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

Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions 1.5 Strategy Paper
Factors that may distinguish one neighborhood from another:

While many characteristics of Carmel are “universal” in that they appear throughout the entire village, differences exist among neighborhoods. For example, most residential streets are similar in their forested character but some streets near the Mission are more open. Another example is along Scenic which has its own distinguishing features. Some of the variables that may define different neighborhoods, or “contexts” are listed below. These factors will be edited to be included in an introduction to the Design Guidelines discussing how to consider the context of a project:

1. The amount of light available: This relates to the character of the tree canopy and street widths.

2. The extent of the tree canopy: Most streets are intended to have a sense of enclosure with a healthy tree canopy, but a few were planned to be more open, such as in the Mission area.

3. Street widths: This influences where on-street parking occurs and street edges are treated. Most are of similar widths, but narrower ones exist and others are wider, such as near the Mission.

4. Variations in topography: This may be in the slope of a street itself or of lots, which may occur as “uphill” and “downhill” conditions. This influences the location of garages, how building forms may be stepped on a site and the way in which view opportunities exist.

5. Street layout: Most street are laid out in a grid with informal street edges. A few actually are laid out with curves such as Ridgewood Rd. and a portion of 14th Avenue.

6. The different phases in which the City has developed: Carmel City began in 1888 as a community of approximately 40 blocks. It more than doubled with annexation in 1900 of the Pescadero Canyon area and the Original Carmel-by-the-Sea in 1902. Other lands were added during the 1920s and 1930s until more than 200 blocks were included. The last annexation occurred in 1967. To some extent, differences in the periods of construction appear in the architectural styles found in these areas.

DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Strategy Paper
II. RESPECTING CARMEL’S DESIGN TRADITIONS
While there are many aspects of the character of Carmel that are to be addressed in the Design Guidelines, there are some high level design principles that apply citywide and that set the stage for the Design Guidelines. They are Guiding Principles for respecting Carmel’s Design Traditions which each improvement project should meet. Those principles are listed below. This list will be edited to be included in introductory material to the design guidelines.

1. Maintain a healthy forest character: Plan landscapes in both the public and private realms to sustain the Village in a Forest and restore areas that are in need. The compatibility of many buildings also is improved with more forest-like front yards.

2. Enhance the forest: Provide layers of landscaping (varying plant and tree heights) between the street and each home and use drought-tolerant plants and fire-resistant materials while continuing to convey the forest character.

3. Keep it modest: Design buildings and landscapes to be human-scaled and fit in with their surroundings rather than stick out.

4. Respect historic precedents: Retain traditional buildings that convey the history of the community.

5. Fit with the context: “Remember your neighbors” is an important principle. This varies by neighborhood. Key design factors include:
• Building size (height and width)
• Building form and proportion
• Percentage of solid-to-void (ratio of windows to wall) • Building materials
• Roof form
• Color
• Fit with the topography

6. Pay attention to detail: Convey excellence and authenticity in materials and design. Add value with well-crafted work that is visible to the community and promote the use of natural materials.

7. Encourage a “compatible diversity” in design: Avoid repetition in building designs and site features. Express individuality in subtle ways while respecting surroundings.

DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions 1.5 Strategy Paper
III. CURRENT ISSUES
These are some issues that have been identified and which are addressed in the recommended revisions.

They are grouped into three categories: (1) Design, in terms of the character of the built environment, (2) The Content of the Design Guidelines and standards that regulate design, and (3) Administration, which is the way in which reviewers apply the standards and guidelines in the permitting process.

DESIGN ISSUES
In General:

1. Some recent projects don’t fit in. They don’t respect some of the key design variables that relate to fitting in.

2. How to address diversity in design while maintaining character. Diversity is a part of Carmel’s design traditions, but within limits for fitting in. How can one define the range of diversity that is appropriate?
In Residential areas:

3. There is a question about architectural style: Some feel “modern,” or “contemporary” buildings don’t fit in. Others point to recent projects that do fit. Is style the issue, or is it the deviation from too many key design variables that define Carmel that is the problem (e.g.: Is a new building too visible from the street with a lack of appropriate landscaping)? Or is it a lack of understanding of the key design variables and how to apply them?

4. Erosion of forest character is a concern at the upper and lower canopy levels. This occurs in various places:
• In the Right-of-Way (ROW)
• In front yard landscaping, between the ROW and a house • In landscaping on a site in general

5. Some front yard fences and walls cut off views into yards and weaken the sense of connection with the street.

In the Downtown:

6. Inappropriate mass and scale of some new buildings and additions in the downtown makes them appear too large. Can new buildings that occupy more than one lot fit in while avoiding a sense of false facades? What are the key variables that they must respect to do so?

ISSUES WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES DOCUMENTS
In General:

7. More specific “yes and no” examples are needed in the illustrations. This would help users better understand the intent of the guidelines.

8. The documents need to be easier to navigate.

DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Strategy Paper

9. The Design Guidelines documents need better cross-referencing to relevant zoning standards and other regulations.

10. More guidance is needed about design in the Right-of-Way. A limited amount of design guidance is provided in the Design Guidelines documents. Other, more detailed, standards exist in a separate document which is used by Public Works. How are these best coordinated? The Residential Design Guidelines:

11. Many topics are already addressed in the Design Guidelines and yet seem to be overlooked when designs are developed. Is it the lack of clarity or direction in some of the guidelines? Or is it in their application by owners and those reviewing their designs?

12. Some guidelines lack clarity which complicates their interpretation. They sometimes are vague or the language is too passive.

The Downtown Design Guidelines:

13. The commercial guidelines lack sufficient detail to provide clear guidance in decision-making.

They were developed separately from the residential guidelines, have a different format and provide only high-level principles.

14. The current guidelines focus on commercial buildings, but other types are permitted in various zone districts. Multifamily buildings and hotels are examples. How can the guidelines address these?

ISSUES WITH ADMINISTRATION OF DESIGN REVIEW

15. Some people believe that at times the guidelines aren’t followed closely enough during design review. How can predictability in the review process be improved and how can confidence in the system be enhanced?

16. Some changes to projects are made during construction without approval. This is primarily an enforcement issue, but improving clarity in the guidelines could help in determining violations or in making revisions to approved documents.

17. Some people also have suggested that re-establishing a Design Review Board would improve the process.

DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions 1.5 Strategy Paper
IV. SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
This section lists at a high-level some key recommendations for improvement which apply across the board in both the residential and commercial zoning areas. To some extent they relate to the issues listed in the preceding section, but not necessarily in a direct one-to-one correlation. More specific recommendations appear in later sections of this Strategy Paper.

Improve the organizational structure of the Design Guidelines to facilitate their use.

Currently there are two books of guidelines for residential areas and a third one for the downtown. These are recommended actions:

1. Combine the two residential Design Guidelines documents into one book. Edit the text as needed and improve illustrations. (See more detailed recommendations that follow.)

2. Develop a separate book for the downtown. This would be a substantial re-write of the existing document. It should address the different building types found in the four zoning districts that exist in the downtown.

3. Add more cross references to other codes and regulations. Some cross references exist and should be updated. Other cross references are needed for newer documents. Referencing the City’s new Climate Action documents is an example.

4. Improve “wayfinding” in the documents. Include a chart in the introductions to help users determine which sections to use and add a more detailed Table of Contents.

5. Add more visual examples of appropriate and inappropriate designs. Use “grids” of images with examples of appropriate and inappropriate design alternatives. Use sketches or computer models, rather than photos, where they would be more effective, such as for illustrating massing of new buildings.

6. Include more narrative text describing how to evaluate “context.”

7. Address Design Guidelines for the ROW. Some brief guidelines addressing the Right-of-Way are in the existing documents. Other guidelines exist in a separate document that is used by Public Works. Include some material in the Design Guidelines that speaks at a “qualitative” level and also reference the existing standards used by Public Works where more prescriptive standards appear. (The Public Works standards also should be updated as a separate project.) DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Strategy Paper
Improve administration of the Design Guidelines and standards.

The objectives for improving administration of the Design Guidelines and standards are: (1) To build confidence in the review process, and (2) To assure informed, consistent decision-making. These are recommended actions:

1. Consider moving some guidelines that address key design variables to the zoning code as standards that clearly require compliance.

2. Re-establish a Design Review Board. In the recent community survey, respondents rated their preference for three alternatives for review and decision making:
• Continue to have the Planning Commission conduct design studies. However, enhance the role of the Planning Commission in design review by providing improved guidelines and standards. Also use a “checklist” in decision-making to assure that the guidelines are wellmet. Many respondents indicate support for this approach. • Alternatively, re-establish a separate Design Review Board that can focus specifically on application of the design guidelines, but have it serve as an advisor to the Planning Commission, which would continue to make the final decisions. Many respondents also indicate support for this approach. (Note that the Historic Resources Board serves in this advisory role for projects in the Downtown Conservation District.) • A third alternative is to re-establish a Design Review Board and have it make the design review decisions. A smaller number of survey respondents support this alternative.

When survey responses to the two variations on the type of Design Review Board are considered in combination, a significant percentage favor some form of Design Review Board. This alternative, along with the first option of continuing with the Planning Commission only, merits further discussion.

DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions 1.5 Strategy Paper
V. STRATEGY FOR THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
This section summarizes the approach recommended to update the Design Guidelines for Downtown Carmel. The Downtown actually includes four zone districts: (1) CC - Central Commercial, (2) SC - Service Commercial, (3) RC – Residential and limited commercial, and (4) R-4 Multi-family residential. While the Central Commercial zone district forms the core along Ocean Avenue, the area considered Downtown actually is larger (approximately 20 blocks), with the SC, RC and R-4 zone districts acting as transitions to the single family neighborhoods. The Design Guidelines must consider all of those districts and the related building types that can occur in them.

Re-write the Downtown guidelines, following the format of the residential guidelines.

The focus of the existing Downtown guidelines is on the commercial buildings along Ocean Avenue as a design context. They are brief and don’t address several important topics. For example, they don’t address building types other than traditional commercial structures. Limited Commercial or Multifamily building types that are permitted in some Downtown zone districts are not addressed.

Language in the existing Downtown guidelines should be brought forward as guiding policies on which new, more detailed guidelines will be based. This will assure continuity in policy while providing more clarity and predictability. Also add more graphics, including sketches and photographs, to illustrate the guidelines.

These should show positive and negative examples.

Focus the guidelines on respecting the valued features of Downtown.

The expanded Downtown guidelines should emphasize these principles:

1. Successfully meeting all key design variables, including: building size, ratio of solid to void, materials, roof form, color and proportions

2. Promoting variation in massing and articulation of building form to reduce perceived scale in a manner that is authentic (not a fake series of false fronts)

3. Using high quality materials

4. Incorporating well-crafted, durable details

5. Assuring street level appeal (landscaping, screening mechanical equipment, etc.) and pedestrian scale

6. Enriching the interplay between indoor and outdoor spaces

7. Providing a welcoming sense of discovery along the street DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Strategy Paper
Outline for the Downtown Guidelines
With the focus of the guidelines in mind, a recommended outline for the Downtown Design Guidelines follows. This will be refined at the outset of Phase 2, in which a draft of the guidelines will be produced.

1. Introductory material
a. How to use the guidelines
b. How they are organized, etc.
c. Relationship to other regulations and permitting processes

2. Design character of downtown
a. A description of styles found traditionally in the downtown b. A description of key features which are valued and should be respected in all work in the downtown

3. Key principles that all projects should follow, including… a. Maintain street level interest
b. Maintain the perceived low scale of buildings
c. Encourage use of natural materials
d. Accommodate a diversity of design within a range that is compatible e. Respect the topography

4. Guidelines for all building types
a. Materials
b. Street level interest
c. Awning and canopies
d. Lighting
e. Service areas
f. Utilities and rooftop equipment

5. Guidelines for specific building types
a. Commercial
b. Mixed-use
c. Multifamily
d. Hotel/Motel
e. Limited commercial
f. Single family houses (where permitted in existing zone districts)

6. Landscaping (on both public and private lands)
a. Plant beds
b. Planters
c. Paving (changes in)
d. Trees

7. Outdoor spaces (courtyards and intra-block walkways) a. Design features
b. Relationship to building size
c. Proportions

8. Signs
a. The standards are in the code.
b. The guidelines should focus on character and location of signs.

DRAFT
c. The illustrations should appear to comply with the code.

ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions 1.5 Strategy Paper
Specific edits that are recommended for the Downtown design guidelines Within the framework of the outline presented above, these are some specific edits, which are in three categories:

Clarify existing guideline text.

In these cases, the general principles exist and remain valid, but need more explanation. Examples include:

1. Enhancing street level interest and a pedestrian orientation

2. Using appropriate high quality building materials, including man-made materials

3. Maintaining traditional scale in new buildings

4. Window design
Illustrate an existing guideline more effectively.

In these cases, better graphics (photographs and sketches) would help in interpreting the guidance.

For example:

1. Show the range of ways to enhance street level interest, including storefronts, display cases, planters and outdoor use areas.

2. Illustrate how a simple variation in building heights of one and two stories for portions of a new building can help maintain the traditional scale of the street.

3. Provide examples of well-crafted, high-quality building details.

Add new Design Guidelines topics.

In this case, new language and illustrations address topics that presently are overlooked. For example, provide guidelines for:

1. Mixed-use buildings with limited commercial buildings

2. Multifamily buildings

3. Single family buildings in downtown districts

4. Landscaping in the public Right-of-Way and in private outdoor spaces DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Strategy Paper
VI. STRATEGY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
This section summarizes the approach to updating the Design Guidelines for the R-1 residential zones in Carmel.

Refine the existing guidelines as a base for the update.

The existing text remains valid in many ways. Retain most of this language in the update, editing and expanding it as needed to improve clarity and interpretation.

Add new topics that are now important.

For example, a note is needed about how the guidelines apply to potential Accessory Dwelling Units and how State law sets some limits on review. Other topics need further clarification and explanation. For example, guidelines exist about maintaining a “forest” image in front yards, but more detail is needed to explain this topic. Guidance for minimizing fire hazards also should be addressed.

Add a discussion of “context” and how the guidelines should take it into consideration.

The guidelines frequently refer to “context” but there is little explanation of what that means especially with respect to the Village-in-a-Forest concept. There is some recognition that context varies in different parts of the city, but again there is little description of these differences.

Focus the Design Guidelines on key principles.

The refined residential guidelines should emphasize these principles:

1. Maintaining forest character
This is a universal principle, but there are differences in how to apply it based on context.

For example, Scenic Road and some areas near the Carmel Mission are very different from other neighborhoods and specific guidance is needed for such conditions. Also include a definition of the term “forest character” to facilitate interpretation of related guidelines.

2. Respecting diversity in design
People note that diversity in architecture is a part of Carmel’s design traditions (albeit within a range that fits within the forest character.) This needs careful explanation such that blatantly inappropriate designs do not occur. The guidelines should explain how to respect the design variables that relate to fitting in.

DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions 1.5 Strategy Paper
Specific edits (organized by the type of edit)
Clarify existing guideline text.

General principles are embedded in the Concept Phase guidelines, but they need to be more clearly stated. Update the general principles, to include more recent input from the community.

Several guidelines related to specific topics also need clarification. For example:

1. Being subordinate and fitting in
• Explain the concept and include a definition of the term “subordinate.”

2. Views and solar access
• Clarify how view opportunities are to be shared among neighbors.

3. Landscaping in the front yard
• Emphasize how the concept of “layered” planting schemes should apply. • Update specifications related to tree protection.

4. Driveway paving
• Strengthen language related to the use of pervious materials, including interlocking pavers with spacers and driveway strips.

5. Color
• Emphasize the use of muted, earth tones.
• Clarify how white and black color schemes may and may not be appropriate.

6. Building form
• Discuss how simple variations in massing should be applied in ways that appear to be authentic, rather than creating overly-busy forms with superficial wall off-sets. • Step the building with the topography.

7. Synthetic materials
• The guidelines currently say “avoid” synthetic materials. Some new materials, however, can appear to be authentic and are fire-resistant. Expand the discussion of how and when to use them.

8. Use of stone
• Clarify how to use stone as a “base” material with lighter materials above such that it appears to be authentic, rather than a fake veneer.

Illustrate existing guidelines more effectively.

1. Add new photos to address new topics. Examples are:
• Provide examples of windows with good detailing, of various styles. • Also provide examples of alternative driveway paving designs. • Add photos of more recent compatible infill, with an explanation of why they fit in.

2. Add sketches where this is a better tool than a photo. For example:
• Illustrate the concept of “layered” landscaping with additional sketches. • Also illustrate the concept of “balancing” key design variables, especially in building DRAFT
design.

ATTACHMENT 5

Strategy Paper
Add new Design Guidelines topics that are now important. Examples needed for new material are:

1. Converting a garage in front to an ADU (and in code) • Discuss how to determine “compatibility” of an ADU with the main building as provided in state law.
• Also discuss how an existing driveway may be repurposed if a garage is converted into an ADU.

2. Using Carmel stone (or similar) for retaining walls, including those for driveways

3. Designing cool roofs (those intended to reduce heat gain, sometimes of lighter colors)

4. Installing heat pumps

5. Planning rain gardens (planted areas designed to retain rain water runoff)

6. Installing solar panels
Change existing guidance if needed. Some examples:

1. Roof material
The current guidelines encourage the use of wood or composition shingles. Today, these are not recommended for fire resistance. To consider:
• Permit low-profile, painted metal roofs, with the color to be muted. • Permit metal roofs with an aged patina that eliminates glare (but prohibit copper roofs for environmental concerns).
• Permit cool roofs (with considerations of visual impacts).

2. Roof form
The current guidelines state that flat roofs should be used only on smaller, one-story portions of a building. Revisit this guidance. (Note that zoning standards contradict this policy.)

3. Retaining walls
• Strengthen language to promote, or even require, stone as the exposed surface material on retaining walls in the front setback.
• Strongly discourage, or even prevent retaining walls in the ROW, except in extreme unstable slope conditions.
• Strengthen language limiting retaining walls in the front setback that lead to belowgrade garages.

DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions 1.5 Strategy Paper
VII. STRATEGY FOR ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
Some edits to the zoning code are recommended as part of the Design Traditions Project whereas other revisions to the zoning code are to be addressed in the work program of the planning staff later. Zoning code edits to address in the Design Traditions Project include:

Clarify how the design review process applies to ADUs.

The state law provides for limited and objective review to assure compatibility with the main house on the property. One issue to address is how review may apply when converting a garage that is in front. (Note that a garage that encroaches into the front setback is a special condition approved by the Planning Commission and if a conversion to one of these can occur needs further clarification.) Clarify how paving materials apply to calculating site coverage.

Some paving is needed for functional requirements. Review the standards to assure that the materials are permeable.

Expand standards for fences.

Review the standards for fences to clarify some basic questions: (1) Can a non-conforming fence be replaced in kind, or must a replacement comply with current standards? Also clarify the range of appropriate fence types: Unpainted wood is preferred. Are other materials appropriate? Does this vary by context? For example, where might a white picket fence appropriate? May fire-resistant materials be used? Re-evaluate Volumetric standards.

An important standard is the regulation of the exterior volume of buildings on a property. The intent is to keep building size subordinate in relation to the forest and neighborhood context. Some people have noted that the current formula encourages only a small number of roof pitches, especially on larger buildings and ones that differ from traditions in other key variables, such as materials and windows designs. Others find the calculations too complicated. Consider these alternatives:

1. Continue to use the volumetric system but simplify how it is calculated.

Also adjust the system to encourage various degrees of pitched roofs. The advantage of this approach is that using volumetrics is long-established and an update would be easier to understand and predict the potential outcomes.

2. Change to a bulk plane (building envelope) system.

This system defines a three-dimensional area within which a building may occur. It can have any pitched form, to encourage varied sloped roofs (while potentially permitting appropriately scaled flat roofs). This would require some study to assure that the desired volumes would be permitted.

Applying it to the various sloped site conditions in Carmel also is a challenge to evaluate.

DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Strategy Paper
Strengthen standards for garage encroachment in the front setback.

Criteria for documenting the need for an encroachment exist but are listed as a “high level” in the code, but without detail that would help assure that the required conditions are met. Among the criteria to clarify:

1. Site features that limit other alternatives

2. Topographic constraints

3. Saving a tree, or maintaining other important open space

4. Maintaining variation in building setbacks in a block Strengthen standards for cut & fill.

Not all cut-and-fill work requires Planning Commission approval at present. The current threshold for requiring a PC hearing is removal of 25 cubic yards. Consider reducing the threshold and providing more specific conditions for approval, including how the changes affect front yard character.

Strengthen standards for exterior lighting.

Address how light levels are measured. (New light sources are rated in lumens and Kelvin scales.) Also strengthen requirements for shielding light sources. Also consider incorporating concepts from the International Dark Skies Association
DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions 1.5 Strategy Paper
VIII. STRATEGY FOR REVIEW PROCESS AND ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENTS An objective is to assure that a skilled and well-informed design review body applies the standards and guidelines consistently.

Refine the decision-makers’ role.

Further study these alternatives:

1. Enhance the process for the Planning Commission to continue conducting design review.

The advantage is that design is considered in the context of other planning commission issues.

Improved guidelines and standards would help assure that decisions follow adopted policies.

2. Re-establish a Design Review Board as an advisory body. This provides a focused review but it adds a step in the process. It still retains the PC as the decision-making body.

3. Establish a Design Review Board as the decision-making body. While there would be two steps in permitting, the topics would be separated between the Design Guidelines and the zoning standards. The DRB would determine compliance with the design guidelines and could advise the PC about the appropriateness of any requests for exceptions to zoning standards. Complications may arise when projects needing design approval also require other entitlements that must be granted by the Planning Commission (e.g. Variances).

Provide a review structure which assures all guidelines are adequately met.

Regardless of who reviews and determines compliance, some structural improvements could enhance predictability. These are some recommendations:

1. Identify key guidelines related to compatibility as “priorities” to assure that they are fully met.

2. Use a checklist for review that highlights the priority guidelines. This also would help assure that those guidelines are met.

Provide opportunities for community comment.

In addition to having public comment at a commission hearing, provide for a regular review by the community of the process. Holding a bi-annual review of the system is recommended. This would be a community meeting and also would include an on-line survey.

Assure that the reviewers are skilled in applying design guidelines.

While some board or commission members may be experienced designers themselves, reviewing designs is a skill to be learned. Training in design review should be a regular requirement. Conducting an annual design review training for the board or commission is recommended. Also include annual training for staff.

DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Strategy Paper
IX. NEXT STEPS
Many of the recommendations put forth in this Strategy Paper can be executed directly after public comment and guidance from decision-makers. Others will require further study and discussion.

The Strategy Paper will be reviewed by the community, and some of the recommendations will be discussed in an upcoming public workshop. They also will be discussed in work sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council.

Based on information gained from those meetings, the approach will be adjusted as needed. Drafting of the updates will then begin. When public review drafts of the updates are prepared, they will be presented for discussion in a subsequent public workshop. Revisions to the drafts, based on community input, will follow.

The final drafts will then be introduced for adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council.

DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions 1.5 Strategy Paper

1. Using multiple images
Below is an example of a “grid” of images could be added that illustrate appropriate design solutions for a specific topic. In this case, residential gates are shown. Note that the preceding text is as it exists today, with only a few edits to strengthen language.

THE FOLLOWING IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE
Gates and Arbors
When a fence or low wall is used at the street frontage, the entry is often marked by a gate or arbor. These features should be small and intimate in their proportions and should be an integral part of the overall landscape design. Fences, gates and arbors provide an opportunity to include unique details that reflect a hand-crafted design. Creative design approaches are encouraged when they are subtle and well-integrated with the site. Gates and arbors that appear to be mass produced or machined are inappropriate.

11.6 A gate shall help create a sense of entry and therefore should be distinguishable from the adjoining fence or wall. • Use distinctive design details to express individuality and craftsmanship.
• Gates shall have open or transparent qualities that allow filtered views into the property.

Sample edits to illustrations:

The following pages (pg 20-26) provide examples of potential changes to how illustrations could appear in the updated Guidelines. The intent of these changes would be to make the illustrations easier to see and more useful to readers.

DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions 1.5 Strategy Paper
Appropriate gates (EXAMPLE ONLY)
Inappropriate gates (EXAMPLE ONLY)
DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions 1.5 Strategy Paper

2. Adding color to existing guidelines
In many cases, existing residential guidelines may have some minor edits, both graphically and in text.

An example is included in the following pages. Some potential text edits are shown here. Updates to illustrations include substituting older black-and-white photographs with new color examples and adding color to original sketches. Potential edits could also include "X's" and "Checks" to clearly indicate appropriate designs.

THE FOLLOWING IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE
DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Strategy Paper
Inappropriate: Elevating a site to maximize views.

Proposed
building
New fill to elevate a structure
to maximize views
Tree cropped
to open up
view

V I E W
Appropriate: A new building is sited to maintain views from existing houses.

Proposed
house
DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions 1.5 Strategy Paper

6.0 Parking and Access
Traditionally, parking was a subordinate element in Carmel’s residential neighborhoods, both on an individual parcel and along the street in general. Today, providing access for an automobile on a site is often a necessity, and doing so is encouraged, as a means of reducing on-street parking pressures. Nonetheless, it should remain subordinate to the overall character of the site.

Usually a garage was a subordinate element in a site plan and often was detached from the house. The wide variety of garage positions contributed to the diversity of the street scene: Many were located at the front property line, while others were sited in the rear. In later years, the garage was often attached, but remained subordinate to the main mass of the house. These traditions of diversity and subordinate character should be continued.

In some cases, it appears that owners positioned their garages away from prominent views. In particular, they located them uphill, away from downhill views to the ocean. When locating a garage, consider view impacts, the relationship to open space on the lot, and the relationship to that of neighboring properties.

Objectives for this section:
• To minimize the visual impacts of cars on a site
• To minimize the extent of hard, impervious surfaces
• To avoid garage structures that dominate the site and building design

6.1 Facilities for parking shall not dominate the design of the house or site.
• The mass of a garage shall be subordinate to that of the house. • Garages that are subordinate design elements are appropriate. • Garages that are not visible from the street are appropriate. • Garages integrated into the building design are encouraged. • On smaller lots, with a garage visible from the street, provide a single, one-car garage door.
• Avoid moving established driveways if trees or significant vegetation would be harmed.

6.2 Parking facilities that maintain or enhance variety along the street edge are encouraged.
• Consider using a detached garage or carport.
• In some cases, parking facilities may be located in the front setbacks (as a conditional use)
Consider using a carport for variety
along a block.

Add reference to code here
In limited circumstances a garage may
be located under a structure when the
visual impacts will be minimized. This
garage is clearly subordinate to the main
building mass.
4 4
DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Strategy Paper
Driveway paving

6.3 Minimize the amount of paved surface area of a driveway. • In general, the width of a driveway should not exceed 9 feet. • Also consider using paving strips, or “tire tracks,” for a driveway. This is especially appropriate for a long drive that runs to the rear of a property.
• Except for corner sites with a “through driveway,” only one curb cut and one driveway should be provided for a site. Sharing a driveway with an adjacent property is an alternative that also may be considered.
• Avoid large expanses of paving for vehicles visible from the street.

6.4 Separate a driveway from a front walkway to reduce the visual impacts of paved surfaces.
• Install plant materials to separate a walk from a driveway.

Garage location

6.5 Position a garage to maximize opportunities for open space, views and privacy.
• Locate a garage to maintain larger contiguous areas of open space on a site.
• Locate a garage to screen activity areas on adjacent properties to enhance privacy.
• Locate a garage to maintain views through the property.

Appropriate
The walkway and drive are
separated, reducing the apparent
amount of paved area.

Inappropriate
A walkway and drive are
combined, increasing the
apparent size of paved area.

Consider using a shared driveway to
minimize the amount of paving area.
4 Position a garage (or carport) to
maximize opportunities for open space,
views and privacy.
4 DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions 1.5 Strategy Paper

6.6 Locate a garage to minimize its visual impacts.

Three options should be considered:

1. Detached, at the rear of the lot.

2. Detached, in front, along the property line is acceptable, when other design traditions objectives are met. This option should not be repeated to excess within a block.

3. Under the house, when other design tradition objectives are met. (See below.)

6.7 In limited circumstances a garage may be located under a structure when the visual impacts will be minimized.
• The garage door should not dominate the front of the house.

It shall not contrast highly with the color or materials of the house. A door perpendicular to the street is best in this condition, and... • The driveway shall not dominate the front yard and may not create a “ramp” effect or introduce tall or massive retaining walls. A sense of a front yard must be maintained.

Inappropriate “ramp” driveway
Placeholder
Preferred: Locating a detached garage at
the rear of the lot
4 Preferred: Orienting the garage door
away from the street.
4 When a garage is located under the house, the driveway should not create a ramp effect. The garage door also should not dominate the front. 4 8
DRAFT ATTACHMENT 5

09 FEB 2023 DRAFT

DESIGN TRADITIONS OF CARMEL

RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Introduction & Core Design Guidelines
CARMEL BY THE SEA remains beautiful because of the community’s rigorous design expectations. These Residential Design Guidelines are a mandated regulatory tool for the R1 and R4 districts that conveys these expectations. They also help explain and illustrate design standards in the City’s other regulations. Existing projects never establish precedent for proposed projects. Instead, all projects must meet or exceed the expectations described by and under the community’s six Core Design Guidelines. Where uncertainty arises, city officials will interpret guideline adherence on a case-by-case basis. Strict adherence to this document and its related, linked regulations will help ensure that a proposed project will meet community expectations and have a smooth approval process.

1.0.0 PRESERVE, restore, and enhance the forest
in all improvement projects: private, public, and otherwise. p. 01

2.0.0 SUBORDINATE every built structure to the character and continuity of the forest, natural environment, and to the natural features of its own site. p. 05

3.0.0 FIT every built structure within its neighborhood context. p. 09

4.0.0 RETAIN and build upon Carmel’s architectural heritage. p. 11

5.0.0 DESIGN every built structure with modesty and restraint. p. 14

6.0.0 DETAIL every property authentically and consistently. p. 17

APPENDICES
project review process p. XX historical context p. YY
preferred building and planting materials p. ZZ
ATTACHMENT 6

1.0.0 Preserve, restore, and enhance
the forest in all improvement projects: private, public, and otherwise.

1.1.0 Preserve all existing healthy upper
canopy and lower canopy trees.

1.1.1 Before beginning design work, both the City Forester and a City Planner review the required survey prepared by a licensed
surveyor or engineer, which shows existing
site conditions, topography, drainage
features, trees, structures, right-of-way
edges and character, views, privacy issues,
historical evaluations, nonconformities,
neighborhood design contexts, and other
features useful in designing a project. The
City Forester evaluates existing trees on and
immediately adjacent to the project site
including the right-of-way for their significance and condition.

1.1.2 Consult the “Preliminary Site Assessment”
tree survey when designing and locating
new structures and additions to determine
which trees are significant and should be
protected.

1.1.3 The Forest and Beach Commission will
comment on the effects any proposed work
will have on significant trees during project
review.

1.1.4 Provide enough open space on each
building site to both preserve and add
upper and lower canopy trees at sufficient
spacings for growth to maturity.

1.1.5 Locate new construction in accordance with
the Land Use Code to minimize impacts on established trees and avoid pruning of limbs and canopies. Set foundations for buildings
and walls back far enough from the base of
any tree to adequately protect its roots.

Plan curb cuts, paving and drainage systems
to maintain air transport and water
percolation to root systems.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 1 ATTACHMENT 6

1.1.6 Protect existing vegetation during
construction to screen buildings, contribute
to the forest character of the street, and
achieve a settled, mature look upon project
completion.

1.1.7 Plan access and site development to protect
trees during construction as provided in the
Land Use Code. Do not alter the grade level near nor excavate into the root zone or drip-line of any healthy mature tree, whether
on or adjacent to the site, including on
abutting properties and in the right-of-way.

1.2.0 Preserve or enhance the informal,
vegetated, open space character of
the right-of-way.

1.2.1 Preserve vegetation and trees, especially
those with canopies over the street, both in
the right-of-way and the periphery of the
site so that the pavement curves around and
emphasizes natural landscape features and
topography, creating the appearance of a
meandering forested lane with occasional
“mini-parks”.

1.2.2 Remove any excess existing paving and
other non-conforming and easily displaced
materials, such as gravel per M.C.

12.24.020.B. Never keep in the right-of-way irrigation equipment or un-permitted paving, gravel, boulders, logs, timbers,
planters, fences, retaining walls, other
above-ground encroachments, or any hardscape that would widen the street or create a parking space.

1.2.4 Maintain the existing character of street
gutters, which is typically a rolled asphalt
curb or, more formally, is a channel faced
with large native rock, but is never just plain
concrete.

1.2.5 Leave the right-of-way as an unpaved,
natural forest floor with an informal edge,
unplanted except for trees on packed earth,
mulch, and pine needles.

1.2.6 When the right-of-way is too sloped or is
otherwise too prone to erosion to preserve
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 2 ATTACHMENT 6

the natural forest floor, informal, drought- tolerant, non-irrigated, green foliage ground covers or low shrubs native to the forest
may be added. Do not use bedding plants
and exotic species in the public right-of-way.

1.2.7 Do not remove trees or add gravel or other
“hardened” surfaces to provide parking in
the right-of-way, but instead reinforce the
forest image by separating parking spaces
from driveways with plantings and by using
natural soil, shredded bark, or wood chips
as surface materials.

1.3.0 Preserve and enhance the forested
image of the site.

1.3.1 Do not wall off properties but instead
extend the forest character of the right-ofway into the visible parts of the site by keeping a large portion of each site as open
space, with plantings located to filter views of structures. Find maximum limits for hardscape site coverage in the Carmel
Municipal Code.

1.3.2 Preserve and supplement trees, especially
those that arch over the street, and provide
a mix of upper canopy trees for scale and
multi-stemmed lower canopy trees for
screening. The City Forester determines the
mix and the City…regulations cover tree
replacement ratios and species.

1.3.3 Do not plant trees that would mature where
desired views of significant landscape
features, such as the ocean, hillsides,
mountains, parklands, greenbelts, or
waterways already exist.

1.3.4 Allocate the preponderance of site plantings
to native, drought-tolerant species and follow the Municipal Code for more specific requirements.

1.3.5 Locate plants and ground surfaces in
relaxed, informal arrangements that are
consistent with the urban forest character,
reserving any formal, unnatural
arrangements, bedding plants, or exotic
flowering plants only for small areas out of
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 3 Propert
RO Fro
Stre
ATTACHMENT 6

public view or small walkway or entry
accents.

1.3.6 For a forest meadow ground cover, use only
informal, no-water varieties kept out of
public view and do not use manicured lawns
or artificial turf.

1.3.7 Projects that involve a new building or substantial alteration require a professional landscape plan, which identifies areas for low-scale plants, shrubbery, and trees for
initial review and shows specific planting
plans for final review. Address the special needs of each species, using, for example, high-water-use plants near redwoods but
not near oaks, paving materials that
minimize tree root impacts, and best
practices for fire mitigation.

1.4.0 Preserve un-altered, pre- development water drainage ways as site amenities.

1.4.1 Minimize stormwater impacts with Low
Impact Development (LID) principles,
including: addressing stormwater close to
the source, installing bio-retention, and
other planted drainage areas, and
using“sand-set” instead of “mortar-set”
paving with pervious paving materials ffor water percolation and soil aeration.

1.4.2 Enhance water quality with stormwater
management systems that mimic the natural
water cycle, filter stormwater into the
ground and direct flows through vegetative
buffers and rain gardens where plant and
tree uptake can remove pollutants.

1.4.3 Design new on-site stormwater control
devices to appear naturally integrated into
the forest. Use green roofs, retention areas,
or landscaped areas to capture flow and
prevent new runoff toward adjacent
properties per Carmel Municipal Code Section 15.08.230. 09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 4 A
formal
A
informal
l a n d -
s c a p e
arrangem
ATTACHMENT 6

2.0.0 Subordinate every built structure
to the character of the forest,
natural environment, and to the
natural features of its own site.

2.1.0 Nestle a building in the trees to
minimize the mass visible from public
view.

2.1.1 Position buildings to avoid cutting into the
canopy of established trees.

2.1.2 Decrease the apparent size of buildings by
building less than the maximum allowable
floor area, using a compact footprint, minimizing large volume spaces (high ceilings or steep pitches across wide spans),
and eliminating large, unused underfloor
areas and extensive cantilevers, especially
over cut areas.

2.1.3 Reduce perceptible building height by
locating some floor area either fully or
partially below grade or at a “garden” level
with any walkout area, light well, retaining
wall, or terrace concealed to the side or
rear. When these locations are not feasible,
provide more screening with other building
elements or landscaping.

2.1.4 Minimize the visual impacts of retaining
walls, garden walls, window wells, and other
foundation structures by incorporating
sloped, planted areas to create a smooth
grade transition. Ensure tall retaining walls,
terracing, or revetments are not visible from
the public way.

2.2.0 Follow the site’s natural contours.

2.2.1 Step building height, foundations, and floor
levels to follow site slopes and contours.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 5 Pro Tree
crop
New fill to
ATTACHMENT 6

When floor levels cannot be stepped, larger underfloor spaces count as part of the allowed floor area.

2.2.1 Minimize excavation and fill on a site by
maintaining existing topography and
keeping all grading and excavation
completely within the proposed building
footprint.

2.2.2 Minimize construction on steep slopes.

2.2.3 Avoid abrupt changes in grade within a site
and between adjoining properties. When
such transitions are unavoidable, use
sloped, planted areas, if slopes exceed the angle of repose, use multiple landscaped terraces rather than a single tall wall.

2.3.0 Subordinate parking facilities to the
house and site.

2.3.1 Minimize the impact of a garage or carport
by: concealing them from the street,
detaching them at the back of the lot or
elsewhere, subsuming them into the
building design, for example by tucking
them underneath, locating them partially
below grade (while avoiding any three-story
appearance), orienting the garage door
away from the street, and, on small lots,
using only a single, one-car garage door.

2.3.2 Use parking facilities to maintain or enhance
variety along the street edge and to
maximize landscaped open space, views,
and privacy. If a detached, one-car garage or carport benefits the overall streetscape, the City may determine that it can encroach
into the front setback. The City does not
allow two-car garages in the front setback.

2.3.3 To maintain forest floor continuity,
established vegetation, and ample front
yard space, keep driveways at grade and
without cuts and fills that would create a
“ramp” effect or require retaining walls
perpendicular to the street.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 6 ATTACHMENT 6

2.3.4 Minimize the amount of paved surface area
for a driveway by using organic materials, “tire track” paving strips, sharing a single driveway between two adjacent properties,
and/or limiting each site to the required
single curb cut (unless a corner site requires
a “through driveway”).

2.4.0 Design all paved areas to be small,
informal, and intimate.

2.4.1 Reduce widths of asphalt or concrete,
separate a driveway from a front walkway
with plantings, avoid formal or urban paving
treatments, and soften paved edges with
landscaping

2.4.2 Select paving with muted colors and texture
authentic to the material, such as Carmel
stone, granite, cobblestone, brick, asphalt,
natural concrete, gravel, decomposed
granite, and mulch, keeping easily displaced
materials on private property only per M.C.

12.24.020.B.

2.5.0 Blend private landscape with that of
the public right-of-way to make
vegetated spaces appear larger and
to improve continuity with the forest.

2.5.1 Design without a fence or wall along a street
frontage.

2.5.2 Where privacy or enclosure is needed, use
shrubs, hedges, or other vegetation.

2.5.3 If vegetation does not provide sufficient safe
enclosure along a street for children, pets,
or others, install an informal, unfinished,
wood fence, which preserves visual access
into the front yard and at street
intersections, by using open pickets wherein
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 7 ATTACHMENT 6

the size of the spaces are at least equal to
the size of the material.

2.5.4 When creating an arbor, maintain a narrow,
low, and “light” scale instead of a tall, wide
structure with massive timbers or other
heavy elements that dominate the street.

2.5.5 In rare cases, where a fence is needed but
the predominant building material is stone,
masonry, or stucco, a low garden wall of the
same material and construction may fit into
the site if fully integrated with the
topography and other hardscape and if kept at four feet or less from grade.

2.6.0 Preserve the nighttime Dark-Sky character of neighborhoods.

2.6.1 Use light sources compliant with low lumen
standards.

2.6.2 Use lights only where needed for safety and
at outdoor activity areas, such as building
entries, gates, terraces, walkways, and
patios.

2.6.3 Do not use floodlights, spotlights, or lights
to accent buildings or vegetation.

2.6.4 Instead of exposed light sources, locate and
shield fixtures to eliminate glare and excess
illumination onto neighboring properties
and the street.

2.6.5 Size and locate skylights to eliminate glare or light pollution visible to neighbors or to the public. Use skylights only if interior
spaces have no access to exterior windows,
such windows have limited access to light,
or windows would cause even greater
impacts to adjoining homes.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 8 ATTACHMENT 6

3.0.0 Fit every built structure within its
neighborhood context.

3.1.0 Locate open spaces so that they visually link with that of adjacent properties.

3.1.1 Coordinate open spaces in careful response
to other open spaces to have an amplifying
effect and combine them to increase their
apparent size, rather than simply
maintaining required setbacks.

3.1.2 On oversized or combined properties,
maintain the open space character of
Carmel’s typical 4,000sf lot sizes, avoiding
the appearance of a “compound” or
“estate.”

3.1.3 Relate a building’s mass to the context of
other homes nearby. Divide a larger building into forms similar in scale to traditional village houses, placing some mass in a detached secondary structure (garage, guest house, etc.) if necessary to reduce the overall mass of the primary
building.

3.1.4 Stagger front setbacks of homes and
garages to frame outdoor spaces, avoid
uniform alignments, and provide variety in
the arrangement of buildings and open
spaces along the street, unless doing so
prevents a visual aggregation of open space
or endangers significant trees.

3.1.5 Stagger side setbacks with adjacent
properties to avoid the “canyon effect” of a
narrow corridor or tunnel between
buildings. Provide even more open side
yard space when buildings on adjacent
properties are two stories or close to the
joint property line. Refer to the Carmel
Municipal Code for setback regulations.

3.1.6 Minimize building mass as seen from
adjacent properties by: avoiding long,
uninterrupted wall planes, placing tall
building walls away from the property line
and similar walls on neighboring sites, and
providing greater setbacks for any chimney
directly opposite a neighboring window.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 9 Preferred: Avoid: canyon
ATTACHMENT 6

3.1.7 Preserve access to light between properties.

3.2.0 Preserve views from nearby
properties to natural features.

3.2.1 Locate building volumes to make use of
views but not substantially block views
enjoyed by others, keeping the building height low and the building footprint compact to maintain views over and along sides of properties.

3.2.3 Keep building elements from blocking views
with sensitive placement and sizing, for
example use chimneys with narrow profiles
or minimalist flues.

3.3.0 Organize functions on a site to
preserve reasonable privacy for
adjacent properties.

3.3.1 Screen patios, terraces, and active areas of
adjacent properties through the position of
buildings and the preservation of significant
trees.

3.3.2 Locate and size windows and skylights to
avoid views in or out of neighboring indoor
and outdoor active use areas. Limit windows
to 12sf or less on side walls adjacent to
neighbors.

3.3.3 Locate and screen balconies and decks to
avoid overlooking active indoor and
outdoor use areas of adjacent properties.

3.4.0 Vary the design of a new building
from that of nearby and abutting
properties.

3.4.1 Provide variety in building materials along a
block and if houses to the immediate sides
of a site are constructed of similar materials,
use a different material.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 10 Prop
osed
ATTACHMENT 6

4.0.0 Retain and build upon Carmel’s
established architectural
heritage.

4.1.0 Preserve historic and existing
resources.

4.1.1 Re-use existing buildings and their
components, for example restoring rather
than replacing original windows.

4.1.2 Respect adjacent historic resources by preserving adequate, light, open space, and views of and around the structure.

4.1.3 Check zoning standards for related
incentives, such as expedited processing.

4.1.4 Follow additional standards for properties
recognized as having official historic
significance, such as Municipal Code Chapter 17.32 , the Historic Context Statement, and Historic Review Board
consideration.

4.2.0 Continue Carmel’s tradition of
diversity in architectural styles.

4.2.1 For accurate historic styles, use the same
materials and craftsmanship as those of the
reproduced period.

4.2.2 For other, supportive styles, use equivalent materials and craftsmanship as those of historic styles.

4.2.3 Do not propose or repeat “new” “styles”
that deviate from Carmel’s whimsical, artistic
history or that resemble those in speculative
or “McMansion” developments.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 11 ATTACHMENT 6

4.2.4 Differentiate a new building’s design and
style from that of nearby and abutting buildings.

4.3.0 Use traditional, natural building
materials.

4.3.1 Use the preferred materials traditionally used in Carmel, such as wood, stone, brick, concrete, and stucco for walls and wood
shingles and shakes, clay, slate, and
concrete tiles for roofs. Use metal roofs only
if they are detailed simply, have no ribs or
striations, use genuine, field-installed,
standing or flat seams, and are unreflective
and either uncoated, like Cor-Ten steel, or
of integrated earth-toned color.

4.3.2 Choose materials that will form a desired
natural patina over time or that can be
maintained in their original condition.

4.3.3 Use materials in their natural conditions,
scales, and colors, with matte finishes and
muted earth tones, rather than highly
polished treatments such as mirrored glass
or reflective metals.

4.3.4 Apply materials using methods traditional to
Carmel, for example, wood siding in
shingles, horizontal clapboard, or board and
batten, brick in its traditional modular
dimension, or stucco in smooth or lightly
textured finishes.

4.3.5 Use metal or unclad wood windows, doors,
and garage doors, not vinyl or plastic.

4.4.0 Use man-made materials according
to traditional, natural principles.

4.4.1 Use man-made materials if their ecological
impacts are equivalent to those of natural
materials: able to form a natural patina over
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 12 ATTACHMENT 6

time, able to be maintained rather than
disposed, able to be fully dismantled and
recycled or reused, biodegradable, and
environmentally non-toxic or beneficial.

4.4.2 Certified Cradle-to-Cradle products meet Carmel standards for man-made materials.

4.4.2 Do not use man-made materials that fake
natural or other materials in their textures or
finishes.

4.4.3 Apply man-made materials in a manner that
conveys a traditional human scale.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 13 ATTACHMENT 6

5.0.0 Design every built structure with
modesty and restraint.

5.1.0 Restrain building forms, materials.
and details.

5.1.1 Design a building consistently, with the
design concept extending to all sides of the
building and with no mixing of architectural
styles.

5.1.2 Keep primary building volumes simple, as
seen traditionally, limiting the number of
subordinate volumes and using basic
rectangular, L-, T-, or U-shaped plans.

5.1.3 Avoid visual complexity, “busy” building
forms, too many different materials,
excessive and overly ornate or ostentatious
details, and materials and details that
contrast strongly within a single building or
with neighboring buildings.

5.1.4 Do not use building elements that are complex, monumental, formal, out-of-scale, or that increase the visual prominence of the building.

5.1.5 Use restraint when introducing variation in
building planes, using building offsets only
for clear purposes such as avoiding tree
limbs or expressing a change of
occupational use within. Do not use small,
purposeless offsets and do not change the
building material or cladding at an offset.

5.1.6 Compose roof forms with just a few, simple
planes with limited subordinate attachments
such as dormers. For example, traditional
gable and hip roofs have basic forms while
mansard roofs, sloping roof “skirts” that
conceal a flat area, and “clipped” gables
add too much complexity.

5.1.7 Subdue the character of the garage by
using a rectilinear form with materials and
colors that do not contrast with the main
buildings.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 14 Simple primary
volume re- mains
apparent.

Appropriate:

Changing roof heights helps to break
up the mass, while keeping the overall roof
formssimple in character.

ATTACHMENT 6

5.2.0 Ensure that a building appears to be no more than two stories in height, as viewed from the public right-ofway.

5.2.1 Present one-story heights to the street and
locate two story elements away from the
street, except where this would appear dominant or out of scale when viewed from the public right-of-way or a neighboring
home. Remember that a garage, even
sunken below grade, counts as a story.

5.2.2 Use a low building plate height, generally
not over 8 feet. The maximum plate height
of 12 established in the Land Use Code is
only to accommodate sloping building sites.

5.2.3 Make detached garages one story, one-car,
and small in scale, with the wall plate height
no taller than that of the first-story plate of
the main house.

5.3.0 Convey human scale in a building’s
basic forms.

5.3.1 Organize building mass into realistic
modules to reduce perceived size, breaking
a larger house into subordinate modules
which appear authentic, in that they reflect
real, functioning spaces within, not just minor offsets meant to create interest.

5.3.2 Do not use design features that produce a
top-heavy appearance such as large
cantilevered building elements, roof forms
that dominate the body of the building, or
wide chimney structures.

5.3.3 Emphasize the low and horizontal so that
buildings appear to hug the ground.

5.3.4 Keep plate heights and roof eave lines low
in scale, tucking upper story rooms under
roof slopes, so as to reduce the height of
exposed walls.

5.3.5 Proportion roof forms to the scale of the
building, keeping heights low by reducing
the pitch of wider spans (4:12 to 6:12
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 15 ATTACHMENT 6

maximum). Limit flat roofs to one-story
structures or set back from public view.

5.3.6 Use historic Carmel styles only at their traditional, human scales.

5.4.0 Use building details to provide
interest but not to exaggerate the
scale of a building.

5.4.1 Add details to relieve blank surfaces and
achieve a scale compatible with the
building’s forms and its architecture.

5.4.2 Use all materials, natural or man-made, at
traditional scales, dimensions, and modules.

5.4.3 Use appropriately sized, never oversized,
building elements, such as windows, doors,
entries, chimneys, overhangs, dormers, and
porches to reduce scale, especially as visible
from public view.

5.4.4 Keep visible openings subordinate in scale
to the building. Do not use “grand",
oversized entryways, windows, or doors. Do
not use expanses of glass that require more
recent structural technology on more
traditional architectural styles.

5.4.5 Limit the use of specialty windows that add
to building bulk to no more than one visible
from the street. Avoid altogether bay and
oriel windows facing the street if this would
create a repeating pattern within the
context of adjacent structures.

5.5.0 Keep the overall color scheme
muted.

5.5.1 Limit the use of bright colors, if any, to key
accent features, such as an entry door.

5.5.2 Avoid highly contrasting color schemes.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 16 ATTACHMENT 6

6.0.0 Detail every property
authentically and consistently.

6.1.0 Use building materials and features in a
manner that conveys authenticity.

6.1.1 Convey a sense of true craftsmanship in
architectural details.

6.1.2 Do not use materials or details inauthentic
to the architecture or that appear nonstructural, gratuitous, or applied as superficial elements, wall “accents” or
veneers.

6.1.3 On multi-paned windows and doors, use
true dividers that go from inside to outside
between the panes of glass.

6.1.4 Where materials do not simply remain un- coated, finish with a plain, uniform, matte varnish, stain or paint, without texture mottling, antiqued, or other faux finishes.

6.1.5 Use details that are, or appear to be, true
structural elements, such as natural wood
exposed rafter tails, beams, or Carmel
Stone foundations.

6.1.6 Use a “hierarchy” of building materials, with heavier coarser materials below lighter materials.

6.1.7 Whether on a building or a landscape
element, stack stone traditionally so that it appears, or actually is, structurally loadbearing. Do not “float” stone above lighter materials or use it purely decoratively, such
as framed just around windows or doors, or
randomly clustered on corners, walls, or
chimneys.

6.1.8 Detail new and/or manmade materials in
ways authentic to their own composition.

For example, carefully plan the woodgrain
and modules of formwork for exposed
poured concrete or use cement board
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 17 ATTACHMENT 6

siding with a smooth, untextured surface,
rather than an added, faux woodgrain.

6.2.0 Use building materials or features in
a consistent manner.

6.2.1 Use design details and surface materials
throughout the full exterior of the building.

Do not apply special materials or design
treatments to the street facade only.

6.2.2 Do not stop wall materials at corners,
instead wrap them around the entire
building.

6.2.3 Use one primary material for a building and
one, or at most two, materials on walls.

Once a species of wood or stone is
selected, do not combine it with other
species within a single project.

6.2.4 Make window and door styles, materials, and finishes uniform throughout a design.

6.3.0 Make architectural details integral
elements of the overall building
design concept.

6.3.1 Use window and door proportions, sizes, styles, and materials accurate for the architectural style of the building. Traditional historic styles and their reproductions require small openings, in
keeping with older technologies.

6.3.2 Integrate the primary entrance with the
overall design of the house.

6.3.3 Rather than installing a standard overhead
product, craft a garage door either to provide visual interest, to recede completely into the materials and colors of the building wall, or orient it so as not to face the street.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 18 ATTACHMENT 6

6.3.4 Blend any skylights, their size, placement,
number, and framing into the overall roof
and building design, ensuring that they do
not appear random nor visually prominent
from the street or neighbors. Do not use
high profile, domed, or pyramidal glazing

6.3.5 Design a balcony to be subordinate in scale
and proportion to the house, while using
materials and details appropriate to the
overall building design.

6.3.6 Locate and proportion a chimney and its
cap to integrate into the overall building
design. Make a chimney attached to the side of a building appear to be self supporting, not “floating” above the
ground or foundation.

6.3.7 Choose roof materials and installation
details accurate to the architectural style of
the building. Add new energy conservation and generation technologies, including “cool” and planted areas, to roofs only if
subdued in appearance.

6.3.8 Handcraft any fences, using unfinished
grapestakes or wood pickets and not
ornate, “Victorian” wrought iron, or chain
link.

6.3.9 Integrate any garden wall with the building
architecture and materials, using mattefinished native stone, river rock, brick, or plain-textured plastered masonry, not
unfinished concrete or concrete block.

6.3.10 Integrate an arbor into the fence or wall
design, incorporating vines or other
landscaping to blend it into the garden.

6.3.11 Distinguish a gate from the adjoining fence
or wall with crafted or individualized details,
while maintaining filtered views into the
property. Do not use vehicle gates except on unusually large estate properties.

6.3.12 Never use monumental gate posts or
columns nor stand-alone stone columns that
are not integrated into other stone
elements.

6.3.13 Use house names and numbers subordinate
to and appropriate to the architecture.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 19 ATTACHMENT 6

09 FEB 2023 DRAFT

DESIGN TRADITIONS OF CARMEL

COMMERCIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Introduction & Core Design Guidelines
CARMEL BY THE SEA remains beautiful because of the community’s rigorous design expectations. These Commercial Design Guidelines are a mandated regulatory tool for the CC, SC, and RC districts that conveys these expectations. They also help explain and illustrate design standards in the City’s other regulations. Existing projects never establish precedent for proposed projects. Instead, all projects must meet or exceed the expectations described by and under the community’s six Core Design Guidelines. Where uncertainty arises, city officials will interpret guideline adherence on a case-by-case basis. Strict adherence to this document and its related, linked regulations will help ensure that a proposed project will meet community expectations and have a smooth approval process.

1.0.0 PRESERVE, restore, and enhance the forest
in all improvement projects: private, public, and otherwise. p. 01

2.0.0 SUBORDINATE every built structure to the character and continuity of the forest, natural environment, and to the natural features of its own site. p. 02

3.0.0 FIT every built structure within its neighborhood context. p. 04

4.0.0 RETAIN and build upon Carmel’s architectural heritage. p. 07

5.0.0 DESIGN every built structure with modesty and restraint. p. 09

6.0.0 DETAIL every property authentically and consistently. p. 11

APPENDICES
project review process p. XX historical context p. YY
preferred building and planting materials p. ZZ
N
ATTACHMENT 7

1.0.0 Preserve, restore, and enhance
the forest in all improvement
projects: private, public, and
otherwise.

1.1.0 Convey forest character in landscape
designs.

1.1.1 Consult the City Forester to determine
viability and preserve all existing healthy
trees.

1.1.2 Restore missing trees or add new trees in
the public rights of way and in courtyards.

Consult the City Arborist and landscape ordinance for approved types.

1.1.3 Locate street trees informally, not uniformly
spaced along a block. Use tree grates
consistent in design throughout an area or,
alternatively, an open area at the tree base
with plantings.

1.1.4 Continue the forest character with surface
plantings in the public rights of way.

1.2.0 Design for sustainability.

1.2.1 Use native, drought-tolerant species as the
predominant palette, with flowering plants
as appropriate accents. Consult the zoning code, landscape ordinance, and permitted plant lists for any plant quantities, size, and species requirements.

1.2.2 Incorporate Low Impact Design features,
including rain water retention.

1.2.3 Design windows to maximize daylighting into interior spaces and use exterior shading devices to manage solar gain in summer
months. For example, use operable awnings
on storefronts to manage changes in light
conditions.

1.2.4 Incorporate a renewable energy device,
including a solar collector or wind turbine.

1.2.5 Reuse demolition materials and refer to
related City Regulations City regulations.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 1 ATTACHMENT 7

2.0.0 Subordinate every built structure
to the character of the forest,
natural environment, and to the
natural features of its own site.

2.1.0 Follow the natural contours of the
site.

2.1.1 Position building masses and roof forms to
avoid cutting into the canopy of established
trees.

2.1.2 Where construction is necessary on a steep
slope, step the foundation and building
forms to follow the contours, minimizing excavation and fill and avoiding abrupt changes in grade both on the site and between adjoining properties.

2.1.3 Avoid a design that requires a tall retaining
wall, terracing, or revetments that will be
visible from the public way. Minimize the
visual impacts of any other retaining walls,
garden walls, and foundation structures.

2.1.4 An exception is for underground parking
structures.

2.2.0 Minimize the visual impact of surface
parking.

2.2.1 Subordinate on-site parking to other uses,
minimizing gaps in the continuous building
wall of the block. Locate a parking area at
the rear or side of a site or to the interior of
the block.

2.2.2 Locate hotel parking in the rear, off site, or
below grade.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 2 ATTACHMENT 7

2.2.3 Screen the front of a parking lot, providing a
visual buffer where parking abuts a public
way with a landscape strip of trees and
shrubs and/or low fences and walls.

2.3.0 Minimize the visual impacts of
architectural lighting.

2.3.1 Subdue all exterior lights with shielded and focused fixtures of low lumens and daylight colored light, as defined in municipal code.

2.3.2 Subordinate lighting to the building with
small-scale, subdued-finish fixtures,
stylistically integrated into the architecture.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 3 ATTACHMENT 7

3.0.0 Fit every built structure within its
neighborhood context.

3.1.0 Locate a new building to reflect
established alignment patterns.

3.1.1 Convey the height of traditional buildings in
new construction by keeping the apparent
height of a new building within the height
range established by adjacent and nearby
buildings, especially at the street frontage.

3.1.2 Where existing buildings are positioned at
the sidewalk edge, such as with Limited
Commercial, Mixed-Use, Multifamily, and
Hotel building types, conform a new
building façade to this alignment.

3.1.3 Provide small variations in setbacks for any
landscaping.

3.1.4 Where a landscaped foreground is the
context, such as with Multifamily Houses,
conform a new building façade to this
alignment, setting the building back from
the front property line to provide more
space for landscaping.

3.1.5 Locate one portion of an Inn, or at least one
building of a multi-building Inn, at the
sidewalk edge along with an active-use
area, such as a lobby, cafe, or outdoor
gathering space, while ensuring privacy for individual rooms near pedestrian ways.

3.2.0 Clearly identify a primary building
entrance.

3.2.1 Orient a primary entrance to face the street
or courtyard, or provide a clearly-identifiable
path to it. For a civic building, orient the
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 4 ATTACHMENT 7

primary entrance to face the street or a
public space..

3.2.3 Recess entries to commercial storefronts.

3.2.4 Clearly differentiate entrances to upper-floor
residences from those of commercial
storefronts.

3.3.0 Provide outdoor spaces to enrich the
interplay between indoor and
outdoor activities and to enhance the
pedestrian experience.

3.4.1 For a Forecourt, which is directly facing onto
the street, maintain the street wall by
limiting the proportion of the opening to
30% or less.

3.4.2 For an Interior Courtyard, which is accessed
by a narrower opening at the street, limit its
entrance to a minor break in the street wall
with inviting views to courtyard activities.

Keep the size, colors, and materials of the
courtyard compatible with its associated
buildings.

3.4.3 For an Intra-block Walkway, which indirectly connects from the street through a property to other pedestrian ways and activities,
include features that provide visual interest.

Commercial, Limited Commercial, and
Mixed-Use projects of three or more lots or
of 75 feet or more in building width require
Intra-block Walkways.

3.4.4 For a Small Park or Plaza, include amenities
for pedestrians not necessarily associated
with uses in an abutting building.

3.4.5 Locate Yards in front setbacks, such as at
Multi-Family buildings, but limit their size
and design them to conserve water.

3.4.6 Coordinate Plant Beds, Planters, and Planter
Boxes with the building to add pedestrian
interest to the base of storefronts, building
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 5 ATTACHMENT 7

setbacks, walkways, pass-throughs, and
courtyards.

3.4.7 Provide a Civic Space with convenient
pedestrian connections, inviting street
edges, landscape furnishings (such as
lighting, benches, and public art), and
maintained view corridors to encourage
pedestrian traffic.

3.5.0 Minimize negative conflicts with
abutting uses.

3.5.1 Orient service areas and entrances away
from public streets and sidewalks and
position them to minimize noise impacts on
other activities.

3.5.2 Do not locate exposed equipment or utility
boxes in public view or in a public
passageway or on a primary facade and
group utility lines and junction boxes on
secondary walls.

3.5.3 Minimize the visual impacts of building
equipment by using low-profile or recessed
mechanical units on rooftops and by
grouping and screening it with walls, fences,
or plantings, and painting it to match the
existing background color.

3.5.4 Minimize the visual impact of security
devices on windows and storefronts by
locating them on the interior rather than the
exterior and allowing views to the inside.

Use only decorative exterior security devices that complement the architectural style of the building and never opaque, roll-down
metal screens.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 6 ATTACHMENT 7

4.0.0 Retain and build upon Carmel’s
established architectural
heritage.

4.1.0 Preserve historic and existing
resources.

4.1.1 Re-use existing buildings and their
components.

4.1.2 Respect adjacent historic resources by preserving adequate, light, open space, and views of and around the structure.

4.1.3 Check zoning standards for related
incentives, such as expedited processing.

4.1.4 Follow additional standards for properties
recognized as having official historic
significance, such as Municipal Code Chapter 17.32 and the Historic Context Statement.

4.2.0 Continue Carmel’s tradition of
diversity in architectural styles.

4.2.1 Differentiate a new building’s design and
style from that of nearby and abutting buildings.

4.2.2 For accurate historic styles, use the same
materials and craftsmanship as those of the
reproduced period.

4.2.3 For other styles, use equivalent materials
and craftsmanship as those of historic styles.

4.2.4 Do not propose or repeat “new” “styles”
that deviate from Carmel’s individualist,
artistic history or that resemble those in
speculative developments.

4.3.0 Use traditional, natural building
materials.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 7 ATTACHMENT 7

4.3.1 Use the preferred materials traditional to
Carmel, such as wood, stone, brick,
concrete, and stucco for walls and wood
shingles and shakes, clay, slate, and
concrete tiles for roofs. Use metal roofs only
if they are detailed simply, have no ribs or
striations, use genuine, field-installed,
standing or flat seams, and are unreflective
and either uncoated, like Cor-Ten steel, or
of integrated earth-toned color.

4.3.2 Choose materials that will form a desired
natural patina over time or that can be
maintained in their original condition.

4.3.3 Use materials in their natural conditions,
scales, and colors, with matte finishes and
muted earth tones, rather than highly
polished treatments such as mirrored glass
or reflective metals.

4.3.4 Apply materials using methods traditional to
Carmel, for example, wood siding in
shingles, horizontal clapboard, or board and
batten, brick in its traditional modular
dimension, or stucco in smooth or lightly
textured finishes.

4.3.5 Use metal or unclad wood windows, doors,
and garage doors, not vinyl or plastic.

4.4.0 Use man-made materials according
to traditional, natural principles.

4.4.1 Use man-made materials if their ecological
impacts are equivalent to those of natural
materials: able to form a natural patina over
time, able to be maintained rather than
disposed, able to be fully dismantled and
recycled or reused, biodegradable, and
environmentally non-toxic or beneficial.

4.4.2 Certified Cradle-to-Cradle products meet Carmel standards for man-made materials.

4.4.2 Do not use man-made materials that fake
natural or other materials in their textures or
finishes.

4.4.3 Apply man-made materials in a manner that
conveys a traditional human scale.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 8 ATTACHMENT 7

5.0.0 Design every built structure with
modesty and restraint.

5.1.0 Restrain building forms, materials,
and details.

5.1.1 Design a building consistently, with the
design concept extending to all sides of the
building and with no mixing of architectural
styles.

5.1.2 Avoid visual complexity, “busy” building
forms, too many different materials,
excessive and overly ornate or ostentatious
details, and materials and details that
contrast strongly within a single building or
with neighboring buildings.

5.1.3 Where a building exceeds more than one lot
in width, maintain an integrated overall architecture, while employing traditional expressions of interior volumes and
hierarchies of design features to prevent
monumentality.

5.1.4 For Commercial, Limited Commercial, and
Mixed-Use buildings, use a building form a
simple, rectangular form, similar to those
seen traditionally.

5.1.5 Use a roof form consistent with the style of
the building, with flat, pitched, or a variety
of roof forms on Commercial, Limited
Commercial and Mixed-Use buildings and at
least some pitched roofs on Multifamily
Houses and Inns. Do not use fake, mansard,
or other roof forms that appear tacked on.

5.2.0 Establish a sense of human scale in a
building design.

5.2.1 Do not use building elements that are complex, monumental, formal, out-of-scale, 09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 9 ATTACHMENT 7

or that increase the visual prominence of the building.

5.2.2 Use vertical and horizontal articulation
techniques to reduce the apparent mass of
a larger building and to create visual
interest, such as: horizontal belt courses,
moldings, cornices, canopies, wall offsets,
columns, pilasters, and changes in window
patterns among different modules of a
building.

5.2.3 Use appropriately sized, never oversized,
building elements, such as windows, doors,
entries, balconies, and overhangs to reduce
scale within public view.

5.2.4 Keep visible openings proportional with and
subordinate in scale to the building. Do not
use “grand", oversized entryways, windows, or doors. Do not use expanses of glass that require more recent structural technology on more traditional architectural styles.

5.2.5 Use traditional downtown ratios of windows
to walls, with the ground floor more
transparent than above and avoiding
undivided expanses of glass on upper
floors. Use an even lower ratio of window to
wall on Limited Commercial than on
Commercial and Mixed-Use buildings.

5.2.6 Provide variation in building height when a
building will be substantially wider than
traditional ones in the area or when
constructing more than one building on a
site.

5.2.7 Subordinate a rooftop addition to the
existing building, setting it back enough to
maintain the perceived scale at the front of
the property.

5.3.0 Keep the overall color scheme
muted and devoid of bright or high- intensity colors.

5.4.0 Where existing single-family uses are
grandfathered, apply the single family residential design guidelines. 09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 10 ATTACHMENT 7

6.0.0 Detail every property
authentically and consistently.

6.1.0 Apply a building material in a
manner that appears authentic.

6.1.1 Convey a sense of true craftsmanship in
architectural details.

6.1.2 Do not use materials or details inauthentic
to the architecture or that appear nonstructural, gratuitous, or applied as superficial elements, wall “accents” or
veneers.

6.1.3 A “hierarchy” of building materials should
be used, with heavier, coarser materials
appearing below lighter ones. For example,
a heavier material such as stone shall appear
to support itself; it should not “float” above
a lighter material.

6.1.4 Detail new and/or manmade materials in
ways authentic to their own composition.

For example, carefully plan the woodgrain
and modules of formwork for exposed
poured concrete or use cement board
siding with a smooth, untextured surface,
rather than an added, faux woodgrain.

6.1.5 Use non-reflective, matte or low luster,
muted instead of glossy finishes on all
features.

6.1.6 Apply paint as a solid color, without texture
mottling, antiqued, or other faux finishes.

6.2.0 Use building materials or features in
a consistent manner.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 11 ATTACHMENT 7

6.2.1 Do not stop wall materials at outside
corners, instead wrap them around the
entire visible building element.

6.2.2 Use one primary material for a building and
one, or at most two, materials on walls.

Once a species of wood or stone is
selected, do not combine it with other
species within a single project.

6.2.3 Make window and door styles, materials,
and finishes uniform wherever publicly
visible.

6.3.0 Use architecturally integrated details
to provide pedestrian interest.

6.3.1 Keep details at a human scale and in scale
with the building.

6.3.2 Use a functional balcony that is consistent with the building design to provide variety in wall surfaces and visual interest.

6.3.3 Mount a functional awning or canopy that is in character with the building to accentuate defining features of the facade. Use only
matte colors and materials compatible with
the structure, such as canvas, other fabric, or
a similar, woven material.

6.3.4 Locate a simple sign that is compatible with
and subordinate to the building to
emphasize façade design elements. Use
durable, non-reflective materials with no
more than three legible, non-vibrant colors
to reinforce the sign’s own design integrity.

A memorable symbol sign adds interest and
can employ a more complex, muted palette.

6.4.0 Enhance the pedestrian experience
by providing a sense of discovery along the street.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 12 ATTACHMENT 7

6.3.1 Maintain a variety and diversity of building
features at the street level, including
storefronts with views to inside activities,
artistic window displays, inviting building entries, outdoor dining spaces, planters. flower boxes, climbing plant devices, wall
art, decorative tile, and other architectural
details.

6.3.2 Provide amenities in outdoor spaces such as
plantings, art, fountains, information kiosks,
waste receptacles, seating, and other
furnishings.

6.3.3 Coordinate the design of street furniture
with that of an associated outdoor space or
building, keeping it within the design
traditions of downtown and of true
craftsmanship and high quality materials
such as wood and metal in matte finishes.

6.3.4 To distinguish public sidewalks from
adjacent outdoor spaces like walkways,
pass-throughs, and courtyards, provide
variety in paving patterns and materials. Do
not use asphalt, but instead modular, high- quality materials such as cobblestone, brick, or scored, dyed, and/or pebble aggregate
concrete.
09 MAR EDITS: BREVITY + INPUT (ITALICS) 09 FEB 2023 DRAFT - 13 ATTACHMENT 7

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES PREF 1

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
Preface introduction
I. Residential chapter I
II. Commercial chapter II
III. Municipal chapter III
Appendices
p. XX
p. YY
p. ZZ
p. QQ
p. RR

CORE PRINCIPLES

1. ENHANCE, restore, and preserve the forest in all improvement projects:
private, public, and otherwise.

2. SUBORDINATE every built structure to the character and continuity of the forest, natural environment, and to the natural features of its own site.

3. FIT every built structure within its neighborhood context.

4. RETAIN and build upon Carmel’s architectural heritage.

5. DESIGN every built structure with modesty and restraint.

6. DETAIL every property authentically and consistently.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) PREF 2

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

INTRODUCTION
“It has become a symbol of an attitude and an approach.

The attitude is that quality is worthwhile in itself, but that it also makes economic sense.” - Lawrence Halprin, landscape architect, January 1967
From its earliest years, Carmelites sought for their village to be different from other communities, to have originality and uniqueness, to weave pleasantly amongst the natural landscape of sea, hill, tree and beach. Before incorporation as a city in 1916, the Carmel Development Company was aided by the Carmel Civic League, an entity created to protect the physical assets of the village and to advocate for tasteful, person-kind improvements. A dozen years after 1916, Dr. Carol Aronovici, a renowned city planner, addressed members of the community on the civic value of architectural control.

Dr. Aronovici told the assembled mass that good civic design “is the art of conserving all the natural advantages of a city and controlling all building enterprises, whether public or private, so as to blend them into a harmonious whole.”
It was the local newspapers which led the effort for community architectural review. By 1929, Perry Newberry had become publisher and part-owner of the Carmel Pine Cone newspaper and began a year-after-year drumbeat for better planning and architecture, calling in editorials for “lines of distinction and individuality” in building design. “There should be some measure of civic control” he wrote in 1935, “which will make Carmel more beautiful.” Newberry was joined in this crusade by Willard K. Bassett, publisher of the Carmel Cymbal, who in 1938 opined in favor of architectural review of buildings in the commercial core. In 1940, Bassett editorialized to “Keep Building Atrocities out of the Business District.” And by the end of 1940, the City Council created a process for civic review and approval of new buildings.

The enclosed Design Guidelines are heirs to over a century of our community’s want to assure new or remodeled structures meld with Carmel’s natural beauty and with their neighboring edifices. Generations and succeeding generations have sought architectural sincerity in what is built.

Our Design Guidelines Committee hopes this booklet assists you in your quest to become part of our heritage by blending your project in amongst its neighbors and within our ancient forest, both on your own property and any adjoining public property. Only with your help and dedication to our shared commons can we preserve and enhance the overall continuity and harmony of the built and especially the natural environment that is our unique legacy.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20240808) RESI
1 ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
I. RESIDENTIAL

DESIGN GUIDELINES
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI
1 ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
I. RESIDENTIAL

DESIGN GUIDELINES
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 2

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

1. Enhance, restore, and preserve the forest in all
improvement projects: private, public, and otherwise.

ENHANCE
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 3

1.1. Preserve all existing healthy upper canopy and lower canopy trees (for example, as shown by rooflines within un-cut branches above).

1.1.1. Before beginning design work, have a licensed surveyor or engineer prepare the required survey, showing existing site conditions, topography, drainage features, trees, structures, right-of-way edges and character, views, privacy issues, historical evaluations, nonconformities, neighborhood design contexts, and other features useful in designing a project.

1.1.2. Address comments provided by a City Planner and the City Forester on the required survey and on the required City Forester evaluation of existing tree significance and condition on and immediately adjacent to the project site, including in the right-of-way.

1.1.3. Address the Forest and Beach Commission's project review comments on the effects that proposed work will have on significant trees.

1.1.4. Consult the “Preliminary Site Assessment” tree survey when designing and locating new structures and additions to determine which trees are significant and should be protected.

1.1.5. Provide enough open space on each building site to both preserve and add upper and lower canopy trees at sufficient spacings for growth to maturity (as shown by altered floorpan in right-hand diagram above).

1.1.6. Locate new construction in accordance with the Land Use Code to minimize impacts on established trees and avoid pruning of limbs and canopies. Set foundations for buildings and walls back far enough from the base of any tree to adequately protect its roots. Plan curb cuts, paving and drainage systems to maintain air transport and water percolation to root systems.

1.1.7. Protect existing vegetation during construction in order to screen buildings, contribute to the forest character of the street, and achieve a settled, mature look upon project completion.

1.1.8. Plan access and site development to protect trees during construction as provided in the Land Use Code. Do not alter the grade level near nor excavate into the root zone or dripline of any healthy mature tree, whether on or adjacent to the site, including on abutting properties and in the right-of-way.

Imai tbd

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL ENHANCE
DRAFT 11-18-25
image(s) tbd.

ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 4

1.2. Preserve or enhance the informal, vegetated, open space character of the right-of-way.

1.2.1. Preserve vegetation and trees, especially those with canopies over the street, both in the right-of-way and the periphery of the site so that the pavement curves around and emphasizes natural landscape features and topography, creating the appearance of a meandering forested lane with occasional “mini-parks” (as shown by the irregular pavement edges and encroaching vegetation in the above images).

1.2.2. Remove any excess existing paving and other non-conforming and easily displaced materials, such as gravel per M.C. 12.24.020.B. Never keep in the right-of-way irrigation equipment or un-permitted paving, gravel, boulders, logs, timbers, planters, fences, retaining walls, other above-ground encroachments, or any hardscape that would widen the street (as shown above) or create a parking space.

1.2.3. Maintain the existing character of street gutters, which is typically a rolled asphalt curb or, more formally, is a channel faced with large native rock, but is never just plain concrete.

1.2.4. To create connectivity with adjacent properties, leave the right-of-way as an unpaved, natural forest floor with an informal edge, consisting of trees, naturally occurring vegetation, and organic surfaces, such as pine needles (as shown above by the natural area between a home's property line and the street pavement).

1.2.5. When adding plantings to the right-of-way use only naturally occurring natives to the Carmel forest: drought-tolerant and non-irrigated, green foliage, ground covers, or low shrubs, informally arranged. Do not use bedding plants and exotic species in the public right-of-way.

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL ENHANCE
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 5

1.2.6. Do not remove trees or add gravel or other “hardened” surfaces to provide parking in the right-of-way, but instead reinforce the forest image by separating parking spaces from driveways with plantings and by using natural soil, or fresh, miniwoodchips as surface materials (as shown above by a nearly undetectable natural area sized to accommodate parking).

1.3. Preserve and enhance the forested image of the site.

1.3.1. Preserve and supplement trees, especially those that arch over the street, and provide a mix of upper canopy trees for scale and multi-stemmed lower canopy trees for screening. The City Forester determines the mix and the City regulations cover tree replacement ratios and species.

1.3.2. Do not wall off properties at the front property lines but instead extend the forest character of the right-of-way into the visible parts of the site by keeping a large portion of each site as open space, with plantings located to filter views of structures (as shown above by the unimpeded, vegetated zone between the street on the left and the home on the right). Find maximum limits for hardscape site coverage in the Carmel Municipal Code.

1.3.3. Locate plants and ground surfaces in relaxed, informal arrangements that are consistent with the urban forest character (as shown above at far right), reserving any formal, unnatural arrangements, bedding plants, or exotic flowering plants only for small areas out of public view or small walkway or entry accents (as shown above at center).

1.3.4. Use site plantings that are native, drought-tolerant species, in accordance with the Municipal Code.

1.3.5. For a forest meadow ground cover, use only informal, no-water varieties kept out of public view and do not use manicured lawns or artificial turf.

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL ENHANCE
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 6

1.3.6. Projects that involve a new building or substantial alteration require a professional landscape plan, which identifies areas for low-scale plants, shrubbery, and trees for initial review and shows specific planting plans for final review. Address the special needs of each species, using, for example, high-water-use plants near redwoods but not near oaks, paving materials that minimize tree root impacts, and best practices for fire mitigation.

1.4. Preserve un-altered, pre-development water drainage ways as site amenities.

1.4.1. Minimize stormwater impacts with Low Impact Development (LID) principles, including:
addressing stormwater close to the source, installing bio-retention, and other planted drainage areas, and using“sand-set” instead of “mortar-set” paving with pervious paving materials for water percolation and soil aeration.

1.4.2. Enhance water quality with stormwater management systems that mimic the natural water cycle, filter stormwater into the ground and direct flows through vegetative buffers and rain gardens where plant and tree uptake can remove pollutants.

1.4.3. Design new on-site stormwater control devices to appear naturally integrated into the forest. Use green roofs, retention areas, or landscaped areas to capture flow and prevent new runoff toward adjacent properties per Carmel Municipal Code Section 15.08.230.

2. Subordinate every built structure to the character and continuity of the forest, natural environment, and to the natural features of its own site.

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL ENHANCE
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25
image(s) tbd.

ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 7

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL ENHANCE

2.1. Nestle a building in the trees to minimize the mass visible from public view.

2.1.1. Position buildings to avoid cutting into the canopy of established trees.

2.1.2. Decrease the apparent size of buildings by building less than the maximum allowable floor area, using a compact footprint, minimizing large volume spaces (high ceilings or steep pitches across wide spans), and eliminating large, unused underfloor areas and extensive cantilevers, especially over cut areas.

2.1.3. Reduce perceptible building height by locating some floor area either fully or partially below grade or at a “garden” level with any walkout area, light well, retaining wall, or terrace concealed to the side or rear. When these locations are not feasible, provide more screening with other building elements or landscaping.

2.1.4. Minimize the visual impacts of retaining walls, garden walls, window wells, and other foundation structures by incorporating sloped, planted areas to create a smooth grade transition. Ensure tall retaining walls, terracing, or revetments are not visible from the public way.

2.2. Follow the site’s natural contours.

2.2.1. Minimize construction on steep slopes.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 8

2.2.2. Minimize excavation and fill on a site by maintaining existing topography and keeping all grading and excavation completely within the proposed building footprint (as shown above by dashed line).

2.2.3. Step building height, foundations, and floor levels to follow site slopes and contours (unlike above, where support posts create a single level floating above a downward slope). When floor levels cannot be stepped, larger underfloor spaces (as shown above under most of the building) count as part of the allowed floor area.

2.2.4. Avoid abrupt changes in grade (like shown above left by added retaining walls) within a site and between adjoining properties. If such transitions are unavoidable, then use sloped, planted areas. If a stable planted slope cannot be created, then use multiple landscaped terraces rather than a single tall wall (as shown above right).

2.3. Subordinate parking facilities to the house and site.

2.3.1. Minimize the impact of a garage or carport by: concealing them from the street,detaching them at the back of the lot or elsewhere, subsuming them into the building design (as shown in both images above) by, for example, tucking them underneath, locating them partially below grade (while avoiding any three-story appearance), orienting the garage door away from the street, and, on small lots, using only a single, one-car garage door.

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL ENHANCE
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 9

2.3.2. Use parking facilities to maintain or enhance variety along the street edge and to maximize landscaped open space, views, and privacy. If a detached, one-car garage or carport benefits the overall streetscape, the City may determine that it can encroach into the front setback. The City does not allow two-car garages in the front setback.

2.3.3. To maintain forest floor continuity, established vegetation, and ample front yard space, keep driveways at grade and without cuts and fills that would create a “ramp” effect or require retaining walls perpendicular to the street.

2.3.4. Minimize the amount of paved surface area for a driveway by using organic materials, “tire track” paving strips, sharing a single driveway between two adjacent properties (as shown in above sketch), and/or limiting each site to the required single curb cut (unless a corner site requires a “through driveway”).

2.3.5. Minimize the visual impacts of retaining walls, garden walls, window wells, and other foundation structures by incorporating sloped, planted areas to create a smooth grade transition. Ensure tall retaining walls, terracing, or revetments are not visible from the public way.

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL ENHANCE
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25
image(s) tbd.

ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 10

2.4. Design all paved areas to be small, informal, and intimate.

2.4.1. Reduce widths of asphalt or concrete, separate a driveway from a front walkway with plantings, soften paved edges with landscaping (as shown above left by irregular and separated driving and planted stepstone walking areas), and avoid formal or urban paving treatments (as shown above right by rectilinear pavers, straight edges, and joined driving and walking areas).

2.4.2. Select paving with muted colors and texture authentic to the material (unlike faux stonecolored concrete pavers at above right), such as Carmel stone (above left), granite, cobblestone (above center left), brick, asphalt, natural concrete (above center right), gravel, decomposed granite, and mulch, keeping easily displaced materials on private property only per M.C. 12.24.020.B.

2.5. Blend private landscape with that of the public right-of-way to make vegetated spaces appear larger and to improve continuity with the forest.

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL SUBORDINATE image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 11

2.5.1. Design without a fence or wall along a street frontage.

2.5.2. Where privacy or enclosure is needed, use shrubs, hedges, or other vegetated landscaping (such as the raised native arrangement shown above).

2.5.3. If vegetation does not provide sufficient safe enclosure along a street for children, pets, or others, install an informal, unfinished, wood fence (such as shown in the foreground above), which preserves visual access into the front yard and at street intersections, by using open pickets wherein the size of the spaces are at least equal to the size of the material.

2.5.4. When creating an arbor, maintain a narrow, low, light, and open design (such as shown over the garden gate above), instead of a tall, wide structure with massive timbers or other heavy elements that dominate the street.

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL SUBORDINATE image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 12

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

2.5.5. In rare cases, where a fence is needed but the predominant building material is stone, masonry, or stucco, a low garden wall of the same material and construction may fit into the site if fully integrated with the topography and other hardscape and if kept at four feet or less from grade.

2.5.6. Place front yard enclosures (such as hedges, fences, or walls) farther back from the front property lines as they become more solid. Refer to Maximum Building Envelope information to determine allowable heights and placements.

2.6. Preserve the nighttime, “dark-sky” character of neighborhoods.

2.6.1. Subdue all exterior lights with shielded and focused fixtures of low lumens and warm white temperatures, as defined in municipal code. Do not use fluorescent lighting.

2.6.2. Use lights only where needed for safety and at outdoor activity areas, such as building entries, gates, terraces, walkways, and patios.

2.6.3. Do not use floodlights, spotlights, or lights to accent or uplight buildings, tree canopies, or other vegetation.

2.6.4. Instead of exposed light sources, locate and shield fixtures, including string lights, to eliminate glare and excess illumination onto neighboring properties and the street.

2.6.5. Size, locate, and shade skylights to eliminate glare or light pollution visible to neighbors or to the public. Use skylights only if interior spaces have no access to exterior windows, such windows have limited access to light, or windows would cause even greater impacts to adjoining homes.

3. Fit every built structure within its neighborhood context. image(s) tbd.

SUBORDINATE
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 13

3.1. Locate open spaces so that they visually link with those of adjacent properties.

3.1.1. Coordinate open spaces in careful response to other open spaces to have an amplifying effect and combine them to increase their apparent size (as shown by wide forested space between homes above left), rather than simply maintaining required setbacks (as shown by narrow space with little room for plantings above right).

3.1.2. On oversized or combined properties, maintain the open space character of Carmel’s typical 4,000sf lot sizes, avoiding the appearance of a “compound” or “estate.”

3.1.3. Relate a building’s mass to the context of other homes nearby. Divide a larger building into forms similar in scale to traditional village houses, placing some mass in a detached

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL SUBORDINATE image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25
image(s) tbd.

ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 14
secondary structure (garage, guest house, etc.) if necessary to reduce the overall mass of the primary building.

3.1.4. Stagger front setbacks of homes and garages to frame outdoor spaces, avoid uniform alignments, and provide variety in the arrangement of buildings and open spaces along the street (as seen with the three different property layouts above), unless doing so prevents a visual aggregation of open space or endangers significant trees.

3.1.5. Stagger side setbacks with adjacent properties to avoid the “canyon effect” of a narrow corridor or tunnel between buildings (as shown by the two homes at above right).

Provide even more open side yard space when buildings on adjacent properties are two stories or close to the joint property line. Refer to the Municipal Code for setback regulations.

3.1.6. Minimize building mass as seen from adjacent properties by: avoiding long, uninterrupted wall planes, placing tall building walls away from the property line and similar walls on neighboring sites (as shown above by large front setback of taller, uphill home), and providing greater setbacks for any chimney directly opposite a neighboring window.

3.1.7. Preserve access to light between properties.

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL SUBORDINATE image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 15

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

3.2. Preserve views from nearby properties to natural features.

3.2.1. Locate building volumes to make use of views but not substantially block views enjoyed by others (like the proposed home shown with dashed lines above, which allows all neighboring homes to preserve the primary view to the bottom right), keeping the building height low and the building footprint compact to maintain views over and along sides of properties.

3.2.2. Keep building elements from blocking views with sensitive placement and sizing, for example use chimneys with narrow profiles or minimalist flues.

3.3. Organize functions on a site to preserve reasonable privacy for adjacent properties (unlike the proposed upper deck shown above with dashed lines, which overlooks a neighboring patio).

3.3.1. Screen patios, terraces, and active areas of adjacent properties through the position of buildings and the preservation of significant trees.

SUBORDINATE
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 16

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

3.3.2. Locate and size windows and skylights to avoid views in or out of neighboring indoor and outdoor active use areas. Limit windows to 12sf or less on side walls adjacent to neighbors.

3.3.3. Locate and screen balconies and decks to avoid overlooking active indoor and outdoor use areas of adjacent properties.

3.4. Minimize negative impacts to surrounding properties.

3.4.1. Fully integrate utilities and services, including gas meters, electrical panels, water heaters, and trash receptacles, into the architectural design of the building.

3.4.2. In cases where full architectural integration is not possible, Eliminate the visual impacts of utilities and services by grouping and shielding them with architectural and landscape elements, such as cabinets, walls, fences, or plantings, of integrated material and color.

3.5. Vary the design of a new building from that of nearby and abutting properties.

3.5.1. Provide variety in building materials along a block (as shown, from left to right, by the green clapboard, stained redwood, and yellow stucco homes above).

3.5.2. When using painted or otherwise coated surfaces, provide variety in building color along a block.

SUBORDINATE
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 17

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

4. Retain and build upon Carmel’s established architectural heritage (for example, clockwise from top: rustic Tudor, Fairytale, Craftsman, Mission Revival, mid-century Modern).

4.1. Preserve historic and existing resources.

4.1.1. Re-use existing buildings and their components, for example restoring rather than replacing original windows (for example the restored antique steel casement windows shown above).

4.1.2. Respect adjacent historic resources by preserving adequate, light, open space, and views of and around the structure.

4.1.3. Check zoning standards for related incentives, such as expedited processing.

4.1.4. Follow additional standards for properties recognized as having official historic significance, such as Municipal Code Chapter 17.32, the Historic Context Statement, and Historic Review Board consideration.

4.2. Continue Carmel’s tradition of architectural diversity.

SUBORDINATE
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 18

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL SUBORDINATE

4.2.1. To avoid uniformity and the appearance of speculative development and to promote individual artistic expression, differentiate a new building’s plan, massing, and overall design from that of nearby and abutting buildings.

4.2.2. When reproducing historic architecture, use the same materials and craftsmanship as those of the reproduced period (for example, the medieval European cottage replica shown above with genuine, hand-thatched roof).

4.2.3. For all architectural languages, use equivalent materials and craftsmanship as those of historic architecture.

4.2.4. Do not use designs that resemble those in speculative or “McMansion” developments or that present a commercial or industrial appearance.

4.3. Use traditional, natural building materials (such as the Carmel stone, wood shingles, and stucco seen above from left to right).

4.3.1. Use the preferred materials traditionally used in Carmel, such as wood, stone, tile, brick, artistically-crafted concrete, and stucco for walls, patios, and decking, as well as wood shingles and shakes, clay, slate, and concrete tiles for roofs. Use metal roofs only if they are devoid of corrugations or striations (unlike the industrial roof shown above right), and are detailed simply, have narrow flat panels, use genuine, field-installed, standing or flat seams, and are unreflective and either uncoated, like zinc, or of integrated earth-toned color, like anodized aluminum (like the traditional metal roof shown above left).

4.3.2. Choose materials that will form a desired natural patina over time or that can be maintained in their original condition (such as the unstained wood siding shown above).

4.3.3. Use materials in their natural conditions, scales, and colors.

4.3.4. When adding surface treatments, use matte finishes and muted earth tones, rather than highly polished treatments such as mirrored glass or reflective metals. image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25
image(s) tbd.

ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 19

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

4.3.5. Apply materials using methods traditional to Carmel, for example, wood siding in shingles, horizontal clapboard, or board and batten, brick in its traditional modular dimension, or stucco in smooth or lightly textured finishes.

4.3.6. Use unclad wood, solid metal, or recyclable, “designed for disassembly” aluminum-clad wood, with no visible plastic elements, for windows, doors, and garage doors.

4.4. Use manufactured materials according to traditional, natural principles.

4.4.1. Use manufactured materials only if they are ecologically sensitive: able to form a natural patina over time, able to be maintained rather than disposed, able to be fully dismantled and recycled or reused, biodegradable, and environmentally non-toxic or beneficial.

4.4.2. Do not use petroleum-based architectural elements.

4.4.3. Use products that meet or exceed the most current national or international ecological building standards (such as certified Cradle-to-Cradle or Design for Disassembly) meet Carmel standards for manufactured materials.

4.4.4. Do not use manufactured materials that fake or mimic natural or other materials in their textures or finishes, including machine-stamped faux woodgrains (like the stamped grain cement clapboard at top left or the faux slate-colored and -textured roof tiles at top right). Use cast concrete only with non-uniform, handcrafted patterns such as those provided by genuine wood formwork (like the site-poured wall at bottom left).

4.4.5. Apply manufactured materials in a manner that conveys a traditional human scale.

FIT
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 20

5. Design every built structure with modesty.

5.1. Restrain building forms, materials, and details.

5.1.1. Design a building consistently, with the design concept extending to all sides of the building and with no mixing of architectural languages (as shown above by the continuation of the handcrafted masonry vocabulary throughout the home).

5.1.2. Keep primary building volumes simple, as seen traditionally, limiting the number of subordinate volumes and using basic rectangular (like the photo above), L-, T-, or Ushaped plans.

5.1.3. Avoid visual complexity, “busy” building forms (like the protrusions upon protrusions shown above), too many different materials, excessive and overly ornate or ostentatious details, and materials and details that contrast strongly within a single building or with neighboring buildings.

5.1.4. Do not use building elements that are complex, monumental, formal, out-of-scale, or that increase the visual prominence of the building.

5.1.5. Use restraint when introducing variation in building planes, using building offsets only for clear purposes such as avoiding tree limbs or expressing a change of occupational use within. Do not use small, purposeless offsets and do not change the building material or cladding at an offset (for example the change to a stucco material is used above to

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL FIT
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25
image(s) tbd.

ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 21

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
express a major addition to an existing stone home, not to highlight minor elements of a unified home).

5.1.6. Compose roof forms with just a few, simple planes with limited subordinate attachments such as dormers. For example, traditional gable and hip roofs have basic forms while mansard roofs and sloping roof “skirts” that conceal a flat area add too much complexity.

5.1.7. Subdue the character of the garage by using a rectilinear form with materials and colors that do not contrast with the main buildings.

5.2. Ensure that a building appears to be no more than two stories in height, as viewed from the public right-of-way.

5.2.1. Present one-story heights to the street and locate two story elements away from the street, except where this would appear dominant or out of scale when viewed from the public right-of-way or a neighboring home. Remember that a garage, even sunken below grade, counts as a story.

5.2.2. Make detached garages one story, one-car, and small in scale, with the wall plate height no taller than that of the first-story plate of the main house.

FIT
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25
image(s) tbd.

ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 22

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

5.3. Convey human scale in a building’s basic forms.

5.3.1. Use historic Carmel styles only at their traditional, human scales.

5.3.2. Organize building mass into realistic modules to reduce perceived size, breaking a larger house into subordinate modules which appear authentic, in that they reflect real, functioning spaces within (as shown by the room above that protrudes to the right in order to center its fireplace), not just minor offsets meant to create interest.

5.3.3. Emphasize the low and horizontal so that buildings appear to hug the ground.

5.3.4. Use a low building plate height, generally not over 8 feet. Keep plate heights and roof eave lines low in scale, tucking upper story rooms under roof slopes, so as to reduce the height of exposed walls. The maximum plate height of 12 established in the Land Use Code is only to accommodate sloping building sites.

5.3.5. Do not use design features that produce a top-heavy appearance such as large cantilevered building elements, wide chimney structures, or roof forms that dominate the body of the building.

FIT
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 23

5.3.6. Proportion roof forms to the scale of the building.

5.4. Use building details to provide interest but not to exaggerate the scale of a building.

5.4.1. Add details to relieve blank surfaces and achieve a scale compatible with the building’s forms and its architecture (such as the quirky Fairytale half-timbering shown above).

5.4.2. Use all materials, natural or man-made, at traditional scales, dimensions, and modules.

5.4.3. Use appropriately sized, never oversized, building elements, such as windows (note the out-of-scale arches above left), doors, entries, chimneys, overhangs, dormers, and porches to reduce scale, especially as visible from public view (see the appropriately small and architecturally integrated fenestration on the Prairie Style home above right).

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL FIT
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 24

5.4.4. Keep visible openings subordinate in scale to the building (like the tucked-away front door above right). Do not use “grand", oversized entryways, windows, or doors (like the enormous entry door above left).

5.4.5. When reproducing historic architecture, limit the dimension of any glass to that which was possible to span using only the original construction techniques of that era.

5.4.6. Limit the use of specialty windows that add to building bulk to no more than one visible from the street. Avoid altogether bay and oriel windows facing the street if this would create a repeating pattern within the context of adjacent structures.

5.5. Keep the overall color scheme muted to blend with the forest palette.

5.5.1. Limit the use of bright colors, if any, to key accent features, such as an entry door.

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL RETAIN
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 25

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

5.5.2. Avoid starkly contrasting color schemes.

6. Detail every property authentically and consistently.

6.1. Use building materials and features in a manner that conveys authenticity.

6.1.1. Convey a sense of true craftsmanship in architectural details.

RETAIN
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25
image(s) tbd.

ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 26

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL RETAIN

6.1.2. Do not use fake, purely decorative building elements such as dummy chimneys, doors, windows, or shutters. Size any shutters so that they would cover their entire window, whether or not they are in active use.

6.1.3. Do not use materials or details inauthentic to the architecture or that appear nonstructural, gratuitous, or applied as superficial elements, wall “accents” or veneers.

6.1.4. On multi-paned windows and doors, use true dividers that go from inside to outside between the panes of glass.

6.1.5. Where materials do not simply remain un-coated, finish with a plain, uniform, matte varnish, stain or paint, without faux finishes.

6.1.6. Use details that are true structural elements, such as natural wood exposed rafter tails, beams (like the structural roof beams used above to add texture to the eaves), or stacked stone foundations. If costs prove prohibitive, simplify the architectural language rather than mimic more costly methods.

6.1.7. Whether on a building or a landscape element, stack stone traditionally so that it appears, or actually is, structurally load-bearing.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25
image(s) tbd.

ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 27

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

6.1.8. Use a “hierarchy” of building materials, with heavier coarser materials below lighter materials (such as the wood sidings over stone, concrete, and brick shown above).

6.1.9. Do not “float” stone above lighter materials or use it purely decoratively, such as framed just around windows or doors, or randomly clustered on corners, walls, or chimneys.

6.1.10. Detail new and/or manufactured materials in ways authentic to their own composition.

For example, carefully plan the woodgrain and modules of formwork for exposed poured concrete or use cement board siding with a smooth, untextured surface, rather than an added, faux woodgrain.

6.2. Use building materials or features in a consistent manner.

6.2.1. Use design details and surface materials throughout the full exterior of the building. Do not apply special materials or design treatments to the street facade only.

6.2.2. Do not stop wall materials at corners, instead wrap them around the entire building.

6.2.3. Use only one primary material for building walls with any additional materials clearly subordinated (such as the above left home, identifiable as “stucco” or the above right home, identifiable as “wood shingle”).

RETAIN
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25
image(s) tbd.

ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 28

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

6.2.4. Make window and door styles, materials, and finishes uniform throughout a design.

6.3. Make architectural details integral elements of the overall building design concept (such as the corner-mitered glass shown above, which by eliminating an expected structural member, reinforces the floating roof).

6.3.1. Use window and door proportions, sizes, styles, and materials accurate for the architectural style of the building. Traditional historic styles and their reproductions require small openings, in keeping with older technologies (as shown above by the small, circular window surrounded by enough solid surface to appear as though the building were actual masonry construction, not modern framing with a stucco coating).

6.3.2. Integrate the primary entrance with the overall design of the house.

DESIGN
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25
image(s) tbd.

ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 29

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

6.3.3. Rather than installing a standard overhead product, craft a garage door either to provide visual interest, to recede completely into the materials and colors of the building wall, or orient it so as not to face the street.

6.3.4. Blend any skylights, their size, shape, placement, number, and framing into the overall roof and building design (like the glass peak integrated into a symmetrical pyramidal roof shown above). Preserve the overall roof form by respecting the maximum allowable percentage of skylight area and the minimum allowable distance from eaves. Ensure that skylights do not appear random, visually prominent to the neighbors, nor visible to the street. Do not use unintegrated high profile, domed, or pyramidal units.

6.3.5. Design a balcony to be subordinate in scale and proportion to the house, while using materials and details appropriate to the overall building design.

6.3.6. Locate and proportion a chimney and its cap to integrate into the overall building design.

Make a chimney attached to the side of a building appear to be self supporting (as shown above left), not “floating” above the ground or foundation (as shown above right).

DESIGN
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 30

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

6.3.7. Choose roof materials and installation details accurate to the architectural style of the building. Add new energy conservation and generation technologies, including “cool” and planted areas, to roofs only if subdued in appearance.

6.3.8. Handcraft any fences, using unfinished grapestakes (as shown above left) or wood pickets and not ornate wrought iron or chain link (as shown above right).

6.3.9. Integrate any garden wall with the building architecture and materials, using mattefinished native stone, river rock, brick, or plain-textured plastered masonry (as shown blending with the architecture above left), not unfinished concrete or concrete block (as shown above right).

6.3.10. Integrate an arbor into the fence or wall design, incorporating vines or other landscaping to blend it into the garden.

DESIGN
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.
image(s) tbd.

DRAFT 11-18-25
image(s) tbd.

ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Photo Layout Draft: 20250818) RESI 31

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

6.3.11. Distinguish a gate from the adjoining fence or wall with crafted or individualized details, while maintaining filtered views into the property. Do not use vehicle gates except on unusually large estate properties.

6.3.12. Never use gate posts or columns that are monumental or out-of-scale with the building design, nor stone columns that are not integrated into other stone elements. Keep posts and columns the same height as their adjacent fence or wall.

6.3.13. Use house identification devices, such as name and number signage, that is subordinate to and appropriate to the architecture.

DESIGN
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) COMM
1 ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
II. COMMERCIAL

DESIGN GUIDELINES
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) MUNI
1 ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
III. MUNICIPAL

DESIGN GUIDELINES
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX
1 ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

APPENDICES

DESIGN GUIDELINES
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 2

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
CARMEL’S NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT: A VISUAL HISTORY DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 3

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
Perhaps the first lasting structure in Carmel-by-the-Sea, arriving some 200,000 years ago, was a 25-millionyear-old tree species, Pinus radiata or Monterey Pine. It now survives indigenously in only three mainland pockets: the Año Nuevo and Cambria regions, and the Monterey Peninsula, which is thought to be the “Mother Stand” — sustaining the entire mainland species over the millennia (seen here from Carmel Mission Ranch circa 1900). A relative newcomer, Quercus agrifolia or Coast Live Oak, joined the pine plant community around 10,000 years ago (seen here in an extant local grove).

The earliest known human structures in the area also
arrived around 10,000 years ago. The Rumsen
peoples dwelled respectfully and symbiotically with
the oak and pine forest ecology for their food and
other essentials. They also built respectfully and very lightly on the land, weaving their temporary homes
from the nearly endless supply of tule grass and bent
willow branches along the Carmel River (seen here in a
modern reproduction). The design, with its
overlapping, umbracular layers wrapped in a conical
design around a circular chimney oculus in the roof,
perfectly expresses the combined functions of shelter
against outside elements and warmth for the central
fire circle within.

Thousands of years later, when Spanish scouts landed in 1602, the Monterey Pine forest community remained intact and abundant. Noting the “many pines for masts and yards,” sea captain Sebastian Vizcaino named the peninsula “Punto de Pinos” or Pine Point. Unlike the gnarled native oaks, tall, straight conifers make excellent building materials. So, when the Spanish returned to found Mission San Carlos de Borromeo in 1770, they initially built it of local, mud-plastered timber with straw or earthen roofing, eventually transitioning their buildings to more solid, adobe brick construction.

The missionaries formed their adobe bricks of natural local materials: clay, sand, and an organic binder such as straw with mortar of adobe mud or of pulverized limestone and abalone shells. They used these materials to build, sometime around 1776, the first permanent residence in California: a simple, boxy, lean-to house for their orchardist. The building (seen here) is still standing as a residence today.

Dedicated in 1797, the mission church building is of a still stronger material: native brown sandstone from the Carmel Valley with mortar and plaster derived from abalone shells and local timber roofing members. For this important structure, the padres brought in Guadalajaran master stonemason Manuel Estevan Ruiz — the first CARMEL’S NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT: A VISUAL HISTORY DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 4

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
known building designer in Carmel-by-the-Sea
history. Ruiz, working, by definition, in the Mission
Style, created a relaxed, asymmetrical design (seen
here today), quoting a number of architectural
idioms, such as the Moorish bell tower, the Gothic
quatrefoil starburst rose window, the Baroque arch
flourish atop the Palladian gable, and the Classical
retable entrance surround to create an eclectic
interpretation of Spanish Colonial style.

Spain ceded California to Mexico in 1821, which
then “secularized” the missions in 1834, making
their lands available for private use, primarily by
ranchers. Around 1846, during this influx of
pioneers, Boston sea captain Matthew M. Murphy,
built his cabin (seen here circa
1905) right on the margin
where the open sand dunes
met the thick Carmel forest.

The single-pen, rectangular
plan building of rough-hewn,
local, pine logs with v-notched
joints was typical of pioneer
construction. It was originally
used as a barn, later as an art studio, and still stands, albeit greatly modified, as a residence today.

In 1888, brothers Santiago and Bellario Duckworth
acquired the development rights to a half-square-mile of Honoré Escolle’s ranch and subdivided it into mostly 40 by 100-foot parcels, forming what would become the
core of Carmel by the Sea and bringing an acceleration of native wood construction into the forest. That same year, Duckworth tucked his own small, vernacular wood home
amongst the large mature pines along Carpenter Street.

This vertical board-and-batten, rectangular plan, sidegable home (seen here) was so simple that the pedimented window casings and stick-like bracketing on
the porch posts were its only concessions to decoration.

The abundance of timber encouraged wood
construction beyond small residential buildings.

With accommodations for 40, the first hotel in
town, El Carmelo Hotel (seen here in soon after
opening in 1889) was built of wood on the
corner of Ocean Avenue and Junipero Street
before it was moved down the avenue and
fittingly renamed Pine Inn in 1903. Douglas
Knox Frasier designed the hotel with horizontal
wood shiplap siding and a pyramidal hip roof in
an American Foursquare or Prairie-Box house
style. This simple style, with its honest
construction, basic, boxy form, minimal
corridors, and efficient layout is considered a
reaction to the ornamental excesses and expense of the Victorian Style.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 5
Real estate developer Abbie Jane
Hunter opened her 1889 community
bathhouse at the forested edge of
Carmel Beach (seen here soon after
construction), built by her uncle,
Delos Goldsmith. With its honestly
expressed, post-and-beam wood
construction of recessed infill panels
of glass for the public cafe and
horizontal wood for the private
changing areas, its cross-wing dormer
roof, and its deeply overhung central ventilation tower, this low-slung, pavilion style structure, foreshadowed Julia Morgan’s craftsman style hall at Asilomar. In 1892 Hunter went on to purchase a full quarter square mile and sold about 300 home parcels, mainly to teachers and writers.

An early exception to the rule of wood construction was the first local brick house, built in 1898 at Monte Verde Street and Fifth Avenue by English master mason Benjamin Turner (seen here soon after construction). The modest gable-and-wing residence was a showcase for his skills with its diamond shaped gable accent and decorative quoining at the corners and at door and window surrounds.

After a nationwide recession in the
mid-1890’s paused growth, James
Franklin Devendorf and Frank
Powers, who founded the Carmel
Development Company in 1902, bought out the earlier developers.

Now the pace of construction could resume. Just as the need increased to harvest timber for buildings (seen here stacked in Del Monte Forest circa 1900), so did the need to clear the land for these buildings and, more significantly, for the streets that connected them.

However, the new town founders were committed to preserving the forest that initially attracted them by continuing to attract only aesthetically discerning residents who could set a “self-perpetuating” “tone,” “preventing man and his civilizing ways from…marring the natural beauty lavishly displayed here.” To that end, they advertised the place to professors and artists “of all kinds” as “a town in a pine forest” with homes “artistic in character, reflecting the temperament of the town” and “designed by architects who attempted to…fit the local surroundings.”
Likewise, although the village streets were laid out in an unremarkable grid on paper, in reality that grid often seems to disappear into a rambling wilderness pathway because of its deliberate deference to the pre-existing forest. This deference was achieved through several creative planning principles: the designation of an oversized public right of way along residential streets, often three times the width of any paving; the occasional narrowing of paving down to one travel lane; the ban on sidewalks so that the paving must be used as a footpath; the curving of paving to the left or right of the street centerline into the public right of way (seen here on Torres Street); the use of one or both sides of the right of way for a continuous native forest greenbelt; the protrusion of existing native trees and undergrowth into the sides of the paving, the splitting of paving around existing plants (seen here on Mountain View); and the compelling of residents to continue the native forest landscape seamlessly into their private parcels to minimize the impact of built structures on forest continuity.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 6

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
When trees had to be removed, whether on private or public lands, they were quickly replaced.

Devendorf “gave away tree saplings like candy” to newcomers developing their homesites. So, when the forest was cut to lay out Ocean Avenue (seen at left in 1888), it was soon re-forested with the same species (seen at right near Monte Verde Street in 1903).

The same founding year of the Carmel Development Company, seventeen-year-old, trained carpenter, Michael J. Murphy built his first house: today’s “First Murphy House,” originally tucked in the forest on Mission Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenue (as seen here). The rectangular plan bungalow in the Anglo-Colonial style was small and pared down with no exposed structural members typical of the Craftsman style or even a porch. Yet, it had understated flourishes such as the decorative glass, the slender, double-ogee wood siding, and the flared or bellcast hip roof. Just two years later, in 1904, Murphy became the chief builder for the Company and went on to construct about 350 buildings in town.

At this same time, Ocean Avenue was emerging as
a commercial corridor in the Pioneer style typical of
western towns. The wood-framed buildings had
horizontal, false-front facades, extended vertically
above their front-gabled, pitched roofs and
sometimes ornamented with wood trims, panels,
and pediments to give them a larger, more
prosperous look. This included L.S. Slevin’s, the
post office and first general merchandise store, Fritz
Schweinger’s bakery, still operating as a bakery
today, and Robert and Fred Leidig’s grocery store
(all seen here circa 1910).

In 1903, Thomas A. Work built the
Carmel Development Company
Building, a commercial block on
Ocean Avenue and San Carlos
Street which housed his hardware
store, the Carmel Development
Company office, and Devendorf’s
Preble Grocery. The flat-roofed,
three bay, fireproof, rough-textured,
concrete cinder-block structure, with
its large, plate-glass store windows capped by a ribbon band of transom lights, was Carmel’s first truly Modern style building. Unadorned and clear in revealing its purpose, if somewhat formal or classical in its tripartite geometries, it is still in active commercial use today (seen here soon after construction).

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 7

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
Ever nonconformist, Carmel architecture stepped both forward and backward simultaneously. Also around 1903, but perhaps channeling the Late Neolithic, attorney George Richardson built his L-shaped, 600 square-foot, saddle-notched, hand-hewn log cabin on Monte Verde Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenues (seen here circa 1914). This modest structure was poet Robinson Jeffers’ first local rental home.

With a
similarly
archaic
construction technique, Ben Turner (of the
aforementioned first brick house) hand-built
the tower and other native mudstone
elements of a home (now La Playa Hotel)
designed by Artist Christian Jorgenson for
his wife, the chocolate heiress, Angela
Ghirardelli. Both the technique and the
quatrefoil window (seen here on the lower
left of the tower, circa 1906) replicate the originals of the Mission basilica.

But with modern building techniques also came freedom to explore many architectural styles beyond the traditional or the simple vernacular, some traditional-looking, some not. In 1905, the First Bay Area Regionalist or First Bay Tradition style, an interpretation of the American Shingle Style, appeared at Philip Wilson’s real estate office on the corner of Ocean Avenue and Dolores Street (seen here soon after construction, it was briefly the town’s first City Hall starting in 1917). With the sculptural qualities of a much smaller, flexible, unit of wood than timber or clapboard, shingles awakened a completely new, uniquely American, direction for architecture. With shingles tautly enveloping all surfaces and junctures, architecture could start to articulate the internal volume of a building, rather than its individual planes or structural components, just as the two dormers appear to swell up from the shingle surface below them to pop through the roof plane. These expressive volumetrics led, in turn, to a relaxation of symmetries and a casual naturalness, apparent in the asymmetrical lower fenestration and emphasized by the untreated, rough and rustic wood, often pre-aged in buttermilk, so that the grays would blend into the local forested surroundings.

This emerging idea that buildings should feel natural, not artificial, should blend exterior and interior, should
honestly reveal something intrinsic, such as their internal uses or volumes, this architectural “honesty,” was also explored within the American Craftsman style, which
exposed the often concealed craft of construction. In his 1905 Gardener house (seen here on San Carlos Street at
Santa Lucia Avenue), M.J. Murphy exaggerates its raw,
rectilinear materials and the care in their assembly. For example, the roof planes overhang well beyond what the
walls require for shelter and the roof beams extend even farther and appear stronger than what those roofing planes require for support. Similarly, the oversized porch posts, DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 8

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
the deep shadow lines of the vertical siding battens, the change of siding pattern at the foundation, and the bold ganging and framing of the windows all serve to illustrate both how the structure is made and the unadorned, natural purity of what it is made of.

These innovative, architectural experiments coincided with a number of Revivalist styles, forming an Eclectic Era that coincided with a surge in Carmel’s development after the Great San Francisco earthquake. Architect Eugenia Maybury designed, also in 1905, a Tudor Revival or Mock Tudor style home for the McGowan sisters on Thirteenth Avenue near
San Antonio Avenue (seen here soon after construction). The late-medieval, English vernacular Tutor style relied on a heavy timber post-and-beam, perimeter structure, with
wattle and daub unevenly hand-packed between the wood
members, leaving them partially exposed for a “halftimbered” appearance. Mock Tutor imitates these cottages of the British underclasses, with their vertically proportioned windows, jettied upper stories, soft thatch roofs, and showy chimneys, but with one important exception.

Born of the post-industrial 20th century, Mock half-timbers are no longer timbers, but instead nonstructural, decorative, trim pieces applied on top of the smooth stucco finish of ordinary modern construction, making it challenging to capture the irregularity, depth, and authenticity of the original.

Perhaps the earliest Mission Revival style structure
appeared, again in 1905, on a Lincoln Street parcel at
Seventh Avenue donated by Devendorf to create
Carmel’s first protestant church (seen here circa 1935
before its eventual demolition). Rather than
stylistically diverging, this long-awaited alternative to the town’s Catholic church seems, perhaps
paradoxically, to exalt its predecessor. Despite the
freedoms that its modern wood framing and stucco
construction would have afforded, the composition
accurately echos the restrictions of the mission’s stone construction, with its structural reliance on blank
expanses of stacked stone walls and on the narrow,
rounded openings of stone arches. And though these openings are so shallow and devoid of shadows that they easily betray the thinness of the modern walls, there remains an earnest homage to the mission’s square moorish towers, its asymmetrical massing, and the Baroque arch flourish, reinterpreted here to form the wavy shape of the entire front gable.

By 1911, Frank Devendorf could report that over sixty percent of Carmel residents devoted their lives to work in the “aesthetic arts.” His prophecy that the aesthetically educated would be the best stewards of the environment came true when, on October 31st, 1916, residents voted to incorporate the village of Carmel by the Sea, citing as a main reason the failure of Monterey County government to protect and preserve its unique natural character from the destructive forces of "progress." Unsurprisingly, one of the first actions of the new local government was to pass ordinances to protect the ancient Monterey pines. Perhaps nobody epitomized this twin love of art and nature more than Robinson Jeffers (seen here in 1919) who, while not writing poetry, continued the Carmel tradition of hand-made stone towers by building his own out of native granite at his Tor House between Scenic Road and Ocean View Avenue on nearby Carmel Point.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 9
Just a few blocks away and a few years later, Architect Charles Sumner Greene embraced both modern
construction and expression. In 1919, on Lincoln
Street south of Thirteenth Avenue he built one of the
first concrete foundations in town and likely the first prefabricated board-and-batten, wood walls, which
were tilted up rather than built in place. He designed
the home (seen here soon after construction) as a new
interpretation of the u-shaped hacienda ranch homes
built by early Mexican-Spanish settlers. Those early
ranch buildings used their open courtyards and
surrounding porticos to provide shade, to dissipate
cooking heat, or to collect water. Here, however, the
tree cover precludes the need for roof overhangs, the
simple shed roofs direct water away, and, often in
Carmel, open courtyards were oriented southward to
collect heat.

In 1923, Greene conducted another architectural
experiment with the idiosyncratic studio he added to
the east side of his property. By applying his
considerable personal artisanship to an array of
random materials (brick from a demolished hotel, leftover marble from another job, used bottle glass, fence pickets discarded by a ranch, hand-harvested and donated timber and marble scraps), he resourcefully up-cycled these “found objects” into an unusual interpretation of the Mission Style. Though constructed in the stacked-masonry tradition of the adobe and stone missions, with characteristic barrel tile roofs and small, arch-supported openings, the building has the broad front gable and low-slung, overall form of his famous Craftsman bungalows. Unlike either style, the front facade (seen here in a recent view) appears almost hermetically sealed, with its heavy teak door and conspicuously miniscule fenestration with impenetrable tinted glass, perhaps an adaptation to support his artistic concentration or interior acoustics for piano playing and salon gatherings.

Certainly the diversity of architecture in Carmel sprang from the diversity of people building there. But diversity prevailed even within one person’s work: M.J. Murphy avoided repetition whenever possible, even though he built more than anyone else. In 1922, he tackled the Monterey Colonial Revival style in the Kluegel home on Camino Real North of Ocean Avenue (seen here in a recent view). Born in California, Monterey Colonial originally fused the shipwright’s simple detailing, roofline, and overall form of the early New England Colonial, the long, sometimes full-height openings and double shading provided by a prominent cantilevered balcony of the Caribbean Colonial, and the adobe wall construction of the Spanish Colonial. Here, the Monterey Revival substyle (of Spanish Colonial) repeats these features, though with stucco over modern wood framing, the four-quarter simplicity of the facade supporting its many asymmetries and irregularities.

The same year, J.S. Cone designed her own home at the corner of Monte Verde Street and Thirteenth Avenue (seen here in a recent view). Clad entirely in vertical planks of redwood bark found in nearby groves, the rough, dark exterior of its asymmetric volumes recedes into the forest. However, the plentiful windows with sturdy mullions spaced in scale with the cladding, plus the double-height central hall with full-length balconies concealed within the simple main form, allow for a bright and open interior without compromising the home's unsurpassed deference to the natural site.

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 10

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
Notwithstanding the predominance of the Craftsman style and a general emphasis on simplicity, the Eclectic Era of the early 1900’s continued on in the residential neighborhoods.

Meanwhile, a different trend started to develop in the commercial core.

For its 1915 Panama-California Exposition, San Diego aptly selected the revival styles of the first European settlers in California to celebrate its auspicious future as the first west coast port for European ships coming through the new Panama Canal. The dazzling success of this architectural spectacle is widely credited for re-popularizing “New World,” Mexican and Spanish Revival styles of the Southern hemisphere. Perhaps the first glimpse of this trend in Carmel was in 1922, when architect Thomas Morgan overlaid a Spanish Eclectic facade of stucco and barrel tiles onto a typical, wood-framed, Western falsefront, infill structure. The Thomas A. Oakes building (seen here soon after construction) performed important civic functions as the new post office, second city hall, council chambers, and police station. Despite its official role, however, the building did not establish an official style — in contrast to other towns such as Santa Barbara, which legally codified its signature Spanish look in 1925.

Instead, also in 1922, a rival trend emerged downtown looking primarily toward the Northern hemisphere “Old World”. Lee Gottfried built and Edward Kuster designed the Tudor Revival Weavers Studio for his spouse Ruth Kuster (seen here in 1923 after relocation and an added ticket booth serving the Golden Bough theater on Ocean Avenue).

Perhaps counterintuitively, Tudor Revival style does not revive the Tudor style itself, meaning the late-medieval style of the royal House of Tudor.

Rather, the early twentieth century version revives the modest country cottage vernacular style of Tudor England to satisfy what architectural historian Nicholas Pevsner called “the English flight from reality around the 1914-18 war [WWI].” The modest, handcrafted look, a vision of simpler times and places, offered the British an escape from industrial age ordeals and likely resonated similarly with city dwellers seeking respite in Carmel’s ancient coastal forest.

A romantic accident of history gave the “old-world” trend a sudden boost in 1924, when Hugh Comstock visited his sister in Carmel and she introduced him to Mayotta Browne. The 27-year-old rancher and the doll-maker were married within a few months. That same year, Comstock, fresh off various handyman gigs in Los Angeles, built his new bride a teeny backyard cottage showroom named “Hansel” on Torres Street near Sixth Avenue (seen here at that time with its owners) for her thriving “Otsy-Totsy” felt doll business.

Its Fairytale or Storybook style, was a brief, inter-war phenomenon dreamed up in Los Angeles by film industry creatives influenced by soldiers returning from their first exposure to European countrysides. (In fact, the famous Hollywood sign originally spelled Hollywoodland and was built in 1923 as an advertisement for the nation’s first storybook real estate development.) Thought to be the inspiration for Disney’s immersive and lavish “imagineering” approach to set design, this Tudoresque substyle is characterized by exaggeratedly plastic and sometimes cartoonish interpretation of the medieval. Features can include lopsided walls and undulating roofs with deliberately misaligned shingles wrapped over rolled eaves meant to emulate thatch or puckered around eyebrow windows, fanciful roof rake boards, stucco artificially aged through tinting or patination, implausibly sinewy, false half-timbering or window and door surrounds, hand-whittled and possibly charred or distressed to suggest 1922 FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 11

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
age, irregular door and window shapes, sizes, and placements. The labor intensity of its idiosyncratic craftsmanship fit well with Carmel’s artistic and bohemian culture, but the difficulty of convincingly replicating it virtually guaranteed the style’s demise during the Great Depression. Still, in its decade or so of popularity this theatrical SoCal style spread widely across America, likely finding few places with the deep forest backdrop of actual fairytales to exhibit it so perfectly. Understandably, Comstock was inundated with orders, setting him on a new career path to become Carmel’s next-most prolific builder and causing old-world reverberations from backyards to downtown.

And yet, in exactly the same year, 1924, Carmel saw further exploration into the “new-world" styles as well. On Ocean Avenue and Dolores Street, Earl Percy Parkes designed and built a Pueblo Revival gift shop for owner, Mary Dummage (seen here in a recent view). Perhaps, the oldest continuously occupied architectural style in America, Pueblos were made of balled or bricked adobe and timber roofs with few, if any, windows. In the revival style, if adobe is not used, rounded corners, irregular parapets, and thick, battered walls usually stuccoed in earthtones simulate it. Round vigas or roof beam logs or other rough timbers often project through the parapets or under upper stories as corbeling, as seen here, to imply a structural function. However, the plentiful fenestration, without even a pretense of supporting lintels over its wide openings, betrays this particular building's internal wood framing and compromises the credibility of an otherwise easily- and often-reproduced style.

A year later, in 1925, Fred Ruhl constructed
the first phase of the aptly-named Normandy
Inn on Ocean Avenue at Monte Verde Street
(seen here circa 1930). Berkeley-trained
architect, Robert Stanton designed the
complex in the Normandy Variant of the
Tudor Revival style. Because in that region
of France country homes were often
attached to their barns, this style variant is
distinguished primarily by the addition of a
tower element, which reinterprets a barn’s
grain or silage facility, usually as a main entry or stair tower as it appears here to the left of the main entry.

A year after that, in 1926, the City of Carmel held a
design competition for its new library building one
block uphill from the inn, on Ocean Avenue at Lincoln
Street. Unconvinced by all nine of the first-round
entries, the City hired emeritus Berkeley professor and famed, stylistically eclectic architect, Bernard Maybeck to partner with contractor M.J. Murphy. When
completed in 1928 (seen here around then), the value
of the delay was revealed by the building’s persuasive
fidelity to its style. An essay in dignified restraint, the design derives expressive power through its control of
volume, proportion, and measured detail, not
complex massing or materials. It celebrates its prominent community purpose with its unabashedly prominent reading room and enormous, steel-framed, front window. The ratio of window to wall, however, remains correctly modest with all glass set back as far as possible so as to accurately evoke both the spanning limitation and the deep thickness of older adobe walls. The weight of the barrel tile roof is properly conveyed by the hefty and genuinely structural roof beams and how they extend beyond the walls to easily support the deep overhangs. The perhaps surprising subordinance of the low, recessive, and dark-shadowed, side entry wing defers to and thereby re-emphasizes the library’s mission: reading.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 12

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
Also in 1926, on Dolores Street south of Ocean
Avenue and, Bonnie Lee commissioned Hugh
Comstock to design and build her Art Shop. His
only Fairy Tale style commercial building (seen
here shortly after its 1927 construction), it echos
and exaggerates even further the make-believe
of Hansel and his other residences. Roofs go
from wavy to wandering, doors from curved to
camelid, windows from regular rectangles to
lawless lozenges, trims from bumpy to bulging,
and chimneys from quirky to so impossibly
quixotic as to require steel bracing. Now
operating as the Tuck Box, the building
represents the epitome of Comstock’s mischief
with this style, inspiring other, though always more demure, commercial development.

The same year that “old-world" style peaked in extravagant fantasy, downtown development in the “newworld” style also began to peak. 1927 saw Oakland architects, Roger Blaine’s
and David Olsen’s Eclectic Spanish
Revival designs for Dr. Rudolph Kocher's
medical practice at the La Giralda
building on the corner of Seventh
Avenue and Dolores Street (seen here
from each street respectively in recent
views), followed, in 1928, by their El
Paseo building for L.C. Merrill across
Dolores (seen below in a recent view),
and then, in 1929, their building for Robert and
Isabel Leidig on Dolores near Ocean on Avenue
(seen below in a recent view). These buildings, all
primarily concrete, along with several others built
around the same period, diverge somewhat in
their influences. But, they share the hallmarks of
the style: an emphasis on the solidity implied by
masonry construction, with its heavily shadowed,
small, deep openings in blank expanses of
monotone stucco-coated wall, the handmade
decorative tile and metalwork, the rough,
handcrafted appearance of the clay barrel tile,
the irregular massing and openings, and the
like. With some details drawn from
measurements actually taken on the architects’
trips to Spain, the El Paseo building in particular
provides a veritable dictionary of vocabulary
authentic to its Revival language: the custom
metal window grilles with unique twists in each
bar, the pre-aged wood banisters, the doors
and windows that never match, the eyecatching shadows of scalloped balconies, and the lintel over the passageway entrance sized to
properly reflect the spanning strength of wood
(though it is painted concrete).

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 13
When the Sunset School outgrew its 1906 “new
world” Mission style building, the town hired
Oakland architect John J. Donovan in 1926, and
later Fresno/Monterey architect C.J. Ryland in
1931, to shepherd its large, new campus between
Mission and San Carlos Streets, Eighth and Tenth
Avenues through its expansions (seen here in
1937). Ryland, architecturally educated in France,
mimicked the style of granges dimières
cisterciennes (cistercian tithe barns), to give
Sunset its dominant, “old-world” character of
Cistercian Medieval Revival. Monasteries had
pursued the austere Cistercian style, which evolved directly into the early Gothic over a century later, as a pious rejection of Classical ornamentation. And, the abbey barns were even purer expressions of deft, yet practical, engineering. The voluminous spaces (which the church required to store one tenth of local annual produce) found their most sturdy geometry in the massive, triangular roofs that came nearly to the ground, where they received support from disproportionately low, thick, and buttressed walls, in which openings were rare, deep, small, and often ganged together, like the double entry here, usually under larger discharge or relieving arches, all of which also received and expressed the great mass supported above. For these masterfully simple structures, often the only concessions to ornament were the finials atop the gable ends, thought to bring good luck, presumably for abundant harvests.

And so the downtown architecture pendulum swung back and forth for several years between the old world and the new world, albeit with some significant detours. For example, diagonal from the new library at Ocean Avenue and Lincoln Street, contractor Earl Percy Parkes built the Seven Arts complex for arts entrepreneur and Forest Theater founder, Herbert Heron. Designed by Albert B. Coats, the building (seen here in 1926) seems clearly indebted to its Shingle Style neighbor a block uphill: the 1905 Wilson building (see way above). The future mayor, with his principled support for bohemian over business interests, was a logical proponent of this pioneering American style. His building uses the same taut skin, merging into very shallow overhangs to de-emphasize material in favor of overall volume, which is in turn emphasized by the simple, emphatic gables, punctuated only by single openings of multiple ganged windows and by the cyclopean shed dormer that looks
as if it emerged as pressure from the spaces below
overpowered and pierced through the thin roof plane.

The clear difference between the two buildings is the
substitution of a wooden skin over wooden framing for
a stucco skin over concrete block. This unconventional, if not unique, mutation was perhaps explained by
concerns over fire, addressed conveniently by the
Carmel Thermotite Company, newly incorporated just a
few streets away where it molded its innovative
fireproof blocks (also used to construct Flanders
Mansion). The building’s unusual combination of
durability and originality created an enduring symbol of the many artists it hosted so famously for so long.

Another intentional stylistic detour downtown came in 1939, when Carmel’s most significant financier, Barnet Segal rejected the Spanish Revival design of his architects, Swartz and Ryland, and ordered them toward Art Moderne. His bank on Ocean Avenue at Dolores Street (seen here after construction) embodies the style, with its horizontal, yet humanist proportions and symmetries, its concrete solidity, along with a neoclassical, near-white color, a rejection of classical ornament in favor of the new decorative arts, as well as curved gestures of glass and stone.

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 14
Around the time this new international style hit downtown, a new, defiantly local, City Council swept into office. Having become the first “poet mayor" of Carmel in 1930, Mayor Heron (of the Seven Arts building above) ran and won again in 1938, in part, to address commercial pressures on the natural environment venerated by Carmel’s bohemian residents. The new Council hired the highly acclaimed, Berkeley/ Harvard educated Thomas Church, the “first founder” and pioneer of American landscape design and of a movement that became the “California Style.” Church famously believed, as Carmelites did, that rather than providing building decoration, “[a] garden should have no beginning and no end.” Meaning, it should be physically and visually integrated with the predominant natural environment and allow seamless human movement and inhabitation.

Church answered his assignment — to lessen the visual impact of the cars that now dominated the pine forest landscape — with a native stone planter running up the center of Ocean Avenue (seen here in the 1920s and 1940s). The low height of the wall, the medium height of the native undergrowth, and the columnar forms of the Monterey pine street trees, whose foliage grows primarily quite high, allowed for the clever combination of opacity down at car level and transparency at eye and storefront level, creating both visual access to the commercial corridor and visual screening of the traffic for shoppers.

Throughout the development surge, the same
revivalist and eclectic forces in the commercial
areas were at work throughout the residential
areas as well, including the perhaps unique 1936
example of the Art Moderne style built by M.J.

Murphy on Thirteenth Avenue at Dolores Street.

Like the Bank of Carmel above, the H. Markham
house has the same horizontal emphasis, classical
proportions, local symmetries, look of solidity, and
monochrome, light color. More spare than the
bank, its only curved gesture is the conical
chimney accent to the left.

As the second half of the 20th century
approached, Carmel’s stylistic adventures were just beginning. However, with just a few exceptions such as those just mentioned, Carmel tended to derive its
aesthetic direction from local and not international
cues. For example, Hugh Comstock, never one to
be limited by his Fairytale fame, had always been a
stylistically experimental builder and in 1948 he
published a trailblazing pamphlet called “Post
Adobe” (seen here in a recent view). Within it, he
extolled an inventive building technique that wove
together two ancient construction techniques based
on local materials and labor, timber post and beam
with mud masonry, to create something brand new
and with potent stylistic implications. He argued
that the compressive strength of mud brick,

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 15

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
rendered waterproof with bitumen, when aided by the tensile strength and rectilinear guidance of wood could become an inexpensive, easy, and elegant approach suitable for onestory homes and requiring no additional insulation, interior or exterior finishing, or special details. This made his postadobe a method accessible to laypeople, even to property owners themselves, leading to an emergence and
proliferation of the Ranch style throughout town, such as this 1950 example on Scenic Road at Eighth Avenue (seen here in a recent view).

Also in 1948, Frank Lloyd Wright designed “Cabin on the Rocks” (seen here in a recent view) for Della Walker. Della’s sister, Alma, had deeded her the property on Scenic Road near Martin Way, under one condition: work with a notable architect. Wright, the first radically original American architect, and his former Taliesin apprentice, Mark Mills, delivered Walker’s request for a house “as durable as the rocks and as transparent as the waves” through carefully calibrated responses to the context. To unify the structure into an “organic wholeness” at every scale from the site down to the detail, Wright relied on his signature tool: the Japanese (and later, De Stijl) principle of expressing irregular forms ordered over the rigor of a regular grid, but in this case using the unexpected module of a four-foot by four-foot parallelogram. This infinitely adaptable, geometric technique allowed Wright to take his signature stylistic invention, the Prairie School, which was inspired by the flatness of the midwestern plains,
and reinterpret it for the flatness of the Pacific
shoreline through a casual, natural massing, responsive to the precise location. He also emphasized the low
and the horizontal, with a bluish-green copper
cantilevered roof floating above minimally-framed
glazing and not traditional windows, deeply shadowed,
dark-stained, native wood walls, all recessed behind an asymmetrical native-stone base emerging from the
existing rocks, which, together, masterfully
subordinated his built work to surrounding nature. It is perhaps no accident that the structure points toward
Japan, as it was Wright’s fascination with the
integrating geometries and natural subjects of
Japanese prints that catalyzed his entire approach to design: “The print is more autobiographical than may be imagined. If Japanese prints were to be deducted from my education, I don’t know what direction the whole might have taken.” (Utagawa Hiroshige’s 1833 “Driving Rain at Shono” from Wright’s collection seen here.) This cross-cultural, cross-discipline sensitivity and synthesis is just one mark of aesthetic genius.

Alma Walker can be credited with insisting that such artistry is essential to building in Carmel.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 16

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
Around 1953, upon completion of Della Walker’s home, Mark Mills designed “Woodland House,” also for the Walker family, at Mission Street and 13th Avenue (seen here soon after construction). Mills, like Wright, used a roof floating above and around abstracted glazing and nestled within a grounded, solid base of native rock and concrete. This time, however, responding to the verticality of a completely wooded site, the roof tilts upward, sympathetically expresses its heavy timber structure and raw wood finishes, and creates views up into the tree canopy rather than out toward an ocean horizon. Also like Wright, Mills prioritized a building’s permanent responsibility to its natural and human community perhaps above its responsibility to any temporary occupant. In fact, Mills famously said that nature is “my silent client” and even “my client is nature,” sentiments that tie him closely to the environmental preservation mission of Devendorf and the early forest settlers.

Also in 1953, Clarence Mayhew, a prolific, San Francisco-based and Berkeley-educated architect, designed a home for Helen Proctor between Scenic Road and San Antonio Avenue near Thirteenth Avenue (seen here in a recent view). Like most International Style buildings, the home emphasizes volume of internal space through lightweight, skeletal frames and glazed transparency, rather than mass and solidity; visual interest through functional divergences, rather than applied ornamentation; overall simplification of geometries; and flexible modularity, rather than strict classical symmetry. Yet, the undercurrents of classical composition often strongly order such buildings and Mayhew, educated in classical architecture at L'École des Beaux-Arts prior to Berkeley, would have known the standard facade in canonical ancient temple architecture: the hexastyle portico. This deep porch, with its six columns and five openings resting on a plinth of low windows and topped by a textured pediment of sorts, echos the ancient closely and then diverges to the modern with the addition of a solid, sixth module on the left, a chimney accent on the right, an off-center glass door, and only half a triangle for the roofline. This building, like a temple, follows its own mathematical order to sit in deliberate contraposition to natural disorder and therefore, like the International Style, it functions as an unapologetic “machine for living.” However, its modest scale, quirky asymmetry, recessive coloration, and natural wood construction, all push it away from the international and pull it closer to the local and associate the house with the Second Bay Area Regional style.

The Third Bay Area Regional style emerged in
Carmel soon thereafter, exemplified by “Three
Sisters,” a trio of homes on Lopez Street near
Fourth Avenue, including Cosmos House (seen
here on the right in an original site plan and in
a recent view), all designed by Berkeley- and
Harvard-trained architect, Henry Hill between
1961 and 1962. This California style, an even
more relaxed and warm interpretation of
modernism, uses native, unfinished materials
and loose geometries to tailor a respectful
response to to the natural environment. As
the plans show, Hill played freely with an
unusual angled vocabulary to create three
completely unique yet complementary compositions that deftly avoid both the existing vegetation and one another. The houses maximize the flow of landscape between them by sharing no parallel exterior walls, which can create confining outdoor corridors. Instead they minimize contact, approaching one another only at sharp corners and exploiting the smallest possible geometric unit: the point.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 17

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
Also in the Third Bay Tradition, famed architect Charles Moore designed the Warren Saltzman House in 1966, on Palou Street near Casanova Street (seen here in a recent view). Though clad in unfinished wood shingles and nestled well into the existing site as is characteristic of the style, perhaps uncharacteristically the house plays more with traditional domestic shapes, such as the gabled roof (here exaggerated in scale and always in halves). His quotation of historic forms foreshadowed the influence Moore later had in ushering in the reactive
Postmodern style of the 1970s to 90s, along with his Princeton colleague Robert Venturi and others. Together they changed the course of modernist architecture with their searing warnings against ignoring traditional urban context and offered instead an architectural language that was extreme in its reference to classical design elements (keystones, pediments, column capitals), often out of proportion or grouped discordantly to highlight the paradox of their resurrection into the modern age.

But Postmodernism did not thrive in Carmel, where
the forest context dominated the urban context.

Instead, the bohemian residents and their
experimental designers continued in the more
quirky, organic vocabulary of the Bay Tradition, as
architect Mickey Muennig did for his 1974 “Owl
House” on Dolores Street near Alta Avenue in
nearby Carmel Woods (seen here in a recent view).

With even looser geometries than found at the
“Sisters”, Muennig warps the walls and roofs to
create undulations more associated with natural
than built forms. The nearly infinite freedom of this architectural language had the capacity to unify a meandering front path between low, woodsy, mute volumes with a starkly contrasting, bold, sweeping arch of a sheer glass escarpment over two stories tall to the rear, allowing the home to echo the topography and provide panoramic views over the forest toward the sea.

Around the same time, architects Walter Burde
and Will Shaw found this same organic
language appropriate to their 1972 “motor
bank” commission for Northern California
Savings and Loan. Though in the commercial
district, the building could not be a typical
party-wall, infill design, because customers
would be primarily arriving by car, driving past
all facades to reach a drive-through window at
the property’s interior. So, much like a
residential home surrounded by forest, the
building (seen here in a recent view) was
composed as a stand-alone sculpture, visible in
the round from infinite viewpoints. The yinyang interplay of jauntily angled dark but airy glass-timber sections with light but solid stucco
sections creates a family of volumes that provide visual distinction from every perspective as the motorist travels by, yet a strong genetic coherence to the entirety.

Then, in the 1980s, Carmel confronted a new threat: surging commercial speculation in the residential neighborhoods. The March 22, 1990 Pine Cone reported that multiple spec homes developed within months of one another on the “former Countess Kinnoull estate is usually declared the greatest single offender… built to the maximum the code will allow…[with] surrounding vegetation…torn down, leaving DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 18

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
barren what was once a lush greenbelt.”
(A portion on Torres Street near Eleventh
Avenue is shown here in street elevation
drawings from the time.) The projects
exemplified an alarming trend: tree
removal permits for construction rising
about 375% over two decades and
residential building applications on track
to rise 750% in half that time. Carmel Planning Director Diane White warned about the oversized, cookiecutter approach: “You can tolerate a lot of architectural ‘violations’ when the focus is on the landscape.

What is happening now is a double-edged sword. We are losing our predominant landscaping as well as getting a narrower architectural style.” Carmel City Forester Gary Kelly also warned, “according to the city’s tree census…the number of pines on private property is decreasing while the number of ornamentals is increasing…[because] when people come from different areas, they…plant what they are used to. The most serious aspect…is that the medium to small pines…are disappearing. That means we will have fewer trees to replace the mature ones once they die…they are supposed to be replaced. But when I go back to the site, I find that there is no room to plant. We either need to reconfigure the open space or allow for smaller houses.” Complaints flooded local newspapers and public meetings about overblown, pretender “cottages” attempting to camouflage their excessive size with often cartoonishly mis-matched and complicated massing, materials, and styles. One local builder explained the powerful economic incentives: “[in 1982] there weren’t more than three ‘spec’ homes in all of Carmel…[but now] we have builders from the valley, who used to build in Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield and maybe make $20,000 a house. They come over here and maybe make $150,000 for a spec house. The same amount of work, they get that much more gain.” So, in the mid-1990s, the City conducted a national search for an expert to lead the development of comprehensive design standards that might reverse this “insensitivity” to the natural and built environment. And in 2001, the Council adopted the resulting document “The Design Traditions of Carmel” and legally mandated through its Municipal Code that every required design review “shall” follow it. Many Carmelites had expressed fears that design standards might actually standardize designs. Instead, the ensuing quarter century saw many creative site responses, directly continuing Carmel’s legacy of architects sensitive to and responsive to nature.

In 2007, Carmelite architect John Thodos,
designed a home for himself and his spouse on
Torres Street near Third Avenue (seen here in a
recent view). As Carmel Historic Resources
Board Chair, Thodos strongly supported the
modest scale of village homes and refused to
deviate from the small footprint of the
unsalvageable, pre-existing structure. Like most
self-assured artists, Thodos embraced constraints
as “catalysts for creativity” and used the
property’s limitations to re-invent the very idea of
a Carmel Cottage. While maintaining the
archetypal elements of the classic house, he
deconstructed and expressed all the layers
separating inside and outside so as to blur the distinction between them and celebrate the immediate surroundings and regional climate. The home’s foundation of exposed-aggregate poured concrete reaches out into the foliage to evoke naturally eroded outcroppings. The abstractly-simple, wooden house-shapes come to rest above just parts of these outcroppings, again emphasizing their role as found site features, not structures designed just to hold up walls. Large expanses of the wood walls then dissolve into air, which is, in turn, re-enclosed by pure miter-jointed glass volumes that float free like lightfilled bubbles into the, often foggy, yard. Movement in and out is through elongated door-tunnels that extend and savor the interior/exterior threshold. By interweaving modest rooms so persuasively with the surrounding forest, Thodos transforms a traditional enclosure into something infinitely expansive.

DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 19

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
In 2009, Sci-Arc Professor John Bohn took a similarly creative approach to the natural surroundings of “Canopy House” on Ridgewood Road (seen here in a recent view). The site,
obstructed throughout by low-hanging oak tree limbs, inspired another reimagining of the simple Carmel Cottage. Hardly a simple task, this time a sophisticated computer model was needed to help break apart and inflect traditional roof shapes and warp them into custom curves around each individual branch. These roof planes, in turn, molded the monochrome walls beneath them into a collection of playfully irregular, modest volumes. Then, in order to fully connect the home with nature, irregular wood beams and posts branch down into the rooms and curved glass clerestories between the roofs and walls make the visual connection between the harvested timbers inside and the live wood elements, still growing undisturbed, outside.

Around 2012, Berkeley/MIT-trained architect, Justin Pauly designed the county’s first certified “Passive House”on Eleventh Avenue between Lincoln and Dolores Streets (seen here in a recent view). By meeting strict standards for airtightness, thermal bridging, fenestration, heat recovering ventilation, and insulation, the house remains comfortable in all seasons using virtually no energy. Though technically the structure is radically modern, stylistically, this Carmel Cottage is traditional vernacular. The design is clearly inspired by respect for the natural environment, but in ways independent of the architect’s aesthetic approach.

Also around 2012, architect George Brook-Kothlow, in close partnership with landscape designer Barkley David Smith, completed “Arch House” for Jacquelyn Woodward on
Seventh Avenue near Forest Road (seen above just after initial plantings). The construction materials palette of the building is raw and natural: self-rusting, uncoated steel, unvarnished wood, unpainted concrete. And, to an unusual degree, the living plants of the site also became part of the construction materials palette. Some walls are made of living plants as is the entire roof of the carport (seen above left). Most of the home’s glass-walled interior spaces wander casually around existing trees, incorporating corresponding glass-walled exterior garden spaces into the floorplan. Meanwhile, the main interior space, though set far back on the oversized site, initially appeared more conventionally exposed as a glassy street facade. However, once the native landscape design had matured (seen below in a recent view) the large interior was completed by its corresponding large exterior garden and disappeared from the road, engulfed by nature. Perhaps
ironically, this conscious interweaving of building and landscape design pays homage to the most traditional values of the town's founders and yet with a modern approach that they never could have foreseen — though likely would have applauded.

No, the 2001 design standards have not, so far, eliminated the destructive forces and the careless design that emerged in the 1980s. And yet, as the founders predicted, some great aesthetic talents still manage to show us the way. For, Carmel has continued to attract “the right people” who build homes “artistic in character, reflecting the temperament of the town…designed by architects who attemp[t] to…fit the local surroundings…preventing man and his civilizing ways from…marring the natural beauty lavishly displayed here.”
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 20

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

PROJECT REVIEW

PROCESS, CHECKLIST, & NARRATIVES
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN GUIDELINES
(Layout Draft: 20240101) APPX 23

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

PREFERRED MATERIALS

PLANTING & BUILDING
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

Carmel Design Guidelines 20240101
Layout Draft appx 24

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
TREES
Acer macrophyllum big-leaved maple
Acer negundo box elder
Arbutus menziesii madrone
Aesculus californica California buckeye
Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana Gowen cypress
Cupressus macrocarpa Monterey cypress
Myrica californica Pacific wax myrtle
Quercus agrifolia coast live oak
Pinus muricata bishop pine
Pinus radiata Monterey pine
Platanus racemosa sycamore
Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow
Salix scouleriana Scouler's willow
Sambucus mexicana blue elderberry
SHRUBS
Adenostoma fasciculatum chamise
Arctostaphylos tomentosa ssp. bracteosa Monterey manzanita (shaggy-barked) Arctostaphylos hookeri Hooker's manzanita
Arctostaphylos pumila sandmat manzanita
Artemisia californica California sagebrush
Baccharis douglasii Douglas's baccharis
Baccharis pilularis coyote brush
Berberis pinnata California barberry
Ceanothus cuneatus var. rigidus Monterey ceanothus
Ceanothus thyrsiflorus blue blossom
Chrysolepis chrysophylla var. minor chinquapin
Corethrogyne filaginifolia branching beach aster
Cornus sericea ssp. occidentalis western red dogwood
Ericameria fasciculata Eastwood's golden fleece
Eriodictyon californicum yerba santa
Eriogonum elongatum long-stem buckwheat
Eriogonum latifolium coast buckwheat
Eriogonum parvifolium seacliff buckwheat
Gaultheria shallon salal
Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon
Holodiscus discolor cream bush, oceanspray
Lepechinia calycina pitcher sage
Lonicera hispidula var. vacillans hairy honeysuckle
Lotus scoparius deerweed
Lupinus albifrons silver bush lupine
Lupinus arboreus tree lupine
Mimulus aurantiacus sticky monkey flower
Oemleria cerasiformis oso berry
Rhamnus californica coffeeberry
Rhamnus crocea redberry
Ribes divaricatum creek gooseberry
Ribes malvaceum chaparral currant
Ribes sanguineum var. glutinosum pink-flowering currant Ribes speciosum fuchsia-flowered gooseberry
Rosa californica California wild rose
Rosa gymnocarpa wood rose
Rosa pinetorum pine rose
Salvia mellifera black sage
Salvia spathacea crimson sage
Solanum douglasii Douglas' nightshade
Symphoricarpus mollis creeping snowberry
Symphoricarpos rivularis common snowberry
Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak
Vaccinium ovatum huckleberry

HERBACEOUS PLANTS
Achillea millefolium yarrow
Agoseris grandiflora mountain dandelion
Allienz hickmanii Hickman's onion
Arnica discoidea rayless arnica
Aster radulinus rough-leaved aster
Calochortus albus white globe lily, fairy lantern
Calochortus luteus yellow mariposa lily
Calochortus uniflores large-flowered star tulip
Calystegia macrostegia ssp. cyclostegia coast morning-glory Castilleja affinis coast paintbrush
Chlorogalum pomeridianum soaproot
Claytonia perfoliata miner's lettuce
Cordylanthus rigid ssp.littoralis seaside bird's-beak
Cynoglossom grande hound's tongue
Dichelostemma capitatum blue dicks

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Epilobium ciliatum California willow-herb
Eschscholzia californica California poppy
Fragaria vesca wood strawberry
Fritillaria affinis checker lily, mission bells
Galium californicum California bedstraw
Horkelia cuneata wedge-leaved horkelia
Iris douglasiana Douglas iris
Lomatium parvifolium small-leaved lomatium
Lotus formosissimus bicolored lotus, witch's teeth
Lotis stipularis stipulate lotus
Madia elegans common madia
Madia madioides woodland madia
Osmorhiza chilensis sweet cicely
Pedicularis densiflora Indian warrior
Piperia elegans elegant piperia
Piperia elongata tall rein-orchid
Piperia yadonii Yadon's rein-orchid
Perideridia gairdneri Gairdner's yampah
Polygala californica California milkwort
Potentilla hickmanii Hickman's cinquefoil
Rubus ursinus California blackberry
Sanicula crassicaulis gambleweed
Satureja douglasii yerba buena
Sidalcea malvaeflora checkerbloom
Sisyrinchium bellum blue-eyed grass
Smilacina racemosa fat solomon
Solidago californica California goldenrod
Spiranthes romanzoffiana hooded ladies' tresses
Trifolium polyodon Pacific Grove clover
Trifolium trichocalyx Monterey clover
Trillium chloropetalum giant trillium
Triteleia ixioides pretty face
Xerophyllum tenax bear grass
Zigadenus fremontii Fremont's star lily
FERNS
Adianturn aleuticum five-finger fern
Adiantum jordanii California maiden-hair
Dryopteris arguta wood fern
Pellaea andromedaefolia coffee fern
Pityrogramma triangularis goldback fern
Polypodium californicum California polypody
Polystichum munitum sword fern

GRASSES, SEDGES AND RUSHES
Agrostis pallens leafy bent-grass
Bromus carmatus California brome
Calamagrostis nutkaensis Pacific reed-grass
Carex barbarae Santa Barbara sedge
Carex brevicaulis short-stemmed sedge
Carex obnupta slough sedge
Carex praegracilis clustered field sedge
Carex tumulicula foothill sedge
Cyperus eragrostis tall cyperus
Danthonia californica California oatgrass
Deschampsia caespitosa tufted hair-grass
Elymus glaucus Western ryegrass
Festuca californica California fescue
Festuca rubra red fescue
Juncus balticus wire rush, Baltic rush
Juncus bufonius common toad rush
Juncus effusus common rush
Juncus falcatus sickle-leaved rush
Juncus occidentalis Western rush
Juncus patens spreading rush
Juncus xiphioides iris-leaved rush
Koeleria macrantha junegrass
Leymus condensatus giant ryegrass
Leymus triticoides beardless ryegrass
Luzaida comosa common wood rush
Melica californica western melica
Melica imperfecta Coast-Range melica
Nassella lepida foothill needlegrass
Nassella pulchra purple needlegrass
Poa secunda pine bluegrass
Scirpus cernuus low club rush
Scirpus amiericanus three square

PREFERRED PLANTING MATERIALS
from pages 140-143 of Coastal California’s Living Legacy: The Monterey Pine Forest DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

Carmel Design Guidelines 20240101
Layout Draft appx 25

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL

PREFERRED BUILDING MATERIALS

MATERIAL NOTES USES
- IN ORIGINAL, NATURAL CONDITION AND COLOR
- FORMING A NATURAL PATINA OVER TIME
- MONOLITHICALLY UNIFORM, NON-HYBRID COMPOSITION

NATURAL - HONESTLY EXPRESSED, RATHER THAN MIMICKING OTHER MATERIALS wood reclaimed or FSC sustainable
redwood or cedar or fir
posts, beams, siding, trim, un-clad windows, doors,
garage doors, fireproofed roof shingles or shakes,
bark reclaimed or FSC sustainable
redwood or cedar or fir
siding, roofing
bamboo sustainably cultivated flooring, siding, structural panels cork sustainably cultivated flooring, siding, structural panels living plants drought-tolerant, native species
(see Preferred Planting Materials)
walls, roofs
stone local, dry-set or mortared stacked in dryset structurally-feasible patterns only mudstone/golden granite for walls, foundations,
driveways, Carmel stone for walls, patios, walkways
earth locally sourced cob or rammed soils/sands walls
brick locally-sourced clay or adobe walls, patios, walkways bale locally sourced straw walls, insulation
tile genuine ceramic, clay, or concrete mono-chromatic for roofs, patios, walkways multi-chromatic for decorative accents
basic metal uncoated, naturally-aging
zinc, bronze, brass, aluminum
roofing, gutters, hardware, cladding for
deconstructable/recyclable wood windows
glass low-E, clear, or evenly sandblasted,
non-mirrored, non-tinted
windows and other glazed openings
sealing oil penetrating, non-peeling, non-VOC, pure
tung, linseed, hemp, teak oils
exposed wood treatment, when natural aging is
undesired
- FORMING A NATURAL PATINA OVER TIME
- HONESTLY EXPRESSED, RATHER THAN MIMICKING NATURAL OR OTHER MATERIALS - ABLE TO BE FULLY DISMANTLED AND BIODEGRADED, RECYCLED, AND/OR RE-USED - MEETS OR EXCEEDS NATIONAL ECO-BUILDING STANDARDS (SUCH AS CRADLE-TO-CRADLE)

MANUFACTURED - ENVIRONMENTALLY NON-TOXIC OR BENEFICIAL
poured concrete artistically-crafted in natural or in uniform, integrated color with only non-uniform,
handcrafted textures (as with exposed
aggregate or genuine wood formwork)
walls, patios, walkways, pavers
cast concrete integrated, uniform color, and finish
without stamped, faux “natural” textures
walls, patios, walkways, pavers, roof tiles
alt-crete e.g. ashcrete, sandcrete, grasscrete,
woodcrete, hempcrete: poured or cast,
maintain original surface pattern and color
walls, patios, walkways, pavers, roof tiles
fiber cement e.g. Hardiboard, Equitonesmooth texture
only, no mimicry of natural materials
siding
stucco uncoated, non-pigmented, smooth
textured
wall coating
advanced brick e.g. wool brick, shell brick walls, patios, walkways advanced metal steel, galvanized steel, stainless steel, CorTen steel, Zincalume, Galvalume, earthtoned anodized aluminum slim-profile windows, siding, landscape elements,
standing seam roofing with non-corrugated flat
panels, devoid of ribbing
advanced wood FSC sustainable: mass timber, industriallypickled/acetylated, pre-charred/shou-sugiban, thermally-modified, bio-based fiberboard super-wood
posts, beams, siding, trim, un-clad windows, doors,
garage doors, fireproofed roof shingles or shakes,
stain penetrating, naturally-fading, rather than
peeling, monochrome, earthtone pigment
exposed wood treatment, when added color is
desired
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

Carmel Design Guidelines 20240101
Layout Draft appx 27

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
ISSUES

FURTHER ILLUSTRATIONS
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

Carmel Design Guidelines 20240101
Layout Draft appx 31

ENHANCE SUBORDINATE FIT RETAIN DESIGN DETAIL
INDEX

KEYWORDS & CONCEPTS
DRAFT 11-18-25 ATTACHMENT 8

CARMEL DESIGN

GUIDELINES & FIRE

RESILIENCE
▪ Draft Design
Guidelines
principle conflicts
with California WUI
& CalFire
Defensible Space
▪ Michael LePage
▪ November 17th, 2025
ATTACHMENT 9

CONTEXT
Much of Carmel by the Sea is located in
the very high fire hazard severity zone
(FHSZ)
Draft guidelines emphasize heritage,
modesty, and forest preservation
Guidelines are missing explicit wildfire
resilience measures
ATTACHMENT 9

CORE

PRINCIPLES

OF CARMEL
DESIGN

GUIDELINES
Enhance Enhance: Preserve forest and natural landscape
Subordinate Subordinate: Buildings defer to site and forest character Fit Fit: Integrate with neighborhood context
Retain Retain: Architectural heritage
Design Design: Modesty and restraint
Detail Detail: Authenticity and consistency
ATTACHMENT 9

SUSTAINABI
LITY

STRENGTHS
Environmental: native
plants, LID stormwater,
canopy preservation
Cultural: heritage continuity,
authentic materials
Social: privacy, views,
modest scale
Material: natural,
recyclable, biodegradable
ATTACHMENT 9

FIRE SAFETY
BLIND
SPOTS
No explicit wildfire resilience
principle
Wood shingles, siding, fences
encouraged (combustible)
Landscaping lacks defensible space
zones (0–100 ft)
No ember-resistant vent or roof
detailing
No inspection/compliance linkage
to CalFire standards
ATTACHMENT 9

CALIFORNIA

WUI CODE

REQUIREME
NTS
Materials:

Ignition-resistant/noncombustible siding,
Class A roofs
Openings: Ember-resistant vents, spark
arrestors
Attachments: Noncombustible
decks/fences in Zone 0
Inspection: Vegetation compliance
required before permit final
ATTACHMENT 9

CALFIRE

DEFENSIBLE
SPACE
ZONES
Zone 0 (0–5 ft): Ember-resistant
area, no combustible materials
Zone 1 (0–30 ft): Lean, clean,
green; spacing between trees/shrubs
Zone 2 (30–100 ft): Fuel reduction,
clearance around woodpiles,
propane tanks, outbuildings
ATTACHMENT 9

COMPARISON TABLE
Topic Carmel Draft WUI/CalFire Alignment
Wood materials Encouraged Restricted Conflict
Landscaping Heritage-driven Zone 0–2 defensible space Missing Vents/openings Aesthetic only Ember-resistant required Missing Fences/decks Wood preferred Noncombustible near
homes
Conflict
Inspections Design review Vegetation compliance Missing ATTACHMENT 9

PROPOSED
CORE

PRINCIPLE

AMENDME
NT
•Add 7th Principle: Protect
•Codify defensible space zones in landscape
guidelines
•Require CBC 7A-compliant materials checklist
•Tie design approval to vegetation compliance
before final inspection
ATTACHMENT 9

PATH

FORWARD
•Policy memo: integrate Protect principle
•Design review rubric: ember-resistance criteria
•Public guidance: “Designing for Fire Resilience
in Carmel” supplement
•Harmonize heritage aesthetics with WUI
standards
ATTACHMENT 9

CLOSING
•Carmel’s sustainability ethos is strong but
incomplete
•Fire resilience is essential for long-term viability
•Integrating WUI + CalFire standards ensures
both
heritage preservation and community safety
ATTACHMENT 9

Design Traditions 1.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
The guidelines are key
tools in shaping the
character of the
community and are
used in the Design
Review process.

The existing Design
Guidelines were produced as
part of the city's "Design
Traditions Project" in 1997
through 2001 and therefore
this update is named "Design
Traditions 1.5" to indicate
that it bui Ids on those
materials.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
- 32 months for a partial update is too long
- Carmel has work to do with 1 6 elements that are more than 20 years old - Thank the steering committee for their service
- Return this project to staff
- Use the February 2023 consultant's version as a basis going forward - Use the 2022 Strategy Paper as Guidance for the Final Document - Engage with planning commissioners and staff for specific reviews of each finding - Bring back a final document for Planning Commisison review in February/March 2026 - Work to improve the city's methodology for GP, MC, LCP updates Planning Commission Review & Comment I November 18, 2025 Carmel-by-the-Sea ATTACHMENT 10

Design Traditions 1.5 THE UPDATE PROCESS

GENERAL PLAN
Year Element Name
2003 1 - Introduction
2010 2 - Land Use
2010 3 - Ci rcu lat ion
2024 4 - Housing
2003 5 - Coastal Access
2003 6 - Coastal Resource Managemment
2009 7 - Public Facilities
2009 8 - Open Space and Conservation
2009 9 - Environmental Safety
2009 10 - Noise
1982 11 - Community Questionnairre
Unk 12 - Environmental Safety Technical Appendix
Unk 13 - Environmental Impart Report (EIR)
1987 14 - Environmental Impart Report Addendum
Unk 15 - California Coastal Act Policies
1995 1 6 - Env. Sensitive Habitat Area Study
2000 1 7 - Forest Management Plan
Unk 18 - Mission Trai I Master Plan
2025 1 9 - Historic Context Statement
2010 20 - Del Mar Master Plan

LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
Year
2003
2010
2003
2003
2025
2003
2003
2001
2001
2000
1997
1990
2000
Unk
Element Name
1- Land Use
2 - Circulation
3 - Coastal Access
4 - Coastal Resource Managemment
5 - Muni Code Title 17
6 - Shoreline Mgmnt Plan - Part I
7 - Shoreline Mgmnt Plan - Part II
8 - Design Guidelines, Concept
9 - Design Guidelines, Final
-�
10 - Design Guidelines, Commercial
11 - Design Guidelines, Public Way
12 - Archeological Resource Mgment [CoHP]
13 - Stormwater Utility Administration
14 - Sec'y of Interior Stds - Historic Bldgs
Unk = Year Unknown
Design Guidelines Elements
16 Elements >20 years from last update
From external agencies
Planning Commission Review & Comment I November 18, 2025 Carmel-by-the-Sea ATTACHMENT 10

3 Design Traditions 1.5
The Carmel General
Plan is 20 documents
in 10 elements and 10
appendices. 4 are
shared with the LCP.

DOCUMENT HIERARCHY
The Carmel Municipal
Code is 1 document in
18 titles plus 1 00+
statutory references. 1
is shared with the LCP.

The Carmel Local
Coastal Plan is 14
documents. 4 are
shared with the GP, 1
is shared with the MC.
= Design Guidelines Documents
Planning Commission Review & Comment I November 18, 2025 Carmel-by-the-Sea ATTACHMENT 10

Design Traditions 1.5 DOCUMENT PURPOSE & USE

2. DOCUMENT I PURPOSE & USE
What is the Purpose of the Design Guidelines
Carmel-by-the-Sea's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) defines the role of Design Guidelines:
- as a critical tool to protect the city's unique character which is considered an asset of statewide significance - to ensure new development is visually compatible with the surrounding environment - to maintain and enhance the town's human-scale design, forest setting, and aesthetic Who Uses the Design Guidelines
- Carmel-by-the-Sea property owners and developers
- Architects and Contractors
- City Planning Department staff
- City Planning Commission
- City Counci I
How are the Design Guidelines Used
- Planning Department staff and Planning Commissioners use key findings to review design study applications for alignment with the city's design traditions and objectives. - The Planning Commission approves or denies applications based on these guidelines - The Planning Commission also imposes conditions of approval based on these guidelines to ensure the project aligns with the General Plan, local ordinances, and the adopted design guidelines.

Planning Commission Review & Comment I November 18, 2025 Carmel-by-the-Sea ATTACHMENT 10

Design Traditions 1.5 DOCUMENT CONTENT

3. DOCUMENT CONTENT - (Does the proposed document content fulfill the 2022 Strategy paper?) - Proposed Content
- Is organized into about 158 paragraphs and section titles - About 10 of 158 are new additions from the committee
- The majority of the content, some 94%, is taken directly from the consultant's February 2023 version - Removes cross-referencing, links, captions, and diagrams - Added Findings
The committee adds proposed findings that:

Recommend screening the placement of utilities [3.4.1, 3.4.2] Prohibit the design of a McMansion [4.2.4]
Require certified ecolological-rated building materials that can be disassembled [4.3.6] Ban petroleum-based building materials [4.4.2]
Ban materials whose appearance mimics natural materials [4.4.3] Create an HRB-level requirement for window glazing in historic properties [5.4.5] Require true divided lights in multi-pane windows [6.1.4] Outline house identification recommendations [6.3.13]
-Missing from Update
The proposed update does not:
- Address the Current Issues section of the project's Strategy Paper, including specific Yes/No examples, easier navigation, and imp roved cross-referencing
;:-
Present a detailed review of individual findings to align all findings with current codes, standards, and practices ( � Improve the document's organizational structure to facilitate their use SJ
Planning Commission Review & Comment I November 18, 2025 Carmel-by-the-Sea ATTACHMENT 10

Design Traditions 1.5 LAYOUT & NAVIGATION

4. DOCUMENT LAYOUT & NAVIGATION
(Does the proposed document content fulfill the 2022 Strategy paper?) The Design Guidelines function as a technical manual cited by Planning Staff and Planning Commissioners when making determinations for the approval or denial of Design Study applications. The proposed document update rearranged sections from the February 2023 version into categories reflecting the 6 Guiding Principles identified during the Community Outreach phase of the Consultant's work. Summary organizational layouts for the Feb 2023 and Nov 2025 versions are:
-
Categories - Feb 2023
Neighborhood-wide - Concept
Site Assessment
Forest Character
Historic Resources
Neighborhood Street Character
Site Planning - Concept
Topography
Building Design - Final (continued)
Buiding Materials
Roof Materials
Entrances and Porches
Doors
Windows
Open Space, Site Coverage, Setbacks
Privacy and Views
Balconies and Decks
Skylights
Chimneys
Parking and Access
Building Design - Concept
Building Mass and Scale
Building Form
Building Design - Final
Architectural Style
Building Scale
Design Integrity
(\. � Architectural Details
\63
Garages
Color
Landscape Design - Final
Plant Selection
Public Right of Way
Paving and Design
Fences, Walls, and Lighting
Categories - Nov 2025
Enhance
Subordinate
Fit
Retain
Design
Detail
Planning Commission Review & Comment I November 18, 2025 Carmel-by-the-Sea -
ATTACHMENT 10

Design Traditions 1.5 I RECOMMENDATIONS
The guidelines are key
tools in shaping the
character of the
community and are
used in the Design
Review process.

The existing Design
Guidelines were produced as
part of the city's "Design
Traditions Project" in 1997
through 2001 and therefore
this update is named "Design
Traditions 1 .5" to indicate
that it builds on those
materials.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
- 32 months for a partial update is too long
- Carmel has work to do with 16 elements that are more than 20 years old - Thank the steering committee for their service
- Return this project to staff
- Use the February 2023 consultant's version as a basis going forward - Use the 2022 Strategy Paper as Guidance for the Final Document - Engage with planning commissioners and staff for specific reviews of each finding - Bring back a final document for Planning Commisison review in February/March 2026 - Work to improve the city's methodology for GP, MC, LCP updates Planning Commission Review & Comment I November 18, 2025 Carmel-by-the-Sea ATTACHMENT 10

Carmel Draft Guidelines
Subjective vs. Objective Language
ATTACHMENT 11

Matrix of subjective vs. objective
terms
SECTION SUBJECTIVE TERM/PHRASE WHY IT’S SUBJECTIVE

SUGGESTED OBJECTIVE

REPLACEMENT
Core Principles “Enhance” Vague; doesn’t specify measurable restoration Require % canopy retention or # of trees preserved per lot
Core Principles “Subordinate” Interpretation of “defer” to nature Limit building height to X ft below average tree canopy
Core Principles “Fit” “Integrate with neighborhood” is aesthetic Require compatibility matrix: FAR, setbacks, roof pitch within ±10% of block average
Core Principles “Retain” “Retain heritage” is interpretive Mandate preservation of specific historic features or materials listed in inventory
Core Principles “Design with modesty and restraint” Taste-based Cap floor area ratio (FAR) at 0.35; max lot coverage 30%
Core Principles “Detail with authenticity and consistency” “Authenticity” is subjective Require materials from approved list (wood, stone, stucco) with manufacturer specs
ATTACHMENT 11

Matrix: Subjective vs. Objective
Language
Section Subjective Term/Phrase Why It’s Subjective Suggested Objective Replacement Materials “Preferred materials” Preference is not enforceable Publish approved materials list with performance ratings
Materials “Authentic detailing” Authenticity varies Require exposed rafter tails to be structural, not decorative
Materials “Avoid faux finishes” “Faux” is interpretive Ban stamped woodgrain cement board; require smooth finish only
Materials “Natural patina” Patina is subjective Allow untreated wood only if Class A fire-rated or sealed per CBC 7A
Materials “True structural details” “True” is interpretive Require load-bearing certification for exposed beams
ATTACHMENT 11

Matrix: Subjective vs. Objective
Language
Section Subjective Term/Phrase Why It’s Subjective
Suggested Objective
Replacement
Scale & Massing “Modest scale” No numeric definition Max building height 18 ft; FAR ≤ 0.35
Scale & Massing “Human scale” Subjective Require primary entry at grade; max sill height 4 ft
Scale & Massing “Avoid oversized structures” “Oversized” is relative Cap lot coverage at 30%; max footprint 2,500 sq ft
Scale & Massing “Harmony with neighborhood” Harmony is aesthetic Require compatibility study
with block averages for height,
roof pitch, setbacks
ATTACHMENT 11

Matrix: Subjective vs. Objective
Language
Section Subjective Term/Phrase Why It’s Subjective
Suggested Objective
Replacement
Landscape “Informal forest character” “Informal” is not measurable Require retention of X% canopy
trees; spacing min 10 ft between
trunks
Landscape “Preserve canopy” “Character” is interpretive Require arborist report; prohibit
removal of trees >12” DBH
without permit
Landscape “Handcrafted fences” “Handcrafted” is subjective Allow grapestake/picket fences ≤ 4 ft height, untreated wood only
Landscape “Artistically crafted concrete” “Artistic” is subjective Allow decorative concrete only if
permeable and meets LID
standards
ATTACHMENT 11

Matrix: Subjective vs. Objective
Language
Section Subjective Term/Phrase Why It’s Subjective
Suggested Objective
Replacement
Design Review
“Consistency with Carmel’s
character” “Character” is subjective
Require compliance with
published design palette
(materials, roof types, colors)
Design Review
“Avoid ornate or
ostentatious design” Taste-based Ban decorative elements exceeding 10% of façade area Design Review
“Respect privacy, views,
and light” Respect is interpretive
Require shadow study;
prohibit window placement
within 5 ft of property line
ATTACHMENT 11

Bottom Line
This matrix shows how Carmel’s
guidelines lean heavily on
subjective language that
empowers design review boards
but leaves applicants uncertain.

By converting terms into
objective, measurable
standards (heights, FAR,
materials lists, spacing, shadow
studies), the city can reduce
ambiguity, improve enforceability,
and align with state codes like
WUI and CalFire defensible
space.

ATTACHMENT 11

Design Traditions 1.5 Update
and Receive Feedback
City Council
December 2025

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
ATTACHMENT 12

Today’s Meeting
• Asked by City Council for update on project
• Refresher on background and update on project status
• Receive current draft from Steering Committee efforts • Includes recommended supporting document “package”
• City Council feedback
ATTACHMENT 12

Project Background
• March, 2022 – Nore Winter contract
• Design Traditions 1.5 Project (DT-1.5)
• April, 2022 – DT-1.5 Steering Committee appointed by Council • First meeting, April 13th
• 36 meetings in total since then (10 mo. gap – Planning Director) • June, 2022 – Community workshops #1 and #2
• 2 nights, 50-75 people
• September, 2022 – Strategy Paper
• Consolidated workshop findings
• Approved by PC and Council
ATTACHMENT 12

Project Background (cont.)
• October, 2022 – Community workshop #3 • Shared strategy paper and received feedback • October, 2022 to February, 2023 – Drafting Design Guidelines

1.5 • Led by Nore Winter
• Steering Committee and staff continue to meet with consultant • February, 2023 – Consultant draft released for public review • Steering Committee concerns • Not streamlined
• More complicated
• Longer
ATTACHMENT 12

Project Background (cont.)
• March, 2023 – Steering Committee revised draft • Organized by “Core Principles” • More user friendly
• Less redundancy
• Reduced page count
• March 2023 to Present – Refine Steering Committee draft • Public meetings and input • Refined language
• Small guideline additions
• Photographs
• Supporting documents
ATTACHMENT 12

Current Draft Guidelines Overview
• Built a design guideline “package”
• Introduction
• Residential Guidelines
• Commercial Guidelines
• Municipal Guidelines (recommended)
• Appendices (support documents)
• Historical Context
• Project Review: Process, Checklists & Narratives
• Preferred Planting and Building Materials
• Further Illustrations
• Index
ATTACHMENT 12

Current Draft Guidelines Highlights
• Organized under 6 “Core Principles”
• Developed through community workshops
• Reduced Page Count
• 32 pages vs. 180 pages
• Reduced photographs (in process)
• Only when guidelines need a visual
• Find specific topics via index (e.g.: “windows”)
• Shows up under multiple Core Principles
• Hyperlinks (in process)
• Revised and reduced supporting sections (in process)
• “About”, “How to Use”, “Formatting”, “Defining Features, etc.

ATTACHMENT 12

Design Guidelines Progression
Consultant Draft Committee Draft
ATTACHMENT 12

Feedback Needed
• First look for full Planning Commission of revised format • Specific feedback requested
• Functionality/usability – how will it work for you?
• Form – how does it look and flow?
• Other design topics – what is missing?
• Supporting Documents – any modifications or additional docs needed?
• Other feedback welcomed
ATTACHMENT 12

Thank You!
• Steering Committee
• Community
• Winter & Co.
• Planning Staff
• City Council
• Planning Commission
ATTACHMENT 12

Next Steps
• Receive Council feedback
• Complete drafting
• Reignite project focus
• Incorporate PC and Council feedback into Guidelines
• Update Municipal Code as needed
• Begin adoption process
• PC
• Council
• Coastal Commission
ATTACHMENT 12

Questions?
ATTACHMENT 12