception pursuant to Section 17.46.080(C) can be made; c. the proposed wireless facility will comply with all applicable FCC regulations and guidelines for human exposure to RF emissions and will not, either individually or cumulatively with other transmitters in the vicinity, result in RF exposures that exceed the FCC’s maximum permissible exposure level for the general population;
d. the proposed wireless facility will comply with all applicable fire safety and public safety standards;
e. the proposed wireless facility will comply with fall zone requirements in the Administrative Detailed Wireless Facility Design Guidelines; f. all public notices required for the application have been given; Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
29 of 36
g. all the findings required for a use permit pursuant to Section 17.64.010; h. all the findings for discretionary design review approval pursuant to Section 17.58.060;
i. if applicable, all the findings required for a Coastal Development Permit.

B. Type V Applications (EFRs)

1.6100(b). The reviewing authority shall make an express finding for each criterion.

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
30 of 36
C. Special Exceptions for Federal or State Preemption or Minor Deviations in Design (Types I to IV only)

2. Required Findings. The reviewing authority shall not grant any special exception unless the reviewing authority finds the following:
a. the applicant has shown that denial of an application will result in an effective prohibition or otherwise violate federal law; OR the applicant has shown that denial of an application will violate state law; OR the applicant has shown that it is a minor deviation that achieves all of the applicable design objectives of this Chapter, as well as, or better than, would be achieved by adherence to the adopted design guidelines. b. the special exception requested by the applicant does not compromise or excuse compliance with any fire safety or other public health and safety requirements; and
c. the special exception is narrowly tailored such that any deviation from the requirements of this chapter is only to extent necessary for compliance with federal or state law or to achieve all of the applicable design objectives of this Chapter, as well as, or better than, would be achieved by adherence to the adopted Design Guidelines.

17.46.090 Standard Conditions of Approval.

A. Wireless Facility Standard Terms and Conditions. All wireless facilities approved under this chapter or deemed approved by the operation of law shall be Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
31 of 36
automatically subject to the Wireless Facility Standard Terms and Conditions adopted by the Planning Commission by resolution, unless modified by the reviewing authority in an approval decision.

SECTION 3. Conforming Amendments To Code. [TBD] Title 17. The following Sections of Title 17 of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code are amended as follows (all other sections remain unchanged):

SECTION 4.Section 17.08.040: the residential uses table listing for “Communications” uses in the Transportation, Communications and Utilities uses table shall read:

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
32 of 36

1. No antenna or its supporting structure shall be located in the area between the front property line and the portion of the main structure or building located closest to the front property line.

2. No antenna shall be roof-mounted except on a flat portion of the roof structure with parapets, and/or architecturally matching screening plan.

4. No antenna shall be erected within the public viewshed as identified in CMC

17.12.050, Preservation of Public Viewshed.

Transportation, Communication and Utilities
Antennas and Transmission Towers – Telecommunications C C C Antennas and Transmission Towers – Other - - -
Facilities Within Buildings P P C
Section 17.14.220.F. shall read:
“F. Antennas. Except for antennas preempted by Federal law, antennas in the commercial districts shall be located and screened to reduce their visibility from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties. All antenna installations must be reviewed and approved through the commercial design review procedures. Except as provided in Chapter 17.46 CMC, Telecommunications and Wireless Facilities, antennas located in any commercial land use district shall conform to the following standards:

1. All ground-mounted antennas shall be required to maintain their supporting structures at least three feet from any property line.

2. All ground-mounted antennas shall be screened by walls, color, fences or landscaping.

3. No part of any antenna shall be higher than the maximum height allowed in the underlying land use district.

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
33 of 36

4. A maximum of one antenna shall be allowed on a building site.

Transportation, Communication and Utilities
Communication Facilities
Antennas and Transmission Towers – Telecommunications C C See Chapter 17.46 CMC Antennas and Transmission Towers – Other - C
Facilities Within Buildings C C
Section 17.40.070.H. shall read:
“H. Signs in the public right-of-way, except for signs posted by a Federal, State, or local governmental entity with permission of the City and application notices posted in accordance with CMC 17.46.070(A)(1).”
Section 17.52.150.C shall read:
“C. Appeals. All final actions of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 17.54 CMC, Appeals, except for Director decisions pursuant to CMC 17.46.050(A)(2) and 17.46.060(D) which may only be appealed to the City Council.”
Section 17.54.010.E. shall read:
“E. The findings and actions of the Planning Director shall be final and conclusive from and after the date of final action unless an appeal is filed with the Planning Commission Secretary pursuant to CMC 17.54.040(A), Appeals to the Forest and Beach Commission or the Planning Commission, or CMC 17.54.040(B), Appeals to the Historic Resources Board, or with the Coastal Commission pursuant to CMC 17.54.040(D) and

17.54.050, or with the City Clerk pursuant to CMC 17.54.040(C), Appeals to City Council. “
Section 17.54.040.C. shall read:
“C. Appeals to the City Council. Decisions to approve or deny projects made by the Planning Commission, Forest and Beach Commission, or the Historic Resources Board may be appealed to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal in writing in the office of Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
34 of 36
the City Clerk within 10 working days following the date of action by the decision-making body and paying the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.

17.46.070(E).“
Section 17.54.080.A. shall read:
“A. Appeals of Decisions on Permits. Any decision to approve, deny or conditionally approve any permit made by the Director (except for denials without prejudice made pursuant to CMC 17.46.060(D)), the City Forester, the Planning Commission, or the Historic Resources Board may be appealed by any aggrieved party. Coastal Commissioners may appeal these decisions pursuant to CMC 17.54.020 and

17.54.050.”
Section 17.58.030.B.1.d. shall read:
“d. Installation of antennas and associated equipment.” Section 17.58.040.B.1 and the introductory part of B.2 shall read:

Section 17.68.070 “Communication Facilities” uses shall read:

Attachment 2
PC WORKSHOPCC MEETING DRAFT FOR MARCHSEPTEMBER 2023 MEETING

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
35 of 36
Antennas and Transmission Towers - Telecommunications. Communication services accomplished through electronic or telephonic mechanisms, as well as structures designed to support one or more reception or transmission systems. Examples of transmission towers - telecommunications are limited to telephone exchange or microwave relay towers, and cellular telephone transmission or personal communications systems towers.

Facilities Within Buildings. Includes radio, television, or recording studios and telephone switching centers; excludes antennas and transmission devices.

Section 17.70.010 and Section 17.70.020 shall be amended to repeal the following listed terms and corresponding definitions:

Amateur Radio Antenna (See Antenna);
Antenna; Monopole (See Telecommunications Terms);
Satellite Antenna (See Antenna);
Telecommunications Facility, Co-Located (See Telecommunications Terms); Telecommunications Facility (See Telecommunications Terms); Telecommunications Terms (Building-Mounted Telecommunications Facility; Monopole; Telecommunications Facility; Telecommunications Facility, Co-Located).

PC RECOMMENDED DRAFT
Page | 1
36 of 36
under Ch. 17.46 shall process and decide both applications concurrently under the procedures in Ch. 17.46, including any appeals.”
Section 12.08.060 shall be amended to add a new subsection I as follows:
“I. For applications that are subject to both Ch. 17.46 and Ch. 12.08, only the standards in Ch. 17.46 and the applicable administrative guidelines shall apply.” Section 13.28.070.E. shall be amended to read as follows:
“E. Antennae, associated equipment that is within the supporting structure or integrated with the antennae, and supporting structures, used by a utility for furnishing communication services.”
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption by the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and after approval by the California Coastal Commission.

INTRODUCED at a Regular City Council Meeting on ____________, 2023.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ______________________
Mayor City Clerk
Attachment 2
PC MEETING AUGUST 2023

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON PC WORKSHOP DRAFT ORDINANCE
August 4, 2023

Page 1 of 27 ends

Carmel-by-the-Sea City CouncilSeptember 12, 2023

Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
September 12, 2023