Implementation Phase: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (City) - Draft Implementation Plan Process Sequence Anticipated Benchmarks/Timeline
1. Address System
Development
Implementation Team and Engagement Team consisting of Planning and Building staff will develop an address system/map that meets the requirements of an approved and established standard addressing system
3-6 months (development timeline runs with Public Engagement Phase) Post-Public Engagement Phase
2. Public Mailer Notice
Mailed to PO Boxes: Notice of City Council Decision for Address System Program Implementation
Specifying: Implementation of Assigned Street Address Numbers and Posting/Display Requirements only; no implementation of at-home mail delivery, and no implementation or erection of cluster boxes (or “gang mailboxes) in the City.
Continued operation of the 5th Ave. US Post Office with Centralized Delivery Mode of delivery to PO Boxes already assigned/in-use will continue as status quo Within 1 month of City Council’s Decision
3. Community
Meeting
Meeting at Carpenter Hall – 60 Minutes
x Presentation to the community of approved Address System Program x Final Address Numbers System/Map reviewed
x Explanation of acceptable locations on property to display assigned address numbers
x Explain “Next Steps”, or what to expect as the implementation process moves forward
x Steps the City will take
x Steps residents/property owners can expect to take during the implementation phase
1-2 months after Public Mailer Notice
4. Submission of
Finalized Street
Address System to
USPS
Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Planning and Building Department submits the finalized street address system to the USPS Address Management Systems Manager for review Dependent on Implementation’s Team’s work capacity for any required administrative or technical updates, in any
1-4 months, depending on USPS review and required technical changes, if any
5. Post-Address
System Approval by
USPS
(Community Meeting)
Community Meeting – 60 Minutes
Staff Presentation/Review of Approved Address System
x Explanation of City’s process to provide property owners with notice of their assigned address number
x Next Steps for Residents:
¾ Process to fill out and submit USPS Form 32N ;ĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚͿ
6. Notice of Assigned
Address Number
Notice to property owners by the Planning and Building Department of assigned street address number identification
7. FAQ’s and Public
Information for
Transition
Ongoing
Posted to Website as a Resource
Friday Vlog
Recurring in Friday Letter
Attachment 2
/P'FF (SPVQ&
1PTU0GGJDF#PY
3FOFXBM/PUJDF"OOVBM7FSJGJDBUJPO
Dear Box Customer:
The United States Postal Service® has made no-fee Post Office™ box service available to many customers who are ineligible for carrier street delivery. Each year we must verify the information provided on PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box, and confirm the continued eligibility of each box customer for no-fee Post Office box service. Please assist us by providing the information requested below.
1. Current Address Information. Complete the required information below by indicating your name and business/organization name (if applicable), current residence or business/organization physical address, telephone number, and email address. No-fee Post Office box service will not be renewed until the applicant’s identity and current permanent physical street address where he or she resides or conducts business is verified. At the time of renewal, applicants must present two items of valid current identification; one item must contain a photograph of the applicant. This form must be presented to the Postal Service™ and cannot be mailed.
Name (Last, First, MI. (include title if representing a business/organization) Business/Organization Name (if applicable) Address (Number, Street, Suite)
City State ZIP+4 Telephone Number (include area code)
Email Address
2. Sign and date this form. I certify that the information I have provided above is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that anyone who furnishes false and misleading information on this notice or who fails to provide information requested on this notice may be subject to criminal sanctions (including fines and imprisonment) and/or civil sanctions (including multiple damages and civil penalties).
I have read the Privacy Act Statement reprinted below and understand that I may remove the statement from this form and keep it for my records.
Signature Date
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Notice 32-N, September 2018
PSN 7610-04-000-5093
Note: If you would like to keep this copy of the Privacy Act Statement for your records, cut along the dotted line.
Privacy Act Statement
Privacy Act Statement: Your information will be used to provide Post Office™ box service.
Collection is authorized by 39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
POSTAL SERVICE USE ONLY
Eligibility Status Yes No
Providing the information is voluntary, but if not provided, we will be unable to provide this service to you. We do not disclose your information to third parties without your consent, except to facilitate the transaction, to act on your behalf or request, or as legally required. This includes the following limited circumstances: to a congressional office on your behalf; to financial entities regarding financial transaction issues; to a U.S. Postal Service auditor; to entities, including law enforcement, as required by law or in legal proceedings; to contractors and other entities aiding us to fulfill the service (service providers); to process servers; to domestic government agencies if needed as part of their duties; and to a foreign government agency for violations and alleged violations of law. Information concerning an individual box customer who has filed a protective court order with the postmaster will not be disclosed except pursuant to court order. For more information regarding our privacy policies visit www.usps.com/privacyoffice.
Attachment 2
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (City)
Draft Public Engagement Plan
1. Public Engagement Phase
Event/Engagement Type Description
Community
Informational Mailer
Mailed out to PO Boxes at downtown US Post Office
Limited amount available at City Hall
This document will also be available online
Informs the community on “Next Steps” after Ordinance adoption and anticipated timeline
City Website Page:
Community Information https://ci.carmel.ca.us/street-addresses Informal Community
Survey
(opt-in)
The community has the opportunity to get involved
1. “Jump Off Point” Survey:
x Questions will be developed to guide the Engagement & Implementation Team
2. “Preferred Address System” Survey:
x Public input on which system developed to move forward with x Survey will feature examples and overview of each system Address System Program
Development
The City Planning and Building Department and additional designated staff will design a numbering/addressing system that meets public safety and standard addressing requirements
x Previously gathered public input will be incorporated into preliminary address system design(s)
Farmers Market Booth
Community input on map/addressing system proposal
x Team will have a predetermined number of preliminary addressing systems/maps on display for public comments, suggestions, questions, etc.
Community Meetings
(5 Total)
----------
Three Community Meetings/Workshops during Engagement Phase Two Community Meetings during Implementation Phase
----------
Carpenter Hall, Recorded for Community Reference
Day/Time will be noticed in the Pine Cone
----------
Meeting 1: Introduction to Engagement & Implementation Team, Background - 1 Hour x Background, Process: “How We Got Here”
x Admin Analyst: Emily Garay
x Building Official: Jermel Laurie
x Assigned Planner: ___________
x Fire Chief Miller (or designated representative)
x Police Chief Tomasi (or designated representative)
x Presentation of requirements and regulations for a standard addressing system Meeting 2: Team/Staff Presentation of developed plan/system options to the community
x What works? Which system(s) best represent the community’s expectations? x Interactive Workshop – 90 Minutes
x 5-10 minutes - introduction/format/agenda/process for questions submissions x 30 minutes - PowerPoint presentation of preliminary addressing systems designs x 10 minute break- for written questions, suggestions, comments gathering by staff x 45 minutes – staff answers written questions, accepts additional questions as time allows
Attachment 3
Meeting 3: Design Workshop - Post 1st City Council meeting x Address system program updated with City Council’s Direction x 5-10 minutes - Introduction to Team/Format/Process of collecting public input x 30 minutes – Team presentation of guiding design standards for display of assigned street address numbers, including proposed examples of numbers and acceptable locations for posting on property
x The Engagement & Implementation Team’s design proposals will be based on the established standards and regulations of standard street addressing system program
x 45-60 minutes – Public input and preferences for acceptable designs City Council Meetings
City Council Meeting 1:
Presentation to City Council of proposed address system program developed through public engagement
x Introduction to Engagement & Implementation Team
x Overview of Process/Public Engagement leading up to Council Meeting x Results of Community Engagement Analysis
x Team presentation of preferred address system(s) developed through the public engagement process
x City Council considers proposed system, provides staff with direction City Council Meeting 2:
Result of design standards presented to City Council for consideration, discussion, and direction to staff:
x (1) return to City Council with changes; (2) or move forward to Implementation Phase
Planning Commission Presentation of proposed street address numbers designs developed through public engagement, if needed
Outreach
Noticing, Advertising
The Carmel Pine Cone
City’s Friday Letter
“Sign-Me Up” Email Updates
Friday Vlog
Updates to City website – Subpage: Street Addresses
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
15.55.100 REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
RECITALS
A. California Health & Safety Code Division 13 “Housing”, includes Part 1.5 “Regulation of Buildings Use for Human Habitation” (Section 17910 through 17998.3) and Part 2.5 “State Building Standards” (Sections 18901 through 18949.31).
B. Health & Safety Code Section 17922 references building standards included in Division 13, Part 2.5 and other rules and regulations in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
C.. California Health and Safety Code Section 18931 provides that the duties of the California Building Standards Commission include the approval of building standards.
D. California Health and Safety Code Section 18902 provides that all references to the State Building Standards Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations shall mean the California Building Standards Code.
E. The California Building Code set forth in the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Section 502.1 reads as follows:
502.1 Address identification. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. Each character shall be not less than 4 inches (102 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 1/2 inch (12.7 mm). Where required by the fire code official, address identification shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address identification shall be maintained.”
F. The California Residential Code set forth in California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part
2.5, Section R319.1 reads as follows:
“SECTION R319 SITE ADDRESS
R319.1 Address identification. Buildings shall be provided with approved address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. Each character shall be not less than 4 inches (102 mm) in height with a stroke width of not less than 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where required Attachment 5
by the fire code official, address identification shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Where access is by means of a private road and the building address cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address identification shall be maintained.”
G. The California Fire Code set forth in the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 9, Section 505.1 reads as follows:
“PREMISES IDENTIFICATION
505.1 Address identification. New and existing buildings shall be provided with approved address identification. The address identification shall be legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not be spelled out. Each character shall be not less than 4 inches (102 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 1/2 inch (12.7 mm). Where required by the fire code official, address identification shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address identification shall be maintained.”
H. Section 15.55.100 of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code (“CMC”) begins as follows:
“15.55.100 Amendments to the California Fire Code.
The 2022 California Fire Code is amended and changed as follows as described in subsections (1) through (37) of this section.”
I. Section 15.55.100 subsection (16) of the CMC reads as follows:
“16. Section 505.1 is amended to read as follows:
505.1 Address identification. Buildings and parcels shall be identified by a description of Parcel location relative to the nearest cross-street intersection as determined by the Community Planning and Building Department. For multi-tenant buildings, unit identifiers shall be provided as follows:
1. Multi-family dwelling units (apartments, condominiums) – shall be designated using alphabetic characters (i.e. A, B, C…). When the building contains multiple floors, the floor number shall precede the alphabetic unit designator (i.e. 1-A, 2-B, etc.)
2. Non-residential, multi-tenant buildings – individual tenant spaces shall be assigned numeric identification (i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc.) When the building contains multiple floors, the floor number shall precede the numeric unit designator and shall be separated by the number “0” (i.e. first floor units: 10x; second floor units: 20x).
Attachment 5
3. Mixed Use buildings – Residential units shall be designated as described in 1 above.
Nonresidential units shall be designated as described in 2.” J. Health & Safety Code Section 17958 provides that California Building Standards Code (Part 2.5) and other regulations shall become effective 180 days after the publication by the California Building Standards Commission subject to the ability of a City to make amendments under certain circumstances as provided by the Health & Safety Code.
K. Health & Safety Code Section 17958.5 provides that a city may make changes or modifications to the California Building Standards Code (Part 2.5) and other regulations which are “reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.” L. Health & Safety Code Section 17958.7 provides that before making changes pursuant to Section 17958.5 that the City “shall make an express finding that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions.” These findings must be available as a public record and submitted to the California Building Standards Commission.
M. Address identification in Buildings and parcels by a description of Parcel location relative to the nearest cross-street intersection is not reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions.
N. Health and Safety Code Section 18941.5 (b) reads as follows:
“Section 18941.5. Amendments, additions, deletions to standards; effective date; publication date; more restrictive standards. . .
“(b) Neither the State Building Standards Law contained in this part, nor the application of building standards contained in this section, shall limit the authority of a city, county, or city and county to establish more restrictive building standards, including, but not limited to, green building standards, reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. The governing body shall make the finding required by Section 17958.7 and the other requirements imposed by Section 17958.7 shall apply to that finding. Nothing in this section shall limit the authority of fire protection districts pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 13869.7. Further, nothing in this section shall require findings required by Section 17958.7 beyond those currently required for more restrictive building standards related to housing.” (Emphasis added) O. Address identification in Buildings and parcels by a description of Parcel location relative to the nearest cross-street intersection is not more restrictive than the address identification requirements of the California Building Code, California Residential Code and California Fire Code as set forth in State Building Standards Law.
P. The California Building Code and Residential Code and the California Fire Code, as laws of the State of California set forth in the State Building Standards Law, preempt local laws which are in conflict with the requirements of the California Building Code, California Residential Code and California Fire Code.
Q. CMC Section 15.55.100 subsection (16) on address identification by a description of Parcel location relative to the nearest cross-street intersection is in conflict with the address Attachment 5
identification requirements of the California Building Code, California Residential Code and California Fire Code set forth in State Building Standards Law.
R. CMC Section 15.55.100 subsection (16) on address identification by a description of Parcel location relative to the nearest cross-street intersection is preempted by state law because CMC Section 15.55.100 subsection (16) is in conflict with the California Building Code, California Residential Code and California Fire Code as set forth in the State Building Standards Law.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby find that the above referenced Recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference as though set forth in full.
SECTION 2. CEQA Review. As demonstrated in the staff report and other documents in the record for this matter this Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.), pursuant to the Class 1 (Minor Alterations to Existing Facilities) and Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land) categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15304, respectively, and this Ordinance is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to the common sense exemption in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.(b)(3) of th SECTION 3. Existing Code. The first sentence of Section 15.55.100 subsection (16) of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code currently reads as follows:
“Buildings and parcels shall be identified by a description of Parcel location relative to the nearest cross-street intersection as determined by the Community Planning and Building Department.”
SECTION 4. Amendment. Section 15.55.100 subsection (16) of the City of Carmel-bythe-Sea Municipal Code is hereby amended such that the following sentence thereof shall be deleted:
“Buildings and parcels shall be identified by a description of Parcel location relative to the nearest cross-street intersection as determined by the Community Planning and Building Department.”
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.
SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted each provision, section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more Attachment 5
sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this ______ day of __________, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Dave Potter Nova Romero, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
Attachment 5
1 CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE SECTIONS 9200 TO 9226
INITIATIVES
§ 9200. Ordinances
Ordinances may be enacted by and for any incorporated city pursuant to this article.
§ 9201. Petition
Any proposed ordinance may be submitted to the legislative body of the city by a petition filed with the elections official of the legislative body, in the manner hereinafter prescribed, after being signed by not less than the number of voters specified in this article. The petition may be in separate sections, providing that the petition complies with this article. The first page of each section shall contain the title of the petition and the text of the measure. The petition sections shall be designated in the manner set forth in Section 9020.
§ 9202. Notice of intent to circulate petition; signatures; publication; form; fee
(a) Before circulating an initiative petition in any city, the proponents of the matter shall file with the elections official a notice of intention to do so, which shall be accompanied by the written text of the initiative and may be accompanied by a written statement not in excess of 500 words, setting forth the reasons for the proposed petition. The notice shall be signed by at least one, but not more than three, proponents and shall be in substantially the following form:
Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition
Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate the petition within the City of __________ for the purpose of __________. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:
Attachment 6
2 (b) Any person filing a notice of intent with the elections official shall pay a fee to be established by the legislative body not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200) to be refunded to the filer if, within one year of the date of filing the notice of intent, the elections official certifies the sufficiency of the petition. § 9202.5. Initiative petitions; documents kept on file by elections official; public copies
From the time materials pertaining to an initiative petition are filed pursuant to Section 9202 until the day after the elections official determines that the initiative petition does not contain the minimum number of signatures required, the day after the election at which the initiative measure is put before the voters, or the day after the proposed ordinance is adopted by the legislative body of the city after being submitted to the legislative body of the city pursuant to Section 9201, as applicable, the elections official shall do both of the following:
(a) Keep on file at his or her office the notice of intention, written text of the initiative, and written statement setting forth the reasons for the proposed petition, if any, that the proponents of the initiative measure filed with the elections official pursuant to Section 9202.
(b) Furnish copies of the materials he or she is required to keep on file pursuant to subdivision (a) to any person upon request. The elections official may charge a fee to a person obtaining copies pursuant to this subdivision. The fee may not exceed the actual cost incurred by the elections official in providing the copies. § 9203. Request for ballot title and summary; preparation by city counsel; use of ballot title on petition
(a) Any person who is interested in any proposed measure shall file a copy of the proposed measure with the elections official with a request that a ballot title and summary be prepared. This request shall be accompanied by the address of the person proposing the measure. The elections official shall immediately transmit a copy of the proposed measure to the city attorney. Within 15 days after the proposed measure is filed, the city attorney shall provide and return to the city elections official a ballot title for and summary of the proposed measure. The ballot title may differ from any other title of the proposed measure and shall express in 500 words or less Attachment 6
3 the purpose of the proposed measure. In providing the ballot title, the city attorney shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the proposed measure in such language that the ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.
(b) The elections official shall furnish a copy of the ballot title and summary to the person filing the proposed measure. The person proposing the measure shall, prior to its circulation, place upon each section of the petition, above the text of the proposed measure and across the top of each page of the petition on which signatures are to appear, in roman type not smaller than 11 point, the ballot title prepared by the city attorney. The text of the measure shall be printed in type not smaller than 8 point. The heading of the proposed measure shall be in a boldface type in substantially the following form:
INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE DIRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS The city attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
(Here set forth the title and summary prepared by the city attorney. This title and summary must also be printed across the top of each page of the petition whereon signatures are to appear.)
§ 9204. Writ of mandate to amend ballot title or summary Any elector of the city may seek a writ of mandate requiring the ballot title or summary prepared by the city attorney to be amended. The court shall expedite hearing on the writ. A peremptory writ of mandate shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the ballot title or summary is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of Section 9203
§ 9205. Publication; posting
A notice of intention and the title and summary of the proposed measure shall be published or posted or both as follows:
(a) If there is a newspaper of general circulation, as described in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 6000) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, adjudicated as such, the notice, title, and summary shall be published therein at least once.
(b) If the petition is to be circulated in a city in which there is no adjudicated Attachment 6
4 newspaper of general circulation, the notice, title, and summary shall be published at least once, in a newspaper circulated within the city and adjudicated as being of general circulation within the county in which the city is located and the notice, title, and summary shall be posted in three (3) public places within the city, which public places shall be those utilized for the purpose of posting ordinances as required in Section 36933 of the Government Code.
(c) If the petition is to be circulated in a city in which there is no adjudicated newspaper of general circulation, and there is no newspaper of general circulation adjudicated as such within the county, circulated within the city, then the notice, title, and summary shall be posted in the manner described in subdivision (b).
This section does not require the publication or posting of the text of the proposed measure.
§ 9206. Proof of publication or posting; filing
Within 10 days after the date of publication or posting, or both, of the notice of intention and title and summary, the proponents shall file a copy of the notice and title and summary as published or posted together with an affidavit made by a representative of the newspaper in which the notice was published or, if the notice was posted, by a voter of the city, certifying to the fact of publication or posting.
If the notice and title and summary are both published and posted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 9205, the proponents shall file affidavits as required by this section made by a representative of the newspaper in which the notice was published certifying to the fact that the notice was published and by a voter of the city certifying to the fact that the notice was posted.
These affidavits, together with a copy of the notice of intention and title and summary, shall be filed with the elections official of the legislative body of the city in his or her office during normal office hours as posted. § 9207. Circulation of petition; petition contents
The proponents may commence to circulate the petitions among the voters of the city for signatures by any registered voter of the city after publication or posting, or both, as required by Section 9205, of the title and summary prepared by the city attorney. Each section of the petition shall bear a copy of the notice of intention and the title and summary prepared by the city attorney.
Attachment 6
5 § 9208. Time limit; validity
Signatures upon petitions and sections of petitions shall be secured, and the petition, together with all sections of the petition, shall be filed within 180 days from the date of receipt of the title and summary, or after termination of any action for a writ of mandate pursuant to Section 9204, and, if applicable, after receipt of an amended title or summary or both, whichever occurs later. Petitions and sections thereof shall be filed in the office of the elections official during normal office hours as posted. If the petitions are not filed within the time permitted by this section, the petitions shall be void for all purposes. § 9209. Declaration
Each section shall have attached thereto the declaration of the person soliciting the signatures. This declaration shall be substantially in the same form as set forth in Section 9022.
§ 9210. Filing; amendment; examination
The petition shall be filed by the proponents or by a person or persons authorized in writing by the proponents. All sections of the petition shall be filed at one time. Once filed, a petition section shall not be amended except by order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
When the petition is presented for filing, the elections official shall do all of the following:
(a) Ascertain the number of registered voters of the city last reported by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187 effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published. (b) Determine the total number of signatures affixed to the petition. If, from this examination, the elections official determines that the number of signatures, prima facie, equals or is in excess of the minimum number of signatures required, he or she shall accept the petition for filing. The petition shall be deemed as filed on that date. If, from this examination, the elections official determines that the number of signatures, prima facie, does not equal or exceed the minimum number of signatures required, the official shall not take further action.
Attachment 6
6 § 9211. Examination of petition; signatures
After the petition has been filed, as herein provided, the elections official shall examine the petition in the same manner as are county petitions in accordance with Sections 9114 and 9115, except that for the purposes of this section, references to the board of supervisors shall be treated as references to the legislative body of the city.
§ 9212. Report from city agencies on effect of proposed initiative measure
(a) During the circulation of the petition, or before taking either action described in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 9215, the legislative body may refer the proposed initiative measure to a city agency or agencies for a report on any or all of the following:
(1) Its fiscal impact.
(2) Its effect on the internal consistency of the city’s general and specific plans, including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, and the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. (3) Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs. (4) Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses.
(5) Its impact on the community’s ability to attract and retain business and employment.
(6) Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land.
(7) Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization.
Attachment 6
7 (8) Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report. (b) The report shall be presented to the legislative body within the time prescribed by the legislative body, but no later than 30 days after the elections official certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of the petition. § 9213. Report on number of proposed initiatives
On or before April 1 of each odd-numbered year, the elections official of each legislative body shall file a report with the Secretary of State containing the following information:
(a) The number of municipal initiative petitions circulated during the preceding two calendar years which did not qualify for the ballot, and the number of these proposed initiatives for which reports were prepared pursuant to Section 9212. (b) With respect to municipal initiative measures that qualified for the ballot in the preceding two calendar years, the number that were approved by the voters, and the number of these ballot measures for which reports were prepared pursuant to Section 9212.
(c) With respect to municipal initiative measures that qualified for the ballot in the preceding two calendar years, the number that were not approved by the voters, and the number of these ballot measures for which reports were prepared pursuant to Section 9212.
§ 9215. Petition signatures equal to 10 percent of vote; adoption of ordinance; submission to voters
If the initiative petition is signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city, according to the last report of registration by the county elections official to the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 2187, effective at the time the notice specified in Section 9202 was published, or, in a city with 1,000 or less registered voters, by 25 percent of the voters or 100 voters of the city, whichever is the lesser number, the legislative body shall do one of the following:
(a) Adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented, or within 10 days after it is presented.
(b) Submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters pursuant to Section 1405.
Attachment 6
8 (c) Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented. When the report is presented to the legislative body, the legislative body shall either adopt the ordinance within 10 days or order an election pursuant to subdivision (b).
§ 9215.5. Withdrawal of initiative
The proponent of an initiative may withdraw the initiative at any time before the 88th day before the election, whether or not the petition has already been found sufficient by the elections official.
§ 9216. Veto
In cities having a mayor, or like officer, with the veto power, when the passage of an ordinance petitioned for by the voters is vetoed, the failure of the legislative body to pass the ordinance over the veto shall be deemed a refusal of the legislative body to pass the ordinance within the meaning of this article. § 9217. Adoption of ordinance; effective date, repeal and amendment
If a majority of the voters voting on a proposed ordinance vote in its favor, the ordinance shall become a valid and binding ordinance of the city. The ordinance shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is declared by the legislative body, and shall go into effect 10 days after that date. No ordinance that is either proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the legislative body of the city without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters, shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance.
§ 9218. Number of ordinances; special elections
Any number of proposed ordinances may be voted upon at the same election, but the same subject matter shall not be voted upon twice within any 12-month period at a special election under the provisions of this article. § 9221. Conflicting ordinances adopted at same election If the provisions of two or more ordinances adopted at the same election conflict, the ordinance receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall control.
Attachment 6
9 § 9222. Submission of proposition without petition
The legislative body of the city may submit to the voters, without a petition therefor, a proposition for the repeal, amendment, or enactment of any ordinance, to be voted upon at any succeeding regular or special city election, and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes cast on it at the election, the ordinance shall be repealed, amended, or enacted accordingly. A proposition may be submitted, or a special election may be called for the purpose of voting on a proposition, by ordinance or resolution. The election shall be held not less than 88 days after the date of the order of election.
§ 9223. Proposed ordinance or measure; printing; availability of copies on request
Whenever any ordinance or measure is required by this article to be submitted to the voters of a city at any election, the elections official of the legislative body shall cause the ordinance or measure to be printed. A copy of the ordinance or measure shall be made available to any voter upon request. § 9224. Enacting clause
The enacting clause of an ordinance submitted to the voters of a city shall be substantially in the following form:
“The people of the City of __________ do ordain as follows:”. § 9226. Statewide initiative measures
This article does not apply to any statewide initiative measure.
Attachment 6
1 CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 9235 TO 9247
REFERENDUM
§ 9235. Effective date of ordinances
No ordinance shall become effective until 30 days from and after the date of its final passage, except:
(a) An ordinance calling or otherwise relating to an election. (b) An ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety that contains a declaration of, and the facts constituting, its urgency and is passed by a four-fifths vote of the city council.
(c) Ordinances relating to street improvement proceedings. (d) Other ordinances governed by particular provisions of state law prescribing the manner of their passage and adoption.
§ 9236. Revenue bonds; joint powers entity; effective date of ordinances; petitions; ballot wording
(a) Notwithstanding Section 9235, ordinances authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds by a city as part of a joint powers entity pursuant to Section 6547 of the Government Code shall not take effect for 60 days.
(b) When the number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election within the boundaries of the city described in subdivision (a) exceeds 500,000, the ordinance is subject to referendum upon presentation of a petition bearing signatures of at least 5 percent of the entire vote cast within the boundaries of the city for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. When the number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election within the boundaries of the city is less than 500,000, the ordinance is subject to referendum upon presentation of a petition bearing signatures of at least 10 percent of the entire vote cast within the boundaries of the city for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election.
Attachment 7
2 (c) For the purpose of submitting the question to the voters pursuant to subdivision (b), the ballot wording shall approximate the following:
“Shall the _______________ (city name), as a member of the _______________ (joint powers entity name), authorize the issuance of revenue bonds by the joint powers entity in the amount of $__________ pursuant to ordinance number __________, dated __________, the bonds to be used for the following purposes and to be redeemed in the following manner: __________?”
§ 9237. Petition signed by 10 percent of voters
If a petition protesting the adoption of an ordinance, and circulated by a person who meets the requirements of Section 102, is submitted to the elections official of the legislative body of the city in his or her office during normal office hours, as posted, within 30 days of the date the adopted ordinance is attested by the city clerk or secretary to the legislative body, and is signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city according to the county elections official’s last official report of registration to the Secretary of State, or, in a city with 1,000 or less registered voters, is signed by not less than 25 percent of the voters or 100 voters of the city, whichever is the lesser, the effective date of the ordinance shall be suspended and the legislative body shall reconsider the ordinance.
§ 9237.2. Withdrawal of referendum by proponent; timing The proponent of a referendum may withdraw the referendum at any time before the 88th day before the election, whether or not the petition has already been found sufficient by the elections official.
§ 9237.5. Petition procedure and submission of ordinance to voters to be governed by this code
The provisions of this code relating to the form of petitions, the duties of the county elections official, and the manner of holding elections shall govern the petition procedure and submission of the ordinance to the voters.
Attachment 7
3 § 9238. Petition; declaration
(a) Across the top of each page of the referendum petition there shall be printed the following:
“Referendum Against an Ordinance Passed by the City Council” (b) Each section of the referendum petition shall contain all of the following:
(1) The identifying number or title of the ordinance.
(2) Either of the following:
(A) The text of the ordinance or the portion of the ordinance that is the subject of the referendum.
(B) An impartial summary of the referendum not to exceed 5,000 words prepared pursuant to the following procedure:
(i) Within three business days of the final passage of the ordinance, the referendum’s proponents shall file a copy of the proposed summary with the local elections official, who shall immediately transmit a copy of the proposed summary to the city attorney.
(ii) Within 10 business days the city attorney shall issue an approved summary to the local elections official and the referendum’s proponents for circulation. The city attorney may edit the summary prior to approval. All edits made to the summary shall be true and impartial and shall not contain argument or any matter likely to cause prejudice for or against the referendum. The city attorney may add the full text of the ordinance, or the portion of the ordinance that is the subject of the referendum, to the summary if doing so would not exceed the 5,000-word limit. (iii) The summary shall include a link to a public website containing the text of the ordinance or the portion of the ordinance that is the subject of the referendum. (iv) The 5,000 word limit imposed by this subparagraph shall include all attachments, exhibits, and other supplements to the summary. (v) If the city attorney fails to issue an approved summary within 10 business days, the proposed summary submitted by the proponents shall be considered approved. (vi) Notwithstanding Section 9235, proponents who circulate a referendum petition pursuant to this subparagraph shall have 30 days from the date the summary is Attachment 7
4 approved to submit a petition with the required number of signatures to the local elections official. The ordinance subject to the referendum petition shall not become effective until this period has expired.
(C) After the proponents begin circulating a referendum petition prepared pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B), the proponents shall not circulate another version of the referendum petition prepared using the other method.
(c) The petition sections shall be designed in the same form as specified in Section 9020.
(d) Each section of the referendum petition shall have attached thereto the declaration of the person soliciting the signatures. This declaration shall be substantially in the same form as set forth in Section 9022. § 9239. Determination of number of signatures; filing
Petitions shall be accepted for filing by the elections official and the determination of the number of signatures thereon shall be made by the elections official in accordance with Section 9210. Petitions shall be filed with the elections official of the legislative body of the city in his or her office during normal office hours, as posted.
§ 9240. Examination of signatures
After the petition has been filed as herein provided, the elections official shall examine the petition and certify the results in the same manner as are county petitions in Sections 9114 and 9115 except that, for the purposes of this section, references to the board of supervisors shall be treated as references to the legislative body of the city.
§ 9241. Submission to voters; time for holding election; effect of adverse vote
If the legislative body does not entirely repeal the ordinance against which the petition is filed, the legislative body shall submit the ordinance to the voters, either at the next regular municipal election occurring not less than 88 days after the order of the legislative body, or at a special election called for the purpose, not less than 88 days after the order of the legislative body. The ordinance shall not become effective until a majority of the voters voting on the ordinance vote in favor of it. If the legislative body repeals the ordinance or submits the ordinance to the voters, Attachment 7
5 and a majority of the voters voting on the ordinance do not vote in favor of it, the ordinance shall not again be enacted by the legislative body for a period of one year after the date of its repeal by the legislative body or disapproval by the voters. § 9242. Circulation time limit
Signatures upon petitions, and sections thereof, shall be secured, and the petition, together with all sections thereof, shall be filed, within 30 days from the date of the adoption of the ordinance to which it relates. Petitions and sections thereof shall be filed with the elections official of the legislative body of the city in his or her office during normal office hours as posted. Petitions which are not filed within the time permitted by this section shall be void for all purposes. § 9243. Initiative provisions; application
Elections pursuant to this article shall be held in accordance with Sections 9217 to 9225, inclusive.
§ 9244. Veto
Whenever the legislative body of a city has voted in favor of the repeal of an ordinance protested against by the voters, as provided in this article, and the mayor, or like officer, has vetoed the repeal, the failure of the legislative body to pass the repeal over the veto shall be deemed a refusal to repeal the ordinance. § 9245. Date of final passage
If approval of an ordinance by the mayor or like officer is necessary, the date of approval shall be deemed the date of its final passage by the legislative body within the meaning of this article.
If an ordinance becomes law when the time for approval or veto has expired, and no action has been taken, the date of the expiration of that time shall be deemed the date of its final passage by the legislative body within the meaning of this article. § 9246. Election duties
Any duty imposed in this chapter upon the legislative body of a city with regard to calling a municipal election, or in connection with an election called pursuant to Attachment 7
6 this chapter, is likewise imposed upon any officer having any duty to perform connected with the election, so far as may be necessary to carry out this chapter. § 9247. Scope of chapter
Article 1 (commencing with Section 9200) and this article do not apply to cities having a charter adopted under Section 3 of Article XI of the California Constitution, and having in their charters any provision for the direct initiation of ordinances by the voters; nor to proceedings had for the improvement of streets in or rights-of-way owned by cities, the opening or closing of streets, the changing of grades or the doing of other work, the cost of which, or any portion of the cost which is to be borne by special assessments upon real property.
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Attachment 8
!
"
!"
## $
!"
%
"
! "#!$
%
%
&
&
'
$
( % ) *
+
+ %
*
!"
%
%
,
&' !(
"
-
. ! "
$
( &
% ! /# !/0 1
/"2 &
!/0
-
3 ! "
+ 4
4%
5
46
7
( 1&
#&
) *
+
&
% 5
(
0089
#-&
+6
- :
2 ! "
%
#&
! "#!$
&,
;
%
%
%
%
%
) *
+
&
+
- &
&,
% 56
:
0$
<
9
&
##
%
&&
;
1
&
0
;
( 1
=
>
%
+ %
*
(
%
=#
>
6
6
6 ?
&
;
1
&
@
,
'
-
0$
? ?
&
1
%
&
?
,
&
+
% ) *
+
-
0
@
+
$9!! .9!!
1
&
%
%
1
;
3!
5
% A6
<
, &
&
%
- 1
&
&
@
&
1
0
9
0
4&
B :
4&
5
(
0/
6 1
%C
%
&
1
4
%
%
&
4 D:4
%
4 ,
&
&,
&
4
&
4
&#
?
##
% 5
(
0/86 1
%
#
;
%
03 &#
&
1
%
%
%C %
1
1
;
7
&
%
/
+ 5
(
0046 1
+
& &
&
%
C
& ;
&
0
1
&
&
" 4&&
-
5%
(
6
1
;
@
56
D
%
&
- 0 ! "
&
% ) *
+
#"
1 &
&
%
1
&
#
# ;
E32222
#
"
F
"
!
"
!"
## $
!"
%
"
!" #$
%& ! '()
*
+
"
",
-
"
.
/
&,
/
0 &1 2"
(3 " 4" 0
!"
!" #$ %&'(
)
%&
! '()
*
+
"
",
-
"
.
/
&,
/
0 &1 2"(3 " 4" 0
)* !+
"
,
$
5 - %& ! '( 6) ,
3 !
,
0 7,
0 .
,
,
0
)* !+
8
$ !
6
.
6. '"(#( 6
%
!" '!"
)
7 6
.
9
6
+
' (":"
"
"
, !#2"
:"
, !3!":"
"
, (2 :
, !33":"
"
,
!#$" :"
.
/
&,
/
0 5 -
- 0
,
+
%;
< "
='4) ,
,
1
!
"
#
5
,
3 !
0 5 ,
,
( 0 $0 4 06
, 1
%
( 0 $0 3 )
.
-
,
0 /
+
: >
>
0
3 !
.
-
0
7,
0 .
,
0 5
?
0
( 0 $0 4
, ,
0
:
,
( 0 $0 3 ,
, , 3 !
0 .
,
3 !
0 /
,
,0 @
,
:
, ,
,
0
5
%&'(
)0
( 0 $0 3 "
, .
0
-. 5
-
0
7
1 &
,
/. 5
*
0 7
1 5
,
*
0 !0(1. 5
,
,
0
7
1 5 -
,
>0
0&230((-#40(1.
(0 5
A
>
0
0 5
+
"
",
>
+
,
0
7
1 5 ,
>
, ; <
,
>
0 #230&5(-
(6/(.
0 5
-
"
",
0
0 5
-
0
0 5
+
-
0
0030/.
0 5
, B
0
. C "'D
B ,
,>
"(
A
0 0 5 +
>
0
0 B
-
-
0
0 5
,
-
0
7
1 5
0 #230&#/+*(3.
0 5
+
0 0 .
, ,
6
7 >
E
,
0 7
1 5 +
,
,
, ,
"
",
0 0010(. /
"
"
,
0
.
1
,
0 #
#!
"
7,
3 !
0 5 ,
"
&'( 0 @
- *
>
0
$
$
7"
.
-
+
F
%
F) .
F
. (4' 4 %
4)
?
9
G 9
. (4' ' %
') ? &,
. .0
4
,
H
,
0
'
,
1
%)
,
0
5 -
*
+
,
H0
+
,
,>,
,
"
",
0 5 -
,
+ + + . (4' 0
F B
0
#"
5
,
7I
'A !
0
#
"
8
3 !
- 0
,
>
0
"
()
!" #$
)
') -
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-078
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING A PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT APPLICATION (EN 24031, DAS) FOR THE
LEGALIZATION OF, AND MODIFICATION TO, EXISTING ENCROACHMENTS IN THE
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, ADJACENT TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF STERLING WAY AND PERRY NEWBERRY WAY. APN: 009- 162-025-000.
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2024, Anatoly Ostretsov, (“Applicant”) submitted an application on behalf of Tony and Bernice Das (“Owner” & “Permittee”) requesting approval of a Permanent Encroachment Permit application EN 24-031 (Das) described herein as (“Application”); and
WHEREAS, the Application has been submitted for the property located at the northeast corner of Sterling Way and Perry Newberry Way in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant is requesting to legalize and maintain existing non-conforming encroachments in the right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, CMC 12.08.125.A states, At the transfer of property ownership or the issuance of a building permit, the Building Official shall inspect the public right-of-way adjacent to the affected private property. He/she shall require the abatement of any nonconforming encroachments or the property owner may submit an application for an encroachment permit that will be processed in accordance with CMC 12.08.050; and WHEREAS, the Application has been referred to the City Council in accordance with CMC
12.08.050.D, which states: If the proposed encroachment does not conform to these standards (CMC 12.08.060), or it is the opinion of the City Administrator that the nature of the encroachment is contrary to the public interest or should be referred to the City Council for determination; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including without limitation, information provided to the City Council by City staff and through public testimony; and WHEREAS, at the August 6, 2024 City Council hearing, Staff had recommended denial of the Application and had prepared a resolution for denial; and
WHEREAS, at the August 6, 2024 hearing, following deliberations and consideration of the facts of Application, the Council moved to approve the Application; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared a revised resolution based on the findings and direction made by the City Council at the August 6, 2024 hearing for approval and adoption and has returned to the City Council at this September 10, 2024 meeting for adoption of the findings and conditions; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings and conditions are made based upon Attachment 1
Resolution 2024-078
evidence presented to the Council at the August 6, 2024 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, the City Council finds that pursuant to CEQA regulations, the Application is categorically exempt under Section 15303 (Class 3) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and Section 15305 (Class 5) – Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations, and no exceptions to the exemption exist pursuant to section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Carmel-ByThe-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding Encroachment Permit Application EN 24-031 (Das):
1) The proposed encroachment would not create a hazard to public health or safety; 2) The subject encroaching wall supports the drainage pattern for the block; 3) The encroachment allows for the free and safe movements of pedestrians and vehicles as the encroachment limits vehicular parking in the street that may otherwise create a “pinch point” in the street by allowing more access to parking, should the encroachment be removed;
4) The encroachment fits the character of the surrounding neighborhood; and 5) The existing vegetation contained within the area of the encroachment is significant and removal of the encroachment would diminish landscaped area, and the walls protects the trees within the right-of-way.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby APPROVE a Permeant Encroachment Application (EN 24-031) to legalize, and modify, existing encroachments in the public right-of-way, adjacent to a single-family residence located at the northeast corner of Sterling Way and Perry Newberry Way, APN: 009-162-025-000, subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
No.
1. Authorization. This approval authorizes a Permeant Encroachment Application (EN 24- 031) to legalize, and modify, existing encroachments in the public right-of-way, adjacent to a single-family residence located at the northeast corner of Sterling Way and Perry Newberry Way, APN: 009-162-025-000.
2. Validity. The property owner (permittee) shall apply for and obtain a permanent encroachment permit from the Community Planning and Building Department in Attachment 1
Resolution 2024-078
accordance with CMC 12.08.040 within six (6) months of the date of this action. Failure to apply for and obtain the encroachment permit within six months shall render this decision null and void.
3. Conditions of Approval. All Conditions of Approval of this Resolution, Resolution 2024- 078, shall be Conditions of the subject Encroachment Permit as described in Condition of Approval #2, above. This Resolution, Resolution 2024-078, shall be submitted with the Encroachment Permit Application described in Condition of Approval #2, above.
4. Authorized Encroachments. The City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby authorize the encroachments expressly shown/listed in Exhibit A (attached to this Resolution) and no other encroachments provided an encroachment permit is obtained, as described in Condition of Approval #2, above.
5. Encroachments to be Abated. City Council of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby require the abatement of the encroaching brick wall and fence within the right-ofway located near the southeast corner of the site, as depicted in Exhibit A (attached to this Resolution) prior to final inspection for the associated building permit for the project (BP 240329). Further, all new improvements within this vicinity shall: 1) be located on private property (except for landscaping, which may be located in the right-of-way), 2) conform to the underlying zoning requirements and residential design guidelines, and 3) be shown on the project plans for appropriate review and approval.
6. Hold Harmless & Insurance. Prior to issuance of the encroachment permit (refer to Condition of Approval #2, above), the permittee shall execute an agreement holding the City harmless from any and all claims, actions and demands of third parties of any kind, character and description arising out of or due to any accident or mishap in, on or about said encroachment so constructed or maintained or any error or omission resulting in personal injury or property damage. The permittee shall provide a certificate of insurance and an endorsement naming the City as an additional insured for the term of the maintenance of the encroachment establishing that the permittee has $2,000,000 in combined single limit insurance for personal injury and/or property damage per occurrence and $4,000,000 in aggregate caused by or due to the presence of the encroachment in the CC, SC, RC and R-4 districts and $500,000 of this coverage in the R-1 district unless some other insurance is approved by the City Administrator or the designee of the City Administrator. The limit of insurance and any other requirements relating to the insurance required may be adjusted by the City Council from time to time by resolution. The insurance carrier shall certify that the insurance is currently in force and that it will notify the City 10 days in advance of any material change in the policy, including cancellation or nonrenewal thereof. This insurance shall be primary over any other collectible or valid insurance the City may have. In addition, the bonding requirement set forth in Chapter 12.16 CMC shall be met for an encroachment involving excavation work. The City shall have the executed hold harmless agreement recorded with the Monterey County Recorder’s office. The recorded document becomes a permanent record, and an encroachment permit and its conditions run with the land. In the event of change of ownership of the property, the terms and conditions of the hold harmless agreement are conveyed with the title.
7. Revocation. The City Council reserves the right to revoke any encroachment permit at any time if the permit is not in the public interest or if it fails to meet the other requirements of this chapter. Failure of the permit holder to maintain the required insurance or pay an assessed fee shall result in the immediate revocation of the permit. The City Council may order the removal of the encroachment by the permittee. Should a permittee fail to comply with the Council’s order for removal, the City may undertake the removal of the encroachment. In that event, the City’s costs of removal shall be assessed against the Attachment 1
Resolution 2024-078
permit holder and/or the property and become a lien against the property.
8. Indemnification. The Permitee agrees, at his or her sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns from any liability; and shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred, resulting from, or in connection with any project approvals. This includes any appeal, claim, suit, or other legal proceedings to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project approval. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any legal proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense.
The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in any such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the Applicant of any obligation under this condition. Should any party bring any legal action in connection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of Monterey, California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for resolving all such actions by the parties hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 10th day of September, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Dave Potter Nova Romero, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
Attachment 1
Resolution 2024-078
Exhibit A
Authorized Encroachments
Figure 1. Applicant’s proposed site plan for encroachment permit EN 24-031. Encroachments authorized under this approval include the existing and proposed encroachments in the right-ofway shown on the site plan between Point A and Point B (moving linearly along the property line from north to south, generally). The existing encroachments between Point C and Point D (moving linearly along the property line from west to east, generally) shall be abated in accordance with Condition of Approval #5. No other encroachments are authorized under this approval.
Required to be
abated. See CoA #5
Permitted/Authorized
Encroachment
Attachment 1
Evan Kort <[email protected]>
Assigned to Group - Form submission from: Contact us
2 messages
Planning Division <[email protected]> Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 6:44 AM Reply-To: Planning Division <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Hi
A new ticket has been assigned to your group "Planning". Please follow the link below to view the ticket.
Form submission from: Contact us
08/07/2024 - 6:44am City of Carmel »
WEBFORM SUBMISSION
Submitted by anonymous user: [45.21.253.208]
Your name:
Jeanne
Your e-mail:
j
Message:
Good Morning,
I live across from the House that was discussed on Perry Newberry last night at the city council meeting. Unfortunately, I had to watch the meeting on the recording after the fact otherwise I would have spoken up. The wall in the Public right of way is dangerous. People park in front of it limiting the right of way on the narrow street. I have trouble getting into my driveway which is directly in front of the house that would like the Encroachment permit. I live at . "Chez
Minuit". I agree with the Staff's proposal and hope there is a way of passing along my comments to the Mayor and the two Council members that voted to retain the long low Carmel stone wall.
Thank you,
9/4/24, 11:24 AM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Assigned to Group - Form submission from: Contact us https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=14e0be3468&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1806736555375508113&simpl=msg-f:1806736555375508113&simpl=… 1/2 Attachment 2
Jeanne McCulloch
Please make sure Evan see's this. I met him briefly when he came by a couple of weeks ago with Jason, but I hadn't given it enough thought to weigh in on it. Thanks again
CONTEXT INFORMATION
Profile contacted:
Planning Division
View results Download results
© 2024 City of Carmel. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this e-mail because you signed up at our website: City of Carmel. If you did not sign up, or you are receiving this message in error, please contact us so we can promptly resolve the problem.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planning+unsubscribe@ci. carmel.ca.us.
https://support.ci.carmel.ca.us/helpdesk/tickets/19499
Evan Kort <[email protected]> Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 9:02 AM To: Nova Romero <[email protected]>
Hi Nova,
See below for late correspondence regarding the Das Encroachment Permit considered last night (received this morning).
Evan Kort
Associate Planner
Community Planning and Building
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
(831) 620-2023
[Quoted text hidden]
9/4/24, 11:24 AM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Assigned to Group - Form submission from: Contact us https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=14e0be3468&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1806736555375508113&simpl=msg-f:1806736555375508113&simpl=… 2/2 Attachment 2
!
"#
!
$%&%
'(')*+,-'*'./012345(/*6
7
!
#!
"
"
!
"#
!
$%&%
'(')*+,-'*'./012345(/*6
7
!
#!
!
"
#
$#
!! %
$#
&
#
! "
# #
$
%
&
'( )
*+ ,## )
( #
&
-&
#
+ ./ 0
0"
1"002+
$#
0
"0
3 '()
!
!
1
0
$
4*+
,## 5
( #
& . 0
0"
1"002
-&
# +
*" $+
#
,'-./-0#
, *
06
&
& 7 603
! #
( #
&+
"
8#
#
&
& &( #
9 # '
9! 16 #
!+
+
&
##
4*+
,## 5 ( #
-&
#
: # ;
&&
366
<
7 $: $:=
$
3 0 #( #+
## #
(
-&
>
( !
(
+ ; $
7 603
1 0
&
-&
+ ; & ( 6"0"
#& # ( $
+ ,
0
&
# $
+ 9 #
$
+
! (
2 0
+
'12-)3+-0
,
2 06 9 ?
9? 6
! (
# #""#
( #
& 1000"8"#
. 0
0"
1"002! ?"@
"
!
&
( "
+ ; #""#
#
'
&
(
2"8"#
' :
&(
(
:
# ('(
!
&(
+
! ?
+6+
60+ 8 #
#
+ ;# *
06
# 7& 7 603
!+
?
+6+060+$ - # ?#! 8 #
(
& ## (
& &
+ ; 6!
& &
( (
( 7 $:
$ (
: ?+
+6+020+$+1 -& ?&
! & &
8
#
8#
#+
##
& #
+
& # & &
>
+
& 8#
# ( :
8#
?
& ,##
( ('
+ # & &
+
&
9 16 @ ! 06
#
)*+
,## )
#
-&
: # ;
&&
366
<
7 $: $:=
$
3 0 # #+
; (
& # ? @"
( *
,##
(# 9
+ ; ,##
7 ? $:
A3A"
3 A! (
#
$
+
3
( # 7
(
$: (
+ $:
# ;
"&&
7
,' $
3
!
& # 9 ?+ 8'
&&
#
&
A0
#
322+ B
#
#
# ? 7
$:
#
#
-&
+ ; $:"
-&
(
!
(+
360!
+ C
;
&&
? 6 .B #
6
&
!+
360! ; B' ? ? 7 ? ?7 # &+
36 ! D@ <; ;
&& # ?
&
A &+
36! D++ B
E
( #
6 &+
36! 7
F C
7
6 #
&+
366! C 7+ $ <D' ?
# ?
A &+
4 5667)0&8(9-:
-3 /./9().) 9 ;
(/)-
4-)3'):.3.)78
362! ;+*+ $ ;
&& # ?
B
G
!+
362!
; -
&& -
<? (
6
&+
B
&
360
: ?
# $:
<
3 0
310+
# $:=
&
&
#
&
+ -
('
<
$: &
? #
363
31 : #
BB-- ( ( #
## #
H? .&
$
-
+ H
$: &
#
310+
; G
.B #
&
( #
(
$:=
3 0
$ $
I221!+ ; : # # '(>
$I221 / 4 +5 ,
3 $
(!
$
IAA3! & # + $
$ +
A31! &
30 (' # C
' B+ -
360 $
(
#
4-
#
+5 # BB-- $
B
(' # $
" ?
+ H
$ (
@' D
B
+
B'
31!
(
. ,(
#
# # ?'
,( F
,(= 4B
$
5
31A!
$ ?+ $
=
321!+ ;
:
? $ # . B
> ( &
## #+ $
#
##
326
9
!
J ' 7 $: J
+
B
+
&
& &
9 16 @! # G
#
#
+6+0
0
: ? #
!>
>
# 10
# >
#
6 9<
!+ ;
6
: # ;
&& & #
=
# ( $:
$+ ;
# # #
#(/
#
( &
#
&
( : #
D&
& #
,
'
&
( !
"
(
(
"(
? : (
; G
#(
/
366 $ I120!/ ,
$:
3 0 $ I221!/
#( #
$
3 $ IAA3!/ ?
$+
000 $ I00"
6!/ "# ( +
00 9? I0"
2!/ ? (' #
/ ( (
(
= !
( (
+
00 $ I0"06
$ I
"0
A!/ B
( # 45 (
( !
( ( "
(
(
(+ ; (
(
&
&
&
" ! & (
+ ;
(
(
" :" 00+
0
$ I
"06
!/ "# (
'+
!/
B
+ . #
(
(
'
(
(
(
(
&
+
?
& '
+
&(
+
(
:
# ('(
!+
&(
+
2 8 #
' :+
+
&
: & #
('
#!
#
#
##
> &
#
+
+
&=
#(/
D/ +
9/ ;
&&
+
?/
+
/ # 366
3 0+
B'/ : (' ( ;
&&
( # (
(
: (+
@/
# &
+
/ #
,
;(+
K./ # ( 9 @
#
= #
+
& ( ( # (
( 00+ B ## #
# (
(
+
&
&
0
4
+5
; # #
(
&(
8#
#
L'
L ?&
1!+ H
&( # &( #
=
+
&
( # -&
##
+
; (
$
1 0
> $
&
6"
(
$
! 0
"00"$ 2!
-&
+
?
+6+0
0 # # & (
&
#
-&
+ ; #(
# 8 #
(
4*+
,## 5
8+ ?##
4
*+ ,## 5
-&
!+
!
"
?## / ; 4
*+ ,## 5 # 9&+
#
$
%
&
$
&
#
$'&
$(&
$)&
$*&
$+
,
!
,
-
.'/&
?## / ; 4
*+ ,## 5
+ ; # ( &
:
(!
3
$ ( " # #
+ ; ( #
#M
& ( # : &
"( (
'
' # &!+ ; #
366 "
# #
3 0+ ;
(
# !
# +
; '
(
(
#
(
+ ;
#
(
( +
(
( #M
(
( #:
(
(
(
(
&
(
(+ ; #
(
(
'
(
(
# + ;
(
-
& #
#
(+
B
(
(
&
"'
# #
+
(& "
(
(
(
(
#
#
+ ?
3
0 #
?
# -= ?
# # ( + ;
(
(
#
&
# (
( #!+
@
#
# # #
&
+
$
#
##
=
,## #
360" ;
&& +
/0
"
,
$
&
$
&
"123
'/04*/$&$)&5
?## / ; 4
*+ ,## 5 & 10
# #
6!+ ?
(+
#
"
6
7
?## / ; 4
*+ ,## 5
,
7&<!+
#
"
7
?## / @
;( - !
( (
# (
= :+ ; ,##
8 ( ( #
#
&
(
= :+
; ( 7 $:
$
6 (> # #
<
&
G
##
#
G
(
'
#
#
(
.
# 7& +
2!+ $ (
8 (
& #
# (
= : 4
*+ ,## 5
#
-&
#
;(+
1
%
7
?## /
; 9<
! # 4
& #
#
(' # &+5
= & ,
8# #
;+
; 4
*+ ,## 5 3: # #
#
;
& #
# / ;
&&+ ;
#
&
&+
; 4
*+ ,## 53:
#
;
(
(
#
=
: ?+ 7 $:
366
$ $:= #( # 3 0+
; 4
*+ ,## 5
)
#
;
&
:
+ ;
&
# #
&
+
!
"
/ ;
# = @
-# !
&
# + ; &
4*+
,## 5
8 #
@+
"
#
"
,
"
)
81
%
9
5
'!
%
:
!
"
7
/ ;
366
7 $:
(
$:=
3 0
$> $:
$
=
: ?
'( # ('
# #
+
. $
1
(' #
(
+ 4;
:
& = # ('
#+5
; 4
*+ ,## 5 # #
& # $:
$=
+ ; ,## G ( $:<$ ( :
&
# (' #
8
! # + ;
&&
( '
H
?
30
360+
366 #
# C 9 ( &
'
#
# G
+ #"
$:
"
( (
& ##+ ' #
# ,## ( :
(
+ ,## ( 7 ?
@ # #
+ L( 4'
( 5 ('
(
( '
#
# (' '(
L
+
L #
3 1
31
& ( ? N ?+ D'=
# ?+
E+ -
31A 7
#
*+
,## &
? @ (
+ D'
#
C 9
#
&! # $:= 4*+
,## 5
# ;
&&
+
;
# $:=
&
&
4
*+ ,## 5 # #/
;
&&
:+
(!
:
"
!
"
7
/ ; +
)-
:
!
"
7
/ ;
: ?
;
&&
=
+ ;
: ? 4;
&&
# #
#5 + 1!
4;
(
#"
16!+5 ; ' #
;
&&
: ? # #
= #+ ;
: ? (
0 & (
"
#
322
3A2>
#
(
(
#
+ ;
-&
1
;
(
#
301
3 0+ ; ,##
%
#
+ D'
#
#
-&
4
5 ('+
( (
;
&&
#+
E
# ; 3
!
;
A30
3 0! #(/
<
$
&7=
7
7
:
7
7
7
$
&
>?
**@
; ,##
"
( #"# ( (
( "
+ ;
<( #
+
4;
(
#
30+++ O&
P & & ( (
+5 +
10!+ ;
: #+
# 4# 5 #(+ 49& ++ #! #" '
& #
# #
"
# ;
+ -
(
# (
(+
##
#
> & # ( +5 ; G
# "( (
&
# :
& :+
4#
30
#
Q
7 = J ( #
# "( 5 +
1!+
&
9+
! G
(
&
C
9 # 4'
( +5
= -&
#
& "
+ #
&
;
&& #+
:
4;
( #
95
+
1 !+ $
#
: : #
+
*+
,## ##
: # ;
&&
&(
( :
( (
+
*A
B
%
,
"
C
/ ; +
!
; *
&
8#
# 9+
L'
L ?&
+ 9+
L'
.& 3
06
!+ - ## 9+ L' #
-&
+ 9+ L'=
( #(
## +
#
# +
,
5 A'
; (
( # #
#
+
,
5
"
7AB,
$
&
,
<
>
C
C
,
,
,
C
;
( (
#
320+
,
5
C
; (
(
( &
( "
(
(
(+
,
5
"
;
&
+
5
$
&
" "
; '
(
& 06+
5
%
" "
%
;
+
5#
7
;
: ?
#
# 4
#"
(
"
"
&
&
1!+5 ; #
# ( (
(
"
" (
(
( # 4 +5
5"
; '
& #" # ;
&&
+
,
5
A)
?
C
5
<
$
&
>?
**@
; #
60
(
E ?&
; 3
!
.( R' 0
6! (
# ( # 60
1 +
,
5
L ?&
&( # 9+ L'= &>
&( 1!
9 A 06 ## # 9+ L'= +
#(
## +
;
: # ;
&&
>
;
#
360
3 0
310+
,
5"
!
"
?
'@)/7D
'@))"
?
;
'
+
,
5
"
A)
"
"
E
.'5 H
1 0
$
-&
#
!
##
#
9
! (
#
+ ?## (
9 ?
# #""# +
"
E
.(5 &
# $
9 #
-
A!+ ?
# #
#
#
# + ?## ( 9 ?
# #""# +
#
!$ ?##
# G
-&
#
4 G5
16 A #
7N C
+ D G
-&
#
#
& G (
&+
!#
.<
!
#
.<
#
/ 0
"0
3 / 9 16 @ #
*+ ,##
&
6/ -
<0<06!
/
L' &(
<3<06!
1/ L ?&
&(
<A<0
!
2/ 0
"0"$
<
1<0
!
/ 9# 9
A/ 9# # -
#
*+ ,##
3/
366
0/ @
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-079
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DENYING AN APPEAL BY GREG AND VAN RODRIGUEZ (APP 24117, RODRIGUEZ) DATED APRIL 24, 2024; UPHOLDING RESOLUTION 2024-002-HRB PASSED BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD ON APRIL 15, 2024; AND ADDING AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAMINO REAL 4 NORTHWEST OF 11TH AVENUE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE CARMEL INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES. APN 010-275-006.
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2023, Jeremy McCullough (“Applicant” and “Agent”) submitted Historic Evaluation application HE 23209 (Rodriguez) described herein as (“Application”) on behalf of Greg and Van Rodriguez (“Owner”) for the 5,00-square-foot property located at Camino Real 4 northwest of 11th Avenue, APN 010-275-006, in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District (Block Q, portion of lot 11 and all of lot 13); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC 17.32), upon receipt of a Historic Evaluation application, an initial assessment of historic significance shall be conducted to determine whether the property may have historic resource potential sufficient to warrant conducting an intensive survey (CMC 17.42.060.B); and WHEREAS, in accordance with CMC 17.32.060.B, if a property appears to meet the criteria for the inventory or, if based on the initial assessment, a definitive determination of eligibility or ineligibility cannot be made, a qualified professional under contract to the City must prepare an intensive survey of the property; and
WHEREAS, Margaret Clovis, a City-contracted historic consultant, conducted an initial assessment of the property and was unable to disqualify the residence from listing based on the criteria for listing as a historic resource as outlined in the municipal code (CMC 17.32.040) and therefore a definitive determination of ineligibility could not be made by staff; and WHEREAS, staff retained the services of Margaret Clovis to prepare an intensive review of the property to determine whether the property meets the criteria for listing on the Carmel Inventory; and
WHEREAS, the review concluded that the subject property is eligible for listing in the Carmel Inventory as a locally significant Tudor Revival style cottage built in 1933 by master builder Ernest Bixler (and rebuilt in 1940 by master builder Miles Bain to the original design), representative of Carmel’s architectural chronology; and
WHEREAS, the intensive survey dated August 2023 prepared by Margaret Clovis identified the property as the “J. Henry Ohloff House” with the following character defining features: crossgabled roof system with sloping eaves; compound floor plan; horizontal and vertical boards within the apex of the gables; louvred vents in the front gables; original old brick chimney (recently covered with stucco); multi-paned casement windows; partial-width porch; and stucco exterior walls; and WHEREAS, the intensive survey concluded that the residence is eligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources as the property is representative of Theme 5: Architectural Development in Carmel (1888-1965) in the Historic Context Statement; retains a sufficient degree of integrity; is greater than 50 years old; and, meets California Register Criteria 3 (Architecture) as a Attachment 1
Resolution 2024-079
good example of a Tudor Revival style building and also as a work of master local builder(s) Ernest Bixler and Miles Bain; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CMC 17.32.070.A, properties determined to be eligible by an administrative determination, or by the Historic Resources Board on appeal, shall become part of the Inventory upon completion of an inventory form documenting the resource and issuance of an administrative determination finding by the Department or adoption of a finding by the Board that the property meets the criteria for historic resources; and WHEREAS, on behalf of the property owner, Anthony Lombardo, Attorney, challenged the administrative determination made by the Department and requested that the Historic Resources Board consider the decision to list the property on the Historic Inventory; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2024, the Historic Resources Board held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding whether to list an individual property located at the Camino Real 4 northwest of 11th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, on or before April 5, 2024, on behalf of the property owner, Gail Hatter 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, notice of the public hearing was published in the Carmel Pine Cone on April 5, 2024 and posted in three locations on April 12, 2024 in compliance with State law (California Government Code 54956); 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, based upon evidence presented to the Board at the April 15, 2024 hearing including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department, the Historic Resources Board of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea passed Resolution 2024-002-HRB adding an individual property, the “J. Henry Ohloff House” located at Camino Real 4 northwest of 11th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district, APN:
010-275-006, to the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources; and WHEREAS, decisions of the Historic Resources Board are appealable to the City Council per CMC 17.54.040.C; and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2024, Greg and Van Rodriguez (Appellant) filed an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision, citing lack of clear evidence the home is a Tudor style that represents a particular idea or theme, and aspect, or a particular phase of the work of a “master” builder or architect; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2024, a notice of the public hearing scheduled for September 10, 2024, 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, 2024, the appellant 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 Attachment 1
Resolution 2024-079
WHEREAS, on or before September 6, 2024, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon the analysis and evidence presented to the City Council, including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA"), together with State Guidelines (14 California Code Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines") and City Environmental Regulations (CMC 17.60) require the review of certain projects for environmental impacts and preparation of environmental documents; and WHEREAS, the listing of the subject property on the Carmel Inventory is “not a project” pursuant to section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. Listing the subject property on the Carmel Inventory does not grant any permits or entitlements approving a project that would result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby deny the appeal by Greg and Van Rodriguez, dated April 24, 2024 (APP 24117, Rodriguez); uphold Resolution 2024-002-HRB passed by the Historic Resources Board on April 15, 2024; and add an individual property, the “J. Henry Ohloff House” located at Camino Real 4 northwest of 11th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district to the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources; APN: 010-275-006.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFCARMEL-BY-THE-SEA THIS 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________________ ______________________________ Dave Potter, Mayor Nova Romero, MMC, City Clerk
Attachment 1
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Primary # ___________________________________________
HRI # ______________________________________________
Trinomial ___________________________________________
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code ______ Reviewer ______________________ Date _______________________
P1. Other Identifier: J. Henry Ohloff House
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Monterey and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Monterey Date 2012 T ; R ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; Mount Diablo B.M. c. Address Camino Real 4 NW of 11th City Carmel by the Sea Zip 93921 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone ; mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN 010-275-006, Block Q, Lots 11 & 13
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting and boundaries) Built in 1933 the one-story J. Henry Ohloff House is a Tudor Revival style cottage with a compound plan and a complex, moderately pitched roof system. Two nested front-facing gables intersect with a sidegabled block located at the rear of the composition. A section of the front gable’s roof sweeps down to cover a small extension. This sweeping curve is repeated on both sides of the side gable roof. The top of the front gable is filled with vertical wood siding while the second gable has horizontal wood siding.
Both gables have vertical louvred vents. The exterior of the house is covered with stucco. A Carmel stone path leads back to a partial-width porch and non-original front door. Fenestration consists of tall, multi-paned casement windows, typical of the Tudor style. The stucco chimney is located on the gable end of the south elevation and is patterned with inset stones. An L-shaped, board and batten single car garage is located in the southwest corner of the lot. A stucco arched entry gate and border wall topped with a metal railing extend across the front of the property. A decorative metal gate (continued pg. 3) P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #) Front Elevation,
08/2023
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: 1933, 1940 Historic
Prehistoric Both
Building Permit
*P7. Owner and Address:
Greg & Van Rodriguez
POB 594
Carmel, CA. 93921
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
Meg Clovis
14024 Reservation Rd.
Salinas, CA 93908
*P9. Date Recorded: 08/2023
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2, Single family residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) *P11. Report Citation: (cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) None *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List)
Attachment 2
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Primary # __________________________________________
HRI # _____________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) J. Henry Ohloff House B1. Historic Name: J. Henry Ohloff House
B2. Common Name: J. Henry Ohloff House
B3. Original Use: Residence B4. Present Use: Residence
*B5. Architectural Style: Tudor Revival
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alteration, and date of alterations) Constructed in 1933 (BP# 2560); Rebuilt in 1940 (BP# 665); Addition of dining room in 1941 (BP# 889); Reroof in 2000 (BP# 00-73) *B7. Moved? x No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: Garage
B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: Ernest Bixler, Miles Bain *B10. Significance: Theme: Architectural Development Area Carmel by the Sea Period of Significance: 1933-1940 Property Type: Building Applicable Criteria: CR3 (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Address integrity.)
Jacob Henry Ohloff (1886-1957) and his wife Dorothy built a vacation home on Camino Real Street in 1933. Ohloff was an Episcopalian minister in San Francisco for forty years. Known as the “skid row priest”, he worked with those down on their luck and founded a day nursery for working mothers, known as the Canon Kip Community House. He directed Canon Kip from 1915 to 1952 and at various times was chaplain at San Quentin prison, St. Luke’s Hospital, and rector at the Church of St. Mary the Virgin. In 1958 the Episcopal Church founded the J. Henry Ohloff Recovery Center in San Francisco, which is still in operation today. Lansing Bliss Bailey (1891-1962) was the next owner of the house which he bought as rental property. Bailey lived in Salinas and worked in the produce industry.
Captain Charles H. Coat was living in the house at the time of the fire. One bedroom was completely gutted and much of the house was smoke damaged. After hiring Miles Bain to repair the house, Lansing sold it in 1941 to Gladys Roberta Johnston (1897-1974) who was a well-known Carmel realtor.
None of the previous owners are included in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement.
The J. Henry Ohloff House was designed and built by Ernest S. Bixler. Bixler was born in a log cabin in the Ozark Mountains in 1898. His family moved west to Sacramento and later settled (continued pg. 4) (This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes (List attributes and codes):
*B12. References:
Carmel Context Statement & Historic Preservation Ordinance Carmel Pine Cone: 8/9/1940, p. 1;
Building File, Carmel Planning Dept.
National Register Bulletin 15
Polk’s City Directories, Harrison Memorial Library
U.S. Census & Voter Registration Records
Ohloff Obit., Daily Independent Journal, 8/16/1957, p. 6 Lansing Bailey Obit., Salinas Californian, 45/30/1962, p. 29 B13. Remarks
*B14. Evaluator: Meg Clovis
*Date of Evaluation: 08/2023
Attachment 2
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 08/2023 _ Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
P3a. Description (continued):
extends across the driveway entrance. The garden is beautifully landscaped with many flowering plants.
In 1940 the house was damaged by fire, but it was not burned to the ground. Miles Bain repaired the house using Ernest Bixler’s original plans. In 1941 Miles Bain expanded the back bedroom for use as a dining room. The house was reroofed in 2000. The original old brick chimney was plastered over in 2023.
Character defining features include:
x Cross gabled roof system with sloping eaves
x Compound floor plan
x Horizontal and vertical boards within the apex of the gables x Louvred vents in the front gables
x Original old brick chimney (recently covered with stucco) x Multi-paned casement windows
x Partial-width porch
x Stucco exterior walls
The J. Henry Ohloff House retains a high degree of integrity as follows:
x Location: the house is still in its original location. x Design: the house retains its original Tudor Revival cottage design. x Setting: the house is still located in a neighborhood setting. x Materials: the house retains materials from its original construction in 1933 and the rebuild in 1940.
x Workmanship: the house still exhibits the workmanship associated with the Tudor Revival style such as the sweeping roof lines, casement windows, and stucco exterior walls. x Feeling: the house retains the physical features that convey its historic character. x Association: this aspect of integrity is only applicable to resources eligible under Criteria One and Two.
B10. Significance (continued):
in Oakland. Bixler served in World War I and then returned to Oakland to learn the building trade from his father Harrison Bixler. They were busy contractors until the Wall Street crash in 1929, which triggered a national collapse of the building industry. Bixler was offered a job as a carpenter in Pebble Beach, and it was then that he discovered Carmel. He would make the Village his home for fifty years.
As the building industry started to recover Bixler found plenty of work, going on to design and build close to eighty homes in the city. The J. Henry Ohloff House is an example of his early work which conformed to Carmel’s original cottage aesthetic. He made a point of studying home design and considered himself a self-taught architect. His later work is far-ranging, including diverse building styles from Tudor Revival to Ranch.
Attachment 2
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 08/2023 _ Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
In 1940 Bixler retired from building and took a job as Carmel’s postmaster, which explains why he wasn’t hired to rebuild the J. Henry Ohloff House. He served as postmaster until 1951. He also served on Carmel’s Planning Commission from 1946 to 1950. After leaving the post office he resumed his design and construction business until his retirement in 1966. Bixler passed away in June 1978.
The J. Henry Ohloff House was rebuilt by Miles Bain, using Ernest Bixler’s original plans. Miles Bain was a prolific and popular general contractor in Carmel. Born in 1895, Bain was a native of Brainerd, Minnesota. In 1926 he came west by invitation of Carmel contractor George Whitcomb. Initially Bain worked as Whitcomb’s estimator but in the 1930s he became a licensed contractor and established his own business. His tagline was “Integrity of Construction.” Shortly after World War II Bains and Whitcomb joined the Bechtel Corporation and journeyed to Saudi Arabia to build oil pumping stations.
When he returned, he resumed his contracting business, working with high profile architects and clients.
Carmel’s Historic Context
Statement includes Ernest
Bixler and Miles Bain as
important early
designer/builders.
Figure 1: Garage.
Evaluation for Significance
Historians use National Register Bulletin 151
as a guide when evaluating a property’s significance
whether on a local, state, or national level. As a first step, to determine whether or not a property is significant, it must be evaluated within its historic context and the City of Carmel’s Historic Context Statement2
provides this context. The City of Carmel’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Section
17.32.040) reiterates the role of National Register Bulletin 15 in the evaluation of historic resources.
Adopted eligibility criteria are modeled on the California Register’s four criteria with the addition of specific qualifications for Criterion 3 (Section 17.32.040.D). 1 National Register Bulletin 15. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Park Service. 1998. 2 Historic Context Statement: Carmel-by-the-Sea (Draft). Approved by the City Council December 6, 2022.
Attachment 2
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 08/2023 _ Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
The J. Henry Ohloff House is not eligible under Criterion One (Event) as no specific event led to the construction of this residence and no important event took place in the residence.
For a property to be listed under Criterion Two (Important Person) it must be associated with a person who is considered significant within Carmel’s historic context. An individual must have made contributions or played a role that can be justified as significant and the contributions of the individual must be compared to others who were active, prosperous, or influential in the same sphere of interest.
J. Henry Ohloff built the house on El Camino Street as a vacation home and the property does not illustrate his important achievements as “the skid row priest” in San Francisco. Lansing Bliss Bailey, who oversaw repairs to the house, rented the property and lived in Salinas. The J. Henry Ohloff House is not eligible for listing in the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources under Criterion Two.
Figure 3: Front gate.
A property is eligible under Criterion Three (Design/Construction) if it, “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 J. Henry Ohloff House is a good example of a Tudor Revival cottage and clearly illustrates the distinctive characteristics of the style. In addition, Carmel’s Historic Context Statement recognizes single-family residences that are related to Carmel’s architectural chronology as significant. The J. Henry Ohloff House is eligible for listing under the first part of Criterion Three. Ernest Bixler designed and built the house in 1933. After the fire in 1940, Miles Bain rebuilt the house based on Bixler’s original plans. Both men are listed in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement as significant builders, therefore the J. Henry Ohloff House is eligible for listing under the second part of Criterion Three. Finally, the J. Henry Ohloff House does not meet the third part of Attachment 2
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 08/2023 _ Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Criterion Three because it does not possess high artistic values and it does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts.
The California Register’s Fourth Criterion (Information Potential) is generally reserved for archeological sites. There is no evidence in the historical record that the J. Henry Ohloff House meets the eligibility requirements for Criterion Four.
Summary
To be eligible for the Carmel Inventory (Section 17.32.040.D) a resource must represent a theme in the Context Statement, retain substantial integrity, be at least 50 years old, and meet at least one of the four criteria for listing in the California Register. The J. Henry Ohloff House represents the theme of Architectural Development, it retains substantial integrity, it is over 50 years old, and it meets California Register Criterion Three. In summary, Bulletin 15, the Carmel Historic Context Statement, the Carmel Historic Preservation Ordinance, and the historical record support the conclusion that the J. Henry Ohloff House is eligible for listing in the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources.
Figure 4: View looking northwest.
Attachment 2
Rev. 1/24/2022
HE23-209 (RODRIGUEZ) Historic Evaluation
Date: 7/20/2023
Prepared by: Meg Clovis
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 010-275-006
Current Owner: Greg & Van Rodriguez
POB 594
Carmel, CA. 93921
Block/Lot: Block Q, Lots 11 & 13
Street Location: Camino Real 4 NW of 11th
Lot size: 5000 sq. ft.
Date of Construction: 1933; Reconstructed in 1940 after a fire
1. Land Use & Community Character Element, Subdivision Chronology Map: 1908
2. Is the property listed on the Carmel Inventory? No
3. Has the property been reviewed previously for historical significance? No
4. Is the property located within the Archaeological Overlay Zone? Yes
5. Is the property identified on the Sanborn Maps? Yes, 1962
6. Date of original building permit: 5/16/1933 (BP# 2560); 8/17/1940 (BP# 665)
Attachment 3
Rev. 1/24/2022
7. Original and subsequent ownership:
a) J. Henry Ohloff
b) L. Bailey
c) Gladys R. Johnston
d) S. E. Coleman
e) Joan & Otis Kingery
f) Lynn Woodbury
None of the former owners are listed in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement.
8. Information on the original designer/builder:
The subject property was built by contractor Ernest Bixler in 1933. The house burned down, and Miles Bain was hired to reconstruct it per the original plans in 1941. Both Bixler and Bain are listed as significant contractors in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement.
Ernest Bixler (1898-1978): Bixler was a prominent builder/contractor in Carmel in the 1940s and 1950s. Bixler was introduced to the contracting business by his father and was trained as a carpenter in Oakland. He began working as a builder in Carmel and Pebble beach in 1940 while serving as Carmel’s postmaster. After WWII, Bixler served on Carmel’s Planning Commission at a time when the community’s zoning standards were in a state of flux. He retired from contracting in 1966.
Miles Bain (1895-1966): Designer/builder Miles Bain is best known for building Frank Lloyd Wright’s Walker House and Nathaniel Owings house, Wild Bird. Bain arrived in Carmel in the 1920s to work as an estimator for contractor George Mark Whitcomb. In the 1930s, Bain earned his own contractor’s license and constructed a number of houses in Carmel. After WWII, Bain and Whitcomb partnered up again to work for Bechtel Corporation, building oil pumping stations in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return to Carmel, Bain received building commissions for the Walker House, Wild Bird and the residences of Ansel Adams and Neil Weston.
9. Alterations and changes to the residence/property:
a) BP# 665 (8/17/1940): House reconstructed to original after a fire b) BP# 889 (7/2/1941): Addition to dining room built by Miles Bain c) BP# 00-73 (3/23/2000): Reroof
10. Conclusions:
The property is associated with Miles Bain and Ernest Bixler who are listed as important builders/contractors in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement. A Phase One Intensive Survey is recommended.
11. Current Photographs of Residence (see next page):
Attachment 3
Rev. 1/24/2022
View looking northwest
Attachment 3
Rev. 1/24/2022
View from Camino Real
View of front gate
Attachment 3
#
$!
"#
"
!
!
"
6=,4),9
5;/65@
64)(9+6:8
5;/65@
64)(9+6::6*0(;,:
&,:;()03(5#;9,,;
#(305(:
,(9
9
64)(9+6
5<.<:;6-;/0:@,(9
,.36=0::<9=,@,+(5+,=(3<(;,+;/,/6<:,36*(;,+65(4056 ",(3
&6-
=,5<,(94,3)@;/,#,(!
#/,*65*3<+,+;/(;
;/,7967,9;@>(:,30.0)3,-6930:;05.05;/,(94,35=,5;69@6-0:;690*",:6<9*,: ),*(<:,0;C0:(.66+,?(473,6-($<+69",=0=(3*6;;(.,(5+*3,(93@033<:;9(;,:;/, +0:;05*;0=,*/(9(*;,90:;0*:6-;/,:;@3,D#/,(3:6:;(;,:;/(;0;0:,30.0)3,-6930:;05. ),*(<:,0;>(:+,:0.5,+(5+)<03;05
)@95,:;0?3,9(5+9,)<03;(-;,9(+0:(:;96<:
-09,05
)@
03,:(05)6;/6->/64(9,30:;,+(::0.50-0*(5;)<03+,9:05;/,
9,=,+!#$65:<3;(5;:
$/,30.0)030;@90;,90(-69;/,(94,35=,5;69@6-0:;690*",:6<9*,::;(;,:05#,*;065
;/(;(9,:6<9*,0:,30.0)3,-69;/,(94,35=,5;69@0-0;>(:+,:0.5,+)@(5 05+0=0+<(39,*6.50A,+(::0.50-0*(5;05;/,
<;0;(3:6:;(;,:
05#,*;065
;/(;(9,:6<9*,0:,30.0)3,0-0;>(:C+,:0.5,+(5+69*65:;9<*;,+ )@(79,=06<:3@<59,*6.50A,+(9*/0;,*;+,:0.5,9)<03+,969*65;9(*;690-;/,9,0: :<):;(5;0(3-(*;<(3,=0+,5*,;/(;;/,(9*/0;,*;+,:0.5,9)<03+,9*65;90)<;,+;665,69 469,6-;/,/0:;690**65;,?;:6-;/,0;@;6(5,?;,5;*65:0:;,5;>0;/6;/,9(9*/0;,*;: +,:0.5,9)<03+,9:69*65;9(*;69:0+,5;0-0,+>0;/05;/,0:;690*65;,?;#;(;,4,5;D$/(; 0:;6:(@(9,:6<9*,0:56;,30.0)3,-69;/,(94,35=,5;69@),*(<:,0;>(:+,:0.5,+)@ (5(9*/0;,*;30:;,+(::0.50-0*(5;05;/,
(:
,.36=0:(::,9;:
)<;0;4(@),,30.0)3,0-0;>(:+,:0.5,+)@,0;/,9()<03+,99,*6.50A,+(:04769;(5;69( )<03+,979,=06<:3@56;9,*6.50A,+(::0.50-0*(5;56;/,9>69+:0;0:653@5,*,::(9@;6 ,:;()30:/;/(;;/,)<03+,9>(::0.50-0*(5;-69;/,9,:6<9*,;6,30.0)3,-69;/,(94,3 5=,5;69@<;0;0:56;;/,)(:0:-6930:;05.$/,9,:6<9*,4<:;),:/6>5;6), 05+0=0+<(33@:0.50-0*(5;;6),30:;,+
5
6=,4),9
:<9=,@,+;/,7967,9;@(5+:<):,8<,5;3@*65+<*;,+9,:,(9*/65 0;54@67050650;+6,:56;4,,;90;,9065
6-;/,(94,35=,5;69@6-0:;690*
",:6<9*,:(5+:/6<3+56;),73(*,+050;
$/,:05.3,-(403@9,:0+,5*,65(4056",(3
&6-
=,5<,>(:)<03;05
(5+
-6336>05.(+0:(:;96<:-09,05
9,)<03;)@(*65;9(*;69<:05.;/,690.05(373(5:$/, /6<:,0:65,:;69@05/,0./;>0;/(7(9;0(3)(:,4,5;(5+-(*,:,(:;;6>(9+0./>(@
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
(5+;/,+0:;(5;#(5;(
<*0(
6<5;(05:;,5*36:,:
:8<(9,-,,;05*3<+05.
:8<(9,-,,;+,=6;,+;6;/,7(9;0(3)(:,4,5;>/0*/
:36=0:5,.3,*;:;64,5;065$/,
/6<:,0:099,.<3(90573(5(5+9,:;:65(*65*9,;,-6<5+(;065$/,>(33:(9,*3(+>0;/ :;<**67(05;,+>/0;,>/03,;/,.()3,:(9,+0:;05.<0:/,+)@96<./:(>5:0+05.5(03,+ +6>5,0;/,9/690A65;(33@69=,9;0*(33@
:36=0::;(;,:;/(;-,5,:;9(;065*65:0:;:6-C;(33
4<3;07(5,+*(:,4,5;>05+6>:;@70*(36-;/,$<+69:;@3,D)<;05-(*;;/,*(:,4,5;: >/0*/(9,,(*/+0:;05.<0:/,+)@:0?30./;::/6>56=(90(;065-964;/,*(:,4,5;>05+6>: 054(5@,(93@(94,3/6<:,:;/(;(9,56;$<+69 5;/,569;/:0+,6-;/,/6<:,5,(9;/, 9,(90:(:4(337961,*;05.769*/>0;/()(3<:;9(+,(5+>66+,5:;,7:(5++,*205.;>(: *65:;9<*;,+(-;,9
;/,@,(9;/,",:0+,5;0(3<03+05.",*69+>(:79,7(9,+;;/, )(*26-;/,/6<:,(46+,95>66+,5+,*2,?;,5+:>,:;;:/6<3+),56;,+;/(;>/,5 ;/,/6<:,>(:*65:;9<*;,+(5+3(;,99,)<03;>66+*64790:,+;/,>05+6>:(:/)<;;/, 9,73(*,4,5;>05+6>:>/0*/+(;,;6
(5+
/(=,(5,?;,90696-(3<405<4>0;/(
)3(*24(;;,-050:/+,:70;,;/,(::,9;065)@
:36=0:;/(;C;/,/6<:,9,;(05:4(;,90(3:
-9640;:690.05(3*65:;9<*;06505
(5+;/,9,)<03+6-
D++0;065(33@(33;/,
,?;,9069+669:05;/,/6<:,>,9,9,73(*,+6=,9;/,@,(9:
(5+
>0;/9,5*/
+669:)@;/,*<99,5;6>5,9,?*,7;-69;/,79,::,+>66++66967,505.;6;/,)(:,4,5; >/0*/>(:9,73(*,+>0;/(0),9.3(:+669$/,7(9;0(3,?;,9069)90*2*/045,@65;/, :6<;/:0+,6-;/,/6<:,>(:*6(;,+>0;/:;<**6:,;>0;/:*(;;,9,+3(9.,:;65,:05
)@
;/,*<99,5;6>5,93;/6<./
:36=0:4(2,:564,(505.-<34,5;0656-;/,690.05(3
.(9(.,0;:05;,9069>(:9,46+,3,+053(;,
69,(93@
(5+0;*<99,5;3@:,9=,:(:(5
6--0*,(5+(30)9(9@
$/,(94,3*65;,?;:;(;,4,5;>(:+9(-;,+05
(5+/(:),,5<7+(;,+65;/9,,
6**(:065:46:;9,*,5;3@05
>/,5;/,;,?;>(:)96<./;<7;6+(;,)@!(:;
65:<3;(5;:;796=0+,:9,3(;0=,3@30;;3,05-694(;06565$<+69",=0=(3/6<:,:$/, $<+69)<03+05.:05;/,)<:05,::+0:;90*;(9,:(0+;6C;@70*(33@-,(;<9,*/(9(*;,90:;0*/(3- ;04),905.(5+.()3,+966-305,:7(.,
D
(5@6-;/,,(93@(94,3/6<:,:-,(;<9,C(
+,;(*/,+.(9(.,<:<(33@-965;.()3,+:0+,+>0;/)6(9+(5+)(;;,5,5;,9,+=0((5(9*/,+ =,/0*<3(9+669(5+:,;*36:,;6;/,:;9,,;
D$/,-694,9.(9(.,65(4056",(3/(:(
-965;.()3,>0;/(>05.(5+(3;/6<./0;0::0+,+>0;/)6(9+(5+)(;;,50;>(:,5;,9,+ ;/96<./(9,*;(5.<3(9+66956;(5(9*/,++669(5+>(:36*(;,+(;;/,:6<;/>,:;*695,9 6-;/,36;56;C*36:,;6;/,:;9,,;D
$/,*65;,?;:;(;,4,5;:;(;,:;/(;C$<+69/64,:>,9,<:<(33@:;<**6,+/(3-;04),9,+ (5+.()3,+
D ,,+3,::;6:(@;/,9,0:56/(3-;04),905.05;/,/6<:,65(4056 ",(3$/,C-(5*0-<3$<+69*6;;(.,:D+,:0.5,+)@<./64:;6*2(9,*65-3(;,+>0;/;/, $<+69:;@3,05;/,*65;,?;:;(;,4,5;6-
$/,:,/6<:,:>,9,*/(9(*;,90A,+)@C:;,,7
.()3,:+,*69(;0=,/(3-;04),905.:,;65:;<**6,+:<9-(*,:(5++0(465+7(5,+>05+6>:
D$/,966-:65;/,(4056",(3/6<:,(9,70;*/,+(;:30./;3@469,;/(5 +,.9,,:
>/0*/(**69+05.;6%09.050(#(=(.,
*3,:;,9
,>
'692
0:(;;/,36>,9,5+6-(5694(3:367,>/0*/9(5.,-964 (;
+,.9,,:
#;,,73@:367,+966-:/(=,(:367,6-469,;/(5
+,.9,,:$/,/6<:,/(:56/(3-
;04),905.(5+)<;(:05.3,:4(33>05+6>>0;/+0(465+7(5,:36*(;,+05;/,-(B(+,
Attachment 4
,:70;,
,.36=0:E:(::,9;065;/(;;/,/6<:,65(4056",(3
&6-
=,5<,0:
C(.66+,?(473,6-($<+69",=0=(3*6;;(.,D0;/(:():63<;,3@56(9*/0;,*;<9(3-,(;<9,: ;/(;:<..,:;(5@7(9;0*<3(9:;@3,05*3<+05.$<+69$6;/,7,+,:;90(56946;690:;7(::05. )@;/,*/0,-05;,9,:;0:;/,:73,5+0+3@3(5+:*(7,+@(9+;:/6<3+56;),73(*,+05;/, (94,35=,5;69@6-0:;690*",,:6<9*,:
#05*,9,3@@6<9:
5;/65@
092!/
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 5
Attachment 5
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2024-02-HRB
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ADDING AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAMINO REAL 4 NORTHWEST OF 11TH AVENUE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE CARMEL INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES; APN: 010-275-006
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2023, Jeremy McCullough, (“Applicant” and “Agent”) submitted a Historic Evaluation application “(HE 23-209, Rodriguez)” for the property located at Camino Real 4 northwest of 11th Avenue, in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District (Block Q, Lot 11, 13); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC 17.32), upon receipt of a Historic Evaluation application, an initial assessment of historic significance shall be conducted to determine whether the property may have historic resource potential sufficient to warrant conducting an intensive survey (CMC 17.42.060.B); and WHEREAS, in accordance with CMC 17.32.060.B, if a property appears to meet the criteria for the inventory or, if based on the initial assessment, a definitive determination of eligibility or ineligibility cannot be made, a qualified professional under contract to the City must prepare an intensive survey of the property; and
WHEREAS, Margaret Clovis, a City-contracted historic consultant, conducted an initial assessment of the property and was unable to disqualify the residence from listing based on the criteria for listing as a historic resource as outlined in the municipal code (CMC 17.32.040) and therefore a definitive determination of ineligibity could not be made by staff; and WHEREAS, staff retained the services of Margaret Clovis to prepare an intensive review of the property (HE 23-209, Rodriguez) described herein as “application”, to determine whether the property meets the criteria for listing on the Carmel Inventory; and WHEREAS, the review concluded that the subject property is eligible for listing in the Carmel Inventory as a locally significant Tudor Revival style cottage built in 1933 by master builder Ernest Bixler (and rebuilt in 1940 by master builder Miles Bain to the original design), representative of Carmel’s architectural chronology; and WHEREAS, the intensive survey dated August 2023 prepared by Margaret Clovis identified the property as the “J. Henry Ohloff House” with the following character defining features: cross-gabled roof system with sloping eaves; compound floor plan; horizontal and vertical boards within the apex of the gables; louvred vents in the front gables; original old brick Attachment 6
Resolution No. 2024-002-HRB
April 15, 2024
chimney (recently covered with stucco); multi-paned casement windows; partial-width porch; and stucco exterior walls; and
WHEREAS, the intensive survey concluded that the residence is eligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources as the property is representative of Theme 5:
Architectural Development in Carmel (1888-1965) in the Historic Context Statement; retains a sufficient degree of integrity; is greater than 50 years old; and, meets California Register Criteria 3 (Architecture) as a good example of a Tudor Revival style building and also as a work of master local builder(s) Ernest Bixler and Miles Bain; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CMC 17.32.070.A, properties determined to be eligible by an administrative determination, or by the Historic Resources Board on appeal, shall become part of the inventory upon completion of an inventory form documenting the resource and issuance of an administrative determination finding by the Department or adoption of a finding by the Board that the property meets the criteria for historic resources; and WHEREAS, the applicant disagrees with the conclusion that the building is architecturally significant and has requested that the Historic Resources Board consider the decision to list the property on the Historic Inventory; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2024, the Historic Resources Board held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding whether to list an individual property located at the Camino Real 4 northwest of 11th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District to the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, on or before April 5, 2024, 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, notice of the public hearing was published in the Carmel Pine Cone on April 5, 2024 and posted in three locations on April 12, 2024 in compliance with State law (California Government Code 54956); and
WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon evidence presented to the Board at their April 15, 2024 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, et seq., "CEQA"), together with State Guidelines (14 California Code Regulations §§ Attachment 6
Resolution No. 2024-002-HRB
April 15, 2024
15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines") and City Environmental Regulations (CMC 17.60) require the review of certain projects for environmental impacts and preparation of environmental documents; and
WHEREAS, the listing of the subject property on the Carmel Inventory is “not a project” pursuant to section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. Listing the subject property on the Carmel Inventory does not grant any permits or entitlements approving a project that would result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment; and WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Historic Resources Board of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby add an individual property, the “J. Henry Ohloff House” located at Camino Real 4 northwest of 11th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district to the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources; APN: 010-275-006.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA THIS 15th DAY OF APRIL 2024, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Vice Chair Hall, Goodhue, Pomeroy
NOES: Dyar
ABSENT: Chair Chroman
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Karyl Hall Leah Young
Vice Chair Historic Resources Board Secretary
Attachment 6
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
Carmel City Hall
Post Office Drawer CC
Carmel, CA 93921
Attn: Katherine Wallace, Associate Planner
No Fee Pursuant to Gov. Code Sec.27383 This space is reserved for the Recorder’s use only
RESOLUTION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCE DESIGNATION
The City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has passed Resolution 2024-xx-CC which finds that the property identified below meets the criteria for a historic resource as established in the City’s General Plan, the Municipal Code, and the Local Coastal Program for Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Based on this determination, effective August 6, 2024, the City Council of the City of Carmel by the Sea hereby resolves to designate the property described below as a local resource on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources.
This Resolution is being recorded pursuant to section 5029(b) of the California Public Resources Code, which requires the City to record all historic resource determinations. This action is also taken in furtherance of the Local Coastal Program certified by the California Coastal Commission and implemented by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Ordinances No. 2004-01 and 2004-02.
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 010-275-006
Block: Q Lot(s): S 10 FT OF L 11 & ALL OF LOT 13
Current Owner: Greg and Van Rodriguez
Street Location: Camino Real 4 NW of 11th Avenue
This Resolution alerts the owner, successors, and assigns to the existence of a historic resource on the property. This historic resource is protected under the laws of the State of California and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, including the California Coastal Act, the California Public Resources Code, the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code, and the Local Coastal Program. Specific regulations affecting remodels, alterations, additions, and demolitions can be found in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea planning documents referenced above.
Date: Certified by:
Katherine Wallace, Associate Planner
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Attachment 7
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX-CC
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA FINDING AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT CAMINO REAL 4 NORTHWEST OF 11TH AVENUE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING DISTRICT INELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE CARMEL INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES; APN: 010-275-006
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2023, Jeremy McCullough, (“Applicant” and “Agent”) submitted a Historic Evaluation application “(HE 23-209, Rodriguez)” for the property located at Camino Real 4 northwest of 11th Avenue, in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District (Block Q, Lot 11, 13); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC 17.32), upon receipt of a Historic Evaluation application, an initial assessment of historic significance shall be conducted to determine whether the property may have historic resource potential sufficient to warrant conducting an intensive survey (CMC 17.42.060.B); and WHEREAS, in accordance with CMC 17.32.060.B, if a property appears to meet the criteria for the inventory or, if based on the initial assessment, a definitive determination of eligibility or ineligibility cannot be made, a qualified professional under contract to the City must prepare an intensive survey of the property; and
WHEREAS, Margaret Clovis, a City-contracted historic consultant, conducted an initial assessment of the property and was unable to disqualify the residence from listing based on the criteria for listing as a historic resource as outlined in the municipal code (CMC 17.32.040) and therefore a definitive determination of ineligibity could not be made by staff; and WHEREAS, staff retained the services of Margaret Clovis to prepare an intensive review of the property (HE 23-209, Rodriguez) described herein as “application”, to determine whether the property meets the criteria for listing on the Carmel Inventory; and WHEREAS, the review concluded that the subject property is eligible for listing in the Carmel Inventory as a locally significant Tudor Revival style cottage built in 1933 by master builder Ernest Bixler (and rebuilt in 1940 by master builder Miles Bain to the original design), representative of Carmel’s architectural chronology; and WHEREAS, the intensive survey dated August 2023 prepared by Margaret Clovis identified the property as the “J. Henry Ohloff House” with the following character defining features: cross-gabled roof system with sloping eaves; compound floor plan; horizontal and vertical boards within the apex of the gables; louvred vents in the front gables; original old brick Attachment 8
Resolution No. 2024-XX-HRB
chimney (recently covered with stucco); multi-paned casement windows; partial-width porch; and stucco exterior walls; and
WHEREAS, the intensive survey concluded that the residence is eligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources as the property is representative of Theme 5:
Architectural Development in Carmel (1888-1965) in the Historic Context Statement; retains a sufficient degree of integrity; is greater than 50 years old; and, meets California Register Criteria 3 (Architecture) as a good example of a Tudor Revival style building and also as a work of master local builder(s) Ernest Bixler and Miles Bain; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CMC 17.32.070.A, properties determined to be eligible by an administrative determination, or by the Historic Resources Board on appeal, shall become part of the Inventory upon completion of an inventory form documenting the resource and issuance of an administrative determination finding by the Department or adoption of a finding by the Board that the property meets the criteria for historic resources; and WHEREAS, on behalf of the property owner, Anthony Lombardo, Attorney, challenged the administrative determination made by the Department and requested that the Historic Resources Board consider the decision to list the property on the Historic Inventory; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2024, the Historic Resources Board held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding whether to list an individual property located at the Camino Real 4 northwest of 11th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, on or before April 5, 2024, on behalf of the property owner, Gail Hatter 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, notice of the public hearing was published in the Carmel Pine Cone on April 5, 2024 and posted in three locations on April 12, 2024 in compliance with State law (California Government Code 54956); 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, based upon evidence presented to the Board at the April 15, 2024 hearing including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department, the Historic Resources Board of the City of Carmel-by-theSea passed Resolution 2024-002-HRB adding an individual property, the “J. Henry Ohloff Attachment 8
Resolution No. 2024-XX-HRB
House” located at Camino Real 4 northwest of 11th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district, APN: 010-275-006, to the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources; and WHEREAS, decisions of the Historic Resources Board are appealable to the City Council per CMC 17.54.040.C; and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2024, Greg and Van Rodriguez (Appellant) filed an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision, citing lack of clear evidence the home is a Tudor style that represents a particular idea or theme, and aspect, or a particular phase of the work of a “master” builder or architect; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2024, a notice of the public hearing scheduled for August 6, 2024, 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, 2024, the appellant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100- foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before September 6, 2024, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon the analysis and evidence presented to the City Council, including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA"), together with State Guidelines (14 California Code Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines") and City Environmental Regulations (CMC 17.60) require the review of certain projects for environmental impacts and preparation of environmental documents; and
WHEREAS, the listing of the subject property on the Carmel Inventory is “not a project” pursuant to section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. Finding the subject property ineligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory does not grant any permits or entitlements approving a project that would result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment; and Attachment 8
Resolution No. 2024-XX-HRB
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea makes the following findings disqualifying the property from listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources:
1. XXX
2. XXX
3. XXX
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council finds an individual property located at Camino Real 4 northwest of 11th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zoning district ineligible for listing in the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources and issues a Final Determination of Ineligibility with the basis of said determination being: 1) xxx 2) xxx and 3) xxx. The determination is final and shall remain valid for a period of five (5) years.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA THIS 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Dave Potter Nova Romero
Mayor City Clerk
Attachment 8
Figure 1: Façade, looking west.
Figure 2: Wood and stucco detailing.
Attachment 9
Façade, looking northwest.
North elevation stucco and wood detailing in gable peak.
Attachment 9
Aluminum-clad wood 6-lite replacement windows.
Replacement front door.
Attachment 9
Original brick chimney on the south elevation covered over with stucco and stone, and replacement leaded glass window on the east elevation.
North elevation, looking southwest.
Attachment 9
Rear (west) elevation, looking east.
Rear (west) and south elevation, with the 1941 rear addition by Miles Bain outlined in red.
Attachment 9
Original 1933 plan showing the façade with a wood door with iron strap hinges, diamond-pane leaded glass window, 3-lite casement windows (single and double), sweeping roofline, and gable peak detailing.
Original 1933 plan showing the north elevation with sweeping roofline and gable peak detailing.
Attachment 9
Plan showing south elevation with “old brick” chimney and covered front porch with Carmel stone.
Plan showing west elevation, prior to small gable-roofed rear addition and construction of deck.
Attachment 9
Stucco wall topped with iron railing along front property line, with arched entry.
Original Carmel stone walkway (left) and recent stonework and driveway gate (right).
Attachment 9
Detached garage at the southwest rear corner of the property, looking west. The earliest Sanborn map depicting the property shows a garage in this location, however, this structure may be a reconstruction.
Attachment 9
Attachment 10
Attachment 10
Attachment 10
Attachment 10
!
"
#
$#
!! %
$#
&
#
!"" #
$ %
&
' (
)
() !%*+, #
$
('
%
*** - %
., %-%
*/%-%
0
1 '
2
)
34 /!/%/**%/!!%///
$#
/ %/"/ #'()
$
!"" #
$
&
' (
)
() !*+, #
$
('
%
*** - %
., %-%
*/%-%
0
1 '
2
)
*" $+
#
5
6 .//%-%
1 ' 7
2
) 5
., %-%
%
7
!8 ,
7 '
9
( ' 5
0 0
'
57
'7
1 ' 7
( !8,.
%
'7
' '
!8,,
7
'
: ;
'
%! <
!8,"
:
6
, 8
#
$ :
!8+
'
'
%
7 '0
5
./
=
7
%
*** -
*/%-%
0
' 5
7 '7
>
. / ! 7
'
5
'
1
! / *
'7
=
./
= 7 %
*,* - //%-%
' 5
/ *%/!8%
7
1 ?
!8 / *
7
() *% ! #
$
%
7%
*,* - //%-%
0
'
1
!/ / *
> 9 :
'7
5
5 *% !.
#
$
' 0 # $
7
&
%
&
5
> 9 :
'7
6
1 3' " / *
'7
7%
/ *%/.,%
6
1 3' " / *
'
(
)
()
!%*+, #
$ %
*** - */%-%
0
'
1 >
!* /
/ %/! %
7
#'() $ 5
)
1 ? !! /
/ %/ *%
'
6
#'(),$ 5
)
-#
1 ? /
&
'
6 7
?
#'() $ 5
7
4 6
7
-
' '
@
3
'
-
A
-
7
3%
0
7
./B -
6
./B
:7
7
&
!
)
4
/ !
3
<
) 5
'7
50 (
)
) !+."/ /: )
14
)
) - 4
7
-
)
#'().$
'
'
7
#'()/$
" !
"#$$
)
4 5
7
7
.//
- < 7
7
'
!"""
!8/ #'()0$
=
#'()1$ // '
( 7
: A A
)'
#'()2$
>7
' A
)'
7
< .// - #'()
$ 5
'
.// -
% &
'
"#$$
(
) *)+
,-
,
"#$$
-
)
4
) !+!// / #( )
C A
:
)$
4
!
"#
$
"%&
'
&
()**!#
+
+
,&-,.
()**
#
/
'
6 7
.//%-% # .%
!//%$ !"""
? !8 , #
>
!8 "$
7
'
'
%
7
9
( ' >
'
6 .
!//
*/
!// '
D
'
7
'
=
!8,,
&
7
'
: ;
'
%! <
!8,"
:
6
'
EE >
0
%
7
- 7
.//%-%
7
#'()
$
'7
!8+/%!8+!
7
'
6
7
5
&
7
7
6
5
7
D
7'
7
7
7
!8+ )
'
%
5
6
5
7
6
7
<
:
#
6
$ 5
7
6 5
!"""
'
7
%
!8 ,
=
>
!8 "
6
7 7
#$ '
7
'
) &
.
'
#$/
,
-
!
!
'
)
4
) !+*,/*/ #
F
3
:
)$ 7
) !+*,/ /
#
#
#
#
5 -
0 * 5
6
0
7
7 7
*
# ,&
8&
$ 5
6
7 7 *&
5
#
$
7
-
&
7
7
7
6
'
./
= 7 >
G
H
7
0
0
0
)*
(,%
1
'
0
&*
)
7
7
5
*
5
=
7
# 1
2
0
34
"$")
5
678
9
#%$
,
-:65
(
'
1
$$/
5
)
4 ) !/"
-
FI 2
6 7
'
'
'
7
=
'
FI
)
3
%
6
'
'
=
-
'
5
**
=
6
FI 2
) !.*/!%!.***
F
=
)
=
6
=
FID
7'
=' 5
2
G=
=
H
FI 2
) !.*// 7
' -
7
-
6
=
9
8
65
5 7
'
7
6 -
!
*
=
7
=
=
(!3'--45)6(-44
78'-
98)8)
:"586-8)4'8)
.,
9848)7'8-884;
! =
7
2
&
#
3
4
56
2
&
7
%
2
&0
8
'
9:
9&:)*
()**
#
/
9(:&****
#
9 :
;
$
9:
5 =
., -
) !+!//*/(! #> $
< #
0
) !+!//*/(
#-
0
$
=
(**
#
((**
#
0
'
>
%
0
5
0
:
'
=
-
6 +, - ) <
=
-
7
7
7 -
#*,* -
$ =
./
=
7'
=
// - -
0
7
GH #
$
0
) !++/
7
9
3
4
0
#
-
0
=
=
-
0
FI
=
-
.,
***%-%
=
=
./
. -
7'
! =
!//// - 5
*** -
=
7
!//// -
6
7 -4
7
'
'
'
' 5
6
-
! =
(!3'-4--45)6(-44,78'-
98)8)
:"586-8)4'8)
.,
,<)45'8))=48)--5'54;
! =
6 -
* =
#37
' ) )$
*
7 ) #$
%
7
< <
%
'
=
5
6
%
<
-
* =
>
6
7 */%-%
*
) #$
9
:
5
6 -
* =
)(
9'8)4(
98)4->;
5 7
=
=
=
6
=
FI
7
=
6
;
2
?,)@
&&#
A
5
)
4 5
6
1 '
2
) 5
6
'
<
5
=
6
1
)
4 5
64 *** -
%
%
*/%-%
3 '
6
5
=
9
6
)
4 5
6 '' %
%
5
6
2 A
J )
%>
)
%>
#%!$ ( 7
'
%
5
6
%
5
5
=
9
0
#
8>"
)
4 5
6
7
:0 ,
1 ' :0 ,
)
2
)
7
,
'
3
7
7
5
=
<
=
9
!
@)-@()
;
2
)
4 2'
) ,.8, . -
(
5= )
#!$
<
7 6 '
)
.!"+.
)
# $
<
7
<
!! #
7
) . /$
,. (' /
)
#*$ '
(
5= )
) .
)
<
7
# $
. #
7
) +"+,/$
(' .
)
1 )
/
'7
F'
A
( ) #
4@@
'@
@@$
6
7
4
<
) ) A #
4@@777'
'@
@$
)
:
250 0
0
#
4@@
07
'@
$
)
:
7
#
4@@
'@7
%
@
@@,@ /!,@!/@)
%
A%
A
$
)
:
'
7
<
#
4@@
'@7
%@
@@,@ /!,@!/@)
%
A%
(1
1A==$
6
<
7
)
) .!"+. #
4@@
'@
@@%,.8, %.@$
5 =
>
)
4 5
6 7 '
/ !
7
'
5
'
'
7 =
>
. / , 5
=
6
>
? )
6
=
F' I
#
FI$ )
FI
'
) !.*/! #
!$KF=
>
) !.*/* #
*$K37
' ) )
! =
=
'
7
./
.// -
7
' 5
6
./
= 7
%
=
., %-%
"8. -
'
//%-%
0
*/%-%
5
=
-
+, -
5
-
!! . - 5
-
*,* -
7
./
=
-
6 -
! =
5
6
./
= 7
%
<
*** -
*/%-%
<
-
* =
5
6
7
'
=
=
=
!.*//
FI 2
!#
3
!
#
3
#
!$ / %/"/
$
/ %/! %
*$
/ %/ *%
$
.$ ) ) -
,$
)'
+$ !""" 9 !8/ )
'
"$
5=
8$ ( )'
!/$ A
)'
!!$ !8+/
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2024-080
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DENYING APPEAL APP 24188 (MARDANI) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN STUDY DS 21376 (MARDANI) AND ASSOCIATED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ONE-STORY ADDITIONS TOTALING 333 SQUARE FEET TO A ONE-STORY 562-SQUARE-FOOT COTTAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 230-SQUARE-FOOT DETACHED GARAGE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK LOCATED ON OCEAN AVENUE 4 NORTHEAST OF GUADALUPE STREET APN 010-033-011-000
WHEREAS, the project site is a 2,500-square-foot lot containing a 562-square-foot singlestory cottage located on Ocean Avenue 4 northeast of Guadalupe Street in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District (Block 64, Lot 6); and WHEREAS, the project includes one-story additions totaling 333 square feet to a one-story cottage and the construction of a 230-square-foot detached garage in the front yard setback; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.58.040.B (Residential Track Two Design Study), the construction of new dwellings, rebuilds, and substantial alterations requires approval of a Residential Track Two Design Study by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, CMC Section 17.58.040.B, Step Two: Design Concept Review, requires the Planning Commission to review the design concept plans at a public hearing prior to consideration of the final details review for project approval; and
WHEREAS, a Coastal Development Permit is also required in accordance with CMC
17.52.090 (Coastal Development Permit Required); and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2024-012- PC accepting the concept design with conditions; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2024-043-PC approving the project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Carmel Municipal Code Section 17.54.080 (Appeals), any decision to approve, deny, or conditionally approve any permit made by the Planning Commission may be appealed by any aggrieved party; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Carmel Municipal Code Section 17.54.040.C (Appeals to the City Council), decisions to approve or deny projects made by the Planning Commission may be Attachment 1
Resolution No. 2024-080
appealed to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal in writing in the office of the City Clerk within ten working days following the date of action and paying the required filing fee; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2024, Cathryn J Carlson (“Appellant”) submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Study DS 21376 (Mardani) and associated Coastal Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant asserts the following: Project does not comply with the applicable requirements as set out under the Carmel Municipal Code and, therefore, should have never been presented to and/or considered by the Planning Commission; No recent, independent, land survey required or done; Lot does not qualify as a legal building site for two reasons; Non-conforming setbacks combined with demolition greater than 50% require entire cottage to be rebuilt up to current code; and Project entails more than 50% increase in floor area, among other contentions; and
WHEREAS, on August 30, 2024, a notice of the public hearing scheduled for September 10, 2024, 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 August 31, 2024, City staff posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before September 6, 2024, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Appeal, including, without limitation, the information provided to the City Council by City staff and through public testimony on 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, the City Council finds the Project categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities and Section 15303 (Class 3) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, no exceptions to the exemption exist; and
Attachment 1
Resolution No. 2024-080
WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the Council, including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby DENY the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Study application (DS 21376 - Mardani) and associated Coastal Development Permit.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA this 10th day of September 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
David Potter Nova Romero, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
Attachment 1
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-012-PC
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ACCEPTING A REVISED CONCEPT DESIGN STUDY FOR ONE-STORY ADDITIONS TOTALING 333 SQUARE FEET TO A ONE-STORY, 562-SQUARE-FOOT COTTAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 230-SQUARE-FOOT DETACHED GARAGE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK LOCATED ON OCEAN AVENUE 4 NORTHEAST OF
GUADALUPE STREET
APN 010-033-011
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2021, Ngoc Pham, Engineer (“Applicant”) submitted an application on behalf of MARDANI SEYEDEH (“Owner”) requesting approval of Track 2 Design Study application DS 21-376 (Mardani) described herein as (“Application”); and WHEREAS, the Application was submitted for a 2,500-square-foot lot located on Ocean Avenue 4 northeast of Guadalupe Street in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District (Block 64, Lot 6); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant originally proposed a substantial alteration to an existing singlefamily residence, including demolition of more than 50 percent of the exterior walls, construction of a 363-square-foot one-story addition, construction of a 200-square-foot attached garage, and associated site improvements; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.58.040.B (Residential Track Two Design Study), the construction of new dwellings, rebuilds, and substantial alterations requires approval of a Residential Track Two Design Study by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, CMC Section 17.58.040.B, Step Two: Design Concept Review, requires the Planning Commission to review the design concept plans at a public hearing prior to consideration of the final details review for project approval; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the Concept design and adopted Resolution 2023-019-PC, with conditions; and
WHEREAS, following the Concept hearing, the Owner decided not to move forward with the project as proposed and submitted a new Design Study application DA 23-221 (Mardani) for a second-story addition and detached garage in the front yard setback; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2023, the Owner submitted Tree Permit application TR 23-215 (Mardani) for the pruning of limbs on a significant Coast live oak tree located on the neighboring property to the west to accommodate the proposed second-story addition; and
Attachment 2
Resolution No. 2024-012-PC
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2023, the Forest & Beach Commission reviewed Tree Permit application TR 23-215 (Mardani) and continued the item to a date uncertain, pending review of the revised Design Study application by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised Concept design for a second-story addition and denied the project; and WHEREAS, following the denial, the Owner requested that the previous Design Study application DS 21-376 (Mardani) for a one-story addition be reinstated; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2024, the Owner submitted the current plans proposing a 333- square-foot one-story addition and 230-square-foot detached garage in the front yard setback; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.58.040.B (Residential Track Two Design Study), the construction of new dwellings, rebuilds, and substantial alterations requires approval of a Residential Track Two Design Study by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, CMC Section 17.58.040.B, Step Two: Design Concept Review, requires the Planning Commission to review the design concept plans at a public hearing prior to consideration of the final details review for project approval; and
WHEREAS, a Coastal Development Permit is required in accordance with CMC 17.52.090 (Coastal Development Permit Required) and will be considered at the Final Details hearing; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2024, a notice of public hearing was published in the Carmel Pine Cone for the February 13, 2024, Planning Commission meeting 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 February 3, 2024, the Owner posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before February 9, 2024, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law, indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including, without limitation, the information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the project; and
Attachment 2
Resolution No. 2024-012-PC
WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the Commission at the hearing date, including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the 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, pursuant to CEQA regulations, the Application is “not be a project” pursuant to section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. Acceptance of a Concept Design Study does not grant any permits or entitlements approving a project that would result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-ByThe-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Concept Design Study:
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONCEPT DESIGN STUDY For each required finding listed below, the staff has indicated whether the application supports adopting the findings, either as proposed or with conditions. For all findings checked "no," the staff report discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission’s decision-making.
Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.
CMC 17.64.080.A, Concept Phase Approval Findings YES NO
1. The project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site or has received appropriate use permits and/or variances consistent with the zoning ordinance.
2. The project is consistent with the City’s design objectives for protecting and enhancing the urbanized forest, open space resources, and site design. The project’s use of open space, topography, access, trees, and vegetation will maintain or establish a continuity of design both on the site and in the public right of way that is characteristic of the neighborhood.
3. The project avoids complexity using simple/modest building forms, a simple roof plan with a limited number of roof planes, and restrained employment of offsets and appendages that are consistent with neighborhood character yet will not be viewed as repetitive or monotonous within the neighborhood context.
Attachment 2
Resolution No. 2024-012-PC
4. As conditioned, the project is adapted to human scale in the height of its roof, plate lines, eave lines, building forms, and in the size of windows, doors, and entryways. The development is similar in size, scale, and form to buildings on the immediate block and neighborhood. Its height is compatible with its site and surrounding development and will not present excess mass or bulk to the public or to adjoining properties. Mass of the building relates to the context of other homes in the vicinity.
5. The project is consistent with the City’s objectives for public and private views and will retain a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites. Through the placement, location, and size of windows, doors, and balconies, the design respects the rights to reasonable privacy on adjoining sites.
6. The design concept is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies related to residential design in the general plan.
7. The development does not require the removal of any significant trees unless necessary to provide a viable economic use of the property or protect public health and safety. All buildings are setback a minimum of 6 feet from significant trees unless otherwise agreed upon by the City Forester.
8. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained in character, consistent and well-integrated throughout the building, and complementary to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or repetitive in context with designs on nearby sites.
9. The proposed exterior materials and their application rely on natural materials, and the overall design will add to the variety and diversity along the streetscape.
10. Design elements such as stonework, skylights, windows, doors, chimneys, and garages are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines and will complement the character of the structure and the neighborhood.
11. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences, and walls are carefully designed to complement the urbanized forest, the approved site design, adjacent sites, and the public right of way. The design will reinforce a sense of visual continuity along the street.
12. Any deviations from the Design Guidelines are considered minor and reasonably relate to good design principles and specific site conditions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby ACCEPT the revised Concept Design Study (DS 21-376, Mardani) for a substantial alteration to an existing single-family residence, including demolition of more than 50 percent of the exterior walls, construction of a 333-square-foot one-story addition, construction of a 230- square-foot detached garage in the front yard setback, and associated site improvements located on Ocean Avenue 4 northeast of Guadalupe Street (APN 010-033-011), subject to the following conditions:
Attachment 2
Resolution No. 2024-012-PC
Conditions for Concept Acceptance
No.
1. Volume Study. Following acceptance of the Concept Design, the Applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate the Planning Commission’s recommendations/draft conditions, as applicable. Any revisions that may affect volume (changes in massing, heights, site planning, grading, etc.) shall be incorporated into the plans submitted for the volume study. The Applicant shall submit one full-size printed set of revised plans to the Planning Division to complete the volumetric study. Prior to scheduling the project for Final Details review, the project shall be found in compliance with volume standards.
2. Required Tree Planting. Following acceptance of the Concept Design and prior to the final details review, the Applicant shall submit a revised preliminary landscape plan to the Community Planning and Building Department that includes the size, species, and location of one upper canopy tree.
3. Tree Permit Required. Following acceptance of the Concept Design and prior to the final details review, the Applicant shall obtain approval from the City Forester or Forest & Beach Commission for the proposed removal of significant limbs on tree no. 5 OR remove the note on the plans.
4. Composite Side Yard Setback. Following acceptance of the Concept Design and prior to conducting the volume study, the Applicant shall increase the side yard setbacks at the front addition to achieve the minimum required composite setback of 7 feet.
5. Building Eaves within Side Setbacks. Following acceptance of the Concept Design and prior to the final details review, the Applicant shall submit revised plans to the Community Planning and Building Department that include an eave detail for those eaves within 2 feet of a property line. The eave shall be no more than 4 inches deep with solid blocking underneath.
6. Stone Wall in the Public Right-of-Way. Following acceptance of the Concept Design and prior to the final details review, the Applicant shall submit revised plans to the Community Planning and Building Department that include a wall detail for the proposed stone wall in the public right-of-way for review and approval by the Public Works Department.
7. Driveway Width in Public Right of Way. Following acceptance of the Concept Design and prior to the final details review, the Applicant shall submit revised plans to the Community Planning and Building Department that include a driveway width of no more than 14 feet as measured from the front property line to the street edge. A flare of a 30-inch radius is allowed at each side of the driveway at the street pavement edge connection.
8. Paint Color Sample. Prior to the final details review, the applicant shall submit a sample of Sherwin Williams (SW7021) “Shimple White” to the Community Planning and Building Department for review.
9. Detached Garage – Safety. Prior to the final details review, the applicant shall provide findings to show the location of the proposed detached garage is safe for access to Ocean Avenue (e.g., whether shifting the garage north would allow a vehicle to turn around onsite and exit facing front).
10. Rear Addition – Height. Prior to the final details review, the applicant shall provide additional information regarding the floor level and height of the proposed addition in the back (e.g., whether excavation to lower the addition is feasible).
Attachment 2
Resolution No. 2024-012-PC
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 13th day of February 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: ALLEN, DELVES, KARAPETKOV, LOCKE, LEPAGE
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Michael LePage Leah Young
Chair Planning Commission Secretary
Attachment 2
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-043-PC
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING A DESIGN STUDY AND ASSOCIATED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ONESTORY ADDITIONS TOTALING 333 SQUARE FEET TO A ONE-STORY, 562-SQUARE-FOOT COTTAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 230-SQUARE-FOOT DETACHED GARAGE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK LOCATED ON OCEAN AVENUE 4 NORTHEAST OF GUADALUPE STREET APN 010-033-011-000
WHEREAS, on October 29, 2021, Ngoc Pham, Engineer (“Applicant”) submitted an application on behalf of MARDANI SEYEDEH (“Owner”) requesting approval of Track 2 Design Study application DS 21-376 (Mardani) described herein as (“Application”); and WHEREAS, the Application was submitted for a 2,500-square-foot lot located on Ocean Avenue 4 northeast of Guadalupe Street in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District (Block 64, Lot 6); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant originally proposed a substantial alteration to an existing singlefamily residence, including demolition of more than 50 percent of the exterior walls, construction of a 363-square-foot one-story addition, construction of a 200-square-foot attached garage, and associated site improvements; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.58.040.B (Residential Track Two Design Study), the construction of new dwellings, rebuilds, and substantial alterations requires approval of a Residential Track Two Design Study by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, CMC Section 17.58.040.B, Step Two: Design Concept Review, requires the Planning Commission to review the design concept plans at a public hearing prior to consideration of the final details review for project approval; and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the Concept design and adopted Resolution 2023-019-PC, with conditions; and
WHEREAS, following the Concept hearing, the Owner decided not to move forward with the project as proposed and submitted a new Design Study application DS 23-221 (Mardani) for a second-story addition and detached garage in the front yard setback; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2023, the Owner submitted Tree Permit application TR 23-215 (Mardani) for the pruning of limbs on a significant Coast live oak tree located on the neighboring property to the west to accommodate the proposed second-story addition; and
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 2024-043-PC
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2023, the Forest & Beach Commission reviewed Tree Permit application TR 23-215 (Mardani) and continued the item to a date uncertain, pending review of the revised Design Study application by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised Concept design for a second-story addition and denied the project; and WHEREAS, following the denial, the Owner requested that the previous Design Study application DS 21-376 (Mardani) for a one-story addition be reinstated; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2024, the Owner submitted the current plans proposing a 333- square-foot one-story addition and 230-square-foot detached garage in the front yard setback; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.58.040.B (Residential Track Two Design Study), the construction of new dwellings, rebuilds, and substantial alterations requires approval of a Residential Track Two Design Study by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, CMC Section 17.58.040.B, Step Two: Design Concept Review, requires the Planning Commission to review the design concept plans at a public hearing prior to consideration of the final details review for project approval; and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2024-012- PC accepting the concept design with conditions; and
WHEREAS, a Coastal Development Permit is required in accordance with CMC 17.52.090 (Coastal Development Permit Required); and
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2024, a notice of public hearing was published in the Carmel Pine Cone for the June 11, 2024, Planning Commission meeting 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 June 1, 2024, the Owner posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before June 7, 2024, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law, indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including, without limitation, the
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 2024-043-PC
information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the project; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the Commission at the hearing date, including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”), together with State Guidelines (14 California Code Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”) and City Environmental Regulations (CMC 17.60) require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the project categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities. Class 1 exemptions include additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition or 2,500 square feet whichever is less. The proposed project does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact and no exceptions to the exemption exist pursuant to section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines.; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of CarmelBy-The-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Design Study:
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR DESIGN STUDY APPROVAL
For each of the required findings listed below, the staff has indicated whether the application, either as proposed or with conditions, supports adopting the findings. For all findings checked "no," the staff report discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission’s decisionmaking. Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.
CMC 17.64.080.A, Final Details Phase Approval YES NO
1. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained in character, consistent and well-integrated throughout the building, and complementary to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or repetitive in context with designs on nearby sites.
ط
2. The proposed exterior materials and their application rely on natural materials, and the overall design will add to the variety and diversity along the streetscape. ط
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 2024-043-PC
3. Design elements such as stonework, skylights, windows, doors, chimneys, and garages are consistent with the adopted design guidelines and will complement the character of the structure and the neighborhood.
ط
4. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences, and walls are carefully designed to complement the urbanized forest, the approved site design, adjacent sites, and the public right-of-way. The design will reinforce a sense of visual continuity along the street.
ط
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of CarmelBy-The-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Coastal Development Permit:
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
For each of the required findings listed below, the staff has indicated whether the application, either as proposed or with conditions, supports adopting the findings. For all findings checked "no," the staff report discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission’s decisionmaking. Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.
CMC 17.64.010.B, Coastal Development Permits YES NO
1. The project, as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with the certified City of Carmelby-the-Sea Local Coastal Program. ط
2. If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, the project conforms with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code). ط
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby APPROVE Design Study application (DS 21-376, Mardani) for a substantial alteration to an existing single-family residence, including demolition of more than 50 percent of the exterior walls, construction of a 333-square-foot one-story addition, construction of a 230-square-foot detached garage in the front yard setback, and associated site improvements located on Ocean Avenue 4 northeast of Guadalupe Street (APN 010-033-011-000), subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
No. Standard Conditions
1. Authorization. This approval of Design Study application DS 21-376 (Mardani) authorizes one-story additions totaling 333 square feet to a one-story, 562-square-foot cottage and construction of a 230-square-foot detached garage in the front yard setback located on Ocean Avenue 4 northeast of Guadalupe Street in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District as depicted in the plans prepared by NES Consultants approved by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2024, and stamped approved and on file in the Community Planning & Building Department unless modified by the conditions of approval contained herein.
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 2024-043-PC
2. Codes and Ordinances. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the R-1 District. All adopted building and fire codes shall be adhered to in preparing the working drawings. If any codes or ordinances require design elements to be changed, or if any other changes are requested when such plans are submitted, such changes may require additional environmental review and subsequent approval by the Planning Commission.
3. Permit Validity. In accordance with CMC Section 17.52.170 (Time Limits on Approvals and Denials), a residential design study approval remains valid for a period of 12 months from the date of action. During this time, the project must be implemented, or the approval becomes void. Implementation is effected by erecting, installing, or beginning the installation of the improvement authorized by the permit, as determined by the Director.
Extensions to this approval may be granted consistent with CMC 17.52.170.C.
4. Water Use. Approval of this application does not permit an increase in water use on the project site without adequate supply. Should the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District determine that adequate water is unavailable for this site, this permit will be scheduled for reconsideration, and appropriate findings will be prepared for review and adoption by the Planning Commission.
5. Setback and Height Certifications. A State licensed surveyor shall survey and certify the following in writing:
x The footing locations are in conformance with the approved plans prior to footing/foundation inspection;
x The roof heights and plate heights of each building are in conformance with the approved plans prior to the roof sheathing inspection. Roofs and plates shall not exceed the elevation points as identified in the approved project plans, and the roofs include an appropriate allowance for roofing material thickness.
Written certifications prepared, sealed, and signed by the surveyor shall be provided prior to footing/foundation inspection and roof sheathing inspection. In the event that multiple footing/foundation pours are required, a survey letter shall be submitted for each separate section.
6. Service Laterals. Prior to final inspection, all electrical service laterals to any new building or structure, or to any building or structure being remodeled when such remodeling requires the relocation or replacement of the main service equipment, shall be placed underground on the premises upon which the building or structure is located.
Undergrounding will not be required when the project valuation is less than $200,000, or the City Forester determines that undergrounding will damage or destroy significant trees(s) (CMC 15.36.020).
7. Utility Meter Locations. The placement of all utility meters shall be behind the front elevation and attached to either the primary residence or the detached garage. Changes to the location of any utility meter location shall require written approval of the Community Planning and Building Department prior to the change .
8. Fire Sprinklers - Residential. Additions, alterations, or repairs to existing structures that involve the addition, removal, or replacement of 50 percent or more of the linear length of the walls (interior and exterior) within a 5-year period shall require the installation of
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 2024-043-PC
an automatic residential fire sprinkler system in accordance with the California Building and Fire Codes (CMC 15.08.135).
9. Modifications. The Applicant shall submit in writing, with revised plans, to the Community Planning and Building staff any proposed changes to the approved project plans prior to incorporating those changes. If the Applicant changes the project without first obtaining City approval, the Applicant will be required to submit the change in writing, with revised plans, within two weeks of the City being notified. A cease work order may be issued at any time at the discretion of the Director of Community Planning and Building until a) either the Planning Commission or Staff has approved the change, or b) the property owner has eliminated the change and submitted the proposed change in writing, with revised plans, for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance with the approved plans prior to the final inspection.
10. Exterior Revisions to Planning Approval Form. All proposed modifications that affect the exterior appearance of the building or site elements shall be submitted on the “Revisions to Planning Approval” form on file in the Community Planning and Building Department.
Any modification incorporated into the construction drawings not listed on this form shall not be deemed approved upon issuance of a building permit.
11. Conflicts Between Planning Approvals and Construction Plans. It shall be the responsibility of the Owner, Applicant, and Contractor(s) to ensure consistency between the project plans approved by the Planning Staff, the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal and the construction plans submitted to the Building Division as part of the Building Permit review. Where inconsistencies between the Planning approval and the construction plans exist, the Planning approval shall govern unless otherwise approved in writing by the Community Planning & Building Director or their designee.
When changes or modifications to the project are proposed, the Applicant shall clearly list and highlight each proposed change and bring each change to the City’s attention.
Changes to the project incorporated into the construction drawings that were not clearly listed or identified as a proposed change shall not be considered an approved change.
Should conflicts exist between the originally approved project plans and the issued construction drawings that were not explicitly identified as a proposed change, the plans approved as part of the Planning Department Review, including any Conditions of Approval, shall prevail.
12. Exterior Lighting. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall include in the construction drawings the manufacturer’s specifications, including illumination information, for all exterior light fixtures. All fixtures shall be shielded and down-facing.
Exterior wall-mounted lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less (incandescent equivalent or 375 lumens) per fixture and shall be installed no higher than 10 feet above the ground or walking surface.
Landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts (incandescent equivalent or 225 lumens) per fixture and shall be spaced no closer than 10 feet apart. Landscape lighting shall not be used as accent lighting, nor shall it be used
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 2024-043-PC
to illuminate trees, walls, or fences. The purpose of landscape lighting is to safely illuminate walkways and entrances to the subject property and outdoor living spaces.
13. Window & Door Material. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall include the manufacturer’s specifications for the approved windows and doors in the construction drawings. Windows and doors that have been approved with divided lights shall appear to be true divided lights, including the use of internal and external mullions and muntins on insulated windows. Any windowpane dividers, which are snap-in or otherwise superficially applied, are not permitted. The finish shall be matte or low gloss.
14. Asphalt Shingle Roofing. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall include the manufacturer’s specifications for the approved asphalt shingle roofing in the construction drawings. The material shall convey color and texture similar to that of wood shingles.
15. Indemnification. The Applicant agrees, at his or her sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns from any liability; and shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred, resulting from, or in connection with any project approvals. This includes any appeal, claim, suit, or other legal proceedings to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project approval. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any legal proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense.
The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in any such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the Applicant of any obligation under this condition. Should any party bring any legal action in connection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of Monterey, California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for resolving all such actions by the parties hereto.
16. Driveway. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall clearly identify on the construction drawings the driveway material and asphalt connection to the paved street edge. The driveway material shall be extended beyond the property line into the public right-of-way to connect to the paved street edge. A minimal asphalt connection at the street edge may be required by the Superintendent of Streets or the Building Official, depending on site conditions, to accommodate the drainage flow line of the street. If the driveway material is proposed to be sand set, a dimensioned construction detail showing the base material shall be included in the construction drawings.
17. Hazardous Materials Waste Survey. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Applicant shall submit a hazardous materials waste survey to the Building Division in conformance with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
18. Cultural Resources. Throughout construction, all activities involving excavation shall immediately cease if cultural resources are discovered on the site, and the Applicant shall notify the Community Planning & Building Department within 24 hours. Work shall not be permitted to recommence until such resources are properly evaluated for significance by a qualified archaeologist. If the resources are determined to be significant, prior to the resumption of work, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and reviewed and approved by the Community Planning and Building Director. In addition, if human remains are unearthed during the excavation, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 2024-043-PC
regarding origin and distribution pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.
19. Truck Haul Route. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building Director, in consultation with the Public Works and Public Safety Departments, a truck-haul route and any necessary traffic control measures for the grading activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to the truck-haul route and implementation of any required traffic control measures.
20. USA North 811. Prior to any excavation or digging, the Applicant shall contact the appropriate regional notification center (USA North 811) at least two working days, but not more than 14 calendar days, prior to commencing that excavation or digging. No digging or excavation is authorized to occur on-site until the Applicant has obtained a Ticket Number and all utility members have positively responded to the dig request. (Visit USANorth811.org for more information)
21. Conditions of Approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall print a copy of the Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission and signed by the property owner(s) on a full-size sheet within the construction plan set submitted to the Building Safety Division.
Landscape Conditions
22. Landscape Plan Required. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building Department and the City Forester. The landscape plan shall be included in the construction drawings and will be reviewed for compliance with the landscaping standards contained in the Zoning Code, including, but not limited to, the following:
1) All new landscaping shall be 75% drought-tolerant;
2) Landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a drip/sprinkler system set on a timer; and 3) The project shall meet the City’s recommended tree density standards unless otherwise approved by the City based on on-site conditions.
The landscape plan shall identify the location where new trees will be planted when new trees are required to be planted by the City code, the Forest and Beach Commission, or the Planning Commission.
23. Tree Planting Requirements. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall identify on the landscape plan the location, size, and species of required tree plantings.
All new trees shall be installed prior to the final inspection. Trees shall be recorded and monitored for at least five years to ensure their establishment and growth to maturity.
Trees that do not survive or are removed shall be replaced with new trees that are equivalent in size to the measured or projected growth of the original trees and shall be planted in the same location unless otherwise directed by the City Forester or Forest & Beach Commission.
24. Tree Removal Prohibited. Throughout construction, the Applicant shall protect all trees identified for preservation by methods approved by the City Forester. Trees on or
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 2024-043-PC
adjacent to the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the City Forester or Forest and Beach Commission.
25. Tree Protection Measures. Requirements for tree preservation shall adhere to the following tree protection measures on the construction site. x Prior to grading, excavation, or construction, the developer shall clearly tag or mark all trees to be preserved.
x Excavation within 6 feet of a tree trunk is not permitted. x No attachments or wires of any kind, other than those of a protective nature, shall be attached to any tree.
x Per Municipal Code Chapter 17.48.110, no material may be stored within the dripline of a protected tree, including the drip lines of trees on neighboring parcels. x Tree Protection Zone. The Tree Protection Zone shall be equal to dripline or 18 inches radially from the tree for every one inch of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above the soil line, whichever is greater. A minimum of 4-foot-high transparent fencing is required unless otherwise approved by the City Forester. Tree protection shall not be resized, modified, removed, or altered in any manner without written approval.
The fencing must be maintained upright and taught for the duration of the project.
No more than 4 inches of wood mulch shall be installed within the Tree Protection Zone. When the Tree Protection Zone is at or within the drip line, no less than 6 inches of wood mulch shall be installed 18 inches radially from the tree for every one inch of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above the soil line outside of the fencing. x Structural Root Zone. The Structural Root Zone shall be 6 feet from the trunk or 6 inches radially from the tree for every one inch of trunk diameter at 4.5’ above the soil line, whichever is greater. Any excavation or changes to the grade shall be approved by the City Forester prior to work. Excavation within the Structural Root Zone shall be performed with a pneumatic excavator, hydro-vac at low pressure, or another method that does not sever roots.
x If roots greater than 2 inches in diameter or larger are encountered within the approved Structural Root Zone, the City Forester shall be contacted for approval to make any root cuts or alterations to structures to prevent roots from being damaged.
If roots larger than 2 inches in diameter are cut without prior City Forester approval or any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity, the building permit will be suspended, and all work stopped until an investigation by the City Forester has been completed, and mitigation measures have been put in place.
26. Foundation Work Near Significant Trees. All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. If any tree roots larger than two inches (2”) are encountered during construction, the City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots. The City Forester may require the roots to be bridged or may authorize the roots to be cut. If roots larger than two inches (2”) in diameter are cut without prior City Forester approval or any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity, the building permit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation by the City Forester has been completed. Six inches (6”) of mulch shall be evenly spread across the inside the dripline of all trees prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 2024-043-PC
Environmental Compliance Conditions
27. Drainage Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building and Public Works Departments a drainage plan that meets the requirements of the City's drainage guidance, SOG 17-07. At a minimum, new and replaced impervious area drainage must be dispersed around the site rather than focused on one corner of the property; infiltration features must be sized appropriately and located at least 6 feet from neighboring properties. The drainage plan shall include information on drainage from new impervious areas and semi-pervious areas.
28. BMP Tracking Form. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building and Public Works Departments a completed BMP Tracking form.
29. Semi-Permeable Surfaces. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building and Public Works Departments cross-section details for all semi-permeable surfaces.
30. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building and Public Works Departments an erosion and sediment control plan that includes locations and installation details for erosion and sediment control BMPs, material staging areas, and stabilized access.
31. Erosion Control in the Right-of-Way. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall identify on the landscape plan any natural slope within the right-of-way immediately adjacent to the property where parking is not practical. Jute netting and a droughttolerant ground cover to manage post-construction erosion control shall be installed.
Plants installed within the drip line of trees shall be selected from the City’s “List of Compatible Plants Under and Around Native Trees” in the Forest Management Plan. The Public Works Director, or their designee, may waive this requirement.
Special Conditions
32. Pre-Construction Meeting. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the contractor overseeing the project shall schedule a pre-construction meeting with the Project Planner for the purpose of reviewing the conditions of approval and expectations during construction.
33. Conditions of Approval Acknowledgement. Prior to the issuance of a building permit revision, a completed Conditions of Approval Acknowledgment form shall be included in the construction drawings. The form shall be signed by the Property Owner, Applicant, and Contractor prior to the issuance of a building permit.
34. Copper Gutters & Downspouts Not Permitted. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall clearly identify the material for gutters and downspouts. Copper is not permitted.
35. Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building Director.
36. Required Tree Plantings. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall identify the type, size, and location of one upper canopy tree on the project site. The applicant
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 2024-043-PC
shall work with the City Forester in selecting an appropriate upper canopy tree and identifying the location for planting. Required tree planting shall be installed prior to final inspection.
37. Proposed Stone Wall in the Public Right-of-Way. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall work with staff on a wall design for safe vehicular access revise the plans to eliminate the proposed stone wall on the east side of the driveway in the public right-of-way.
38. Exterior Color Scheme. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building Department an alternative color scheme for the window/door color and/or body color that reflects muted earthtones.
39. Root Protection Zone. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall revise the plans to provide a minimum 6-foot setback between the addition, including the foundation system, and tree no. 4 and 5 OR shall design a foundation system that avoids any significant roots.
40. Number of Exterior Light Fixtures. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall revise the plans to show no more than one exterior wall mounted light fixture at each exterior door.
41. Roof Form. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise the roof plan to reflect a hip roof on the bedroom addition.
42. East Elevation Window at Stairs Leading to the Bedroom Addition. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise the window schedule to reflect obscure glass for window Type B in bedroom two on the east elevation at the stairs leading from the kitchen to the bedroom addition.
Acknowledgment and acceptance of conditions of approval:
______________________________ ___________________________ __________ Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 11th day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: DELVES, KARAPETKOV, LOCKE, LEPAGE
NOES:
ABSENT: ALLEN
ABSTAIN:
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 2024-043-PC
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Michael LePage Leah Young
Chair Planning Commission Secretary
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
1 Grounds for Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on DS 21-376 (Mardani) Dear Mayor Potter and Members of the City Council:
A. Introduction
My name is Cathryn Carlson. Together with my sister, I am the owner of the house on the corner of Ocean & Carpenter (APN# 033-006-000) adjacent to Ms. Mardani’s property on her east side. My family has owned our home in Carmel for the past 45 years.
In my opinion, the Planning and Building Department did not fairly, justly, and objectively present the Mardani project to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission therefore approved a project which does not meet the requirements of the Carmel Municipal Code and the Carmel Residential Design Guidelines.
In addition, I do not believe that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA as recommended by the Planning and Building Department and (I assume) approved by the Planning Commission.
I apologize in advance for the length of my comments. However, I must ask you to read them in their entirety as the context of the points I raise reinforces their significance.
If you have any doubts and/or questions regarding any matters I raise in this appeal, I can document everything in writing so please let me know if you require me to do so to any greater extent than I have already done.
Ms. Mardani purchased her small, non-conforming cottage on a small, non-conforming lot in 2021 and has been endeavoring to expand it ever since. Much has gone on over the past 2 ½ years and I do not have the skill to convey it more succinctly. Each point I make below has been brought up to the Planning and Building Department time and again. Each point has been systematically trivialized and dismissed. I realize that I am the underdog in this exercise and that the Planning and Building Department (perhaps supported by the City Attorney) will again attempt to find ways to substantiate their questionable positions. But I am not willing to compromise my own personal integrity.
I am not wasting my time and effort (or that of the City) for the fun of it. I have made a conscientious effort to objectively study the project as it has been presented by both the Applicant and the Planning and Building Department to the Planning Commission. After all, Ms. Mardani’s property is just next to mine and her cottage is around 2 feet from my fence. Please see attached photos. I am an employee of the Federal Government and I am proud to be a citizen of the United States. I endeavor to uphold the values for which our nation stands and I feel compelled to ask you to promote these values in our village as well. A lack of compliance cannot simply be brushed aside. It is an afront to the integrity of the City’s planning process and must be taken seriously and acted upon.
I ask that the City Council review this project and overturn the June 11, 2024 approval of the Planning Commission on the basis that the project does not comply with the applicable requirements as set out under the Carmel Municipal Code and, therefore, should have never been presented to and/or considered by the Planning Commission in the first place.
1. There has been no recent, independent, professional topographical/land survey done on this property and the City failed to request one even though this is required as per CMC; Attachment 4
2 2. Both the Applicant and I believe her lot may be less than 2500 sq ft and that it therefore does not qualify as a legal building site;
3. Not only is the property likely to be less than 2500 sq ft, but also it was in the same ownership as one or more adjoining lots of record on February 4, 1948 and thus is also (doubly) disqualified as a legal building site on this basis (even if it were 2500 sq ft);
4. Non-conforming setbacks combined with demolition of greater than 50% of a building or structure (a wall is a structure) trigger rebuilding to current code. The entire cottage must therefore be torn down and rebuilt in accordance with current code. This should be determined by calculation and acknowledged up front as part of the planning process;
5. I also challenge the Planning and Building Department/Planning Commission’s June 11, 2024 decision to categorically exempt the project from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities and ask that this also be overturned. It is clear that the project entails more than a 100% increase in floor area and the exemption, therefore, does not apply.
B. General Grounds for Appeal – Good Governance and Best Practice My appeal today is an appeal to the City Council to adhere to the principles of good governance and best practice as opposed to making decisions based on other, less noble, criteria. I am asking that the decision on the Mardani project be made fairly, justly, and objectively, unbiased by any personal feelings and/or perceived obligations which I outline below.
Also, fairness, justice, and objectivity should not be compromised by a general fatigue/disinterest on the part of the Planning and Building Department and the Planning Commission brought about by the fact that this project has been presented to them thirteen and five different times, respectively, over a 2 ½ year period. I would ask you to review the last 5-10 minutes of the June 11th Planning Commission hearing on Ms. Mardani’s property immediately preceding the vote which illustrate my point: the Planning Commission reached, what I would call, a spur-of-the moment consensus seemingly so that they could move on and get this project over and done with.
If a project does not meet the objective requirements of the Carmel Municipal Code, it should not be approved no matter how many times the Planning and Building Department opines favorably and no matter how many times it is presented to the Planning Commission. Compliance, in this case, is an objective legal requirement and not a subjective decision that can be made by the Planning and Building Department or by the Planning Commission.
Furthermore, it is my belief that, as a citizen of Carmel for more than 45 years, the Planning and Building Department as well as the other bodies of the City Government, owe it to me and to my fellow citizens to ensure that they carry out their duties fairly, justly, and objectively to the very best of their abilities. They cannot simply gloss over and dismiss issues that merit in-depth attention; their position of authority dictates an obligation on their part to present matters in a fair, just, and objective manner, particularly to members of the Planning Commission who may not always have the time to familiarize themselves with intricacies of the Carmel Municipal Code.
In this particular case, the Planning and Building Department has consistently come up with justifications to set aside my concerns that the Mardani project does not meet the requirements of the Carmel Municipal Code. They have done this by using opaque, convoluted, subjective reasoning that simply has no basis in the Carmel Municipal Code. In my opinion, their spurious explanations Attachment 4
3 can only be arrived at by systematically ignoring the facts and can only be understood in the context of motivations which are not rooted in good governance and best practice.
This project has been heard five times by the Planning Commission. Throughout the entire 2 ½ year process, the Planning and Building Department has clearly pronounced itself on the side of the Applicant. They have recommended approval of every set of plans put forward by the Applicant, without reservation, including one that was turned down unanimously by the Planning Commission.
It is incumbent upon the buyer of a property to understand what they are buying, particularly when they purchase a small 562 sq ft cottage on a small non-conforming lot. There is a reason that these three cottages remain today substantially unchanged since they were built in 1946; in these particular circumstances, the Carmel Municipal Code permits demolition, repair, or maintenance, but nothing more.
C. Specific Grounds for Appeal
My specific concerns, based on my reading of the Carmel Municipal Code and my general knowledge of the project, are briefly set out below (please see also Further Background for additional information):
1. The Planning and Building Department failed to require a recent, independent, professional land survey on this property even though this is a requirement under Clause
17.58.040 of the CMC. The lack of a recent, independent, professional land survey has given rise to several issues (please see also #2 below) The reason, as I understand it, that a recent, independent, professional survey has not been required by the City is because, in accordance with the CMC, the City accepts plans (which apparently also qualify as land surveys) submitted by a licensed civil engineer. However, under California State licensing requirements (which supersede those of the City), Ms.
Mardani’s designer/civil engineer does not qualify as a Land Surveyor and therefore is not licensed to provide an official, professional land survey. In any case, Ms. Mardani’s designer/civil engineer has never performed or submitted a land survey and the City did not require her, or anyone else, to do so.
The City argues that the stamped plans constitute a land survey, but it has been established that the stamped plans accepted in lieu of a recent, independent, professional land survey were inaccurate in terms of their portrayal of both the east and composite setbacks (please see email correspondence from May 13, 2023 and May 16, 2023 attached as Appendix 1).
Clause 17.58.040 – B 2 (b)
Submittal Requirements. The applicant shall submit two copies of a topographic survey prepared by a licensed surveyor or a civil engineer prior to submittal of design plans for design review. The survey shall document property boundaries, topographic contours, the location of all trees over two inches DBH, the outline of all existing structures on the property, the location of any easements, existing access, the edge of pavement for all adjoining streets and all existing areas of site coverage.
Attachment 4
4 The lack of a recent, independent, professional land survey led the Planning Commission to conditionally approve the first set of plans presented to them on April 12, 2023 on the basis that the east and composite setbacks were in compliance with current Code even though they are not.
Please see Further Background below for addition discussion on this point.
2. Both the Applicant and I believe that her lot may be less than 2500 sq ft. A property measuring less than 2500 sq ft is not a legal building site.
To this point, in her email of April 19, 2023 (please see Appendix 2), Ms. Mardani states:
The story start when cass family did a new survey and then changed our joint fence by taking 2 feet from my property. I checked with the city at that time and they had a old survey report which says: only slightly different not the whole 2 feet However, city mentioned we are going with the new survey Cass, without giving me notice they took the old fence done and put the new one. (one morning my tenant called me, what is going on? Your neighbor took the fence down!!!:) Actually the whole conflict with them started at that time.
At that time cass told me you might need to change the fence on the other side, since my lot size is 25X100.
Over my project, my architect also noticed my lot size at this moment is 24X100 Basically instead of having 3 feet set back from your fence, I have 2 feet set back I’ve been advised to have a survey done to determine the exact property line.
To make a very long story short, after telling the City that she would have her own independent survey undertaken, Ms. Mardani did not follow through, perhaps because she feared the result.
The argument by the City that the lot was 2500 sq ft when it was established in 1888 is irrelevant. Things change over time and what is relevant today is the size of the lot TODAY, not the size of the lot in 1888. Otherwise, why would applicants be required to do a land survey? It would not be necessary if one could simply refer to the 1888 subdivision map or the 1902 subdivision map, but this is not the way things are (normally) done. And it is certainly not the way things should be done. This is not best practice.
Please see Further Background below for additional discussion on this point.
3. Not only is the property likely to be less than 2500 sq ft, disqualifying it as a legal building site, but also under Section 17.10.020 of the CMC, Ms. Mardani’s property clearly does not qualify as a legal building site since it was under the same ownership as one or more adjoining lots of record on February 4, 1948. (Please see Appendix 3 for the relevant clause of the Carmel Municipal Code).
Although they have tried hard to refute it, the Planning and Building Department and the City Attorney obviously believe my argument has some merit; the Staff Report of June 11th (and the two previous Staff Reports) devote more than half a page to this matter.
Attachment 4
5 The City maintains that although, according to the CMC, the property would not qualify as a legal building site, it does qualify due to the City’s interpretation of the intention of the CMC and the fact that the lot was originally legally created as a 2500 sq ft lot. They contend, without objective justification, that the exact wording of the CMC is irrelevant in this case.
But I contend that their interpretation of what they think the CMC was INTENDED to mean is irrelevant. Their interpretation is subjective as opposed to objective. What is relevant is what the CMC actually says and, according to the CMC, as it is written, the lot is not a legal building site because it is almost certainly smaller than 2500 sq ft TODAY, and, on top of that, it was owned by the same person(s) as the adjoining lot on February 4, 1948.
4. The lack of a recent, independent, professional land survey in combination with the survey commissioned by Mr. Cass, her neighbor to the west, also caused me (and presumably the Planning and Building Department and the Applicant) to become aware that Ms.
Mardani’s cottage is non-conforming in terms of its east and composite setbacks. Under Sections CMC 17.36.030, CMC 17.36.040, CMC 15.04.020, and CMC 17.70.020, nonconforming setbacks combined with demolition of greater than 50% of a building or structure (a wall is a structure) trigger rebuilding to current code (please see Appendix 4 for detail on relevant clauses of the CMC).
The likely requirement to bring the entire cottage up to current code has not been thoroughly researched and acknowledged by the Planning and Building Department. To the contrary, they leave open the possibility, by way of the fact that they have not required any substantiating calculations, that non-conforming walls sitting in the setbacks (there are two) can be substantially demolished (by 50% or more) without requiring them to be rebuilt up to current code. There are many implications related to this lack of clarity upfront including the probability that the greatly increased cost of tearing down the existing structure and rebuilding it up to current code would deter and possibly prohibit the Applicant from undertaking the project.
The City Council will most likely be familiar with the similar case that was the subject of an article in the January 26-February 1, 2024 edition of the Pine Cone with the subtitle “Demolition triggered setback rule”.
In the case of a wall constructed in and existing unchanged since 1946, how does one possibly take away windows and doors from one area of a wall and add them in another (filling in the resulting structural deficits and cutting new openings where the windows and doors have been removed and added, both requiring destruction of the cladding inside and out), add insulation, add required fire protection (much more onerous due to the fact that the wall is in the setback), and make necessary changes to the roof above without demolishing more than 50% of the existing structure (the wall) and triggering the requirement to rebuild up to current Code including moving the wall, the foundation, and the roof out of the setback? It is simply not a realistic assumption to believe that the substantial modifications of Ms. Mardani’s property as proposed and approved, including those to the 34’ east wall in the setback bordering on my property and Mr. Boyd’s property, will not trigger the requirement to rebuild the east wall, the west wall, and the entire house up to current Code.
Attachment 4
6 Given the circumstances, this probability should not be left open at the planning stage – the negative repercussions for everyone concerned, particularly for Ms. Mardani, are too significant.
I have examined the county records and this property has changed hands many times since it was constructed in 1946, including a number of times in the recent past. Ms. Mardani’s former neighbors, Mr. Cass and his daughter Rebecca, faced the same issue in renovating their cottage on the west side of Ms. Mardani’s property. They mentioned that they were compelled to modify and scale back their renovation plans because their east wall was also in the setback (please see the email from John Mandurrago to this effect contained in Appendix 8).
Is there one set of rules for one applicant and another set of rules for others? It is incumbent upon the buyer of a property to understand what they are buying, particularly when they purchase a small 562 sqft cottage on a small non-conforming lot.
There is a reason that these three cottages remain today substantially unchanged since they were built in 1946; in these particular circumstances, the Carmel Municipal Code permits demolition, repair, or maintenance, but nothing more.
Please see Further Background below for additional discussion on this point.
5. Staff recommends that the project be found categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities on the basis that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition.
However, it is clear that the project entails more than a 100% increase in floor area and that the exemption, therefore, does not apply. One has only to look at the agenda for the June 11, 2024 meeting that appears on the City website to confirm this.
DS 21-376 (Mardani): Consideration of a Final Design Study, DS 21-376 (Mardani), and associated Coastal Development Permit for one-story additions totaling 333 square feet to a one-story, 562-square-foot cottage and construction of a 230-squarefoot detached garage in the front yard setback located on Ocean Avenue 4 northeast of Guadalupe Street in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District. APN: 010-033- 011-000.
A recently added “parking pad” composed of a pile of carefully arranged gravel does not constitute a “structure” for the purposes of exemption from CEQA and an attempt to qualify it as such is dishonest at best. I don’t know if a “parking pad” such as this would require a permit or not but I do know that it does not appear on any of the 13 sets of plans that I have reviewed, including the most recent, except on the cover page in writing only in the legend in the top righthand corner, and beginning only with the second most recent set of plans submitted. The “parking pad” did not appear, even in writing in the legend on the cover page, in the set of plans considered by the Planning Commission as recently as April 12th 2023 because it did not exist at that time. Please see Appendices 5 and 6.
As part of my preparation for this paper, I just went back and downloaded the plans for the April 12th 2023 Planning Commission hearing and see now that the parking pad has been Attachment 4
7 added in red (please check the plans yourselves to see what I mean). I’m not sure what is going on but I have an email (attached as part of Appendix 6) with the original April 12th plans attached and they do not show the parking pad.
It would seem to be a recent concoction with the express purpose of avoiding CEQA requirements. It is not an approved structure, it does not appear on the plans, and therefore, it must be excluded from the calculation.
Please see Further Background below for additional discussion on this point.
D. Supporting Comments by Applicant’s Attorney during the Planning Commission Hearing on June 11, 2024
While I am not privy to the arrangement between the Applicant and her attorney, Thomas Trapani’s LinkedIn profile states that he is a Senior Trial Counsel at Fidelity National Law Group and that he is one of the Major Claims Counsel for Title Insurance and Escrow Cases. This information begs the question why, if everything is in good order, Ms. Mardani and/or her title company would require the support of an attorney with Mr. Trapani’s background. Regardless of the reason that Ms.
Mardani and/or her title company would require Mr. Trapani’s services:
1. During the recent Planning Commission hearing on June 11th, Mr. Trapani mentioned that the points I am making to the Planning and Building Department and to the Planning Commission are too late in coming, that they are “water under the bridge” (or something to that effect).
He notably did not say that they were invalid. Furthermore, Ms. Mardani did not have an attorney present prior to the two most recent Planning Commission hearings so he may not be aware that I have consistently raised these points in past hearings of the Planning Commission and to the Planning and Building Department.
As a professional Major Claims Counsel for Title Insurance and Escrow Cases, Mr. Trapani will surely understand why I continue to raise the same points; I justifiably feel compelled to bring them up again due to the fact that they have not, up until today, been satisfactorily addressed. They all have major implications with regard to the validity of the Planning Commission’s approval.
2. Mr. Trapani also mentioned that Ms. Mardani had been told by the Planning and Building Department that she could expand the 562 sq ft cottage she bought, implying that there were no impediments to her doing so from the viewpoint of the City.
Based on her email to me (please see below and Appendix 7) and discussions I have had with the Applicant, this is true and herein lies what I believe, in my personal opinion, to be a possible reason that the Planning and Building Department appears unjustifiably eager to have this project approved to the extent that it is willing to ignore careful review and analysis as well as to seemingly bend the rules to accommodate shortcomings/inconsistencies in a project that clearly does not meet City standards.
Ms. Mardani states in her email dated November 10, 2023:
My children’s father lives in pebble beach. At the time of the divorce I could only afford to buy this house. Before closing the deal I asked seller to give me two weeks to get the Attachment 4
8 historical evaluation on this property. Seller did not have any reports and when I called city Marnie answered the phone. She checked the lot history and told me I can have maximum 1125sf. However I need a historical evaluation.
The agent said, she thinks it’s easy to get a second story permit since there are 4 other second story houses on the block. My intention was clear from day one.
It seems plausible to me that Marnie Waffle, when she answered the phone, told the Applicant that she could expand her small 562 sq ft cottage on a small non-conforming lot (perhaps this was not obvious at the time since no recent, independent, professional survey was available) or that the Applicant interpreted her words in this way. The Applicant was obviously unaware of the intricacies of the planning and building process in Carmel, and therefore the Applicant bought the property based on what Ms. Waffle had told her believing that she could build whatever she wanted up to 1125 sq ft.
If this is the case, I can only imagine how Ms. Waffle must feel when the Applicant’s attorney raises this point.
This project has been heard five times by the Planning Commission. Throughout the entire 2 ½ year process, the Planning and Building Department has clearly pronounced itself on the side of the Applicant. They have recommended approval of every set of plans put forward by the Applicant including one that was turned down unanimously by the Planning Commission.
It is incumbent upon the buyer of a property to understand what they are buying, particularly when they purchase a small, non-conforming 562 sqft cottage on a small, nonconforming lot. There is a reason that these three cottages remain today substantially unchanged since they were built in 1946; in these particular circumstances, the Carmel Municipal Code permits demolition, repair, or maintenance, but nothing more.
3. Finally, Mr. Trapani mentioned that Ms. Mardani has made compromises in her plans to appease the neighbors. He mentioned that a lawsuit was filed and then dropped, implying (but carefully not stating) that it was dropped because there was no longer an issue.
It is true that Ms. Mardani has made compromises based on requirements and decisions of the Planning Commission although, notably, the Planning and Building Department did not recommend these changes in their Staff Reports. In spite of these forced compromises, not only has Ms. Mardani angered literally all of her neighbors in the process, but Tim Cass and his daughter, her previous neighbors to the west, made the decision to sell their beautiful, newly renovated property out of utter frustration with their new neighbor and her actions including cutting their significant oak tree illegally and attempting to block off driveway access to their house and the other neighboring cottage.
The Cass Family dropped their lawsuit because they decided it was better for their overall well-being to simply sell their house and move away.
I ask that the City Council review this project and overturn the June 11th approval of the Planning Commission on the basis that it does not comply with the applicable requirements as set out under the Carmel Municipal Code and, therefore, should have never been presented to and/or considered by the Planning Commission in the first place.
Attachment 4
9 I also challenge the Planning and Building Department/Planning Commission’s June 11, 2024 decision to categorically exempt the project from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities and ask that this also be overturned.
Thank you.
Attachment 4
10 Further Background
The lot does not qualify as a Legal Building Site for two reasons Likely to be less than 2500 sq ft
The argument by the City that the lot was 2500 sq ft when it was established in 1888 is irrelevant.
Things change over time and what is relevant today is the size of the lot TODAY, not the size of the lot in 1888. Otherwise, why would applicants be required to do a land survey? It would not be necessary if one could simply refer to the 1888 subdivision map or the 1902 subdivision map, but this is not the way things are (normally) done. And it is certainly not the way things should be done.
This is not best practice.
Second, in the very unlikely case that the lot is 2500 sq ft, it is disqualified as a legal building site because it was in the same ownership as one or more adjoining lots of record on February 4, 1948.
Although they have tried hard to refute it, the Planning and Building Department and the City Attorney obviously believe my argument has some merit; the Staff Report of June 11th (and the two previous Staff Reports) devote more than half a page to this matter. Staff (with the help of the City Attorney and based on precedent apparently set by Don Freeman, the City Attorney quite a few years back) conclude that, although the lot was owned by the same person(s) as the adjoining lot on February 4, 1948 and thus, according to the CMC, would not qualify as a legal building site, it does qualify due to the City’s interpretation of the intention of the CMC and the fact that the lot was originally legally created as a 2500 sq ft lot. They contend, without objective justification, that the exact wording of the CMC is irrelevant in this case.
But I contend that their interpretation of what they think the CMC was INTENDED to mean is irrelevant. Their interpretation is subjective as opposed to objective. What is relevant is what the CMC actually says and, according to the CMC, as it is written, the lot is not a legal building site because it is almost certainly smaller than 2500 sq ft TODAY, and it was owned by the same person(s) as the adjoining lot on February 4, 1948.
The small size has been confirmed by Ms. Mardani, on the advice of her architect, in writing and would be confirmed by a land survey if an independent, professional land survey were to be carried out today. It is a fact that the property was in the same ownership as the adjoining lot on February 4, 1948.
What matters is the size of the lot today and the wording of the CMC as it stands today.
The size of the lot in 1888 or 1902 is not relevant today and the City’s interpretation of what the Code was intended to mean is also not relevant.
Lack of a recent, independent, professional land survey led to the discovery that east side and composite setbacks are non-conforming
In this case, it is important to step back and consider the background as to why a recent, independent, professional land survey should have been required but wasn’t and how this fact led to Attachment 4
11 the inadvertent discovery of Ms. Mardani’s non-conforming east and composite setbacks (as acknowledged in her email contained in Appendix 2).
This discovery was made only after the Planning Commission had given its conditional approval to one of Ms. Mardani’s previous plans on April 12, 2023. In other words, the Planning Commission was led to make a decision on an erroneous basis because the Planning and Building Department failed to require a recent, independent, professional land survey in the case of Ms. Mardani’s project. The previous plan conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2023 incorrectly indicated that the setback of the east wall of Ms. Mardani’s house was 3’ as required and that the composite setback was 7’ even though this is not the case.
The reason, as I understand it, that a recent, independent, professional survey has not been required by the City is because, in accordance with the CMC, the City accepts plans (which apparently also qualify as land surveys) submitted by a licensed civil engineer. However, under California State licensing requirements (which supersede those of the City), Ms. Mardani’s designer/civil engineer does not qualify as a Land Surveyor and therefore is not licensed to provide an official, professional land survey. In any case, Ms. Mardani’s designer/civil engineer has never performed or submitted a land survey and the City did not require her, or anyone else, to do so.
Notwithstanding the qualifications of her designer/civil engineer, Ms. Mardani’s previous drawings as presented to the Planning Commission and conditionally approved, were inaccurate and failed to correctly illustrate the non-conforming setback of the east wall and the non-comforming composite side setbacks of her cottage. After much discussion, Ms. Waffle remembered a survey of Ms.
Mardani’s lot which had been prepared in the year 2002 by Mark Doolittle showing the nonconforming setbacks.
The event that inadvertently led to the realization of the fact that Ms. Mardani’s plans did not accurately portray the non-conforming setback of the east wall and the non-conforming composite setback of her cottage, was the land survey commissioned by her (now previous) neighbor on the west side, Tim Cass. As mentioned above, his survey resulted in him moving his fence up to two feet in some places, according to Ms. Mardani, towards the east into what Ms. Mardani had thought was her property based on the previous fence line. As a result of this, Ms. Mardani feared that her lot was actually smaller than 25’ X 100’ as expressed in her email to me referenced above and I assume that she then (I am not sure of the exact timing) came to realize that her east wall was nonconforming in that it was sitting in the setback and that the composite setback was non-conforming as well.
To make a very long story short, after telling the City that she would have her own independent survey undertaken, Ms. Mardani did not follow through, perhaps because she feared the result. She apparently came to accept that our neighbor Marc Boyd’s fence and my fence are on or within our property lines and that her east wall is in the setback adjacent to our properties. In addition, her composite setback is non-conforming in that it is not 7’ as required.
This long, drawn out exercise (at one point the corner post of my fence anchored in concrete was almost dug out of the ground by someone) caused me and Ms. Mardani’s two other neighbors (Mr.
Cass and Mr. Boyd) a great deal of anxiety. Although I am not sure, I believe it likely that Ms.
Mardani did not realize that the east wall of her cottage was situated within the setback when she bought her property, particularly given the fact that she did not have a professional survey carried out prior to her purchase.
Attachment 4
12 I have examined the county records and this property has changed hands many times since it was constructed in 1946, including a number of times in the recent past. Ms. Mardani’s former neighbors, Mr. Cass and his daughter Rebecca, faced the same issue in renovating their cottage on the west side of Ms. Mardani’s property. They mentioned that they were compelled to modify and scale back their renovation plans because their east wall was also in the setback (please see the email from John Mandurrago to this effect contained in Appendix 8).
Is there one set of rules for one applicant and another set of rules for others? It is incumbent upon the buyer of a property to understand what they are buying, particularly when they purchase a small 562 sqft cottage on a small non-conforming lot. There is a reason that these three cottages remain today substantially unchanged since they were built in 1946; in these particular circumstances, the Carmel Municipal Code permits demolition, repair, or maintenance, but nothing more.
Consequences of Non-Conforming Setbacks; Demolition of more than 50% of existing walls triggers rebuilding to current code
Under Sections CMC 17.36.030, CMC 17.36.040, CMC 15.04.020, and CMC 17.70.020, nonconforming setbacks combined with demolition greater than 50% of a building or structure (a wall is a structure) trigger rebuilding to current code (please see Appendix 4 for detail on relevant clauses of the CMC)
Another issue I brought up to the City, once it came to light that Ms. Mardini’s east and composite setbacks are nonconforming and given the fact that more than 50% of the exterior walls of the existing building will be demolished, is whether the nonconforming walls and foundations, and most likely the entire structure (including the foundation) will have to be rebuilt up to current code. This would be a substantial departure from the current plan and this requirement would, therefore, necessarily have to be acknowledged and planned for in advance at the planning stage.
This issue will be familiar to the City Council and is particularly relevant given the article which appeared in the January 26-February 1, 2024 edition of the Pine Cone with the subtitle “Demolition triggered setback rule”. It is clear that the Planning and Building Department and the Planning Commission are well aware of the rules regarding alteration of nonconforming structures (please note that a wall is a structure in and of itself) and the fact that, as documented in the article in the Pine Cone, “the city defines demolition as removal of more than 50% of the walls. Doing that would trigger the requirement that nonconforming parts of the home be rebuilt to meet current codes – in this case setbacks.”
The Building and Planning Department acknowledge that more than 50 percent of the exterior walls will be demolished. And yet, Ms. Waffle states in several versions of her previous Staff Reports including the most recent, “Occasionally, applicants will retain portions of existing walls to preserve a setback nonconformity.” She then goes on to describe how the east and composite setbacks do not meet the required distances of 3’ and 7’, respectively, and mentions, once again, that the Applicant proposes to retain the nonconforming wall in order to preserve the setback nonconformity as if “preserving” the setback nonconformity were the prerogative of the Applicant. In this case, it clearly is not. What Ms. Waffle also fails to mention in her analysis is that the Applicant will be substantially modifying and adding windows and doors in the existing east, west, and front walls.
Attachment 4
13 She will be adding insulation materials. Furthermore, any modification/addition of windows and doors in nonconforming walls, sitting in the setbacks, would lead to the enforcement of strict and prohibitively expensive fire code compliance. Compliance with these requirements would most likely, in and of itself, trigger the 50% demolition rule.
And yet, the Planning and Building Department continue to deny that this is the case based on their own subjective, convoluted, and opaque interpretation of the CMC.
Quoting from the Staff Report dated June 11, 2024, Ms. Waffle states:
Rather than reconstruct the walls to meet minimum setback requirements, the applicant proposes to retain the east wall of the cottage to preserve the setback non-conformity. In accordance with the definition of demolition, this wall is considered demolished even though it is proposed to be retained and is therefore included in the calculation for determining whether 50 percent or more of the exterior walls are being removed. However, because it is being retained, the Code does not require that it be altered to comply with current setback standards. That being said, if the eastern wall is identified for removal in the construction drawings (e.g. for structural reasons or otherwise) or subsequently removed by the contractor during construction, it is required to be rebuilt in conformance with the required setbacks.
In the case of a wall constructed in and existing unchanged since 1946, how does one possibly take away windows and doors from one area of a wall and add them in another (filling in the resulting structural deficits and cutting new openings where the windows and doors have been removed and added, both requiring destruction of the cladding inside and out), add insulation, add required fire protection (much more onerous due to the fact that the wall is in the setback), and make necessary changes to the roof above without demolishing more than 50% of the existing structure (the wall) and triggering the requirement to rebuild up to current Code including moving the wall, the foundation, and the roof out of the setback? It is simply not a realistic assumption to believe that the substantial modifications of Ms. Mardani’s property as proposed and approved, including those to the 34’ east wall in the setback bordering on my property and Mr. Boyd’s property, will not trigger the requirement to rebuild the east wall, the west wall, and the entire house up to current Code.
The CMC is clear: the nonconforming walls must be considered as demolished if an area of more than 50% is modified and, therefore, must be rebuilt in accordance with current code. As the east wall is in the setback, the west wall is also affected due to the fact that the composite setback is also non-conforming. Since more than 50% of all of the exterior walls of the existing structure will be demolished, the entire house, including the east and west walls, must be rebuilt up to current Code.
If the City does not believe this to be the case, why don’t they simply require the Applicant’s designer/engineer to make a calculation of the percentage of each of these structures/walls that will be demolished?
Related to this issue is the fact that the Planning Commission, in its hearing of February 13, 2024, the hearing prior to the most recent hearing on June 11th, introduced a Required Condition for Concept Acceptance, stipulating that the Applicant “shall increase the side yard setbacks at the front addition to achieve the minimum required composite setback of 7 feet.” In Attachment 2 to the Staff Report dated June 11th, the Applicant stated that, “Plan has been revised to achieve the minimum required composite setback of 7 feet.” Attachment 4
14 However, upon checking of the new plans, nothing has changed. The front addition is still exactly the same at 63 sq ft. The Applicant has added “ 4.3’ ” on the plan to deceptively indicate that the composite setback (4.3+2.7) will be 7’ and has changed Page A.1 to show a front width of 18’1’ instead of 18’6” as shown in the previous plan. The Applicant may have even redrawn the line on the plan to indicate that the wall in question has been moved back by 5”. (For illustrative proof of this, please refer to Appendices 9 and 10 containing the relevant sections of the plans before and after the supposed satisfaction of the Planning Commission’s Condition.) The fact remains that the front addition measures 63 sq ft according to the new plans even though the wall has supposedly been moved back 5”. How can this possibly be correct? Is she planning to move the property line westward? If not, the proposed addition cannot have the same square footage as shown in the previous plan nor can the total square footage of the updated proposed floor area remain the same at 1125 sq ft. Something else in the plan would have had to have changed to make this possible, but needless to say, it has not. The Applicant clearly has no real intention of making this change and the City is clearly giving its tacit approval by not pointing this discrepancy out to the Planning Commission.
This demonstrates another clear lack of oversight on the part of the Planning and Building Department and is another indication of the deficit of care that has allowed the project to progress to this late stage. This failure of compliance cannot simply be brushed aside. It is an afront to the integrity of the City’s planning process and must be taken seriously and acted upon.
Compliance, in this case, is an objective legal requirement and not a subjective decision that can be made by the Planning Commission or by the Planning and Building Department.
A “parking pad” composed of a pile of carefully curated gravel does not constitute a structure that can be included in the calculation of existing floor area for the purposes of CEQA requirements Staff recommends that the project be found categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities on the basis that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition even though the project entails a 100% increase in floor area While I am by no means an expert on this, I looked up Section 15301 myself and the project does not qualify for exemption as the addition (not counting the garage) is 333/562 = 59%. Including the garage, it is (333+230)/562 = 100%.
I learned that, for all categorical exemptions, it is the responsibility of the Lead Agency to demonstrate and determine that the proposed action falls within an exempt category, and to support this determination with factual evidence.
Following the Planning Commission hearing on June 11th, I emailed the Planning and Building Department to ask for clarification as to how the Mardani project qualifies for a categorical exemption from CEQA and they confirmed that they are including the “parking pad” in the calculation. Again, I must conclude that this is another example of the City choosing to try to bend the rules in order to facilitate/expedite approval of a project that should be subject to the just, fair, and objective application of existing regulations.
When the existing structure is 562 sq ft and the proposed structure is 1,125 sq ft, adding a new 200 sq ft pile of gravel, calling it a “parking pad”, and claiming it as part of the existing structure totaling Attachment 4
15 762 sq ft cannot be done in good faith. The “parking pad” did not appear in the set of plans considered by the Planning Commission on April 12th 2023 because it did not exist at that time and it appears only in words in the legend at the top righthand corner of the cover page (but not in the plans themselves) after that date. It is a recent concoction. It is not an approved structure and therefore must be excluded from the calculation.
Appendix 3
17.10.020 Dimensional Standards – Lots, Parcels and Building Sites.
A. Legal Building Site Required. Parcels not meeting the criteria for legal building sites shall not be issued any building permits, other than permits for demolition, repair or maintenance, until the parcel has been brought into compliance with this section. A parcel of land within the R-1 land use district shall meet one of the following standards to be considered a legal building site:
1. At Least 2,500 Square Feet. A single, independent lot of record in existence on February 4, 1948, with at least 2,500 square feet of land area that was not in the same ownership as one or more adjoining lots of record on that date; or
2. Two Thousand Five Hundred Square Feet or More. Any lot of record of 2,500 square feet or more, that on February 4, 1948, was in the same ownership as one or more adjoining lots of record and qualifies under one of the criteria below:
a. A parcel of land in the form of a rectangle having at least 3,700 square feet, composed of 2,500-square-foot lots of record and/or portions thereof that existed on February 4, 1948, and which have been reconfigured either by a lot line adjustment or by a merger of lots in conformance with CMC 17.10.040, Lot Mergers.
b. A parcel of land in the form of a rectangle having at least 5,000 square feet, composed of two or more whole 2,500-square-foot lots of record that existed on February 4, 1948, and which has been formed by a merger of lots in conformance with CMC 17.10.040, Lot Mergers.
Attachment 4
16 Appendix 4
The Community Planning and Building Department Information Handout – Non-Comformities also states:
The voluntary demolition of any nonconforming building or structure shall require that all new construction on the site meet all requirements for new buildings and structures.
Please also see CMC 17.36.030, CMC 17.36.040, CMC 15.04.020, and CMC 17.70.020 below (and in Appendices 12, 13, and 14).
Relevant sections of the CMC
17.36.030
A. A lawful nonconforming structure may be maintained, repaired, or altered as long as such maintenance, repair, or alteration does not increase the nonconformity and all work performed conforms to all of the requirements of this chapter.
B. Alterations, repairs, or remodeling that enlarge, extend or increase a nonconforming feature of a building shall be prohibited, except as provided in CMC 17.32.100 (D) for historic resources.
17.36.040
D. The demolition of any nonconforming building or structure shall require that all new construction on the site meet all requirements for new buildings and structures.
E. The substantial alteration of any nonconforming building or structure, that includes removal of any nonconforming building element or structural element, shall require correction of that specific nonconforming building element or structural element in conformance with all requirements for new construction.
15.04.020 Definitions.
A. As used in this title, unless otherwise apparent from the context, the following words and phrases shall have the stated meaning:
12. “Rebuilding” is the act of making extensive repairs and/or modifications to an existing building or structure. “Rebuilding” shall include, but not be limited to:
a. The removal/takedown from any building or structure of more than or equal to 50 percent of any of the following:
i. The external surfaces or cladding of exterior walls; and/or Attachment 4
17 ii. The structural framing of exterior walls; and/or iii. The roof framing; and/or
b. Obscuring from view 50 percent or more of the exterior walls or wall cladding of any building or structure through construction of an addition, or by application of an exterior material over the existing exterior material.
Portions of walls, wall cladding, wall framing, or roof framing proposed to be retained shall be considered rebuilt if less than 10 feet in length for walls, wall cladding, or wall framing, or less than 100 square feet of roof framing remain. All such portions of walls, wall cladding, wall framing, or roof framing shall be included in the calculation of the total amount of walls, wall cladding, wall framing, or roof framing and considered rebuilt.
Portions of walls, wall cladding, wall framing, or roof framing that are nonconforming (Chapter 17.36 CMC, Nonconforming Uses and Buildings), and are not proposed for removal/takedown, shall not be included in the calculation of the total amount of walls, wall cladding, wall framing, or roof framing to be retained.
17.70.020 Definitions.
The words, terms, and phrases defined in this chapter shall, for all purposes connected with this title, be construed as having the meanings respectively set forth in this chapter.
Demolition. The act of reconstructing, removing, taking down or destroying all or portions of an existing building or structure, or making extensive repairs or modifications to an existing building or structure, if such changes involve removal or replacement of 50 percent or more of both the structural framing and cladding or of the exterior walls within a 24-month period. When determining whether a building or structure is demolished, the following applies:
A. The nonconforming portions of any wall is counted as removed or taken down, even when retention of these portions is proposed.
B. Any continuous run of remaining exterior wall surfaces measuring 10 feet or less in length are counted as removed or replaced.
Structure. A stable assembly of parts. The term “structure” includes, but is not limited to, any building, deck, garage, carport, arbor, fence, wall, stairway, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and distribution line.
Furthermore, based on Ms. Mardani’s response included as Attachment 2 to the project Staff Report dated June 11, 2024, it is my considered opinion that this project does not meet the Conditions for Concept Acceptance required by the Planning Commission for final approval even though the Planning and Building Department told the Planning Commission that it did.
I would also like the City Council to know that my appeal is based on my conscientious attempt to objectively study the project as it has been presented by both the Applicant and the Planning and Attachment 4
18 Building Department to the Planning Commission. I work for an agency of the US Government at the US Embassy in Jakarta and I unfortunately cannot be continuously physically present in Carmel in order to research and obtain answers to my many questions. I must therefore rely on the Planning and Building Department to answer my questions by email and this has proven problematic throughout the 2 ½ years that this project has been moving through the planning and approval process. In the instances where I do receive answers to my queries, I receive them one or two days prior to the hearing by means of the Staff Report or, in some instances, even during the Planning Commission
hearing itself. I then have no possibility to ask relevant questions, get answers to them, and to then respond based on the information received. This is not best practice by any means.
She happens to be my neighbor and her cottage happens to be lying in the setback along our common property line.
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Attachment 4
Rev. 04.17.2023
Residential Track 2 Design Study Submittal Process
When is a Preliminary Site Assessment Required?
A Preliminary Site Assessment (PSA) is required prior to the submission of a Track 2 Design Study:
Process
The applicant is required to submit two copies of a topographic survey that is stamped and signed by a licensed surveyor. The survey will be reviewed by the City Forester and a Planning representative during a site visit to the subject residence. The Forester will review all trees on site and will classify each tree according to its significance and note important limbs that are low enough to encroach into potential building areas, as well as areas where excavation or fill should be avoided to protect tree roots. Additionally, the forester will note the species, approximate drip line, and state of health of each tree.
The Planner will note design characteristics of the public right-of-way, including landscaping, excess paving, and access opportunities or constraints; design patterns and context of the immediate neighborhood, including the number of stories, exterior materials, setbacks, and open space/landscaping features; potential view and privacy issues on neighboring lots; the potential for using setback exceptions, garden levels, basements, and other features of the Zoning Ordinance; and unusual grade conditions or prior excavations that may require an approximation of natural grade in planning the building or calculating heights. The Planner will also conduct an initial assessment of historical significance and potentially issue a Notice of Ineligibility for the Historic Resources Inventory.
After the site visit, the Forester will annotate copies of the survey, and the Planner will complete a Preliminary Site Assessment report. A copy of the report and the survey will be provided to the applicant by the Community Planning and Building Department.
Submittal Checklist
1. General Planning Application
2. A dimensioned topographic survey prepared by a licensed surveyor or a civil engineer. The survey shall document property boundaries, topographic contours, the location of all trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) over two inches, the outline of all existing structures on the property, the location of any easements, existing access, the edge of pavement for all adjoining streets, and all existing areas of site coverage.
The property owner authorizes City Staff to visit the site and conduct the site assessment The property owner requires that a specific time be scheduled for the site assessment, but the owner or the owner’s representative need not be present The property owner or agent must be present during the site assessment.
Attachment 5
OCEAN AVE
FLOW LINE
PLPL
PL
PL
OCEAN AVE
FLOW LINE
PLPL
PL
PL
N
N
Attachment 6
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
LOT 6, BLOCK 164
1 - C&T - 52
( A 100 FOOT WIDE CITY STREE T)
OCE AN AV ENUE
( A 50 FOOT WIDE CITY STREET )
CARPENTER STREET
LOT 7, BLOCK 164
1 - C&T - 52
LOT 8, BLOCK 164
1 - C&T - 52
LOT 9, BLOCK 164
1 - C&T - 52
CORNER RECORD 2538 by GUY GIRAUDOCORNER RECORD 866 by MARK DOOLITTLECORNER RECORD 2395 by FRANK LUCIDO JR.CORNER RECORD 2429 by FRANK LUCIDO JR.
LEGEND:
Records of Monterey County
PREPARED FOR
Azadeh Mardani
SCALE: 1"=8' PROJECT No. 3547 JULY 2024
Boundary and Construction Surveys · Topographic and Planimetric Mapping ALTA Surveys and GIS Database Management · Land Planning and Consulting BY
LUCIDO SURVEYORS
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA COUNTY OF MONTEREY STATE OF CALIFORNIA Lot 6, Block 164
OF
PER
Voluem 1 of Cities & Towns at Page 52
ONE SHEET ONLY
[email protected]
DEL REY OAKS, CALIFORNIA 93940 (831) 620-5032
2 Saucito Avenue
AND SUBJECT TO REVISION AT ANY TIME.
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDINGS (IF ANY) IS SHOWN APPROXIMATE ONLY,
S R Y O
S U R V E
I
L U C D O
THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY PREPARED BY ME AND/OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, FROM FIELD DATA COLLECTED IN JULY OF 2024.
4. A CORNER RECORD IS CURRENTLY IN THE SUBMITTAL PROCESS WITH THE COUNTY.
3. 2.
MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE SHOWN.
ENTITLEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES AFFECTING THIS PROPERTY
DISTANCES SHOWN ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.
BOUNDARY LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON WERE DETERMINED WITH THE BENEFIT OF A FIELD SURVEY SUPPLEMENTED BY RECORD DATA.
ALL BOUNDARY DATA SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM THE RECORDS.
NOTES:
1. LOT 6 = 2,500 SQUARE FEET
ORIGINALLY SURVEYED IN 1888 (1 - C&T - 52)
SURVEYED AGAIN IN 2003 (CR 866) = 2,500 SQUARE FEET
LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS:
IRREGULAR SHAPE OF BRICK FACING, POP-OUTS, BULL NOSE CORNERS, ETC.
ARE SHOWN HEREON APPROXIMATE ONLY DUE TO MEASUREMENT LIMITATIONS,
5. POSITION AND DIMENSIONS (IF ANY) OF BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES
6. SURVEYED AGAIN IN 2021 (CR 2395) = 2,500 SQUARE FEET ORIGINALLY SURVEYED IN 1888 (1 - C&T - 52)
LOT 7 = 2,500 SQUARE FEET
SURVEYED AGAIN IN 2022 (CR 2429) = 2,500 SQUARE FEET
LOT 8 = 2,500 SQUARE FEET
ORIGINALLY SURVEYED IN 1888 (1 - C&T - 52)
SURVEYED AGAIN IN 2023 (CR 2538) = 2,500 SQUARE FEET
SURVEYED AGAIN IN 2023 (CR 2538) = 2,500 SQUARE FEET
LOT 9 = 2,500 SQUARE FEET
ORIGINALLY SURVEYED IN 1888 (1 - C&T - 52)
ALL THREE HOUSE ARE CLOSER THAN 3.0 FEET TO THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPERTY LINES.
THE REMAINING LOTS HAVE BEEN ALTERED AND NO RECORDS OF ANY SUBSEQUENT SURVEYS ARE ALL THREE HOUSES ARE SKEWED TO THE PROPERTY LINES IN A VERY CONSISTENT MANNER.
NOTE THAT THE DIMENSIONS ARE INDICATING THEM CLOSER IN FRONT; AND FARTHER IN BACK.
THERE ARE ONLY FOUR LOTS ON THIS BLOCK THAT ARE STILL IN THEIR ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION AS SURVEYED IN 1888.
HOUSE FOOTPRINT RELATION TO PROPERTY LINE:
OF THESE FOUR ORIGINAL LOTS (SHOWN ABOVE AS LISTED IN "LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS"), ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES.
THREE HOUSES (OR PORTIONS THEREOF) WERE MEASURED TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
SURVEYED AGAIN IN 2024 (CR IN PROGRESS) = 2,500 SQUARE FEET Attachment 10
Attachment 11
Attachment 11
Attachment 11