Agenda packet — Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council, April 1, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

2024 hearing and requested the reconsideration of a Combined Concept and Final Hearing at an December 11, 2024 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the project was again continued with direction to the Applicant to revise the project to address impacts to the northern neighbor; and
WHEREAS, the applicant was aggrieved by the decision and following the hearing, requested a denial of the application to pursue an appeal of the decision; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CMC 17.58.040.B, “Applicants unwilling to make the revisions directed by the PC in a provisionally accepted concept design or continued design concept may request denial of the project so that an appeal may be filed. A denial shall not be complete until findings are adopted;” and
WHEREAS, this resolution includes findings for denial based on the continued discussion at the July 12, 2023, August 14, 2024, and December 11, 2024 meetings, and plans presented at the December 11, 2024 hearing; and
WHEREAS, on January 3, 2025, a notice of the public hearing scheduled for January 15, 2025, 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 January 5, 2025, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before January 3, 2025, 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 January 15, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Final Design Study, Lot Merger, and associated Coastal Development Permit, including, without limitation, the information provided to the Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission found that pursuant to CEQA regulations, the Application is Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). According to Section 15270 of CEQA, State CEQA guidelines, and local environmental regulations, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; 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
Docusign Envelope ID: A8F7353A-966B-468C-92DE-57F437E9830F Attachment 4
Resolution 2025-005-PC Amended January 15, 2025
DS 22-057 (Lim)
January 15, 2025

Page 3 of 5 ends

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 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-By-TheSea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Concept Design Study:

FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR CONCEPT DESIGN STUDY ACCEPTANCE
For each of the required design study findings listed below, staff has indicated whether the concept plans submitted or as recommended to be conditioned support adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no" the staff report discusses the issues to facilitate decision-making by the Planning Commission. Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the staff report depending on the issues.

CMC Section 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 or variances consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. ✔

2. The project is consistent with the City’s design objectives for protection and enhancement of 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-site and in the public right-of-way that is characteristic of the neighborhood.
✔

3. The project avoids complexity using simple building forms, a simple roof plan and a 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.
✔

4. 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 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 set back a minimum of six feet from significant trees. ✔
Amended Finding from January 15, 2025 hearing: The project does not comply with Finding #6. The project does not comply with General Plan Policy P1-51 as that the project failed to meet the design objectives described in Finding #5. -Refer to staff report for finding associated with finding #5.

Docusign Envelope ID: A8F7353A-966B-468C-92DE-57F437E9830F Attachment 4
Resolution 2025-005-PC Amended January 15, 2025
DS 22-057 (Lim)
January 15, 2025

Page 4 of 5 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-TheSea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Final 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 decision-making. 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.
✔

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. ✔

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.
✔

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. ✔
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-TheSea 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 decision-making. 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 Carmel-by-the-Sea Local Coastal Program.
✔

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). ✔
#2 Finding: The proposed development is located between the first public road and the sea, as identified on the “Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction” map dated October 18, 2004, prepared by the California Coastal Commission. In accordance with CMC 17.20.180.B, “Proposed development and new land uses located between the ocean and the first public road may be required to provide vertical (perpendicular) access from the public road to bluff and beach areas, and lateral access along the beach, shoreline and bluff tops, where the review authority first makes specific findings documenting the need for additional public access on and/or through the site, and the relationship of the required dedication to the impacts on existing access, or needs for additional access created by the project.”
Docusign Envelope ID: A8F7353A-966B-468C-92DE-57F437E9830F Attachment 4
Resolution 2025-005-PC Amended January 15, 2025
DS 22-057 (Lim)
January 15, 2025

Page 5 of 5 ends

The Coastal Access and Recreation Element of the General Plan/Land Use Plan finds, “Carmel is among a limited number of California coastal communities where nearly the entire shoreline from the first public road to the sea is open to the public and easily accessible. (LUP)” There is no existing access (either acquired through use or legislative authorization) on or through the site, and this site would not contribute to the enhancement, improvement, or other public benefit (i.e. there is no need) for new dedication at this time of an accessway based on the site’s location and attributes. This requirement/finding may be reassessed in the future upon reconsideration of a new or amended Coastal Development Permit.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby DENY a combined Concept and Final Design Study (DS 22-057) for the demolition of an existing 1,053 square-foot, one-story single-family residence, inclusive of a 205 square-foot detached garage, and the construction of a 1,793 square-foot, two-story single-family residence, inclusive of a 288 square-foot attached garage, in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay, and Beach/Riparian (BR) Overlay (APN: 010-225-003-000).

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-THE-SEA this 15th day of December 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: Allen, Karaptkov, Locke, LePage
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Michael LePage Shelby Gorman
Chair Planning Commission Secretary
Docusign Envelope ID: A8F7353A-966B-468C-92DE-57F437E9830F Attachment 4
N

ABBREVIATIONS
A.B. ANCHOR BOLT
A.C. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

A/C AIR CONDITIONING
ALUM.ALUMINUM
APPROX. APPROXIMATE
ARCH.ARCHITECTURAL
ANOD. ANODIZED
ASPH. ASPHALT
BD. BOARD
BLDG. BUILDING
BLKG. BLOCKING
BM. BEAM
BOTT. BOTTOM
CAB. CABINET
CEM. CEMENT
C.T. CERAMIC TILE
C.I. CAST IRON
CLR. CLEAR
CLST. CLOSET
COMP. COMPOSITION
CONC. CONCRETE
CLG. CEILING
C.M.U. CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
C.O. CLEAN OUT
COL. COLUMN
CONN. CONNECTION
CONST. CONSTRUCTION
CSMT. CASEMENT
C.W. COLD WATER
DBL. DOUBLE
DET. DETAIL
DF. DOUGLAS FIR
DIA. OR Ø DIAMETER
DIM. DIMENSION
D.S. DOWNSPOUT

DRY DRYER

DW DISHWASHER

DWG DRAWING
EA. EACH
ELEC. ELECTRICAL
ELEV. ELEVATION
ENCL. ENCLOSURE

EQ EQUAL
EXH. EXHAUST
EXP. EXPANSION
EXIST. OR (E)EXISTING
EXT. EXTERIOR
FBRGL. FIBERGLASS

FD FLOOR DRAIN
FND. FOUNDATION
F.F. FINISH FLOOR
F.G. FINISH GRADE
FLR. FLOOR
FL. FLUORESCENT
F.O.C. FACE OF CONCRETE
F.O.S. FACE OF STUD
FR. DR. FRENCH DOOR
FT. FOOT OR FEET
FTG. FOOTING

GA GAUGE
GALV. GALVANIZED
G.I. GALVANIZED IRON

GFI GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER

GL GLASS
GND. GROUND
GYP. BD. GYPSUM BOARD
H.C. HOLLOW CORE
H.D. HOLD DOWN
HDR. HEADER
HDWD. HARDWOOD
HORIZ. HORIZONTAL
HR. HOUR
H.B. HOSE BIBB
HT. HEIGHT
HC. HANDICAP

HVAC HEATING VENTILATION &

AIR CONDITIONING

HW HOT WATER
I.D. INSIDE DIAMETER
INS. INSULATION
INT. INTERIOR
J.B. JUNCTION BOX
JST. JOIST
KIT. KITCHEN

KP KICKER POST

KS KING STUD

LAV LAVATORIES
LIN. LINEN
LT. LIGHT
MAT. MATERIAL
MAX. MAXIMUM
M.B. MACHINE BOLT
MECH. MECHANICAL
M.A. MEDICINE CABINET
MFR. MANUFACTURER
MIN. MINIMUM
MISC. MISCELLANEOUS
MTD. MOUNTED
(N) NEW
N.I.C. NOT N CONTRACT
NO. OR # NUMBER
N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE

O/ OVER
O.C. ON CENTER
O.F.S. OUTSIDE FACE OF STUD
OPP. OPPOSITE
O.A. OUTSIDE DIAMETER ⅊ PLATE

P/L PROPERTY
PLAS. PLASTER
PLY. PLYWOOD
PNL. PANEL

P & S POLE & SHELF
PT. POINT
PR. PAIR
R.A. RETURN AIR
RAD. RADIUS
RD. ROUND
REC. RECESSED
REF. REFRIGERATOR
RENF. REINFORCED/ING
RES. RESILIENT
RM. ROOM
R.O. ROUGH OPENING
REQ. REQUIRED

R/W RIGHT OF WAY
RWD. REDWOOD
R.W.L. RAINWATER LEADER
SCHED. SCHEDULE
S.C. SOLID CORE
SECT. SECTION
S.F. SQUARE FOOT/FEET

SH SINGLE HUNG
SHT. SHEET
SHWR. SHOWER
SIM. SIMILAR

SLD SLIDER
SLD. GL. DR. SLIDING GLASS DOOR
SPECS. SPECIFICATIONS
SQ. SQUARE
SQ.FT. SQUARE FEET
STD. STANDARD
STL. STEEL
STOR. STORAGE
STRUCT. STRUCTURAL

SS STAINLESS STEEL
SYM. SYMMETRICAL

TB TOWEL BAR
TEL. TELEPHONE
TEMP. TEMPERED
THRSH. THRESHOLD

T&G TONGUE & GROOVE
T.O.F. TOP OF FOOTING
T.O. TOP OF
T.O.P. TOP OF PLATE
T.O.S. TOP OF SLAB
T.O.W. TOP OF WALL

TP TOILET PAPER
TYP. TYPICAL
U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
VERT. VERTICAL

W/ WITH

WAINS WAINSCOT

WC WATER CLOSET

WD WOOD

WDW WINDOW

W/O WITH OUT

WP WATERPROOF
WWP WELDED WIRE FABRIC a
a1

SECTION TAG

SECTION NUMBER/LETTER
SHEET NUMBER 1 REVISION NUMBER

PLAN CHECK TITLE SHEET

SYMBOL KEY

DRAWING INDEX

SCOPE OF WORK
LOT DATA:

Project Address: N. Casanova 2 SE Palou,
Carmel-By-The-Sea, CA
APN: 010-225-003-000
Zoning: R-1
Demolition of an existing single story family residence and detached garage. Construction of a new two story, single family residence with attached garage and new paver driveway, removal of 1 tree. Landscaping to be natural. Fencing along perimeters to remain.

VICINITY MAP

APN MAP
BUILDING CODE DATA:

Occupancy: R-3/U
Construction Type: VB
Fire Sprinklers: Yes (Deferred Submittal)
AAP T1
N.T.S.
9/17/2024
RESIDENTIAL DESIGNER:

Angie Phares
Hastings Construction, Inc.
11 Thomas Owens Way, Ste. 201
Monterey, CA 93940
831-620-0920 x706
[email protected]
SURVEYOR:

Christopher Stout
L &S Engineering and Surveying, Inc.
2460 Garden Road, Suite G
Monterey, CA 93940
831-655-2723
[email protected]

PROJECT DATA TABLE
Lot Area: 0.08004 ACRES (4,000 sq. ft.)
Existing Floor Area (Demo):

Living Floor Area 848 SF
Garage Area: 205 SF
Base Floor Area: 1,053 SF
Building Footprint: 1,079 SF
Proposed Floor Area:

Entry Level Floor Area: 1,031 SF
Upper Level Floor Area: 474 SF
Garage & Mech Area: 288 SF
Base Floor Area: 1,793 SF
(Allowed: 1,800 SF)
Building Footprint: 1,319 SF

GENERAL NOTES
T1 Title Sheet
CIVIL
1 Topographic Survey
T2 Tree Assessment Survey
T3 Tree Site Plan

ARCHITECTURAL
A1 Proposed Roof & Site Plans
A2 Existing Floor Plan
A3 Proposed Entry Level Floor Plan
A4 Proposed Upper Level Floor Plan
A5 Existing Exterior Elevations
A6 Proposed Exterior Elevations
A7 Exterior Finishes & Light Specifications
A8 Architectural Details
A9 Skylight Details & Specifications
A10 Door & Window Schedules
A11 3D Rendering
A12 Streetscape Elevations
Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

THESE PLANS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SITE FOR WHICH THEY WERE DESIGNED AND ARE PROPERTY OF HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.THESE PLANS MAY NOT BE REVISED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.

PROJECT CONTACTS
OWNER:

Ms. Li Lim
N. Casanova 2 SE of Palou
Carnel-by-the-Sea, CA 93923
408-390-0445
[email protected]
HC21007

LIM RESIDENCE
N. CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | LOT 3

JOBSITE LOCATION N -

JOBSITE LOCATION
governing codes associated with this project:

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA MUNICIPAL CODE, 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC),California building code (cbc), CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC), CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC),

CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC), CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CENC) & CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE (CALGREEN), and all other applicable local and state laws and regulations.

THESE DRAWINGS ARE PREPARED FOR USE BY A PROPERLY LICENSED, BONDED & CERTIFIED CONTRACTOR.

ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODE AND ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BY THE PREVAILING GOVERNING BODY.

ALL WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL SUPERCEDE SCALED DIMENSIONS.

CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS, MATERIALS, AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO

STARTING CONSTRUCTION AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE OWNER PRIOR TO ORDERING MATERIALS.

CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETE FINAL DISPOSAL OF ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS.

VERIFY LOCATION OF UTILITIES AND EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE SITE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN 811 TICKET PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE AND SHALL MAINTAIN THE TICKET IN ACTIVE STATUS THROUGH OUT THE PROJECT. TICKET SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTOR ON SITE.

SETBACK & HEIGHT CERTIFICATIONS
A STATE LICENSED SURVEYOR SHALL SURVEY AND CERTIFY THE FOLLOWING IN WRITING:
- THE FOOTING LOCATIONS FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS PRIOR TO

FOOTING/FOUNDATION INSPECTION
- THE ROOF HEIGHT FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS PRIOR TO ROOF SHEATHING

INSPECTION
- WRITTEN CERTIFICATIONS PREPARED, SEALED & SIGNED BY THE SURVEYOR SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS AT THE TIME OF SPECIFIED INSPECTIONS. 1 PSA 22-058 (LIM) 4/20/22 ARCHAEOLOGIST:

Kaitlin Ruppert, RPA
EMC Planning Group
601 Abrego Street
Monterey, CA 93940
831-649-1799 x214
[email protected]
Existing Site Coverage Totals (Demo):

Permeable Coverage: 1,209 SF
Impervious Coverage: 96 SF
Proposed Site Coverage
Impervious:

Concrete: 121 SF
Balcony: 57 SF
Total Impervious: 178 SF
Permeable:

Driveway: 63 SF
Deck: 152 SF
Total Permeable: 215 SF
Total Site Coverage: 393 SF (Allowed: 396 SF) 4
AREAS
Archaeology Survey:

Phase 1 Archaeological Investigation took place July 13, 2022. An archaeological reconnaissance survey was undertaken at the property and there was no evidence of any prehistoric or historic archaeological resources present. There were no constraints when conducting this investigation.

The Following Recommendations shall be observed DURING CONSTRUCTION:
- conducting archaeological and cultural sensitivity training - providing Native American and archaeologist monitors during ground disturbing activities
- temporarily halt or divert excavations should archaeological resources be found during ground disturbing activities; and contacting the Monterey County Coroner should human remains be accidentally discovered.

SITE COVERAGES
Allowed:

Front: 15' Sides: 10' Composite
Rear: 15' (25% lot width, min. 3')
Existing:

Front: 18'-2" North Sides: 13', 2'-9", 4'-4"
Rear: 7'-8" South Sides: 17'-2", 15'-4", 6'-11"
Proposed:

Front: 31'-3" North Sides (varies): 5'-7", 4'-10"
Rear: 15'-2" South Sides (varies): 4-6", 10'-2"

SETBACKS
Allowed:
1 Story Ridge: 18' 1 Story Plate: 12'
2 Story Ridge: 24' 2 Story Plate: 18'
Existing:
1 Story Ridge: 11'-10" 1 Story Plate: 6'-6" +/-, 6'-9" +/- 2 Story Ridge: N/A 2 Story Plate: N/A
Proposed:
1 Story Ridge: 12'-4" +/- 1 Story Plate: 8'-1", 9'-1"
2 Story Ridge: 20'-7" +/- 2 Story Plate: 7'-4"
HEIGHT

TREE REMOVAL
One (1) Tree to be Removed:

Tree #14 on the Tree Survey Report; species "Unknown" 4 4 2 10/24/22 DS 22-057 (LIM) COMMENTS 3 7/12/23 DS 22-057 (LIM)
HEARING 4 8/14/24 DS 22-057 (LIM)

HEARING
Attachment 5
Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

AAP T2
N.T.S. TREE ASSESSMENT SURVEY
9/17/2024
HC21007

LIM RESIDENCE
CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK 11, LOT 3

TREE ASSESSMENT SURVEY
Attachment 5
WM

CASANOVA STREET

TREE SITE PLAN
R6' SRZ

ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE #1
#14

TO BE REMOVED
#13
#2
#3
R60' TPZ TREE #1
R6' SRZ
#4
R6' SRZ
#5
R6' SRZ
#6
R6' SRZ
#7
R6' SRZ
#8
R6' SRZ
#9
R6'
SRZ
#10
#11
#12
R18'
R18'
R18'
R18'
R18'
R18'
TPZ TREE #4
TPZ TREE #3
TPZ TREE #5
TPZ TREE #6
TPZ TREE #7
TPZ TREE #8
TREE #9 TPZ
R18' TPZ TREE #10
R54' TPZ TREE #11
R18' SRZ TPZ TREE #12 R30'
R10' SRZ
R3' SRZ
R9' TPZ TREE #13
= PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT
= EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT
proposed location
OPTION of replacement
tree(s) (forester to
verify)
Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

AAP T3
1/4"=1'-0" TREE SITE PLAN
9/17/2024
HC21007

LIM RESIDENCE
CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK 11, LOT 3 12"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6" 0' 1' 5' 10' 15' N 3 7/12/23 DS 22-057 (LIM)
HEARING 4 8/14/24 DS 22-057 (LIM)

HEARING
Attachment 5

SITE & ROOF PLAN
N
tree to be
removed
proposed
location OPTION
of replacement
tree (forester
to verify)

BENCHMARK WM
EL=40.93
EXISTING WOOD FENCE & vegetation TO REMAIN

EXISTING WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN

EXISTING ROCK

WALL TO REMAIN

43.48 EG

37.09 EG

EXISTING

CMU RETAINING

WALL TO REMAIN

EXISTING WOOD

RETAINING WALL

TO REMAIN

39.46 EG

31.41 EG
drainage NOTES:

ALL INFILTRATION SYSTEM(S) SHALL BE DESIGNED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CARMEL municipal code standard
operating guidance (sog) 17-07 for private
STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS.

Drainage from downspouts and paved areas shall
be directed to landscaped areas, or collected in
French drains or subgrade perforated pipe
collectors, and conveyed to Best Management
Practices (BMP) such as rain gardens or infiltration
trenches.

Rain gardens shall be designed in accordance with
the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
Association (BASMAA) publication Rain Gardens,
Stormwater Control for Small Projects.
refer to
https://ci.carmel.ca.us/pod/private-drainage-systems
for approved list of rain garden plants.

The landscaped areas used for infiltration shall be
at least 50% of the size of the contributing
impervious surface.

Runoff shall be directed away from building
foundations.

Overflow must be directed away from neighboring
properties. Overflow to the street requires an
Encroachment Permit approved by the Public
Works Director.

LANDSCAPING GENERAL NOTES
ALL LANDSCAPING shown is for design intent only and
SHALL BE selected and approved by owner, prior to
installation.

All new landscaping shall be installed and maintained in conformance with the standards in CARMEL MUNICIPAL
CODE FOR LANDSCAPING, TREES & SHRUBS Chapters 17.34
AND 17.48.

ALL NEW LANDSCAPING SHALL BE 75% DROUGHT-TOLERANT.

LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED BY A
DRIP/SPRINKLER SYSTEM SET ON A TIMER.

THE PROJECT SHALL MEET THE CITY'S RECOMMENDED TREE

DENSITY STANDARDS UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE
CITY BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS.

Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the
approval of the City Forester or Forest and Beach
Commission, as appropriate; all remaining trees shall
be protected during construction by methods
approved by the City Forester
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.

Twelve inches (12”) of mulch shall be evenly spread inside the dripline of all trees prior to the issuance of a
building permit.

TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ):

TPZ 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. 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 installed be
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
fencing.

The Structural Root Zone (SRZ)
SRZ shall by 6 feet from the trunk or 6 inches radially from the tree for every one inch of trunk dia. 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 pneumatic excavator, hydrovac at low
pressure, or other method that does not sever roots.

Footings may not trench through more than 25% of the
SRZ.. Piers and cantilevers are acceptable.
(N) ASPHALT APRON

CASANOVA STREET
ds

EXISTING TREE

TO REMAIN

EXISTING TREE

TO REMAIN

EXISTING TREE

TO REMAIN

EXISTING TREE

TO REMAIN

EXISTING TREE

TO REMAIN

PAVERS (PERMEABLE)
ROOF PLAN NOTES:

ROOF SLOPE IS 4:12 U.N.O.; ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION OF ROOF SLOPE.

Roofing shall be rated CLASS 'A' or higher AND
INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS.

SKYLIGHTS SHALL BE LOW PROFILE, NON-GLARE, DUAL PANE,

TEMPERED GLASS - BY VELUX OR EQUAL

FLASHINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT WALL AND ROOF

INTERSECTIONS WHEREVER THERE IS A CHANGE IN ROOF SLOPE
OR DIRECTION AND AROUND ROOF OPENINGS. FLASHING SHALL

BE INSTALLED TO DIVERT WATER AWAY FROM WHERE THE EAVE

OF A SLOPED ROOF INTERSECTS WITH A VERTICAL WALL (PER
R903.2.1)
15' FRONT SETBACK

DRIVEWAY

RESIDENCE DECK

WOOD DECKING
(PERMEABLE)
8'-1" PLATE ht.

ABV. ENTRY LEVEL F.F.
5'-6"
5'
1'-6" O.H.
4:12 SLOPE
4:12 SLOPE
1'-6" O.H.

BAL.
1'
O.H.
1'-6"
O.H.

RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP 4:12 SLOPE 4:12 SLOPE 4:12 SLOPE
4:12 SLOPE 4:12 SLOPE

EXISTING WOOD FENCING TO REMAIN
skylight
24"x24" fixed curb mounted
skylights w/ shade
24"x24" OPERABLE, ELECT.
'FRESH AIR', curb mounted
skylight w/ shade
new fencing
and gate
new wood fencing and gate to
match existing fencing at rear
8'-1" PLATE ht.

ABV. ENTRY
LEVEL F.F.
a
skylight
b
b
a

SKYLIGHT NOTES
15' REAR SETBACK
1'-6" O.H.

ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE

ADJACENT RESIDENCE
HIP
4:12 SLOPE
ds
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
4:12 SLOPE 4:12 SLOPE RIDGE

RIDGE RIDGE
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
HIP
4:12 SLOPE
4:12 SLOPE
4:12 SLOPE 4:12 SLOPE
4:12 SLOPE 4:12 SLOPE
HIP 4:12 SLOPE 4:12 SLOPE
ds
ds
34 SF RAIN GARDEN
(APPROX. 750 SF

CONTRIBUTING RUN-OFF
AREA)
32 SQ. FT rain garden
(APPROX. 700 SF

CONTRIBUTING RUN-OFF
AREA)
cleanout
MIN. 3" solid pipe SLOPE
AT 3% MAX TOWARDS rain
garden - TYPICAL
cleanout

CATCH BASIN/

SEDIMENT TRAP
4" or 5" ALUM. "OGEE"
gutter o/2x6 fascia
board W/ RECTANGULAR
DOWNSPOUT - typical AT
EAVES
class 'a' comp. shingle roofing
- typical

UTILITIES

HOSE BIBB

W/SHUT-OFF
ds
ds ds
ds
ds hose bib
7'-4" PLATE ht.

ABV. upper
LEVEL F.F.
9'-1" PLATE ht.

ABV. ENTRY LEVEL F.F.
6'-1" 6'-7"
RIDGE
4:12 SLOPE RIDGE
4:12 SLOPE
HIP
HIP
4:12 SLOPE 4:12 SLOPE
HIP
HIP
VALLEY
1' O.H.
1'
O.H.
1'
O.H.

HIP
HIP
RIDGE
VALLEY
cleanout

CATCH BASIN/

SEDIMENT TRAP
cleanout
ds hose bib
hose bib
14'-10"
ds
ds
7'-4" PLATE ht.

ABV. upper
LEVEL F.F.
7'-4" PLATE ht.

ABV. upper
LEVEL F.F.
1'
O.H.
a
skylight

COURTYARD
ENTRY
skylight
a
Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

AAP A1
1/4"=1'-0" PROPOSED SITE & ROOF PLANS
9/17/2024
HC21007

LIM RESIDENCE
CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK 11, LOT 3 1 PSA 22-058 (LIM) 4/20/22
2 10/24/22 DS 22-057 (LIM)

COMMENTS
12"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6" 0' 1' 5' 10' 15'
3 7/12/23 DS 22-057 (LIM)

HEARING
4 8/12/24 DS 22-057 (LIM)

HEARING
Attachment 5

EXISTING FLOOR PLAN
LINEN
21'-11"
12'-5" 9'-6"
sky.

BEDROOM 1

SLOPED CEILING
HARDWOOD F.F. cab.DRESSER
CLST.

BATH 1
POCKET
GAS
DW MW/
OVEN
REF. W/D
cab.

SHELVES
L'DRY
SLOPED
SLOPED
SLOPED
SLOPED

LIVING ROOM

SLOPED CEILING
HARDWOOD F.F.

SLOPED
SLOPED
SHLVS. P & S P & S
7'-0"
C.H. 26 20 20 26 24 20 20

KITCHEN
SHELf 28 26 fr.
pr.

POCKET 20
SLOPED
SLOPED
SLOPED
SLOPED BEDROOM 2

SLOPED CEILING
HARDWOOD F.F.

BATH 2
P & S
cab.
cab.

DINING

SLOPED CEILING
HARDWOOD F.F. sky.

GAS

HOSE BIBB

W/SHUT-OFF

TO CONNECTION

AT STREET
125 amp 120/240V ELECT.

PANEL & METER LOCATION

W/OVERHEAD SERVICE TO

POLE AT STREET

DRYER VENT
LOCATION truss
ENTRY
BEAM
GARAGE

SLOPED CEILING
CONC. F.F.

SLOPED
SLOPED

W/H TANKLESS

WOOD GATE

WOOD GATE
DECK
DECK

ROCK ROCK RETAINING WALL WOOD FENCE
STEPS
DN
STEPS
DN
STEPS
DN
STEPS
DN
BRICK 26 truss

GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
planting
41'-10"
25'-11" 15'-11"
41'-10"
6'-5" 25'-10" 9'-7"
2'-2" 2'-2" 2'-1" 7'-9" 8'-9" 9'-4" 1'-8" 7'-11"
4'-5" 4'-4"
8'-5" 2'-5" 15'-1" 6'-2" 9'-9"
18'-2" 20'-6" 11'-10" 7'-8" 10' 13' 17'-2" 15'-4" 2'-9" gravel walkway
6'-11" 28'-9" 4'-4"
17'-8" 11'-1"
7'-10" 3'-3" 11'-4" 6'-4"
5'-9" 5'-7" 3'-9" 4'-2"
4'-9" 4' 2'-1" 3'-4" 2'-8" 6' 9'-5" 4'-1" 3'-7"
5'-11" 2'-3" 7'-9"
SHOWER
SHOWER
1'-8" 5' 3' 5'-10" 6'-5"

GAS RANGETOP
W/ HOOD ABV.

WOOD F.F.

STEPS
DN
5'-5" 3' 1'-8" 7'-2" 6'-3"
2'-11" 4'-11" 12'-5" 8'-6"
40" GAS
FIREPLACE C.A.R. ELECT

GAS METER

LOCATION TO

CONNECTION
AT STREET 4030 SLD 6'-2" HDR. HT.
4036 SLD
6'-2" HDR. HT.
6'-2"C.H.
2040 FX
1040 FX
1040 FX 2040 CSMT 4010 SLD 9068 GARAGE DOOR
11036 XOX CSMT 4026 SLD 6'-0" HDR. HT.
4026 SLD
6'-0" HDR. HT. 4026 SLD 6'-0" HDR. HT.
4026 sldN
wood fence
ROCK
ROCK
ROCK

ROCK ROCK
ROCK
ROCK
NOTE: All existing structures and site coverages (driveway, walkways, etc) are to be demolished; existing fences shall remain.

ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

A2
HC21007
AAP
1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING FLOOR PLAN

LIM RESIDENCE
CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK II, LOT 3 12" 9/17/2024
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6" 0' 1' 5' 10' 15' 2 2 10/24/22 DS 22-057 (LIM)

COMMENTS
Attachment 5

PROPOSED ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
= EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN (N/A)
= NEW WALL
= EXISTING WALL/ELEMENT
TO BE REMOVED 6 6 5
WM B A

ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE LIVING ROOM DECK 3 1

KITCHEN

MODELNUMBER TRADENAME PRODUCT MATERIAL

MATERIAL PRODUCT TRADENAME MODELNUMBER
GAS 5 9
tree to be
removed
HALL
GARAGE
BATH 1
BEDROOM 1

MODELNUMBER TRADENAME PRODUCT MATERIAL

MATERIAL PRODUCT TRADENAME MODELNUMBER

MATERIAL PRODUCT TRADENAME MODELNUMBER
MATERIAL PRODUCT TRADENAME MODELNUMBER 7 1 7 8
11 12

MATERIAL PRODUCT TRADENAME MODELNUMBER MODELNUMBER TRADENAME PRODUCT MATERIAL

SUBPANEL

LOCATION
SEALED CONC. F.F.
9'-0" C.H. ABV. ENTRY F.F.
slab sloPED
to drain

CAR CHARGER
verify location
in field 2 3AA
stacked
wash/
dry
ORIEL WIND.
13 8'-0' ceiling HT.

HARDWOOD F.F. 4
8'-0" c.h.

TILE F.F.
60" freestanding
tub W/DECK
MOUNTED FILLER m.c.

MODELNUMBER TRADENAME PRODUCT MATERIAL

MODELNUMBER TRADENAME RAIN HEAD
VALVE

COVERED
ENTRY
HB
conc.
landing
relocate existing elect. &
GAS meterS HERE
50'-4"
29'
29'-11"
32'-2"
15' FRONT SETBACK
17'-6"
6'-6"
4'-8"

HOSE BIBB

W/SHUT-OFF
53'-7"
15' REAR SETBACK
24'-9"
11'
5'-4"
5'-1"
5'-7"
1'-5"
17'-1"

DRIVEWAY
4'-10"
4'
36" GAS RANGE/OVN.

W/ HOOD ABV.
24"
DWR. DW
G&R
36" ref/frz.
plumb. for
cold water
P.R.
t.p. t.p.

POT FILLER SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR

PAVERS (PERMEABLE)

DRIVEWAY
t.B.

LINEN
ENTRY
8'-0' ceiling HT.

HARDWOOD F.F.

TILE F.F.

W.C.
60" VANITY
24"
POCKET
12'-10" 4'-4" 12'-9"
P & S
10'-2" 11'-2"
3'-4"
4'-1" 2'
17'-4"
2'
31'-3"
24'-7"
6'-10" 7'-4" 5'-2" 2'
7'-8"
21'-4" 3'-3"
HB
BENCH
4'-11" 2' 4'-2" 4' 2'-10" 7'-1" 4'
BOW WIND. UNIT
10 1'-9" 4' 3' 4'
15'-1" 2'-10" 11'-1" 5'-9" 5'-6" 6'-1"
HB
30°
1' 3'-6" 1' 1'
6'-2"
1'-6"
UP. & LOW.

CABS @

KITCHEN
6'-2"
10"
5'-9" 4'-4" 13'-10"
DRYER
VENT
3'-9" TILE F.F.
4'-6"
t.B. t.B.
2-ROBE
HOOKS A 2
48" HIGH WOOD

FENCE W/ WOOD GATE
6'-0" HIGH WOOD FENCE

W/ WOOD GATE
12' 1'-6" 2'-6"

COURTYARD
13'-9" 9' 2'
15'-2"
9' 6'-2"
5'-1" 12'
8'-0" c.h.
8'-0" c.h.

HW. F.F.9'
4'-3"
10'-2"
14 UP
HB
STAIR DATA:

TREAD: 10"
RISE: 7 5
16 " AA B
3'-6"
pull-out
pantry BUILT-IN LOWERS

CA KING BD

LINEN P & S
skylight
4'
(N) asphalt
pavement
driveway
APRON

COVERED
PATIO
9'
conc.
conc.
curb-less tile shower,

NO GLASS, W/ RAIN-HEAD

SHOWER, HAND-HELD, &

TRENCH DRAIN
STAIRS4
W/H
F.A.U.
8'-0" c.h.
9'-0" ceiling ht.

OPEN TO
ABOVE
21'-4"
Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

A3
PROPOSED ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1 PSA 22-058 (LIM) 4/20/22 HC21007
AAP
1/4"=1'-0"

LIM RESIDENCE
CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK 11, LOT 3 12" 9/17/2024
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6" 0' 1' 5' 10' 15' N 2 10/24/22 DS 22-057 (LIM)
COMMENTS 3 7/12/23 DS 22-057 (LIM)
HEARING 4 8/14/24 DS 22-057 (LIM)

HEARING
Attachment 5

PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE ADJACENT RESIDENCE VEST.

BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2
BA.2

BALCONY

MATERIAL PRODUCT TRADENAME MODELNUMBER
MODELNUMBER TRADENAME PRODUCT MATERIAL 9
15 16
18 17
19 pole & shelf
hardwood f.f.

VAULTED CEILING
11 pole & shelf
hardwood f.f.

SKYLT.
30"
CLR.

TILE F.F. 8
42" HIGH RAIL.

VALVE BLW.

NICHE
7'-3" C.H.
dn

AT BALCONY

TILE SHOWER
W/CURB
HW. F.F.
7'-3" c.H.

LINEN

ATTIC ACCESS
20 10 12 m.c. t.p.
t.B. t.B. WINDOW SEAT WINDOW SEAT
38'
21'-1"
11'-4"
24'-7"
11'-11"
36'-7"
13'-2"
10'-9"
4'-8" 10'-9"
1'-4" 14'-2"
2'-10" 9'-11" 11'-2"
3'-4" 1'
1'-5"
2'-5"
5'-3" 6'-10" 11'-4"
5'-7" 7'-1"
8'-9" 3'-2"
7'-11" 2' 24'-7" 6'-2" 11'-4" 7'-1" 5'-8" 5'-8" 1'-2" 5' 4'-1" 11'-4" 14'-10" 7'-11"
10'-5"
6'-10"
STAIRS
BELOW

OPEN TO

VAULTED CEILING
7'-3" C.H. @ PERIM.
8'-0" C.H.
2'-3"
SKYLT.

SKYLT.
13 14
16 15
17 18
42" HIGH

GUARD RAIL
Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

A4 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
HC21007
AAP
1/4"=1'-0" LIM RESIDENCE CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923 APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK 11, LOT 3
9/17/2024 1 PSA 22-058 (LIM) 4/20/22
12"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
6" 0' 1' 5' 10' 15' N 2 10/24/22 DS 22-057 (LIM)
COMMENTS 3 7/12/23 DS 22-057 (LIM)
HEARING 4 8/14/24 DS 22-057 (LIM)

HEARING
Attachment 5
garage f.s. (39.33')
Entry F.f. (40.03')

BOARD & BATTEN

SIDING W/WOOD

TRIM - TYPICAL

ASPHALT SHINGLE

ROOFING - TYPICAL

WOOD FENCE
WOOD

DECKING
EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 10'-3"
12'-10"
abv. ENTRY F.F.
6'-6" +/- plate ht.

Entry F.f. (40.03')
abv. ENTRY F.F.
6'-9" +/- plate ht. 2
12 SLOPE
abv. ENTRY F.F.
6'-6" +/- plate ht. 3
12 SLOPE

EXISTING EAST ELEVATION

WOOD FENCE
WOOD

DECKING
garage f.s. (39.33')
Entry F.f. (40.03')

EXISTING GRADE

BOARD & BATTEN

SIDING W/WOOD

TRIM - TYPICAL

ASPHALT SHINGLE

ROOFING - TYPICAL

WOOD FENCE
WOOD

DECKING

EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION
11'-10"
9'-5" ridge ht.
abv. ENTRY F.F.
6'-9" +/- plate ht.

Entry F.f. (40.03')
abv. ENTRY F.F.
6'-9" +/- plate ht. 2
12 SLOPE 4
12 SLOPE
abv. ENTRY F.F.
7'-1" +/- plate ht.
abv. ENTRY F.F.
6'-6" +/- plate ht.
garage f.s. (39.33')
Entry F.f. (40.03')
abv. ENTRY F.F.
6'-9" +/- plate ht. 4
12 SLOPE
abv. ENTRY F.F.
7'-1" +/- plate ht.
abv. ENTRY F.F.
6'-6" +/- plate ht. 3
12 SLOPE

EXISTING WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION

EXISTING WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION - FROM STREET

EXISTING GRADE
Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
HC21007
AAP
1/4"=1'-0"

LIM RESIDENCE
CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK 11, LOT 3 9/17/2024 2 10/24/22 DS 22-057 (LIM)

COMMENTS
Attachment 5
PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 0 2 4 8 12
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
7'
Entry F.F. (38.0')
abv. UPPER F.F.
7'-4" plate ht. (54.5')
abv. ENTRY F.F.
8'-1" plate ht. (46.083')

STONE VENEER BY
ELDORADO STONE (OR EQ.)
DUAL PANE GLAZING TYP.
3'-6" B
upper F.f. (47.163') 4
12 SLOPE
EXISTING/FINISH GRADE ±20'-7" APPROX. HT. ABV. EXISTING GRADE abv. UPPER F.F.
7'-4" plate ht. (54.5')
6'-4"
42" HIGH
WOOD
guard rail
to match (n)
fencing
ridge ht (56.916')
18'-0" ABV. EXISTING GRADE
2nd story ridge ht (57.16')
1st story ridge ht (49.75')
PROPOSED WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION 0 2 4 8 12
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4
12 SLOPE
Entry F.F. (38.0')
abv. ENTRY F.F.
9'-1" plate ht. (47.083')
stone veneer
w/ wainscot
cap - typ. 4
12 SLOPE
1x3 casing & trim w/ 1x
sill and apron - typical A A B B
abv. ENTRY F.F.
8'-1" plate ht. (46.083')
abv. UPPER F.F.
upper F.f. (47.163')
3 COAT STUCCO FINISH
6' HIGH

WOOD FENCE
& GATE
7'-4" plate ht. (54.5')
ridge ht (56.916') 2nd story ridge ht (57.16')
1st story ridge ht (49.75')
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 0 2 4 8 12
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Entry F.F. (38.0')

FINISH GRADE
CLASS 'A' asphalt comp. shingle
roofing by certainteED (or eQ.)
finish "autumn blend" Install per
manufacture specs.
4" or 5" alum. K-style
"OGEE" gutter o/2x6 fascia
board B 4
12 SLOPE
7'

EXISTING GRADE
upper F.f. (47.163')
abv. UPPER F.F. abv. UPPER F.F.
7'-4" plate ht. (54.5')
abv. ENTRY F.F.
9'-1" plate ht. (47.083')
abv. ENTRY F.F.
8'-1" plate ht. (46.083') ±19'-9" APPROX. HT ABV. FINISH GRADE 7'-4" plate ht. (54.5') ±18'-6" APPROX. HT ABV. EXISTING GRADE 4 12 SLOPE
PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 0 2 4 8 12
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3'-6" A A
abv. ENTRY F.F.
8'-1" plate ht. (46.083') 4
12 SLOPE

FINISH GRADE
Entry F.F. (38.0')
7'
abv. UPPER F.F.
upper F.f. (47.163')
7'-4" plate ht. (54.5')

ALTERNATE
6'-4"
2'
Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

ALTERNATE PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
HC21007
AAP
1/4"=1'-0"

LIM RESIDENCE
CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK 11, LOT 3 9/17/2024 1 PSA 22-058 (LIM) 4/20/22 2 10/24/22 DS 22-057 (LIM) COMMENTS 3 7/12/23 DS 22-057 (LIM)
HEARING 4 8/14/24 DS 22-057 (LIM)

HEARING
Attachment 5
Entry Door by TM Cobb #4632
Description: Stained Fir finish with "Seedy Baroque" glass &Oil Rubbed Bronze hardware.

Eldorado Stone Veneer
Description: Cliffstone "Whitebark" dry stack technique, topped with "Chiseled Edge"Accents wainscot sill cap (where shown) finish in "Buckskin"
Casement & Bay Windows
Description: : Kolbe "Heritage" wood, duel
pane Low E glass, and Oil Rubbed Bronze
hardware, painted to match trim (or
equal).

EXTERIOR FINISHES
Decks & Deck Railing
Description: 1x6 "Cumaru" Brazilian Teak wood decking
Aluminum Gutters & Downspouts
Description: Spectra Metals in "Musket Brown"
4" or 5" "K-Style" gutter profile with rectangular
downspouts.

Presidential Shake TL
Description: Asphalt Composition Shingles by Certainteed in "Autumn Blend".

Windows, Trim & Fascia
Description: : Sherwin Williams "Pure
White" #SW 7005
Stucco
Description: s: Smooth textured stucco with
square corners, painted with Sherwin Williams
"Drift of Mist" #SW 9166
Exterior Light Fixtures A & B
Fixture A = 16" high #56G22 | Fixture B = 12" high #45R52 Description: Modern Forms "Vitrine" LED outdoor wall light in Bronze finish. 10.5 watt LED, 365 lumens
French Doors
Description: Kolbe "Heritage" wood doors with duel
pane Low E glass, and Oil Rubbed Bronze hardware
(or equal).

Balcony Tile Flooring
Description: Light cream colored Travertine floor tiles (Versailles pattern optional)
Garage Door
Description: Door Pros "Reserve Wood" Limited Edition
carriage style door with Design #2 paired with Reserve
Limited Edition REC14 window design, finished in Natural #078 or Teak #085, to match Entry door finish.

Privacy Fencing
Description: 1x6 "Cumaru" Brazilian Teak wood (or
equal), to match decking material, laid horizontal with 1" spacing and mitered corners
Chimney Cap
Description: K&M Sheet Metal custom
"Box" style chimney cap in Aluminum
colored Medium Bronze
Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

EXTERIOR FINISHES AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING SPECIFICATIONS
HC21007
AAP
1/4"=1'-0"

LIM RESIDENCE
CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK 11, LOT 3 9/17/2024
Light Fixture A Specifications Light Fixture B Specifications 1 PSA 22-058 (LIM) 4/20/22 2 10/24/22 DS 22-057 (LIM) COMMENTS 3 7/12/23 DS 22-057 (LIM)

HEARING
Attachment 5

TYPICAL WINDOW FLASHING DETAIL

EXTERIOR

SHEATHING

SILL FLASHING -

CORNER PATCH
HEAD FLASHING:

ROUGH OPENING + 2X
WIDTH OF FLASHING + 2"
FLASHING: R.O. + 2X WIDTH
OF FLASHING - 1"

USE MOLDABLE

FLASHING OR CUT
& FOLD TO FORM

SILL PAN

WATER RESISTIVE

BARRIER
MAKE ANGLED CUTS @ CORNERS, FOLD

UP AND TEMPORARILY SECURE FLAP
WITH FLASHING TAPE. TACK FLAP

TEMPORARILY WITH SHEATHING TAPE

AND FOLD OVER HEAD FLASHING

1. 2.

3. 4.
seal BACKSIDE Of FLANGE - TOP &
SIDES ONLY - WITH 100% SILICONE OR
POLYURETHANE SEALANT.

INSTALL WINDOW PER
MANUFACTURER'S SPECS.
seal nail fins - roll
flashing tape
/membrane over
the fin and up onto
the edge of the
window frame.

STONE or stucco (see elevations)
5/8" PLYWOOD SHEATHING
TYvek building paper (or eq.)
2x df STUD

DOUBLE TOP PLATE
5/8" CDX PLYWOOD SHEATHING (PER STRUCTURAL)
insulation
gypsum bd.
4" OR 5" GALV. ALUM. "OGEE" gutter (install
per manuf. specs.)

TYPICAL EAVE DETAIL
2 LAYERS 30# FELT (OR SYNTHETIC UNDERLAYMENT EQUIVLANT); PER CRC SECT.

R905.1.1
presidential shake tl asphalt comp. shingle roofing by
certainteed (or eQ.) finish " autumn blend" Install per manufacture specs.
2X BLOCKING between rafters
closed-cell spray
foam insulation

WINDOW SILL DETAIL

WINDOW JAMB DETAIL

WINDOW HEAD DETAIL

SHEATHING

BLOCKING

LIQUID-APPLIED OR SHEET FLASHING

SEALANT

BACKER ROD & SEALANT
3 coat stucco application
1/2" GYP. BD.
screen

KOLBE HERITAGE WOOD WINDOW, INSTALL
PER MANUF. SPECS.
header
stud wall
dual pane glazing
head flashing w/hemmed edge
note: fasteners shall not penetrate window fins;
all fastener penetrations shall be sealed.
fastener
2 layers water resistant barrier - lap
outer layer over head flashing
self-adhered flashing - extend over
head flashing
self-adhered flashing - extend over
window fin
self-furring metal lath

BACKER ROD & SEALANT
window fin

SHEATHING
self-adhered flashing -
extend over window fin
2 layers of water resistant
barrier

BLOCKING

SEALANT
1/2" GYP. BD.
screen
stud wall

SEALANT
1/2" GYP. BD.

INSULATION
screen

SEALANT

SHEATHING

LIQUID-APPLIED OR SHEET FLASHING

BACKER ROD & SEALANT
dual pane glazing
self-adhered flashing
3 coat stucco application
2 layers water resistant barrier
self-furring metal lath
N.T.S.

N.T.S.

FLOOR FRAMING
4 IN. (102 mm) AT GRADE

SLOPE GRADE
2% MIN.
2 IN. (51 mm) AT PAVING

EXTEND ADHERED MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER MIN. 1 IN. (25 mm) BELOW

TOP OF FOUNDATION

FOUNDATION WEEP SCREED

LAP WRB OVER WEEP SCREED FLANGE
ADHERED stone veneer APP. & WEEP SCREED detail

WOOD FRAMING (PER STRUCTURAL)
CDX plywood sheathing (PER STRUCTURAL)

SCRATCH COAT

MORTAR SETTING BED
MORTAR JOINT - TYP.

ADHERED CONC. MASONRY STONE VENEER

INTERIOR GYPSUM BOARD & BASE BOARD
INSULATION (PER T24 CALCS)
2 layers WATER RESISTIVE BARRIER
(TYVEK OR EQ.)

SELF-FURRING WIRE LATH

WOOD FRAMING (PER STRUCTURAL)

FLOOR FRAMING
4 IN. (102 mm) AT GRADE

SLOPE GRADE
2% MIN.
2 IN. (51 mm) AT PAVING

EXTEND ADHERED MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER MIN. 1 IN. (25 mm) BELOW

TOP OF FOUNDATION

FOUNDATION WEEP SCREED

LAP WRB OVER WEEP SCREED FLANGE

WOOD FRAMING (PER STRUCTURAL)
CDX plywood sheathing (PER STRUCTURAL)

SCRATCH COAT

BROWN COAT

SMOOTH FINISH COAT

INTERIOR GYPSUM BOARD & BASE BOARD
INSULATION (PER T24 CALCS)
2 layers WATER RESISTIVE BARRIER
(TYVEK OR EQ.)

WOOD FRAMING (PER STRUCTURAL) FINISH FLOOR

SELF FURRING WIRE LATH
7/8" THICK MIN.

NOTE: Install cement plaster,
lath, and accessories including
control joints in accordance
with CBC 2019 CHAPTER 25
NOTE: Install cement plaster,
lath, and accessories
including control joints in
accordance with CBC 2019
CHAPTER 25

STUCCO APPLICATION & WEEP SCREED DETAIL

STONE DIMENSIONS
(APPROXIMATE)
4"-22"
1"-2" 1.25"-6"

FRONT ELEVATION
2 1
3 4
5 6

ELDORADO STONE VENEER

CLIFFSTONE PROFILE W/

DRY STACK MORTAR TECHNIQUE

ELDORADO STONE LLC
1370 GRAND AVE, BLDG B
SAN MARCOS, CA 92078
PHONE: (760) 736-3232
FAX: (760) 736-8890
www.eldoradostone.com
2X6 FASCIA BOARD

FIBER CEMENT NON-VENTED SMOOTH
"HARDIESOFFIT" PANEL, PRIMED, BY
JAMES HARDIE (OR EQ.)

EXPOSED RAFTER TAIL
N.T.S.

N.T.S.

N.T.S.
1X3 WOOD TRIM - TYPICAL
3-COAT SMOOTH STUCCO

EXTERIOR FINISH
1X3 WOOD TRIM - TYPICAL
1X2 WOOD apron - TYPICAL
1x sill trim

KOLBE HERITAGE

WOOD WINDOW,
INSTALL PER MANUF.

SPECS.

KOLBE HERITAGE WOOD
WINDOW, INSTALL PER MANUF.

SPECS.
7 roofing specs Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

A8 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
HC21007
AAP
NOTED

LIM RESIDENCE
CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK 11, LOT 3 9/17/2024
1 PSA 22-058 (LIM) 4/20/22
1 1
1 3 7/12/23 DS 22-057 (LIM)

HEARING
3 3
Attachment 5
Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

A9 SKYLIGHT DETAILS
HC21007
AAP
1/4"=1'-0"

LIM RESIDENCE
CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK 11, LOT 3 a 9/17/2024 General Notes: (Cont.)

4. Exterior finish shall be non-reflective

5. Provide required electrical per manufacturers specs for mechanical operation and power operated shades

6. Interior finish to be white

7. Elec. Shade shall be installed
fs B
vss 3 3 7/12/23 DS 22-057 (LIM)
HEARING 3
Attachment 5

DOOR SCHEDULE

WIDTH HEIGHT
3'-0" 7'-0"
DOOR
NUMBER
SIZE

HARDWARE REMARKS
7'-0"
6'-8"
6'-8"
3'-0"

THRESHOLD

LOCKSET W/

DEADBOLT

INTERIOR EXTERIOR
FINISH

GLAZING
WOOD
THICK 1 1-3/4" 234

FIR FINISH
wood PAINTED

PRIMED TO MATCH TRIM
WOOD

FIR FINISH
"SEEDY
BAROQUE"
KOLBE HERITAGE OUTSWING FRENCH DOOR PAIR W/24" SIDELIGHTS AND 12" TRANSOM

ABOVE, W/OIL-RUBBED BRONZE HARDWARE (OR EQUAL)
*
ENTRY DOOR BY T.M. COBB #4632, FLAT PANEL, W/FIR FINISH AND "SEEDY BAROQUE" GLAZING; HARDWARE BY KWIKISET "AVALON" IN OIL-RUBBED BRONZE FINISH W/SMARTKEY (OR EQUAL); LH SWING
built-in
PR
3'-0"
PR
*
PER
MANUF. 9'-0" WOOD WOOD
SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR BY CLOPLAY "RESERVE WOOD, LIMITED EDITION" COLLECTION, DESIGN #2 WITH REC14 WINDOWS (OR EQUAL- FINISH TO MATCH ENTRY DOOR)

CLEAR DSB
W/SIM. DIV LT. 5 3'-0" WOOD
1-3/4" FIR FINISH
WOOD
PRIMED

OBSCURED
GARAGE MAN-DOOR BY TYCO, FLAT PANEL, W/FIR FINISH AND OBSCURED GLAZING; HARDWARE BY KWIKISET "ALISO" KNOB IN OIL-RUBBED BRONZE FINISH (OR EQUAL - FINISH TO MATCH ENTRY DOOR); RH SWING
*
built-in
wood
PRIMED

KOLBE HERITAGE OUTSWING FRENCH DOOR PAIR W/OIL-RUBBED BRONZE HARDWARE (OR EQUAL) 6
2'-6" *
PER
MANUF. *
built-in
wood
PRIMED

KOLBE HERITAGE INSWING FRENCH DOORS, W/OIL-RUBBED BRONZE HARDWARE (OR EQUAL); LH SWING

TEMPERED

TEMPERED
N/A 789
10 11
13 14
15 16
18 19
12 17
TBD WOOD PRIMED N/A outswing pair - LOUVERED
TBD N/A pocket
TBD PRIVACY N/A lH SWING
3'-0" 7'-0" TBD N/A INTERIOR GARAGE DOOR; RH SWING

THRESHOLD

KEYED KNOB
2'-0" TBD

TEMPERED
2'-6" TBD PRIVACY N/A RH SWING
2'-8" 6'-8" TBD PRIVACY N/A RH SWING
6'-8" TBD N/A
1-3/4"
1-3/4"

PAINTED

TO MATCH TRIM

PAINTED

TO MATCH TRIM
7'-0"
8'-0"
3'-0"
PR
6'-8" THRESHOLD

KEYED KNOB
1-3/4" WOOD
PRIMED
N/A
Wood OUTSWING w/ venting for high and low combustion make up air, W/OIL-RUBBED

BRONZE HARDWARE (OR EQUAL) WOOD
1'-6"
PR
2'-4" PULL-PRIVACY
2'-8"
1'-6" TBD N/A outswing pair
PR

DUMMY W/LATCH N/A RRH SWING
2'-4" TBD PRIVACY N/A RRH SWING
2'-8" 6'-8" TBD PRIVACY N/A RH SWING
5'-0" 6'-8" TBD FLUSH PULL N/A (2) BYPASS Doors
20 2'-4" 6'-8" TBD PRIVACY N/A LH SWING

THRESHOLD

LOCKSET W/

DEADBOLT

WOOD PRIMED

DUMMY W/LATCH
7'-0" DUMMY W/LATCH
7'-0"
7'-0"
7'-0"
7'-0"
7'-0"
7'-0"
1'-6"
PR
DUMMY W/LATCH outswing pair

WINDOW SCHEDULE

WIDTH HEIGHT
WINDOW
NUMBER
WINDOW SIZES (APPROX.)
type GLAZING REMARKS
hdr.

HEIGHT 1234
NOTES 56789
10 13
14 15
16 17
18 2'-0" 1'-8" 6'-4"
2'-0" 4'-0" 7'-0"
2'-0" 4'-0" 7'-0"
5'-0" 8'-6" (2) CASEMENT UNITS: 1450
(1) PICTURE UNIT: 3650 (SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS)
6'-0" FRENCH

CASEMENT TEMPERED
2'-6"
2'-6" 5'-6" CASEMENT
5'-6" CASEMENT
5'-0" 8'-6"
7'-4" 45 DEG.

BAY WINDOW

CASEMENT

CASEMENT
awning
5'-0" FRENCH
CASEMENT 3'-6" 6'-4" EGRESS
7'-0" 3'-6" 45 DEG.

BAY WINDOW
(2) CASEMENT UNITS: 1436
(1) CASEMENT UNIT: 3036
8'-0"
8'-0"
5'-10" 4'-0" 7'-0" 30 DEG.

BAY WINDOW TEMPERED

TEMPERED

OBSCURED
4'-0" FRENCH
CASEMENT 3'-6"
1'-6" fixed TEMPERED
1'-6" fixed TEMPERED
1'-8" 1'-6" fixed TEMPERED
fixed TEMPERED
(3) CASEMENT UNITS: 1850
11 2'-0" 2'-0" 6'-4" AWNING
12 2'-0" 2'-0" 6'-4" AWNING
2'-0" 2'-0" 6'-4" AWNING
1'-8"
1'-8"
6'-4"
6'-4"
6'-4"
6'-4"
6'-4"
1'-8" 1'-6" 6'-4"

TEMPERED

TEMPERED EGRESS
Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

A10

WINDOW & DOOR SCHEDULES
HC21007
AAP
1/4"=1'-0"

LIM RESIDENCE
CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK 11, LOT 3 9/17/2024
Design #2 with REC 14 Windows
Garage Door
Stained to match entry
door with Aliso Knob 1 PSA 22-058 (LIM) 4/20/22 3 7/12/23 DS 22-057 (LIM)

HEARING

TYPICAL DOORS & WINDOWS

KOLBE HERITAGE SERIES

GARAGE DOOR
CLOPAY

GARAGE MAN-DOOR
TYCO

ENTRY DOOR
T.M. COBB 4 8/14/24 DS 22-057 (LIM)

HEARING
Attachment 5
Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

A11
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION - 3D RENDERING
HC21007
AAP
N.T.S.

LIM RESIDENCE
CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK 11, LOT 3 9/18/2024 2 10/24/22 DS 22-057 (LIM)

COMMENTS

FRONT ELEVATION - VIEW FROM CASANOVA FACING EAST
REAR ELEVATION - VIEW FACING WEST 3 7/12/23 DS 22-057 (LIM) HEARING 44 4 8/14/24 DS 22-057 (LIM)

HEARING
Attachment 5
Scale:

Project:

Date:

Sheet
Revision/Issue Date
Drawn By:

HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
11 THOMAS OWENS WAY, SUITE 201 | MONTEREY, CA 93940
(831) 620-0920 | [email protected] LIC#: 791539 CLASS: A/B Drawing Title: Job Title: Project Address & APN:

A12

STREETSCAPE ELEVATIONS
HC21007
AAP
1/8"=1'-0"

LIM RESIDENCE
CASANOVA ST. 2 SE PALOU AVE., CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923APN: 010-225-003-000 | BLOCK 11, LOT 3 9/17/2024 1 PSA 22-058 (LIM) 4/20/22

STREETSCAPE - PROPOSED
STREETSCAPE - EXISTING 2 10/24/22 DS 22-057 (LIM)
COMMENTS 3 7/12/23 DS 22-057 (LIM)
HEARING 4 8/14/24 DS 22-057 (LIM)

HEARING
Attachment 5

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
April 1, 2025

ADJOURNMENT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Correspondence Received After Agenda Posing
RECOMMENDATION:

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

FISCAL IMPACT:

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

ATTACHMENTS:

Correspondence #1
Correspondence #2
Correspondence # 3 - CPLF Letter
APP 25038 (Lim)
Gregg Meissner Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 2:49 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Carmel By The Sea City Council
C/O City Clerk and Evan Kort
I was informed of the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of this project via the required 300 foot notification requirement. This is a very friendly, caring, and close knit neighborhood especially with the full-time residents including the McColls. Prior to this notice, the McColls informed me of the impact this third redesigned project, as denied by the Planning Commission, would still have by literally overshadowing their home. I certainly understand their concerns with this as well as the previous designs.

As the proposed project calls for the complete demolition and replacement of all the structures on the site, with this clean slate, the project proponent could and should have done a significantly better job addressing the neighbor concerns through the use of the on-site grade differences as well as moving or eliminating the 2 story portion of the design to minimize the direct light and air impacts to the McColl’s home. Though this project does not have a direct impact on my home at N. Casanova 2NE Palou, it does disrupt the cohesiveness of our friendly neighborhood when there has been little or no effort by the project proponent/owner at outreach to the nearby neighbors most impacted by the proposed project.

It is requested that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of this project and direct the proposer to stop putting band aids on a poorly conceived design and to completely redesign the project after reaching out to and meeting with the McColls and any other neighbors most impacted by this project— to work out a plan that would be agreeable to all those impacted as well as the property owner.

Thank you for your consideration,
Gregg Meissner
Sent from my iPad
Attachment 1
Nova Romero <[email protected]>
Concerns about Lim proposal for re-model at 4th and Casanova Peter Blatman > Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 4:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Hi
We live adjacent to the Lim property at 4th and Casanova (our cottage says “Shoobox” on the front gate.

The proposed 2-story re-model would over-shadow our property on the north side and block sun-light from reaching our garden.

Please let this email serve to register our formal objection to the current plans for this project.

Thanks,
Peter Blatman
Sent from my iPhone
3/31/25, 11:57 AM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Concerns about Lim proposal for re-model at 4th and Casanova https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1827790606804808316&simpl=msg-f:1827790606804808316 1/1 Attachment 1
Nova Romero <[email protected]>
Objection to Lim re-model plans at Casanova @ Palou
Peter Blatman < > Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 4:47 PM
To: [email protected]
P.S. here is a photo taken this afternoon from our back yard. If you look at the height of the orange netting indicating the height of the proposed addition, you will see just how significantly it would block sunlight from entering the yard Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 27, 2025, at 4:27 PM, Peter Blatman < wrote:
>
> P.S. our residence address is North Casanova @ Palou. We are directly adjacent to the Lim property on the north side.
>
> Thanks
> Peter Blatman
> Sent from my iPhone
image0.jpeg
175K
3/31/25, 11:11 AM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Objection to Lim re-model plans at Casanova @ Palou https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1827792997851762589&simpl=msg-f:1827792997851762589 1/1 Attachment 1
Nova Romero <[email protected]>
addresses
Elaine Cummings < Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 2:26 PM
To: [email protected]
To the City Clerk - please share this with the City Council. Thank you.

I am strongly in favor of assigning addresses to homes in Carmel. Not only is it required by the State, it would increase our safety and make it easier for first responders to find us in case of emergency. Beyond that, the countless hours we have spent trying to navigate the lack of an address is frustrating and unnecessary. Those who don’t want address simply don’t need to display them. They should not be able to interfere with the needs and interests of other residents. I hope you will act on this so we can put this issue behind us.

Many thanks,
Elaine Cummings
3/31/25, 9:56 AM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - addresses
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1827874741581042425&simpl=msg-f:1827874741581042425 1/1 Attachment 1
Nova Romero <[email protected]>
Carmel Addresses
Wanda Vollmer < Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 11:48 AM
To: [email protected]
Hi Nova -
Hope you are doing well. Can you please distribute this email to Mayor Byrne and the City Council Members?
Thank you so much - Wanda Vollmer
Dear Mayor Byrne and City Council Members -
My name is Wanda Vollmer, and I’ve been a resident of Carmel since 1999. For 6 years, I’ve proudly served as Captain of the Carmel CERT Team (Community Emergency Response Team), working closely with Carmel PD, Monterey Fire, and our incredible community volunteers.

I’m writing today to express my full support for the implementation of official, standardized addresses in our village. This is not about mail delivery—it’s about public safety, health, accessibility, and compliance with state law.

As someone deeply involved in emergency preparedness, I’ve seen how difficult it can be for first responders to locate residents quickly, especially with our current descriptive address system. When someone calls 911, the time spent explaining a location—especially when routed through Monterey County dispatch in Salinas—can cost precious minutes. We all know in an emergency, every second matters.

Beyond safety, the lack of a USPS-compliant physical address creates daily frustrations. From medical deliveries to banking, prescription refills, ride shares, and even food delivery—residents routinely face unnecessary barriers. I've personally had to assist confused delivery drivers more times than I can count, and I know many others who have experienced similar challenges.

The recent staff report makes it clear: implementation of address identification is not just helpful, it’s required. Under California Building, Residential, and Fire Codes, cities are obligated to assign visible, legible addresses. It’s time for Carmel to take this step—not just to meet legal requirements, but to better serve the people who live here.

I respectfully urge the Council to move forward with assigning official addresses. It’s a practical, overdue solution that will enhance safety, service, and daily life for everyone in our village.

Thank you for your time and dedication to our community.

Take care -
Wanda Vollmer
Post Office Box 221966
Carmel, CA 93922
www.peaceofmindpreparedness.com
3/31/25, 9:32 AM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Carmel Addresses https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1828045986064844835&simpl=msg-f:1828045986064844835 1/1 Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
March 31.

To Mayor and Council Members,
This is the 3rd iteration of my reasons for having street numbers. They remain the same with even more urgency as we age.

My name is Ann Lonstein and my husband John and I have owned a cottage in Carmel since May 2001.

Over the years we have visited for 2 to 3 weeks at a time. Since John’s retirement we have extended our stay to 4 to 5 months. As we live in Minnesota we are now snowbirds. Here is a list of our frustrations with living in a town that has no real addresses.
1 – Postal service
Over the years we had to pay mail services companies in town to provide an address.

Finally we decided to apply for a mail box. But to get one meant that we had to appear in person, with papers proving we owned property in town. This meant that we had to have someone in MN pick up our mail and only forward it once we had a box number.
2 – Parcels being mis-delivered.

Over the years when we weren’t using it, we have donated the cottage to the Bach Festival and to CHOMP for their short term nurses program. One nurse was diabetic. Her insulin was delivered next door. Fortunately the resident called us and she was able to take it over. That was the most serious of the deliveries going astray but there have been many.

We became so frustrated we asked friends who live in Carmel if we could use their street address. We now use the postal address of the Realty company that manages the cottage. 3 – Deliveries and Service Companies
Since owning it we have had many large items delivered. Last winter we replaced our mattress and our dishwasher. Our address, Junipero 7th means nothing to anyone outside of the village. So John would stand outside our gate with his phone and talk them into our driveway. That is also what happens when we have friends visiting us.

When we need we need water, gas or appliance services or repairs the company cannot find our address and John has to “talk them here”.

We celebrate two special occasions when we are in Carmel. Our wedding anniversary is in Dec and my birthday is in Feb. In 2022 I turned 80. John let all our family and friends know. A few sent flowers and gifts using the Junipero address. I never received them. 4 – Internet
We have had problems with internet service due to the fact we do not have an address. We wanted to upgrade our service from DSL to cable, and spent wasted time online looking for information but our address is not recognized online. We tried the AT and T store in Del Monte Center and wasted time there while they tried very hard to connect us.

We eventually went to the Verizon store in Sand City, and after working for nearly an hour they were able to get us service.

5. Power disconnected
San Carlos agency manages and rents our cottage when we are not using it. In the summer they called to tell us that our heat had been disconnected. When Laurie Pfeiffer went to our cottage she found the Attachment 1
gas connection to the house on the ground. The house next to us is supposed to be knocked down so we assumed PG and E made a mistake and mixed up addresses.

7. Age and accidents.

John and I are now both in our early 80’s. I’m very concerned that if and when we need emergency services they will not be able to find us. Last summer the cottage was rented to a couple from Texas.

The woman slipped in the kitchen and broke her ankle. Emergency services did find her but only after banging on the window of our neighbor’s house because they thought that must be 2 SE of 7th.

Although we are in good health, we are old. I have difficulty hearing and wear hearing aids.

8. The absolute craziness of the numbering system. There are about 10 houses on Junipero between Ocean and 8th. The first one is 1 E of Ocean, the second is 0 SE of 7th, the third is 1 SE of 7th, the fourth is ours, 2 SE of 7th. Then everything changes. The fifth house in the line, next door to us is 6th NE of 8th. Have you ever in your life heard of anything so bizarre? As we are not full time residents we have no vote in this stupid referendum. So a small minority will have the say over our lives because they want to live in the past. There is absolutely no reason to continue to live like this.

What we don’t understand is why there is such a negative attitude to street numbers. Most visitors and tourists don’t distinguish between Carmel by the Sea and Carmel which has both mail boxes and street numbers and charming names. We love Carmel by the Sea and support is with donations to the Library, the Carmel Foundation, The Carmel Art Association and Monterey County Gives. We shop in the stores and eat in the restaurants. We walk on the beach and we help pick up trash. We should feel safe in our home.

We beg you to vote to assign street numbers using the plan that the last Council produced in line with State law. We are available by phone if you wish to talk to us. Cell# Ann and John Lonstein.

Ann’s Cottage
Attachment 1
From:
to:

Jenny Masquelier
[email protected]
date: Mar 31, 2025, 12:06 PM
subject: Fwd: City of Carmel— Need for Physical Home Addresses To the City Clerk:

Can you please make sure this is given to the Mayor and City Council Members to read for the meeting this week discussing addresses in Carmel. Thank you very much.

Hello City Council Members,
We want to thank you in advance for fresh eyes to take a look at what we feel is a very important need in Carmel—the need for physical addresses for our homes.

We are unable to be at this important meeting, and hope that you will consider this email as our input on the subject to be considered.

We purchased our home in Carmel on September 4, 2020, and can’t believe we’ve almost been here 5 years now. We may still be considered “new-comers,” but we have quickly grown to love and become a part of our neighborhood community.

Our first introduction to the need for better and more organized house numbers came soon after we moved in, when one evening I looked out our front window to see a police officer walking around at the end of our street. (Our house number is 0 Monte Verde and 3rd NE and we are right on the corner of both streets.) Out of curiosity I walked out to ask him what was going on and he responded that he was trying to locate an alarm that was going off. He did not know what house the alarm call was coming from and I’m not sure if he ever found it.

We have had friends who’ve had to call for directions to our home several times because their GPS wouldn’t direct them to us as given above. I now always give a physical description of our home and it’s location with specific directions, and even typed an emergency card on our refrigerator in case of emergency for family members to be able to spell out exactly where we are in case they need to call for emergency assistance. We have three small grandchildren that are often at our home and I want to know that in an Attachment 1
emergency, we will have quick response times for help if we need it. As our address is now, I do not trust that will be the case. You will see why in the examples below.

When we decided on mail service in Carmel, we looked at all of our service billings we would be receiving (PGE, Water/Garbage, Taxes, Xfinity) and noticed that every single one of them had our address spelled out differently. Zero were the same! Zero would let us change the address to the one listed below. We decided since we go between two homes, we could at least have them all directed to our home address in Tracy, CA to make sure they were received by us. This has worked well, except in April of 2022, I began to notice that our PGE billing from Carmel, which comes combined with our Tracy PGE bill, did not appear to be showing Carmel's billing. I began to look back several billings as I had not been paying close attention. I found that we had not been billed by PGE since January of 2022. I contacted PGE to find that someone had changed our billing (and meters) to a new address effective January 28, 2022. I informed PGE that the meters were still our’s and the we still owned our home in Carmel. It was not easy to find out through PGE who had changed our service but I put two and two together to realize we had new neighbors that moved in on that date.

Here is our address: 0 Monte Verde and 3rd NE, Carmel, CA Here is their address: Monte Verde 3 NE of 3rd, Carmel, CA It took us both at least a year to get this all straightened out and bills adjusted. This was because our addresses are too similar!
Delivery service has been extremely hard here as well. I tried several times to deliver a gift to a friend and both times the delivery driver stated they could not find the address. Out of frustration I ended up cancelling the order. Another example is I needed to have a new cell phone delivered to our "billing address” of our Xfinity account in Carmel. They would not let me deliver it to our home in Tracy nor let me pick it up. The Fed Ex truck could not locate us. I even posted a huge hot pink poster board hanging from our balcony to “DELIVER HERE” and they were still not able to locate our home. I was finally able to get Fed Ex to agree to let me pick it up at their Carmel facility. I had to take time to sit in my home for two days waiting for that delivery, which never came because they could not find our address. I can only imagine the frustration of other people not voicing their problems or not being listened to when they do.

I know when addresses began to be discussed, that a rumor began that our post office would be taken away if we were able to receive physical home addresses. This caused a lot of panic from people worried that they would lose service downtown. The focus became on that, when the focus actually should’ve been on the fact that people were worried about Attachment 1
emergency services not being able to locate them. It was NOT that they wished for mail to be delivered to their homes. It was more for emergency purposes that we’d be able to have more identifiable home addresses. It is becoming a dangerous situation for people that may have medical needs that are not being taken seriously. At some point, someone is going to lose their life because emergency services will not be able to locate them in time.

I think the most important fact and focus, including the possibility of someone dying because they aren’t located in an emergency, is that the City has ignored the State-required fire code of addresses being displayed for emergency purposes. I’m not sure how the State has missed that this requirement is being ignored in Carmel, but at some point, it may be costly to the City and possibly some of its leaders responsible for encouraging blocking more easily identifiable addresses. Both the Chiefs of Police and Fire have verified the need for better addresses. Voting to change CA requirements, would only be skirting and building more proof that the City should be held responsible, if an emergency results in a catastrophic outcome. It should be simple. Fire and Police should make the decision on the location that is most easily findable and seen by them. It doesn’t need to be huge.

Perhaps a small post located at the end of each home’s driveway with a simple, findablenumbered address. It does not need to be a complicated design issue taking a long time to decide.

The vote was taken, and passed by the last council that we do need emergency-identifiable addresses and that they are required by the State of CA fire code. It was then put on a back burner. I hope that our new City Council members will take this seriously, and not take too long to get physical addresses expedited. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Don and Jenny Masquelier
Sent from Jenny’s iPhone
Attachment 1
March 31, 2025
Mr. Evan Kort
Associate Planner
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Post Office Drawer G
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California 93921
RE: Lim Residence (DS 22-057 / APP 25-038)
APN: 010-225-003
City Council Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial
January 15, 2025
Mr. Kort, Mayor Byrne, and Members of the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council:

I am writing on behalf of the applicant, Hastings Construction, regarding the proposed Lim Residence located at North Casanova Street 2 southeast of Palou Avenue.

I am a licensed California Architect who has completed dozens of residential and commercial projects in and around the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea since 2009. For the last 12 years, as principal Architect of my own firm, I have successfully obtained permits for more than 28 houses and represented my clients at the Planning Commission for all these projects. I am not the Architect for the subject Project; however, I have been asked to advise the applicant on the proposed residence in view of my experience, acute knowledge of the guidelines and municipal code, and familiarity with the design study process.

The project is considered a “tear-down/rebuild” new residence in an established neighborhood on a typical 40’ x 100’ lot. All new dwellings in Carmel-by-the-Sea are required to conform to the municipal code standards, including: floor area, site coverage, building height, setbacks, and design study findings.

The code standards and guidelines work together to ensure an objective review of each project, with specific findings applicable to the particular circumstances of each lot.

The Project was considered by the Planning Commission on three separate occasions for Concept Design review, and on each occasion, the project planner recommended approval of the new residence: stating the project conforms to all zoning standards and is fully consistent with the design guidelines. The project was carefully analyzed with respect to site design, simplicity of building forms and roof plan, human scale and mass, public and private views, and tree preservation. In sum, the applicant followed all required codes and guidelines in their application, design process, and project plans.

I strongly agree with the Planning department’s assessment and recommendation for approval at the three previous Planning Commission hearings on July 12, 2023, August 14, and December 11, 2024.

On many of my own projects, objections have been raised by neighbors in response to the perceived impacts of new construction. For better or worse, the usual process to address these concerns is to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the neighbor (/s) about those impacts, study possible modifications to the design, and return to the Planning Commission with a revised set of plans that includes changes to mitigate impacts. The Lim residence followed this process to the letter, with design revisions that include the following to address specific objections of the north neighbor:

Attachment 2
- The plate height at the 1st story was reduced to 8’, and the plate height at the 2nd story was reduced to 7’-3”.
- The ridge height (top point of the building) was reduced from 57.16’ to 54.5’ (a total of 2’-8”). - The 2nd story footprint was reduced by 31 SF.
- The distance from the stairwell to the property line was increased from 7’-8” to 11’-3”.

These significant changes were described in detail by the staff report, illustrated by photographs and renderings to support the findings, and thoughtfully presented by the applicant. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission failed to take action consistent with staff’s findings. In the design guidelines, from the section regarding views, the code states:
“ Designs should respect views enjoyed by neighboring parcels. This objective is intended to balance the private rights to views from all parcels that will be affected by a proposed building […] No single parcel should enjoy a greater right than other parcels except the natural advantages of each site’s topography. Building which substantially eliminate an existing significant view enjoyed on another parcel should be avoided.” (17.10.010 K) The proposed Lim residence follows the municipal code objectives and respects the neighbors. It is unreasonable to enjoy a completely unobstructed view from a window that faces the side yard on a 40’ x 100’ lot with 3’ setbacks. Every home in town sees at least a portion of one, if not more than a dozen, of their surrounding neighbors’ homes. This is the beauty of living in our village in the forest, and the reason for a process that includes objective standards, adherence to the guidelines, and a public hearing process. I urge the city council to follow these documents and accepted process in their review, and grant the appeal by Hastings Construction for the Lim Residence, Concept and Final Design Study.

Thank you,
Adam Jeselnick AIA
[email protected]
831.620.5164
Attachment 2
Nova Romero <[email protected]>
Comment on Agenda Item #2, 4/1/25 City Council Mtg.
'Kevan' via cityclerk <[email protected]> Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 9:52 PM Reply-To: Kevan <
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Mayor & Council Members:

Please decide on how to get us a USPS listed home address by any means and in any format necessary ASAP! This does not need a vote! Do not waste time and money, and risk the City’s funds defending the inevitable lawsuit(s) for willfully refusing to comply with modern laws, and government mandates. We can have BOTH legally recognized home addresses AND mail delivery only to the USPS local post office, as well as continue the tradition of the option to not post an address and instead name your house.

Please see examples below of the effects that not having a street-address in the USPS-database has had on the citizens of Carmel by the Sea, and all of which I have personally experienced.
1) Many vendors will not ship to a PO Box due to rampant mail order fraud via PO Box addressees. This can include essential medicines or medical devices that many insurance plans restrict you to getting through their contracted on-line vendor. They won’t pay local pharmacy pricing. Blocking people from receiving essential medicines or medical devices at their real home address is a clear and unequivocal violation of the ADA, for which a predatory lawsuit could be filed any day, and the City would definitely lose and pay damages. 2) Many vendors will not ship even to a business using our common local’s format of: X NW of Y on Z, since it does not appear in the national USPS database of verified addresses.
3) Thus due to #1 + #2 we are blocked from ordering from a significant number of vendors. For some items there are no longer any local, nor multiple national vendors, so this means you can’t buy a product you need or want. This is a real problem in these days of supply chain delays/interruptions, and lack of local store inventory. This artificial restriction on commerce is illegal, and likely would fail a court challenge [e.g., restraint of trade, ADA, etc.]. 4) I have been affected multiple times by #3 above and have been forced to stop and try and find items while on road trips outside of the Monterey 4/1/25, 11:14 AM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Comment on Agenda Item #2, 4/1/25 City Council Mtg. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1828174561656790405&simpl=msg-f:1828174561656790405 1/4 Attachment 2
Peninsula, or wait to have visiting friends buy & bring them from elsewhere. 5) Many of us are retired and no longer have work addresses outside of town to use as alternative delivery addresses. Many employers prohibit or restrict such personal deliveries in any case.
6) Those who work full time out of town as I used to, can’t take of work to drive here and access the PO to do business 10-4, M-F. They can only pick up packages 12-2 on Saturday, which is unfair to them. This shipping bottleneck also forces them to rely more heavily on our inconsistent UPS/FedEx home delivery services, undermined by our lack of official addresses. 7) Returned mis-deliveries have also forced me to pay reshipping fees to a sole source vendor, or they won’t redeliver, even to a different address. 8) Vendors don’t always tell you that they are going to use UPS/FedEx “Drop to USPS” services to cut shipping costs. When that occurs the item is immediately returned to the shipper by the local USPS without any notification to the local purchaser. You then often have to spar with the vendor to not pay shipping/reshipping fees, since they’ll contend that you misaddressed the package in the first place. You are not allowed to put BOTH a PO Box and a simulated street address on the same package. Some vendors don’t print more than one street address line, so the Business Name or “#XXXX” as a placeholder for your PO Box in lieu of an apartment or suite # doesn’t make it onto the address label.
9) FedEx Ground out of Watsonville now uses subcontracted independent drivers that rotate routes daily, so they don’t know and will never effectively learn Carmel by the Sea. They often drop packages in the wrong part of town or deem them undeliverable and return them to sender. Since ~50%+ of the homes aren’t occupied full time, you are at great risk of having your misdelivered package stolen. We’ve had stuff delivered to the right street but at the other end of town on some vacant vacation home’s porch. Unlike UPS or FedEx Overnight & 2
nd Day Air ONLY services based in Ryan Ranch, FedEx
Ground does not allow any public access at any time to the locked and fenced local distribution warehouse in Watsonville.
10) Many Federal, State, and Local on-line government contact forms [e.g., St.

Senate/Assembly legislative contact forms] require you to input a USPSdatabase-verified street-address to leave a comment for your legislator. We don’t have any, so we are locked out of that option with some of our legislators, and forced to sit on long phone wait lines only during business hours/M-F, or do business by mail instead. Many don’t have on-line chat options either. This is unfair, and would likely fail a legal challenge as it interferes with modern communication methods to petition your government. Many government 4/1/25, 11:14 AM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Comment on Agenda Item #2, 4/1/25 City Council Mtg. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1828174561656790405&simpl=msg-f:1828174561656790405 2/4 Attachment 2
agencies and essential service businesses are de-emphasizing phone support, and forcing you to do most business via their web pages. 11) The CA St. Attorney General’s corporate reporting web pages DO NOT accept our local simulated street addresses for legally-mandated LLC/Corporate report submissions. They now want these done only on-line. You have to call, wait on hold a long time, and argue with a clerk in Sacramento have them either somehow manually force the report entry, & you then have to e-mail directly to them, or give you a case number to mail it in with.
12) It is very difficult and time consuming to get a State & Federal Corporate Tax ID # for a new business without a USPS-database-verified address. They assume you are a con-artist or a fraud, and require extra time consuming documentation, creating unnecessary delays.
13) You have a hard time getting a new Personal or Corporate Credit Card.

Instead of instantly on line with good credit as it is for the rest of the USA.

Instead you have to call in live during business hours, explain Carmel by the Seas address system to an incredulous clerk, then and FAX or certified mail in a multiple sources of alternative documentation to prove you are real. This process takes many weeks for residents vs hours for anyone living anywhere else.
14) When you want to open or change addresses on a bank or investment account, you have to prove our unrecognized and legally unofficial home/business address are real by time consuming means. When I moved here in 2001, I had to take 3 separate days off work to stay home and wait for an overnight FedEx/UPS delivery to the physical Carmel by the Sea address I was claiming as our real legal home address, and sign for and verify myself in person. This is getting worse under ever more restrictive banking and finance fraud protection laws and procedures
15) If you have an identity theft, credit card, or bank fraud incident it can be very difficult and time consuming to get it corrected, as you cannot give the telephone support staff a physical, USPS-database-verified street address.

They may require you to text/FAX/overnight them documentation, or go in person to their local service center, if they even have one. The documents [e.g. multiples of CA ID, Passport, SS Card, Utility or Property Tax bills/Voter or Vehicle Registration] will be accepted as adequate >ONLY IF< they show the simulated street address. It can actually make it impossible to solve if you are traveling! A national bank with a branch in town locked up my son’s account erroneously due to perceived fraud while he was in Asia, yet required he come in-person to unlock his accounts. Yes, they expected him to somehow buy a ticket and fly home with his bank account & CCs locked up! Even though all three of us were well known to local bankers who vouched for us, we had to 4/1/25, 11:14 AM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Comment on Agenda Item #2, 4/1/25 City Council Mtg. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1828174561656790405&simpl=msg-f:1828174561656790405 3/4 Attachment 2
take multiple IDs for us, and copies of his ID, his original SS Card, and officially stamped original copy of his birth certificate to sit with the local banker on the phone to their HQ to get them to make an exception to their rules. We sat there while the local banker verified we and the paperwork were real and present in – person, then texted copies in real time to a reviewer at their HQ. That took two days while he had no funds. Good luck if you don’t have relatives in town to help you with a friendly local banker who knows you.
16) Private/Legal Courier services usually can’t find our addresses. The Moss Landing fresh fish cooperative “Real Good Fish” that drops weekly deliveries at EcoCarmel, uses a courier service with random drivers from out of area that have botched deliveries of perishable goods multiple times a year. For some drivers I have to give then the GPS UTM coordinates or Latitude/Longitude.

Same problems for non-local Uber/Lyft & food delivery drivers. 17) On my street there are two homes that are down narrow pathways and invisible from the street. A failure of emergency services to reach these sites in a timely manner would be a slam dunk lawsuit against the City. This also makes it impossible for a delivery person to use our default unofficial address naming process, as they can’t see the houses to be able to count from the intersection accurately.

This long tediously detailed list is probably not exhaustive, and other local residents could likely submit different, equivalent, or even worse examples of what they have had to endure.

The City Council needs to find a creative way to have the town effectively join the rest of the nation to live in 21st century using modern commerce & communication, while still preserving the social benefits of the USPS PO for all but ADA mail deliveries. I have no objection to going there every day as I always do.

Sincerely,
Kevan Urquhart
Carmel by the Sea, CA 93921-2612
4/1/25, 11:14 AM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Comment on Agenda Item #2, 4/1/25 City Council Mtg. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1828174561656790405&simpl=msg-f:1828174561656790405 4/4 Attachment 2
Nova Romero <[email protected]>
Emailed comments for the April Council Meeting
'Betty Maurutto' via cityclerk <[email protected]> Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 4:56 PM Reply-To: Betty Maurutto
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Dear Mayor Byrne and Council members,
As a VERY STRONG advocate for assigning street addresses to our homes in Carmel;-by-theSea, I have the following comments:
1) Assigning each home an address will not change the charm/quaintness of our village. Please see the attached photo of my front entry that has my descriptive address. Once given an address (which is a mandated law), We will merely have a new sign of equal charm made with my real address.
2) Please stop listening to the emotional reactions of those fearing our village will have ugly, cluttered signage. Our residents have more sense and class than that!! 3) Stop waffling around making our city leadership look foolish and unable to follow through on decisions made! A decision was made to assign addresses - DO IT!! Abide by the law and move on!! Use your time efficiently and wisely and stop all the meetings, after meetings, after meetings going over things already decided!
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Michael and Betty Maurutto
Michael and Betty Maurutto
NEC Mountain View and Guadalupe
P.O. Box
Carmel, Ca. 93921
949-510-0570
m
IMG_1284.jpeg
5082K
4/1/25, 11:19 AM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Emailed comments for the April Council Meeting https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1828155990459069209&simpl=msg-f:1828155990459069209 1/1 Attachment 2
Nova Romero <[email protected]>
Please distribute to all city council members
Carolyn <c > Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 1:34 PM
To: [email protected]
I am writing in support of being assigned an address in Carmel that works with the USPS data base. I am concerned about the confusion for safety (police, fire, ambulance, etc.) and for all the issues associated with utilities, maintenance, deliveries and services. It is also very difficult with financials, the DMV, passports and other institutions. Some simply will not allow us to even request a service as their software requires a USPS database address.

This issue needs no further study. Nothing new is going to come to light. The address must meet the USPS data standard or you will not be solving the problem. Consistent physical addresses and signage will never meet the USPS standard. It might be “cute”, but it will not solve the problem. Please recognize that it is now time for implementation, not for ignoring the reality of the standard requirement in today’s world.

I wish I could attend the Council meeting this week and express this in person, but I can not. I hope that someone will express or read this message to the City Council and hear the pain that this causes Carmel residents.

Carolyn Ticknor
Carmel, CA 93921
4/1/25, 12:33 PM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Please distribute to all city council members https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1828143267974708639&simpl=msg-f:1828143267974708639 1/1 Attachment 2
Nova Romero <[email protected]>
Public Comment
Charles Najarian <c > Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 1:51 PM
To: Nova Romero <[email protected]>
Cc: Dale Byrne <[email protected]>
Nova,
Please provide this as public comment to the City Council for the April 1st meeting.

Please copy the Planning Commission, City Attorney, and staff’s CEQA consultant attorney.

Confirmation of receipt would be appreciated.

Regards,
Chuck Najarian
Mayor Byrne and City Council members,
I’m provided input for the street address agenda item. The purpose of my input is to raise awareness of possible CEQA applicability. In doing so I’m offering AI’s response to this important question for your consideration moving forward, as follows:

Chuck Najarian
STREET NUMBER ADDRESSES:

Would a discretionary decision to require street number addresses in Carmel on every house and business with over 260 historic structures, when the city has never had street numbers, require CEQA review? Yes, a discretionary decision to require street number addresses on every house and business in Carmel-by-the-Sea, a city known for its historic character and over 260 historic structures, could trigger CEQA review if it has the potential to result in a physical change to the environment—including aesthetic, historic, or cultural impacts.

Why CEQA Review May Be Required

1. CEQA Applies to Discretionary Decisions
The decision to require street numbers is not purely ministerial (automatic approval with no agency discretion).

Under CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a), discretionary actions that can cause a physical change in the environment qualify as a “project” under CEQA.

2. Potential Adverse Impact on Historic Resources (§ 15300.2(f)) CEQA prohibits categorical exemptions if a project may affect historic resources.

Many of Carmel’s historic buildings have never had visible street numbers.

Installing numbers could alter the historic character of the district, triggering the need for environmental review (San Diego Trust & Savings Bank v. Friends of Gill, 1999).

3. Unusual Circumstances Exception (§ 15300.2(c))
CEQA prohibits categorical exemptions if “unusual circumstances” exist that may cause significant impacts.

Carmel’s unique history of avoiding street numbers makes this an unusual case.

The change could impact the town’s identity and aesthetics, requiring further analysis.

4. Cumulative Impact Consideration (§ 15300.2(b))
If street numbers alter the visual setting of an entire historic district, the cumulative impact may be significant.

Conclusion
If the City mandates street numbers through a discretionary action, it may be subject to CEQA review.

The City would need to assess potential historic and aesthetic impacts before proceeding.

A CEQA challenge could argue that the decision is not exempt and requires an Initial Study to determine if an EIR or Negative Declaration is needed.
4/1/25, 12:38 PM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Public Comment https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1828144348388191745&simpl=msg-f:1828144348388191745 1/2 Attachment 2
Nova Romero <[email protected]>
Street addresses
3 messages
Richard Luther > Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 12:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Please distribute this email to all council members. Thank you.

I apologize that my wife and I are unable to attend Tuesday’s council meeting. However, we strongly favor having street addresses recognized by the USPS, Google and others.

We believe the “charm” and “character “ of Carmel is measured by how the residents look after and care for their neighbors, not whether a street number is attached to a house. The fact is, the lack of standard street numbers slows down first responders and hampers the timely delivery of life saving medicines and medical supplies. It is not just an issue of inconvenience with Amazon; it is an issue of potential injury to life or property. We need to have street numbers to protect ourselves and our neighbors.

In addition to protecting our neighbors, we also need to protect the financial wellbeing of the city. If we don’t have numbers, eventually someone will be injured or die due to a slow response time of first responders. The city will find itself financially responsible for that loss due to its willful violation of state laws. And the city’s insurer may refuse to cover the loss for the same reason.

There is also a practical problem that needs to be addressed. Under the current system of identifying houses in relation to the number of houses or parcels to the nearest cross street, how will we address new houses and ADUs built under the recently enacted state laws? A neighbor is building an ADU between his house and ours. The ADU is almost the size of our house. Will a first responder stop at that house thinking it is ours as it counts the houses in from the corner? If the neighbor rents or sells the ADU, what number will be assigned to it so that first responders can find it? The same goes for the new law allowing owners to subdivide their property and build multiple houses. Will every other house on the block then need to change its house number under the existing scheme? Our existing address system doesn’t work with these newly enacted laws.

This is not an issue for a public vote. This is an issue of utmost importance and urgency that demands strong leadership by the city council. Please move forward with standardized street addresses as soon as possible.

Thank you for your attention.

Richard and Debra Luther
Nova Romero <[email protected]> Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 10:08 AM To: Jeff Baron <[email protected]>, Hans Buder <[email protected]>, Alissandra Dramov <[email protected]>, Dale Byrne <[email protected]>, Robert Delves <[email protected]> Cc: Brandon Swanson <[email protected]>, Brian Pierik <[email protected]>, Chip Rerig <[email protected]>
Please see email re: street addresses.
4/1/25, 10:09 AM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Street addresses https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1828185421048974573&simpl=msg-f:18281854210489745… 1/2 Attachment 2
Carmel Public Library Foundation
Memorandum
To: Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor and City Council Members
From: Marci Meaux and Alexandra Fallon
Date: March 11, 2025
Subject: Carmel Public Library Foundation (Foundation) & City of Carmel by-the-Sea (City) Harrison Memorial Library Centennial Restoration Agreement Following the February 4th City Council meeting, where revisions to the agreement were directed based on the City Attorney’s concerns, we received an updated version and have carefully reviewed it. Our attorney, Brian Call, has been working with the City’s attorney, Brian Pierik, to address these revisions and craft a response that fosters a fair and mutually acceptable resolution.

The Centennial Restoration of Carmel’s Harrison Memorial Library is governed by principles grounded in the philanthropic heritage of the historic 1928 Maybeck and Murphy Building:

I. Privately Funded: Architectural design, engineering, construction, physical accessibility, seismic upgrades, technology, furnishings, and signage will all be paid for through the major Centennial Fundraising Campaign undertaken by the Carmel Public Library Foundation. The estimated project cost, including the contingency, is $17.5 million.

II. Community-Based: Project leadership is community-based in a private/public partnership with the City, beginning with the formation in 2024 of the Architect Selection Committee chaired by Lacy Williams Buck and Marci Meaux. The distinguished architect selected for this prestigious assignment is Moore Ruble Yudell Architects. Buzz Yudell is a long-time Carmel resident and homeowner.

III. Faithfulness to Architectural Preservation and the Spirit of Carmel: From the beginning of the Architect Selection Process, the project has been defined by fidelity to the preservation and historical ethos that has given Carmel much of its character and distinctiveness.

IV. Highly Participatory: Carmel’s Harrison Memorial Library is an iconic community asset and a beloved institution. The design process will be highly inclusive, with major community input sought and incorporated during the initial schematic design phase.

Attachment 3
V. Timeliness: The Centennial Restoration is urgent, with the need for this major undertaking having built up over the last quarter-century. The Carmel Public Library Foundation is committed to having the work completed within the Library’s Centennial Year, ending December 31, 2028.

Two key tenets remain central to this agreement:

1. Partnership with the City – Collaboration is essential to ensuring the success of this project. A shared commitment between the City and the Foundation will help achieve an outcome the community can take pride in. In response to concerns regarding the Project Executive Committee, we have removed references to a joint committee.

Instead, we propose that the City Council establish an ad-hoc committee composed of two appointed council members. The ad-hoc committee members can then join committees established by the Foundation in order that the City and the Foundation can establish effective communication as they proceed as partners to achieve the goals of the Project.

2. Funding Model – CPLF will hold the funds and pay invoices. To address the City’s concern about avoiding any unnecessary disputes regarding contractors’ invoices possibly leading to legal action, we have formalized the process that invoices certified as payable by the City Finance Director will be paid by CPLF. During the construction phase, the architect will also certify that work meets specifications, and the City Finance Director will certify that payment is due—at which point CPLF will process the payment.

We acknowledge the City’s concerns and believe this structure represents a significant concession by CPLF to provide assurance regarding invoice payments.

Revisions Based on City Council’s Motion:
• Project Executive Committee Eliminated – To address concerns related to governance, CPLF will instead form internal committees as needed, while the City will appoint an ad hoc committee composed of two Council Members to facilitate coordination and cooperation.
• Mutual Approval on Key Decisions – CPLF and the City will have joint approval authority over design, design modifications, and contracts with the architect and construction contractor.
• Funding Commitments & Payment Process – CPLF will acknowledge that funds have been raised prior to the start of each phase and, as expressed above, will pay invoices as due following certification by the City Finance Director. During construction, the architect will certify that work meets specifications, after which the City Finance Director will confirm payment is due—at which point CPLF will process the payment. • Contingency & Cost Overruns – A construction contingency will be set at 15%, with CPLF committing to cover this amount if needed. Any cost overruns are subject to review and approval by the City and the CPLF. Approved cost overruns can be allocated between the City and CPLF at the time of a cost overrun approval. With best practices contract management and thorough pre-construction due diligence, the likelihood of Attachment 3
cost overruns that would exceed the 15% contingency should be minimal to nonexistent. • Contractual & Regulatory Compliance – All processes will adhere to state law, City Municipal Code, and oversight by relevant City boards and commissions. • City Fees & Agreement Terms – The City will cover all application and permitting fees.

The provision allowing the City to terminate the agreement without cause has necessarily been removed.

We greatly appreciate your thoughtful engagement and our historic partnership and look forward to finalizing an agreement that upholds our shared commitment to restoring Harrison Memorial Library by its centennial in 1928.

Attachment 3

Carmel-by-the-Sea City CouncilApril 1, 2025

Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
April 1, 2025