Nova Romero <[email protected]>
ODDS & Optos Consultant Scope/Approach - Sept 10 City Council and in Prep for October City Council Topic/Approval
Nancy Twomey <t > Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 11:47 AM
To: "Marnie R. Waffle" <[email protected]>, Anna Ginette <[email protected]>, Brandon Swanson <[email protected]>, Dale Byrne <[email protected]>, [email protected], Jeff Baron <[email protected]>, Hans Buder <[email protected]>, Alissandra Dramov <[email protected]>, Chip Rerig <[email protected]>
Cc: Nancy Twomey <t >, Nova Romero <[email protected]> My sincere apology for not doing my homework and being better prepared in advance of this topic at Council last night.
Not unlike all of you, my plate is full right now.
With the delay to October for approval - this provides a moment for me to chime in on my concerns with increased clarity.
As I believe was clearly mentioned last night, right now, our Village has to follow only State Laws on ADUs. We have no local protections to limit ADU's look/feel today. And in almost all cases - these are approved over the counter based on State Laws. State Law DOES call out that ODDS can be a requirement for approval (which we critically need ASAP) My key concern centers around "Styles", most specifically tied to ADU's as you discussed last night. The OPTICOS proposal had more emphasis and/or at least language in their proposal tied to styles - that I do NOT believe is best to consider.
The comment on "attributes" or maybe better stated components such as roof lines/finishes, windows, vertical finishes, colors, lighting etc...really should MATCH the primary residence.
1. The RFP for this engagement did not mention Styles.
2. The Design Traditions 1.5 efforts that I've participated intentionally did NOT nor exclude any Styles - intentionally, yes on purpose.
3. We all know and understand that there are significant differences of opinion on what styles "fit" or "don't fit" in our Village. And we need community division, like a hole-in-the-head, as "they say".
4. It has ALWAYS been my personal opinion that any/all ADU's in our Village - MUST architecturally match the style of the primary residence.
5. This approach - REMOVES the divisive and controversial opinions/angst around Styles.
6. And of course, all homes have some or various alignments to an official architectural style
7. Thank Goodness, the City Planning staff encourages all requesters to respect the current (yet old) Design Traditions in any of their ADU projects...which most property owners will generally follow.
8. Where ADU's are built on a property with an existing home - this "blended" or match style approach - should achieve a desired objective of having ADU's NOT stand out - which is a community concern. I understand that just having the attributes match may not be enough to some - as they are not fans of more ADU's period.
9. I personally, which others may disagree, do not support a single property to have the primary home as tutor style, and a craftsman ADU. This is visually "choppy", an unattractive bandaid. To me if we allowed discontinuity with the primary residence it would be almost the same as the home being in one style and the separate garage being in a different style. UGH!
I will go back into my files of other Cities ODDS and/or ADU Ordinances that reinforce this same approach - and forward my findings with specifics - for your consideration in October.
I definitely support OPTICOS as the consultant for our ODDS deliverable. I simply would tweak the approach to eliminate the "styles" focus and deliver on the attributes.
Thank you for your consideration.
--
Nancy Ann Twomey
9/26/25, 12:03 PM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - ODDS & Optos Consultant Scope/Approach - Sept 10 City Council and in Prep for October City Council … https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1842903833878438154&simpl=msg-f:1842903833878438154 1/1 Nova Romero <[email protected]>
Recording ended early - my public comment item #B
Nancy Twomey Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 10:47 PM
To: Nova Romero <[email protected]>
Here is what I spoke about for the public record. The recording ended early “Nancy Twomey here - speaking as a resident of our Village Thank you for everything you do for all of us.
I find it concerning and confusing that one of the items mentioned for today's Closed Session - has not yet seen the light of day.
Specifically CUSD MIddle School Property (with no specified use or purpose classified) - is minimally described as Lease and Pricing terms.
Lease and Pricing negotiations should be an agreed to next step that would ONLY follow public review and alignment on the relevant subject matter.
For your consideration. Thank-you “
Nancy Ann Twomey
Resident Carmel-by-the-Sea
10/7/25, 10:00 AM Carmel-by-the-Sea Mail - Recording ended early - my public comment item #B https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=3e51736a27&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1845300863738299777&simpl=msg-f:1845300863738299777 1/1