Agenda packet — Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council, June 1, 2026 (part 3 of 5)

2) Denying Appeal by John and Patricia Dilks (APP 26134, Diamond) thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s decision (as found in Resolution 2025-04- PC, adopted by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2026) to:
a. Deny a Design Study Referral for the construction of a new roof deck above a proposed 800-square-foot accessory dwelling unit (under a separate ministerial permit);
b. Approve a Coastal Development Permit to allow non-excluded development (ground disturbance for an 800 square accessory dwelling unit attached to an existing rear terrace, landscaping, drainage improvements and associated site work) located west of Carmelo Street.

The property is located at Scenic Road 5 northwest of 8th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District, Park (P) Overlay District, and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay. APN: 010-312-012-000; and
c. Approve a Design Study Referral for the installation landscaping consistent with the proposed landscaping plan as authorized by the Coastal Development Permit.

BACKGROUND / SUMMARY:

BACKGROUND/ PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is a 16,000 square foot parcel located at Scenic Road 5 NW of 8th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District, Park (P) Overlay District, and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay District.

A determination of ineligibility for listing on the city’s historic inventory has been issued as will expire on March 30, 2031.

The property is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District, Park (P) Overlay District, and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay District, and is located immediately adjacent to the Del Mar Dunes, an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).

Due to the site’s location within the Beach and Riparian west of Carmelo Street, all proposed development on site is subject a Coastal Development Permit pursuant to Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code (CMC) sections 17.52.090.A, and 17.52.100.D.2.

The applicant proposed a roof deck which would be accessed via an existing rear patio and located on the roof of a proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU), site improvements include landscaping, drainage improvements, and site work associated with the associated improvements.

The Planning Commission considered the project at their April 8, 2026 meeting. The Planning Commission denied the roof deck over the proposed ADU, but approved the

Page 348 of 704 ends

remaining project components such as non-excluded development associated with the proposed project (ground disturbance for an 800 square accessory dwelling unit attached to an existing rear terrace, landscaping, drainage improvements and associated site work).

The entirety of the Planning Commission staff report including the adopted resolution and project plans has been included as Attachment 2, and has also been provided in the links below:

April 8, 2026 Planning Commission Hearing

1. Click Here for Staff Report

2. Click Here for Video of Hearing
On April 22, 2026, John and Patricia Dilks (“appellant”/”appellants”, collectively), submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project (refer to Attachment 3) based on the grounds that construction of the project would contribute to beach erosion and threaten public use (see detailed discussion in Appeal Analysis).

Based on the facts of this particular case, staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s April 8th decision.

The project site is located in the Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay District (i.e. appeal jurisdiction) and therefore is appealable to/by the California Coastal Commission following a decision by the City Council. No fee was charged to the appellant pursuant to CMC section 17.54.050.

STAFF ANALYSIS
Grounds for Appeal
The appeal form submitted by the appellant listed the following as their grounds for the appeal:
“Any excavation in the beach dune vicinity for concern of beach erosion which would be caused by ADU construction on beach side of lot 8. Dune has displayed signs of destabilization and erosion in winter months threating public use.”
Prior to the April 8th Planning Commission hearing, the appellants provided written testimony, which was included in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 2) and is separately included as Attachment 4 to this report.

The appellants also provided public testimony during the Planning Commission hearing.

A transcript of their testimony given to the Planning Commission has been provided as

Page 349 of 704 ends

Attachment 5.

The grounds for appeal do not further provide any additional evidence of errors or omissions of the Planning Commission’s decision, but rather re-state information previously provided to and considered by the Planning Commission.

Appeal Analysis
In summary, the appellant argued that the 100-year erosion margin is insufficient. The appellant stated that coastal erosion is frequently initiated from the backside of a dune due to construction, "diagonal vibrations," and improper setbacks. The appellant also commented that severe winter storms hit the area every other year. The appellant testified that February wave sprays regularly breach the sand dune during storm events.

The appellant also stated the coastline has transitioned from a historical straight line into a receding "half-moon" shape drawing closer to 8th Street (refer to Attachment 5; timestamps: 3:59:03, 3:59:20 - 4:00:50, 4:00:58-4:01:20, 4:01:29, 4:05:14-4:05:45).

Staff Analysis: CMC section 17.20.160, Permit Standards, establishes regulations for all properties in the overlay district (subsection A), as well as additional standards to those properties in the overlay located West of Carmelo Street or North San Antonio Avenue (subsection B), such as the subject site.

The project was found to be consistent with both subsections A and B, with particular emphasis on coastal setbacks. As part of the consideration for the project, the Planning Commission designated setbacks for the project as required by CMC section

17.20.160.A.8. The setbacks for the proposed development were made on a project specific consideration based on the evidence in the record that there would be no adverse impacts to the adjacent dunes, or public access or recreational impacts.

In designating setbacks for the project, the Commission considered the following:

1. New structures shall be set back a sufficient distance from any bluff top to be safe from bluff erosion for a minimum of 100 years as determined by a site-specific geology report, prepared in compliance with CMC § 17.20.170.B., Geology Report; provided, that in no case shall the minimum setback be less than 25 feet (CMC section 17.20.160.B.9).
• CMC section 17.20.160.B.6, states, “Except as provided in CMC section 17.20.190.C., new development shall not be approved where geologic evidence concludes that shoreline protective structures will be necessary to protect the new development at the time of construction, or within 100 years of development.”
Pursuant to CMC section 17.20.170.B, Geology Report, “A geology report shall be required when structures are proposed within an area between the face of the bluff, and a line described on the bluff top by the intersection of a plane inclined at a 20-degree angle from horizontal, passing through the

Page 350 of 704 ends

toe of the bluff or cliff, or 50 feet inland from the bluff top, whichever is greater.”
The applicant provided an analysis that illustrates the building site’s location relative to the bluff face. The analysis (“report”) was prepared by Grice Engineers dated December 29, 2025 – Addendum No. 1 (refer to Attachment 6; Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 3).

The report found that no development was proposed to be located between the bluff top, as identified in the subject report, and the ascending line beginning at the toe of the bluff, which is greater than 50-feet from the bluff face. The report states that the development is located 78± feet beyond the intersection between the 20% ascending slope and the existing grade. This critical point is located within the dunes area and is not located on the subject site -the corresponding property line is 56± feet from the proposed development.

As it was determined that no structures were proposed to be located within a bluff retreat setback and an additional geology report was not required for the project pursuant to CMC sections 17.20.160.B.4 and 17.20.170.B, therefore, establishment of an additional bluff topset setback was not warranted based on the site-specific geology report.

A soils report was also submitted as part of the associated application materials (refer to Attachment 6; Planning Commission staff report Attachment 3). The report was prepared by Grice Engineers and dated November 2025.

The soils report includes a section, titled, “Geologic and Geological Hazards Investigation.”
The report evaluated the following geological conditions and hazards: site geology; faults, and earthquakes; seismic hazards; hydro-collapse and subsidence; slope stability; seismic strength loss; chemical reactivity; expansive soils; surface rupture and lateral spreading; and seismicity. In summary, the conclusion of the investigation found, “Review of documents and site evaluation indicates the parcel is not subject to Geologic Hazards other than seismic events.” The subject site is located 0.53 miles from the Cypress Point Fault, and 1.02 miles from the Hatton Canyon Fault.

However, according to the report, the fault with the greatest potential for seismic activity is the San Andreas Rift System, located approximately 29.5 miles to the northeast.

While the report concluded no geological hazards related to the proximity to the dunes, the summary recommendations include, in part:

Page 351 of 704 ends

“The terrain to the north and south of the property did have undulations as typical to active dune deposits forming a depression landward of the fronting dune. Envisioning the continuance of the depression onto this property suggests the fill may have been placed to raise and level the yard as well as reduce material off haul as indicated by the buried debris.” As such some amount of field observations will need to be completed during the initial stage of construction with further recommendations issued as necessary. Depending on the
embedment depth of the foundation supporting the retaining wall of the adjacent patio and features (spa), underpinning of the foundation may be necessary.”
The boring logs, Appendix B of said report, identifies native beach sand at varying depths, and fill materials located at depths ranging from 2.5 feet to

9.5 feet located above the native topsoil. The underpinning described may be necessary to support the existing patio and spa foundation to address the proposed excavation, and is not a shoreline protective structure necessary to protect the new development at the time of construction.

2. Additional bluff top and/or dune setbacks may be required in compliance with Local Coastal Plan policies to establish a buffer from natural sand dune areas, to reduce visual intrusion on adjacent recreational areas or to accommodate public access and enjoyment of adjacent recreational areas. (See also CMC § 17.20.180, Public Access).
• The nearest above grade structural development is proposed to be located approximately 53’3” from the rear property line, which is immediately adjacent to the Del Mar Dunes -a designated environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). As described in the shoreline management plan (SMP), “The Del Mar dunes are a thin stretch of disturbed coastal sand dunes, extending from the end of 8th Avenue north to the foot of Ocean Avenue/Del Mar parking lot. The eastern boundary of these dunes is defined by the Ocean Avenue/Del Mar Parking lot and by a line of private homes.”
The SMP further describes “Native plant and wildlife habitats in the narrow Del Mar dunes have been described by occasional coastal erosion and by the grown of exotic, invasive ice plant and acacia. Jones and Stokes (1995) studied these fines and determined they represent potential habitat for native dune plants and animals. The Del Mar Dunes have been designated as an [ESHA]…”.

A biological assessment for the site was prepared by Rob Thompson of Thompson Wildland Management, dated January 12, 2026 (refer to

Page 352 of 704 ends

Attachment 7; Planning Commission staff report Attachment 4). Notably, CMC section 17.20.220D.2.c states, The biological resources report shall:
“verify that proposed setbacks from ESHAs will be adequate to protect the ESHA from disturbance or degradation or recommend, where applicable, more effective setbacks. Setbacks for privately held property in Pescadero Canyon shall serve to minimize disruption of habitat values while leaving a reasonable minimum area for development of a single residential dwelling.” The Thompson biological assessment identified, in part, that:
 “Scenic Road is to the east of the parcel and two developed lots are located immediately to the north and south of the property. None of these adjacent properties will be impacted by ADU construction activities and do not appear to support sensitive habitat or ecological resources.”
 “…soils on this developed and previously disturbed parcel appear to be stable and sufficient for supporting property development and landscape improvements.”
 “Per the project plans, the proposed ADU will utilize a portion of the existing rear patio footprint, as well as some of the surrounding landscaped areas (refer to Figures 1-7). It should be noted that this is a relatively flat lot and no development or soil disturbance will be occurring on steep slopes with high erosion potential.”  “Per City of Carmel requirements and conditions of approval (i.e., Section D of 17.20.220 Environmentally Sensitive Habitats under Title 17. Zoning), ADU construction activities will be limited and contained to the backyard area of the property and will not in any way encroach upon or impact nearby ESHA. Impacts such as construction related noise, dust and sediment runoff is expected to be negligible and insignificant and will not adversely affect or harm ESHA.”
The report concludes by stating:
“[The project will be] occurring in the previously disturbed and significantly landscaped backyard area of the subject parcel.

Biological resources that are protected under federal and state laws (e.g., FESA, CESA and CEQA) were not observed or detected during this pre-construction assessment and are not known to occur on this developed and impacted property.”
Neither of the technical reports prepared for the project (biological report nor soils report) mandate, suggest, or otherwise recommend any setback based on the site

Page 353 of 704 ends

characteristic.

As described in the Planning Commission staff report:

The Coastal Access and Recreation Element of the General Plan Land Use Plan states that, “Carmel is among a limited number of California coastal communities where nearly the entire shoreline from the first public road to the sea is open to the public and easily accessible.”
Based on the assessment of story poles, staff has not identified that the proposed development would physically obstruct a portion of the ocean, sandy beach, or scenic area(s) beyond. However, as described above, staff has identified conflicts pertaining to CMC section 17.20.160.A.3, Design Compatibility, which requires, “All development shall be compatible in design with existing buildings in the area for the purpose of protecting the neighborhood character and consistent with the R-1 design guidelines established in CMC section 17.10.010.”
[emphasis added in underline]
CMC section 17.10.010.J. Public Views. Buildings shall be located and designed to preserve significant coastal views from the public right-of-way in conformance with Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act. The protection of public views should not prevent reasonable development of the site, yet development shall not preclude reasonable protection of any significant coastal view.

Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities. The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

CMC section 17.10.010.J specifically addresses “public views” from the right-of-way. While there does not appear to be an impact related to public views, Design Compatibility and consistency with CMC 17.20.160.A.3 remains a concern.

Page 354 of 704 ends

The project does not propose the alteration of natural landforms. According to the preliminary grading and drainage plan, 170 net cubic yards of cut (175 cut; 5 fill) is anticipated to level the development area for the ADU and accommodate the building foundation(s).

The specific “Design Compatibility” concern related to the roof top deck and approval of the project was conditioned to omit the subject feature (refer to Attachment 2.5, Condition of Approval #27). As described above, the project was found to not visually intrude on adjacent recreational areas.

FISCAL IMPACT:

While no fee was charged to the appellant for this appeal pursuant to CMC section

17.54.050, the time and materials associated processing this appeal were captured within the adopted FY 25-26 budget for the Community Planning and Building Department.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

The city council has not previously considered this appeal.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Packet (April 8, 2026 hearing) Attachment 2.5 – Adopted Planning Commission Resolution (Reso. 2026-12-PC) Attachment 3 - Appeal Form
Attachment 4 - Appellant's Written Comment's From Planning Commission Hearing (April 8, 2026)
Attachment 5 - April 8, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Transcript Attachment 6 - Geotechnical and Geological Hazards Report Attachment 7 - Biological Assessment
Attachment 8 – Project Plans

Page 355 of 704 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-033

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA FINDING

THAT DENIAL OF THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), STATE CEQA GUIDELINES AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, PURSUANT TOCEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1) – EXISTING FACILITIES AND NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 15300.2 CAN BE MADE; AND DENYING THE APPEAL BY JOHN AND PATRICIA DILKS (APP 26134, DIAMOND) THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO: DENY A

DESIGN STUDY REFERRAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ROOF DECK ABOVE A PROPOSED 800-SQUARE-FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (UNDER A SEPARATE MINISTERIAL PERMIT); APPROVE A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW NONEXCLUDED DEVELOPMENT (GROUND DISTURBANCE FOR AN 800 SQUARE ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNIT ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING REAR TERRACE, LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK) LOCATED WEST OF CARMELO STREET.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT SCENIC ROAD 5 NORTHWEST OF 8TH AVENUE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE (AS)

OVERLAY DISTRICT, PARK (P) OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND BEACH AND RIPARIAN (BR) OVERLAY. APN: 010-312-012-000; AND APPROVE A DESIGN STUDY REFERRAL FOR THE

INSTALLATION LANDSCAPING CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN

AS AUTHORIZED BY THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AS FOUND IN RESOLUTION 2025-04-PC, ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 8, 2026.

Page 356 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-033 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 5 ends

subject property is located west of Carmelo Street and improvements on properties within this area do not qualify for exclusion; and
WHERAS, although state law mandates that ADUs be approved ministerially, the “Coastal Savings Clause” (Government Code Section 66329) and the California Coastal Act requires discretionary review of development which has the potential to impact coastal resources. As such, the decision before the Planning Commission does not include the establishment of the ADU. It does, however, include the proposed development (e.g. land disturbance) within a sensitive coastal resource area; and
WHEREAS, a Coastal Development Permit is required for the project in accordance with Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code (CMC) Sections 17.52.090.A and 17.52.100.D.2; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including, without limitation, the information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the proposed roof deck over the proposed ADU and approved the remaining project components: non-excluded development associated with the proposed project (ground disturbance for an 800 square accessory dwelling unit attached to an existing rear terrace, landscaping, drainage improvements and associated site work) subject to Conditions of Approval, as provided in Resolution 2025-04-PC; and WHEREAS, April 22, 2026, John and Patricia Dilks (“appellant”/”appellants”, collectively), submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project (“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, the appeal hearing was scheduled for the City Council’s June 1, 2026 meeting; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2026, a notice of the public hearing scheduled for June 1, 2026, was published in the Carmel Pine Cone in compliance with State law (California Government Code 65091) and mailed to owners of real property within a 300-foot radius of the project indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on or before May 22, 2026, city staff posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before May 29, 2026, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Appeal, including, without limitation, the information provided to the City Council by City staff and through public testimony on the project; and

Page 357 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-033 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 3 of 5 ends

WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to the Council at the hearing date, including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Carmel-ByThe-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations:

1. The facts (“Facts”) set forth in the recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. The consideration of the Project before the City Council has been processed in accordance with CMC chapter 17.54, Appeals.

3. The City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby incorporate Planning Commission Resolution, Resolution 2024-33-PC, including all findings and conditions, and associated Staff Report and attachments thereto, dated April 8, 2026, herein by reference.

4. The City Council has considered the application, including the project plans (Exhibit A) at a public hearing. Based on the facts of this particular application, the City Council determines that the required findings for approval, as described in finding #3, above, can be made in this case.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City Council does hereby FIND the project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and none of the exceptions to the exemptions contained in Section 15300.2 can be made in this case, as found in Planning Commission Resolution 2024-33-PC.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City Council does hereby DENY the appeal by John and Patricia Dilks (APP 26134, Diamond) thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s decision.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby DENY a Design Study Referral for the construction of a new roof deck above a proposed 800-square-foot accessory dwelling unit (under separate ministerial permit), and APPROVE a Coastal Development Permit to allow non-excluded development consisting of ground disturbance for an 800 square accessory dwelling unit attached to an existing rear terrace, landscaping, drainage improvements and associated site work on a property west of Carmelo Street. The property is located at Scenic Road 5 northwest of 8th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1)

Page 358 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-033 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 4 of 5 ends

District, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District, Park (P) Overlay District, and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay, APN: 010-312-012-000, as found in Planning Commission Resolution, Resolution 2024-33-PC.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THESEA this 1st day of June 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_____________________________ ________________________________ Dale Byrne, Mayor Nova Romero, MMC, City Clerk

Page 359 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-033 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 5 of 5 ends

EXHIBIT A
Project Plans
Project Plans to be attached as Exhibit A upon adoption of resolution.

Refer to Attachment 8 (APP 26134) of City Council Staff Report dated June 1, 2026.

Page 360 of 704 ends

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Planning Commission
Staff Report
April 8, 2026

PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Chair LePage and Planning Commissioners
SUBMITTED BY: Evan Kort, Senior Planner
APPROVED BY: Anna Ginette, AICP, Director of Community Planning and Building SUBJECT: DS 25206 (Diamond): Consideration of a Track 1 Design Study Referral, DS 25206 (Diamond), and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a new roof deck associated with the construction of a new 800-square-foot accessory dwelling unit located at Scenic Road 5 northwest of 8th Avenue in the SingleFamily Residential (R-1) District, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District, Park (P) Overlay District, and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay. APN: 010-312-012-000
Proposed CEQA Action: Find the project categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and that none of the exceptions to the exemptions contained in Section 15300.2 can be made in this case.

Application: DS 25206 (Diamond) Applicant: International Design Group APN: 010-312-012-000 Owner: DIAMOND STEPHEN P TR
Block & Lot: C2; 8
Location: Scenic Road 5 northwest of 8th Avenue
Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution (Attachment 1):

1. Finding the project qualifies as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301 and none of the exceptions to the exemptions contained in section 15300.2 can be made in this case;

2. Denying a Design Study Referral for the construction of a new roof deck above a proposed 800-square-foot accessory dwelling unit (under a separate ministerial permit);

3. Approving a Coastal Development Permit to allow non-excluded development (ground disturbance for an 800 square accessory dwelling unit attached to an ATTACHMENT 2

Page 361 of 704 ends

existing rear terrace, landscaping, drainage improvements and associated site work) located west of Carmelo Street. The property is located at Scenic Road 5 northwest of 8th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District, Park (P) Overlay District, and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay. APN: 010-312-012-000; and

4. Approving a Design Study Referral for the installation landscaping consistent with the proposed landscaping plan as authorized by the Coastal Development Permit.

Summary, Background, and Project Description:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Study and Coastal Development Permit for the addition of an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The project includes a proposed deck which would be accessed via an existing rear patio and located on the roof of the ADU -labeled in plans as, “roof view terrace.” Site improvements include landscaping, drainage improvements, and site work associated with the associated improvements.

Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code provides that certain projects can be excluded from a Coastal Development Permit requirement. However, it also finds that development in specific locations does not qualify for exclusion due to potential impacts to coastal resources. The subject property is located west of Carmelo Street and improvements on properties within this area do not qualify for exclusion.

Although state law mandates that ADUs be approved ministerially, the “Coastal Savings Clause” (Government Code Section 66329) and the California Coastal Act requires discretionary review of development which has the potential to impact coastal resources. As such, the decision before the Planning Commission does not include the establishment of the ADU. It does, however, include the proposed development (e.g. land disturbance) within a sensitive coastal resource area.

BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is a 16,000 square foot parcel located at Scenic Road 5 NW of 8th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District, Park (P) Overlay District, and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay District. According to the associated historic evaluation for the site (HE 25324), the residence was originally constructed in 1925 and work on the site took place in 1931, 1955, 1942, and 1985. However, major remodels in 1987 and 1997 resulted in significant changes to the house.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 362 of 704 ends

CMC section 17.08.050.G.2.c also states: Except as modified by this subsection (G), the accessory dwelling unit shall conform to all requirements of the underlying residential zoning district, any applicable overlay district, and all other applicable provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to height, setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio, landscape, and historic preservation requirements, cumulatively with the primary residence; unless the unit is contained in a nonconforming structure and does not expand the nonconformity.

Although CMC section 17.08.050.G.2.c requires ADUs to comply with the development standards of the underlying zoning district, the City has, for the past five years (or so), allowed exceptions to floor area ratio in accordance with Government Code section 66321(b)(3).

Government Code section 66321(b)(3) states: a local agency shall not establish by ordinance any of the following: Any requirement for a zoning clearance or separate zoning review or any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit... for either attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit...” Notwithstanding this allowance, but the Coastal Act is still enforceable and the ADU statute does not alter or lessen the effect or application of Coastal Act resource protection policies (Government Code Section 66329).

The purpose of this hearing is not to consider the consider the individual Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the proposed ADU, but rather to consider the whole of the proposed development for the site. Should the CDP be approved, this would then allow for the proposed construction of the ADU consistent within the limitations of the authorization. The analysis herein pertains to coastal resource protection for the site and development, as a whole, and design review for design elements and site features not associated with an ADU application.

Staff Analysis:

Roof Deck:

A staff report dated June 24, 1998 (UP 98-16) describes that:

On 30 January 1997, staff administratively approved an application for a minor interior remodel and alterations to a rear terrace on a parcel located in the R-1 District. A building permit was issued shortly thereafter on 3 March 1997. Over the course of construction, the project has expanded to include a significant remodel.

Since the existing residence is nonconforming and alterations now exceed 25% of the total value of the structure, work on the project was stopped and the applicant has been required to submit a use permit application authorizing the proposed changes.
…
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 363 of 704 ends

Nonconformities on the project site include excess floor area, land coverage (site coverage) and front and north side yard setback encroachments. As proposed, the rear yard terrace will be replaced with a new elevated structure allowing for improved views from within the spa.

The use permit that was considered in 1998 was approved with conditions. Staff also notes that based on plans in the record, the residence also currently exceeds the 18- foot height limit for the BR overlay, which would also be recognized as non-conforming for exceeding height limits. It is unclear based on the record whether the height limit was an issue at the time of the report, or if zoning standards have simply changed.

Staff also notes that standards for alternations to non-conforming building have since changed and the code does not authorize additional modification to a site through a use permit unless the non-conforming structure is damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion, acts of God, or acts of the public enemy (CMC section 17.36.040.B).

Use Permit UP 96-16 Condition of Approval #1 and #2 state:

1. Approval of this Use Permit authorizes improvements to the nonconforming structure in excess of 25% of the total value of the structure. No existing nonconformities be increased, nor shall any new nonconformities created by approving this permit.

2. This permit is valid only for the life of the structure. Any subsequent changes to this residence including reconstruction, relocation, enlargement, or demolition without conforming to the floor area, land coverage, and number of story regulations shall require separate review by the Planning Commission.

That said, based on the existing non-conformities for the site, the primary dwelling could not be expanded further, and re-organization of site coverage, such as a deck expansion, would not be feasible as the site currently exceeds site coverage limitations.

Use Permit UP 96-16 Condition of Approval #7 and #8 state:

7. Approval of this permit does not authorize the construction of a wall, fence, privacy screen or similar structure which projects westward from the residence that would block existing coastal views from the adjoining property to the north of the project site.

8. The height of the spa located in the rear yard shall be limited to the existing finished elevation of the lower terrace to retain privacy for the adjoining neighbors to the north and south of the project site and to reduce visibility of the structure from the public beach.

From 1998 staff report: …As proposed, the rear yard terrace will be substantially reconfigured to create a more formal area and improve the function of this outdoor space. In addition, the existing spa will be replaced with a new elevated structure allowing for improved views from within the spa...

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 364 of 704 ends

In 1998, the rear deck and spa area was conditioned such that spa was listed to height of the lower terrace to minimize views from the public beach, and to minimize privacy impacts to adjoining neighbors. Currently, the height of the proposed roof deck is located above that of the proposed lower terrace. Construction of a new deck westward and higher than the metric indicated in 1998 is contrary to the subject use permit condition and prior finding.

The fact that an accessory dwelling unit is located below the proposed deck does not negate or lessen the proposed impacts of the proposed roof deck, visual impacts, or privacy impacts raised in previously or as part of this consideration, and is contrary to code requirements for design compatibility (CMC section 17.20.160.A.3), as there are no residences in the vicinity or otherwise that maintain elevated decks and terraces in excess of 1,500 square feet (includes proposed roof deck, spa, lower terrace, upper terrace).

Figure 1. Proposed area (square footage) of existing terraces with new proposed roof terrace. Total area is approximately 1,500+ square feet.

The design features does not maintain the appropriate scale to maintain the intimate, rural charm and village character of Carmel-by-the-Sea nor, is the appropriate scale to be considered similar to improvements on neighboring properties that would allow for reasonable privacy.

CMC section 17.10.010.E. Scale. Buildings shall relate to a human scale in their forms, elements and in the detailing of doors, windows, roofs and walkways.

Oversized design elements make structures appear dominating and monumental.

This out-of-scale character represents a poor fit to the human form, vitiates the more intimate, rural charm and village character of Carmel-by-the-Sea and shall be avoided.

CMC section 17.10.010.G. Privacy. Designs should respect the privacy of ATTACHMENT 2

Page 365 of 704 ends

neighbors. The placement of windows, doors, balconies and decks should be sensitive to similar improvements on neighboring properties.

Based on evidence in the record, staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the roof deck and inclusion of Condition of Approval #27 which prohibits the roof of the proposed ADU as a roof deck, access to the roof, and use of the roof except for the incidental maintenance of roof top planting.

Site Coverage:

Sites not in compliance with site coverage limits shall not be authorized to increase site coverage (CMC 17.10.030.C.2). Site coverage that was lawfully established but not in compliance with current zoning regulations may be maintained in its current state, however, shall be considered non-conforming. If a non-conforming element is removed, or substantially altered, it shall not be permitted to be rebuilt or re-established in the same location or elsewhere on the site (CMC 17.36.040.E) A 16,000 square foot site is permitted 911 square feet of coverage, or 1,551 square feet if 50% of the improvements are permeable or semi-permeable. The applicant is removing areas of site coverage to accommodate the proposed development. The applicant has indicated the existing site coverage is 3,386 square feet, and the proposed coverage is 3,040 square feet. The site remains non-conforming. Condition of Approval #28 and #29 requires areas of removed coverage, such as the walkways, be replaced with mulch, as represented on the plans as to not re-establish a nonconformity, and also includes that if non-conformities are removed during construction, they may not be replaced.

Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay:

The subject site is located in the Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District. The purposes of the AS archaeological significance Overlay District are to implement the General Plan/Coastal Plan Land Use Plan and to:

A. Protect archaeological sites in Carmel that can provide evidence of the area’s earliest human habitation, help to document the cultural history of the City, and are often highly significant to Native American descendants as burial grounds or because of their connection to sacred traditions.

B. Provide for the designation of archeological resources and establish explicit guidance for the protection of archeological resources, especially when they are subterranean.

C. Create a clear process and standards for evaluating projects that may affect archaeological resources, and for identifying appropriate measures to mitigate the effects of such projects.

An Archaeological Resource Management Report (ARMR) dated October 2025 was prepared for the site by Achasta Archaeological Services, Marina, California. The result of the report was negative; however, the authors did recommend standard language pertaining to protection of Archaeological Resources. The City maintains substantially ATTACHMENT 2

Page 366 of 704 ends

similar language to the recommended language which is required for all projects (Condition of Approval #13) which requires:

Throughout construction, all activities involving excavation shall immediately cease if cultural resources are discovered on the site, and the Applicant shall notify the Community Planning & Building Department within 24 hours. Work shall not be permitted to recommence until such resources are properly evaluated for significance by a qualified archaeologist. If the resources are determined to be significant, prior to the resumption of work, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and reviewed and approved by the Community Planning and Building Director. In addition, if human remains are unearthed during the excavation, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings regarding origin and distribution pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.

Park Overlay:

The subject site is located in the Park (P) Overlay District. The specific purposes of the park overlay district are to implement the General Plan/Coastal Plan Land Use Plan and to ensure that development of private property adjacent to parks and open spaces is compatible with their continued enjoyment. It is the intent of these regulations to protect park resources from the visual and physical impacts that may be associated with development of private property near designated parklands, to enhance the public enjoyment of parks and to preserve the habitat values of parks (CMC section

17.20.070).

The rear yard between the existing residence and the adjoining park (beach) is heavily landscaped and there is an existing clear and obvious distinction between the adjoining Del Mar Dunes area and the subject property. The record shows an approved landscaping plan for the rear of the residence from 1987 (BP 87-166). The record includes a revised landscaping plan dated August 1999 (not stamped approved) which appears to be associated with a project approved in 1997.

CMC section 17.20.090.D states, “When any construction activity is proposed on a site in the park overlay district, the site design shall include a landscaping plan in accordance with Chapter 17.34 CMC, Landscaping.”
The project includes a landscaping plan that would supplement the existing site’s landscaping, which is noted as proposed to remain and is shown on the periphery of the site. No tree removal is identified in the project plans. The supplemental landscaping would be in the vicinity of the proposed development, both at grade and on the roof of the proposed development in permanent planter installations. The proposed flora and general site work would match the existing condition.

The proposed plant material appears to be drought tolerant, and as conditioned, the City Forester shall verify the plant material prior to building permit issuance (CoA #17).

A preliminary drainage plan has also been included on sheet C4 of the proposed ATTACHMENT 2

Page 367 of 704 ends

project plans (refer to Attachment 2). Condition of Approval #21 requires that a drainage plan consistent with SOG 17-07 be included in the building permit submittal.

In addition, CoA #30 has been included which requires all drainage improvements be located at least 15 feet from the park boundary in accordance with CMC section

17.20.090.C.

While existing landscaping is noted as proposed to remain, the erosion and sediment control plan shows areas for stockpiles, washouts, and staging within existing landscaping areas. Either the civil drawing(s) have not been coordinated with the landscaping plan, or it is anticipated that there would be impacts to existing landscaping during construction. A condition of approval has been included requiring civil drawing be revised to protect existing landscaping that has been designated as proposed to remain throughout construction (CoA #31). If existing landscaping is proposed to be removed, or incidentally removed or damaged during construction, replacement/rehabilitated landscaping shall be designed and installed to establish a natural transition to the parkland vegetation pursuant to CMC section 17.34.090.A.2.

Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay District:

The purpose of the Beach and Riparian overlay district is to provide review standards applicable to public and private property development located near public beach lands to ensure that proposed development is compatible with the public enjoyment of the City’s coastal resources and with the California Coastal Act.

Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities. The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance.

Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ATTACHMENT 2

Page 368 of 704 ends

ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

CMC section 17.10.010.J specifically addresses “public views” from the right-of-way.

While there does not appear to be an impact related to public views, Design Compatibility and consistency with CMC 17.20.160.A.3 remains a concern.

The development permit has been appropriately conditioned to require the appropriate connections for the associated utilities.

Coastal Setbacks.

Staff has been contacted by individuals interested in the project who have inquired whether there is a prohibition regarding westward expansion. Staff has not identified any explicit prohibition on westward expansion, rather, the CMC provides the Planning Commission the authority to establish setbacks consistent with the purposes of the Beach and Riparian overlay district.

CMC section 17.20.160.A.8, Projects on Irregularly Shaped Lots or Lots Larger Than 8,000 Square Feet, states that: “On those lots that are irregular in shape or that exceed 8,000 square feet in area, the Planning Commission shall establish setbacks that are appropriate for the property and that are consistent with the purposes of the beach and riparian overlay district. Where a large lot size creates an opportunity to establish significantly increased setbacks from adjoining beach lands, and the topography or shape of the site allow sufficient area to build away from the beach, the Planning Commission may designate larger setbacks for the property that preserve an open space buffer adjacent to the beach while providing a reasonable area to build elsewhere on the property.”
The existing site is 16,000 square feet. Evidence in the record suggests that setbacks for the site have not been formally established pursuant to CMC section 17.20.160.A.8.

The record does reflect previous approvals where approved plans do show setback lines. For example, a landscaping plan stamped approved September 10, 1987 (BP 87- 166), identifies a rear setback of 15-feet, and a south side yard setback of 6-feet. A gazebo structure is shown at the edge of the 15-foot rear setback, however, there is no evidence in the record which indicates the Commission has established setbacks pursuant to CMC section 17.20.160.A.8.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 369 of 704 ends

CMC section 17.20.160, states, in part: “The following standards shall be used by decision-making bodies in approving or denying a coastal development permit in the beach and riparian overlay district… No building permit for any development, as defined in Chapter 17.70 CMC, including but not limited to new construction, additions, exterior alterations or change in land use shall be approved unless a coastal development permit is approved taking into consideration all of the following as may be appropriate to the scope of the project.” Subsection A.8. requires a determination of appropriate setbacks.

CMC section 17.02.050.G, state: “The provisions of this title supersede all prior zoning ordinances, as amended, of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. However, no provision of this title shall validate or legalize any use or structure established, constructed, or maintained in violation of the prior zoning ordinance, as amended, unless specifically authorized by this title.”
While setbacks may be shown in previous approvals, the Commission has yet to establish setbacks for the site. Based on the regulations above, appropriate setbacks must be assessed as part of the Coastal Development Permit as new development is any development after the effective date of these regulations (CMC section 17.70, “Development”).

In designating setbacks for the site, the Commission should consider the following:

CMC section 17.20.160.B.4 establishes a minimum setback for property lines adjacent to park boundaries: “On sites adjacent to the beach all buildings shall be located to preserve maximum open space on the site as viewed from the beach. Generally, a setback of at least 15 feet shall be maintained along any property line facing the beach.

The Planning Commission may at its discretion reduce any required rear, side or front yard to not less than three feet so as to preserve maximum open space on the site adjacent to the beach for public benefit.”
CMC section 17.20.160.B.4 requires that, “Private development proposed on oceanfronting parcels shall comply with the setback requirements of the applicable primary zoning district, except where a lot line is adjacent to a coastal bluff or sand dunes, or where public access and/or recreational areas are required in compliance with these regulations. Proposed private developments shall be set back from the top of the bluff or adjacent sand dunes as provided by this subsection.

1. Bluff Retreat Setback Requirements. New structures shall be set back a sufficient distance from any bluff top to be safe from bluff erosion for a minimum of 100 years as determined by a site-specific geology report, prepared in compliance with CMC § 17.20.170.B., Geology Report; provided, that in no case shall the minimum setback be less than 25 feet.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 370 of 704 ends

Analysis: As outlined in CMC section 17.20.170.B, Geology Report, the applicant has provided an analysis that illustrates the building site’s location relative to the bluff face. While city planning documents identify the adjacent area as a dune (Del Mar Dunes), and there is no express reference to this feature as a bluff, this exhibit was prepared to determine whether a geology report would be required pursuant to CMC section 17.20.160.B.4.a in accordance with section

17.20.170.B. The analysis (“report”) was prepared by Grice Engineers dated December 29, 2025 – Addendum No. 1 (refer to Attachment 3).

17.20.160.B.4 and 17.20.170.B.

2. Use of Bluff Retreat Setbacks. No development except public access pathways, public restrooms, stairways and associated public recreational or infrastructure facilities shall be permitted within the bluff retreat setbacks identified in site-specific geologic reports.

Analysis: As noted above, a geologic report was not required. Therefore, a bluff retreat setback was not identified.

3. Dune, Access and Recreational Area Setbacks. Additional bluff top and/or dune setbacks may be required in compliance with Local Coastal Plan policies to establish a buffer from natural sand dune areas, to reduce visual intrusion on adjacent recreational areas or to accommodate public access and enjoyment of adjacent recreational areas. (See also CMC § 17.20.180, Public Access).

Analysis: CMC section 17.20.160.A.8, states: “Where a large lot size creates an opportunity to establish significantly increased setbacks from adjoining beach lands, and the topography or shape of the site allow sufficient area to build away from the beach, the Planning Commission may designate larger setbacks for the property that preserve an open space buffer adjacent to the beach while providing a reasonable area to build elsewhere on the property.” The nearest above grade structural development is proposed to be located approximately 53’3” from the rear property line, which is immediately adjacent to the Del Mar Dunes -a designated environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA).

As described in the shoreline management plan (SMP), “The Del Mar dunes are a thin stretch of disturbed coastal sand dunes, extending from the end of 8th ATTACHMENT 2

Page 371 of 704 ends

Avenue north to the foot of Ocean Avenue/Del Mar parking lot. The eastern boundary of these dunes is defined by the Ocean Avenue/Del Mar Parking lot and by a line of private homes.”
The SMP further describes “Native plant- and wildlife habitats in the narrow Del Mar dunes have been described by occasional coastal erosion and by the grown of exotic, invasive ice plant and acacia. Jones and Stokes (1995) studied these fines and determined they represent potential habitat for native dune plants and animals. The Del Mar Dunes have been designated as an [ESHA]…”.

A biological assessment for the site was prepared by Rob Thompson of Thompson Wildland Management, dated January 12, 2026 (refer to Attachment 4), and concluded, “[the project will be] occurring in the previously disturbed and significantly landscaped backyard area of the subject parcel. Biological resources that are protected under federal and state laws (e.g., FESA, CESA and CEQA) were not observed or detected during this pre-construction assessment and are not known to occur on this developed and impacted property.”
Although the biological report found that impacts to ESHA were not anticipated, recommendations were provided which implement CMC sections 17.20.220.E and 17.48.110, as well as federal law. These recommendations have been included as Conditions of Approval #32a-e.

A soils report was also submitted as part of the associated application materials (refer to Attachment 4). The report was prepared by Grice Engineers and dated November 2025. The report states, in part, “The terrain to the north and south of the property did have undulations as typical to active dune deposits forming a depression landward of the fronting dune. Envisioning the continuance of the depression onto this property suggests the fill may have been placed to raise and level the yard as well as reduce material off haul as indicated by the buried debris.”
The boring logs of the report, Appendix B, identifies native beach sand at varying depths, and fill materials located at depths ranging from 2.5 feet to 9.5 feet located above the native topsoil.

Neither of the technical reports mandate, suggest, or otherwise recommend any setback based on the recommendation of qualified professional. However, based on the proposed scope of work for this application, the Land Use Plan policies may support an additional setback.
o Policy P4-1: "Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea. (LUP)"
o Policy P5-48: "New development shall protect areas of unique scenic quality (e.g. Scenic Road, Junipero Ave, Torres & 3rd, etc.). Development in these areas shall be sited to protect public views to and along the ATTACHMENT 2

Page 372 of 704 ends

coast, minimize impacts via landform alteration, and be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas. (LUP)" o Policy P5-182: "Continue to ensure that development, whether commercial or residential, does not diminish the village character by excessively blocking important public views, private views or disturbing natural topography, significant trees, or native growth. (LUP)" o Policy P5-209:"New development shall be sited and designed on the most suitable portion of the site while ensuring protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources by providing for the following:
▪ Protecting areas that provide important water quality benefits, areas necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota and/or that are susceptible to erosion and sediment loss;
▪ Analyzing the natural resources and hazardous constraints of planning areas and individual development site to determine locations most suitable for development;
▪ Promoting clustering of development on the most suitable portions of a site taking into account geologic constraints, sensitive resources, and natural drainage features;
▪ Preserving and protecting riparian corridors, wetlands, and buffer zones;
▪ Minimizing disturbance of natural areas, including significant trees, native vegetation, and root structures;
▪ Using natural drainage as a design element, maximizing the preservation of natural contours and native vegetation; ▪ Limiting land disturbance activities such as clearing and grading, limiting cut and fill to reduce erosion and sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas, and erosive soils. (LUP)" o Goal 5-1: “New Development shall minimize risks to life and property, assure stability and structural integrity over the life of the development, and neither create nor constitute significantly to erosion, geological instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area (Shoreline Management Plan).”
The Commission should consider the above goals and policies and determine whether additional setbacks are necessary, warranted, or needed.

Summary/Recommendation: Based on the information in the record, staff recommends the Planning Commission find the setbacks for the proposed development adequate and appropriate and the proposed development be constructed consistent with the proposed plans (Attachment 2). In lieu of determining setbacks for the site which would run with the property in perpetuity, staff recommends the Commission make a determination that the development proposed by the applicant is appropriate, except as modified by the Conditions of Approval, as discussed elsewhere in the report.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 373 of 704 ends

Staff’s recommendation is predicated on the notion that, should the Commission establish a 20-foot rear setback, for example, future development on the site may be inconsistent. For example, if the primary dwelling were to be demolished and a new primary dwelling constructed 20-feet from the rear setback, that development could be found inconsistent with the policies described above.

Evaluating the setbacks on a project specific basis allows the Commission to address site specific conditions based on the context of the site, and changing environmental conditions which may require additional setbacks be applied in the future (e.g. sea level rise). The technical reports provide support for the development in the proposed location, however, future development located elsewhere on-site may require reevaluation.

This finding/recommendation shall be made contemporaneous with the findings for CMC sections 17.20.110.C, 17.20.160.A.8, and 17.20.160.B.9.

Other Project Components:

Public Correspondence:

At the time of writing this report, staff has received multiple correspondence regarding the project. All relevant public communications have been included as Attachment 5.

Correspondence received either supports the proposed development or primarily raises questions and/or concern pertaining to development extending westward toward the dunes area and other scenic or visual quality issues.

Environmental Review: Staff recommends the project be found categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA guidelines and local environmental regulations, pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities. Pursuant to CEQA guideline section 15301, examples of Class 1 projects include, but are not limited to, “(e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less,”and “(h) Maintenance of existing landscaping…”
As conditioned the project allows for the addition of new 800 square foot accessory dwelling to an existing 5,040 square foot single family dwelling, which is less than 50% of the floor area of the structure before the addition. The project also includes enhancement of existing on-site landscaping, and associated site work. Government Code Section 66319 finds that an accessory dwelling unit is an accessory use or building. The proposed project does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact, and no exceptions to the exemption exist pursuant to section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines as discussed below:

1. Location. The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts due to the project’s location and remains in context and consistent with the existing ATTACHMENT 2

Page 374 of 704 ends

conditions of the single-family residential (R-1) zoning district, and applicable overlay districts. Recommendations within technical reports made by qualified professionals implement the requirements of the Carmel Municipal Code/Coastal Implementation Plan.

2. Cumulative Impact. No successive projects on the project site are proposed, known, or expected to occur over time that would result in cumulatively considerable impacts.

3. Significant Effect. The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts due to unusual circumstances and remains in context and consistent with the existing conditions of the single-family residential (R-1) zoning district, and applicable overlay districts. Recommendations within technical reports made by qualified professionals implement the requirements of the Carmel Municipal Code/Coastal Implementation Plan.

4. Scenic Highways. The proposed project is not located within, immediately adjacent to, or visible from, a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.

5. Hazardous Waste Sites. The project site is not on the California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List of Data Sources, or any other known list that reports hazardous waste sites.

6. Historical Resources. On November 11, 2025, Margret Clovis, a qualified professional in Architectural History, under contract to the city, concluded, “The house underwent major remodels in 1987 and 1997, and it has substantially lost its historic integrity. The property does not relate to historic themes or property types established in the Historic Context Statement. The property is not associated with important events, people, or architecture that are identified in the Historic Context Statement. An intensive survey is not recommended.” A determination of ineligibility was issued by the Department of Community Planning and Building on March 30, 2026.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution

2. Attachment 2 - Project Plans

3. Attachment 3 - Geotechnical and Geological Hazards Report

4. Attachment 4 - Biological Assessment

5. Attachment 5 - Public Correspondence
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 375 of 704 ends

DS 25206 (Diamond)
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Resolution 2026-13-PC
Planning Commission Meeting
April 8, 2026
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 376 of 704 ends

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-12-PC

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA FINDING THE PROJECT QUALIFIES AS A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 AND NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 15300.2 CAN BE MADE IN THIS CASE; DENYING A DESIGN STUDY REFERRAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ROOF DECK ABOVE A PROPOSED 800-SQUARE-FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (UNDER A SEPARATE MINISTERIAL PERMIT); APPROVING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW NONEXCLUDED DEVELOPMENT (GROUND DISTURBANCE FOR AN 800 SQUARE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT

ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING REAR TERRACE, LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK) LOCATED WEST OF CARMELO STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT SCENIC ROAD 5 NORTHWEST OF 8TH AVENUE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE (AS) OVERLAY DISTRICT, PARK (P) OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND BEACH AND RIPARIAN (BR) OVERLAY; AND APPROVING A DESIGN STUDY REFERRAL FOR THE INSTALLATION

LANDSCAPING CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN AS AUTHORIZED BY THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. APN: 010-312-012-000.

WHEREAS, on October, 7 2025, International Design Group, Architect (“Applicant”) submitted an application on behalf of DIAMOND STEPHEN P TR (“Owner”) requesting approval of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit application DS 25206 (Diamond) described herein as (“Application”); and WHEREAS, the Application has been submitted for a 16,000-square-foot site located at Scenic Road 5 NW of 8th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District, Park (P) Overlay District, and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay District; and WHEREAS, applicant is requesting approval of a Design Study and Coastal Development Permit for the addition of an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The project includes a proposed deck which would be accessed via an existing rear patio and located on the roof of the ADU -labeled in plans as, “roof view terrace.” Site improvements include landscaping, drainage improvements, and site work associated with the associated improvements; and
WHEREAS, Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code provides that certain projects can be excluded from a Coastal Development Permit requirement. However, it also finds that development in specific locations does not qualify for exclusion due to potential impacts to coastal resources. The subject property is located west of Carmelo Street and improvements on properties within this area do not qualify for exclusion; and
WHERAS, Although state law mandates that ADUs be approved ministerially, the “Coastal Savings Clause” (Government Code Section 66329) and the California Coastal Act requires discretionary review of development which has the potential to impact coastal resources. As such, the decision before the Planning Commission does not include the establishment of the ADU. It does, however, include the proposed development (e.g. land disturbance) within a sensitive coastal resource area; and WHEREAS, a Coastal Development Permit is required for the project in accordance with Carmelby-the-Sea Municipal Code (CMC) Sections 17.52.090.A and 17.52.100.D.2; and Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2

Page 377 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-12-PC
DS 25206 (Diamond)
April 8, 2026

Page 2 of 13 ends

WHEREAS, on March 27, 2026, a notice of public hearing was published in the Carmel Pine Cone for the April 8, 2026, Planning Commission meeting in compliance with State law (California Government Code 65091) and mailed to owners of real property within a 300-foot radius of the project indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on or before March 29, 2026, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on or before April 5, 2026, the meeting agenda was posted in three locations in compliance with State law indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and

WHEREAS, on April 8, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Application, including, without limitation, the information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and through public testimony on the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgement to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA"), together with State Guidelines (14 California Code Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines") and City Environmental Regulations (CMC Chapter 17.60) require the review of certain projects for environmental impacts and preparation of environmental documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that pursuant to CEQA regulations, the Application is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities, and no exceptions to the exemption exist pursuant to section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines as discussed below:
a) Location. The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts due to the project’s location and remains in context and consistent with the existing conditions of the single-family residential (R-1) zoning district, and applicable overlay districts. Recommendations within technical reports made by qualified professionals implement the requirements of the Carmel Municipal Code/Coastal Implementation Plan.
b) Cumulative Impact. No successive projects on the project site are proposed, known, or expected to occur over time that would result in cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Significant Effect. The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts due to unusual circumstances and remains in context and consistent with the existing conditions of the single-family residential (R-1) zoning district, and applicable overlay districts. Recommendations within technical reports made by qualified professionals implement the requirements of the Carmel Municipal Code/Coastal Implementation Plan.
d) Scenic Highways. The proposed project is not located within, immediately adjacent to, or visible from, a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway.

Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2

Page 378 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-12-PC
DS 25206 (Diamond)
April 8, 2026

Page 3 of 13 ends

e) Hazardous Waste Sites. The project site is not on the California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List of Data Sources, or any other known list that reports hazardous waste sites. f) Historical Resources. On November 11, 2025, Margret Clovis, a qualified professional in Architectural History, under contract to the city, concluded, “The house underwent major remodels in 1987 and 1997, and it has substantially lost its historic integrity. The property does not relate to historic themes or property types established in the Historic Context Statement.

The property is not associated with important events, people, or architecture that are identified in the Historic Context Statement. An intensive survey is not recommended.” A determination of ineligibility was issued by the Department of Community Planning and Building on March 30, 2026.

Pursuant to CMC section 17.32.060.E.1, a Phase I Archaeological Resource Management Report (ARMR) dated October 2025 was also prepared for the site by Achasta Archaeological Services, Marina, California. The result of the report was negative; and WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, consistent with the requirements of CMC sections

17.20.110.C, 17.20.160.A.8, and 17.20.160.B.9, the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby find:

1. The setbacks for the proposed development to be consistent with the setbacks depicted in the proposed plans dated June 27, 2025 prepared by Internation Design Group, and accompanying application materials, approved by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2026 except as modified by the Conditions of Approval; and

2. That the setbacks described herein are adequate and appropriate for the proposed development of this subject application, and future development, or future applications, shall require a determination for setbacks based on factors including but not limited to changes in the context of the site, and/or changing environmental conditions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Denial of the associated Design Study for the construction of a roof deck above a separately permitted accessory dwelling unit:

FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR DESIGN STUDY ACCEPTANCE (CMC SECTION 17.58) For each of the required design study findings listed below, staff has indicated whether the plans submitted, and/or as conditioned, support adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no" the staff report discusses the issues to facilitate decision-making by the Planning Commission. Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the staff report depending on the issues.

CMC Section 17.58.060.B – Findings for Design Review Approval YES NO

1. Conform to the applicable policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program ✔

2. Comply with all applicable provisions of this code; and ✔

3. Are consistent with applicable adopted design review guidelines. ✔ Evidence: Pursuant to CMC section 17.02.060.C.4.c, A proposed use is consistent with all elements of the Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan when [the] following conditions exist:

Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2

Page 379 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-12-PC
DS 25206 (Diamond)
April 8, 2026

Page 4 of 13 ends

Ensuring that design considers such items as natural site features; architectural, environmental and cultural preservation; usable open space; and relationship to surrounding uses in terms of scale, siting, architectural features and neighborhood development patterns.

As found in the staff report, inclusion of the proposed roof deck conflicts with CMC section

17.20.160.A.3 which requires, “All development shall be compatible in design with existing buildings in the area for the purpose of protecting the neighborhood character and consistent with the R‑1 design guidelines established in CMC § 17.10.010.”
The design features does not maintain the appropriate scale to maintain the intimate, rural charm and village character of Carmel-by-the-Sea nor, is the appropriate scale to be considered similar to improvements on neighboring properties that would allow for reasonable privacy.

CMC section 17.10.010.E. Scale. Buildings shall relate to a human scale in their forms, elements and in the detailing of doors, windows, roofs and walkways. Oversized design elements make structures appear dominating and monumental. This out-of-scale character represents a poor fit to the human form, vitiates the more intimate, rural charm and village character of Carmelby-the-Sea and shall be avoided.

CMC section 17.10.010.G. Privacy. Designs should respect the privacy of neighbors. The placement of windows, doors, balconies and decks should be sensitive to similar improvements on neighboring properties.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-the-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Approval of the Coastal Development Permit to allow non-excluded development (ground disturbance for an 800 square accessory dwelling unit attached to an existing rear terrace, landscaping, drainage improvements and associated site work):

FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
For each of the required findings listed below, the staff has indicated whether the proposed project or the addition of conditions supports the adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no," the staff report discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission’s decision-making. Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.

CMC Section 17.64.010.B, Coastal Development Permits YES NO

1. The project, as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with the certified City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Local Coastal Program.
✔

2. If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, the project conforms with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code). ✔
Evidence #1: See Staff Report.

Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2

Page 380 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-12-PC
DS 25206 (Diamond)
April 8, 2026

Page 5 of 13 ends

Evidence #2: The proposed development is located between the first public road and the sea, as identified on the “Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction” map dated October 18, 2004, prepared by the California Coastal Commission. In accordance with CMC 17.20.180.B, “Proposed development and new land uses located between the ocean and the first public road may be required to provide vertical (perpendicular) access from the public road to bluff and beach areas, and lateral access along the beach, shoreline and bluff tops, where the review authority first makes specific findings documenting the need for additional public access on and/or through the site, and the relationship of the required dedication to the impacts on existing access, or needs for additional access created by the project.”
The Coastal Access and Recreation Element of the General Plan/Land Use Plan finds, “Carmel is among a limited number of California coastal communities where nearly the entire shoreline from the first public road to the sea is open to the public and easily accessible. (LUP)” There is no existing access (either acquired through use or legislative authorization) on or through the site, and this site would not contribute to the enhancement, improvement, or other public benefit (i.e. there is no need) for new dedication at this time of an accessway based on the site’s location and attributes. This requirement/finding may be reassessed in the future upon reconsideration of a new or amended Coastal Development Permit.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Approval of the associated Design Study for the installation landscaping consistent with the proposed landscaping plan as authorized by the Coastal Development Permit:

CMC Section 17.58.060.B – Findings for Design Review Approval YES NO

1. Conform to the applicable policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program ✔

2. Comply with all applicable provisions of this code; and ✔

3. Are consistent with applicable adopted design review guidelines. ✔ Evidence: See Staff Report.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby FIND the project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and none of the exceptions to the exemptions contained in Section 15300.2 can be made in this case and DENY a Design Study Referral for the construction of a new roof deck above a proposed 800- square-foot accessory dwelling unit (under separate ministerial permit), and APPROVE a Coastal Development Permit to allow non-excluded development consisting of ground disturbance for an 800 square accessory dwelling unit attached to an existing rear terrace, landscaping, drainage improvements and associated site work on a property west of Carmelo Street. The property is located at Scenic Road 5 northwest of 8th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District, Park (P) Overlay District, and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay, APN: 010-312-012-000.

Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2

Page 381 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-12-PC
DS 25206 (Diamond)
April 8, 2026

Page 6 of 13 ends

The following Conditions apply for any development undertaken subject to this Coastal Development Permit:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
No. Standard Conditions

1. Authorization. This approval of Coastal Development Permit authorizes the non-excluded development (ground disturbance for an 800 square accessory dwelling unit attached to an existing rear terrace, landscaping, drainage improvements and associated site work) located at Scenic Road 5 northwest of 8th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District, Park (P) Overlay District, and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay, APN: 010-312-012-000, consistent with plans dated June 27, 2025 prepared by Internation Design Group, and approved by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2026, and associated application materials, unless modified by the Conditions of Approval, herein.

2. Building Permit Required. Any development undertaken subject to this Coastal Development Permit shall be subject to a building permit application prior to installation of such improvements.

3. Codes and Ordinances. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the R-1 zoning district, and all applicable overlay districts. All adopted building and fire codes shall be adhered to in preparing the working drawings. If any codes or ordinances require design elements to be changed, or if any other changes are requested when such plans are submitted, such changes may require additional environmental review and subsequent approval by the Planning Commission, or the Community Planning and Building Department, as determined by the Director.

4. Permit Validity. In accordance with CMC Section 17.52.170 (Time Limits on Approvals and Denials), this Coastal Development Permit remains valid for a period of 12 months from the date of action. During this time, the project must be implemented, or the approval becomes void.

Implementation is effected by erecting, installing, or beginning the installation of the improvement authorized by the permit, as determined by the Director. Extensions to this approval may be granted consistent with CMC 17.52.170.C.

5. Water Use. Approval of this application does not permit an increase in water use on the project site without adequate supply. Should the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District determine that adequate water is unavailable for this site, this permit will be scheduled for reconsideration, and appropriate findings will be prepared for review and adoption by the Planning Commission or the Community Planning and Building Department, as determined by the Director.

6. Setback and Height Certifications. For any development undertaken subject to this Coastal Development Permit that includes building foundations, and/or building walls, as determined by the Building Official:

A State licensed surveyor shall survey and certify the following in writing:
• The footing locations are in conformance with the approved plans prior to footing/foundation inspection;
• The roof heights and plate heights of each building are in conformance with the approved plans prior to the roof sheathing inspection. Roofs and plates shall not exceed the elevation points as identified in the approved project plans, and the roofs include an appropriate allowance for roofing material thickness.

Written certifications prepared, sealed, and signed by the surveyor shall be provided prior to Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2

Page 382 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-12-PC
DS 25206 (Diamond)
April 8, 2026

Page 7 of 13 ends

footing/foundation inspection and roof sheathing inspection. In the event that multiple footing/foundation pours are required, a survey letter shall be submitted for each separate section.

7. Modifications. The Applicant shall submit in writing, with revised plans, to the Community Planning and Building staff any proposed changes to the approved project plans prior to incorporating those changes. If the Applicant changes the project without first obtaining City approval, the Applicant will be required to submit the change in writing, with revised plans, within two weeks of the City being notified. A cease work order may be issued at any time at the discretion of the Director of Community Planning and Building until a) either the Planning Commission or Staff has approved the change, or b) the property owner has eliminated the change and submitted the proposed change in writing, with revised plans, for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance with the approved plans prior to the final inspection.

8. Exterior Revisions to Planning Approval Form. All proposed modifications that affect the exterior appearance of the building or site elements shall be submitted on the “Revisions to Planning Approval” form on file in the Community Planning and Building Department. Any modification incorporated into the construction drawings not listed on this form shall not be deemed approved upon issuance of a building permit.

9. Conflicts Between Planning Approvals and Construction Plans. It shall be the responsibility of the Owner, Applicant, and Contractor(s) to ensure consistency between the project plans approved by the Planning Staff, the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal and the construction plans submitted to the Building Division as part of the Building Permit review.

Where inconsistencies between the Planning approval and the construction plans exist, the Planning approval shall govern unless otherwise approved in writing by the Community Planning & Building Director or their designee.

When changes or modifications to the project are proposed, the Applicant shall clearly list and highlight each proposed change and bring each change to the City’s attention. Changes to the project incorporated into the construction drawings that were not clearly listed or identified as a proposed change shall not be considered an approved change. Should conflicts exist between the originally approved project plans and the issued construction drawings that were not explicitly identified as a proposed change, the plans approved as part of the Planning Department Review, including any Conditions of Approval, shall prevail.

10. Exterior Lighting. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall include in the construction drawings the manufacturer’s specifications, including illumination information, for all exterior light fixtures. All fixtures shall be shielded and down-facing.

Exterior wall-mounted lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less (incandescent equivalent or 375 lumens) per fixture and shall be installed no higher than 10 feet above the ground or walking surface.

Landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts (incandescent equivalent or 225 lumens) per fixture and shall be spaced no closer than 10 feet apart. Landscape lighting shall not be used as accent lighting, nor shall it be used to illuminate trees, walls, or fences. The purpose of landscape lighting is to safely illuminate walkways and entrances to the subject property and outdoor living spaces.

11. Indemnification. The Applicant agrees, at his or her sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns from any liability; and shall Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2

Page 383 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-12-PC
DS 25206 (Diamond)
April 8, 2026

Page 8 of 13 ends

reimburse the City for any expense incurred, resulting from, or in connection with any project approvals. This includes any appeal, claim, suit, or other legal proceedings to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project approval. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any legal proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in any such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the Applicant of any obligation under this condition. Should any party bring any legal action in connection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of Monterey, California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for resolving all such actions by the parties hereto.

12. Hazardous Materials Waste Survey. Prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit, the Applicant shall submit a hazardous materials waste survey to the Building Division in conformance with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.

13. Cultural Resources. Throughout construction, all activities involving excavation shall immediately cease if cultural resources are discovered on the site, and the Applicant shall notify the Community Planning & Building Department within 24 hours. Work shall not be permitted to recommence until such resources are properly evaluated for significance by a qualified archaeologist. If the resources are determined to be significant, prior to the resumption of work, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and reviewed and approved by the Community Planning and Building Director. In addition, if human remains are unearthed during the excavation, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings regarding origin and distribution pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.

14. Truck Haul Route. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building Director, in consultation with the Public Works and Public Safety Departments, a truck-haul route and any necessary traffic control measures for the grading activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to the truck-haul route and implementation of any required traffic control measures.

15. USA North 811. Prior to any excavation or digging, the Applicant shall contact the appropriate regional notification center (USA North 811) at least two working days, but not more than 14 calendar days, prior to commencing that excavation or digging. No digging or excavation is authorized to occur on-site until the Applicant has obtained a Ticket Number and all utility members have positively responded to the dig request. (Visit USANorth811.org for more information)

16. Conditions of Approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall print a copy of the Resolution adopted by the Planning Commission and signed by the property owner(s) on a full-size sheet within the construction plan set submitted to the Building Safety Division.

17. Landscape Plan Required. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building Department and the City Forester. The landscape plan shall be included in the construction drawings and will be reviewed for compliance with the landscaping standards contained in the Zoning Code, including, but not limited to, the following:
1) All new landscaping shall be 75% drought-tolerant;
2) Landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a drip/sprinkler system set on a timer; and The landscape plan shall identify the location where new trees will be planted when new trees are required to be planted by the City code, the Forest and Beach Commission, or the Planning Commission.

Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2

Page 384 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-12-PC
DS 25206 (Diamond)
April 8, 2026

Page 9 of 13 ends

18. Tree Removal Prohibited. Throughout construction, the Applicant shall protect all trees identified for preservation by methods approved by the City Forester. Trees on or adjacent to the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the City Forester or Forest and Beach Commission.

19. Tree Protection Measures. Requirements for tree preservation shall adhere to the following tree protection measures on the construction site.
• Prior to grading, excavation, or construction, the developer shall clearly tag or mark all trees to be preserved.
• Excavation within 6 feet of a tree trunk is not permitted. • No attachments or wires of any kind, other than those of a protective nature, shall be attached to any tree.
• Per Municipal Code Chapter 17.48.110, no material may be stored within the dripline of a protected tree, including the drip lines of trees on neighboring parcels. • Tree Protection Zone. The Tree Protection Zone shall be equal to dripline or 18 inches radially from the tree for every one inch of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above the soil line, whichever is greater. A minimum of 4-foot-high transparent fencing is required unless otherwise approved by the City Forester. Tree protection shall not be resized, modified, removed, or altered in any manner without written approval. The fencing must be maintained upright and taught for the duration of the project. No more than 4 inches of wood mulch shall be installed within the Tree Protection Zone. When the Tree Protection Zone is at or within the drip line, no less than 6 inches of wood mulch shall be installed 18 inches radially from the tree for every one inch of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above the soil line outside of the fencing.
• Structural Root Zone. The Structural Root Zone shall be 6 feet from the trunk or 6 inches radially from the tree for every one inch of trunk diameter at 4.5’ above the soil line, whichever is greater. Any excavation or changes to the grade shall be approved by the City Forester prior to work. Excavation within the Structural Root Zone shall be performed with a pneumatic excavator, hydro-vac at low pressure, or another method that does not sever roots.
• If roots greater than 2 inches in diameter or larger are encountered within the approved Structural Root Zone, the City Forester shall be contacted for approval to make any root cuts or alterations to structures to prevent roots from being damaged. • If roots larger than 2 inches in diameter are cut without prior City Forester approval or any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity, the building permit will be suspended, and all work stopped until an investigation by the City Forester has been completed, and mitigation measures have been put in place.

20. Foundation Work Near Significant Trees. All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. If any tree roots larger than two inches (2”) are encountered during construction, the City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots. The City Forester may require the roots to be bridged or may authorize the roots to be cut. If roots larger than two inches (2”) in diameter are cut without prior City Forester approval or any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity, the building permit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation by the City Forester has been completed. Six inches (6”) of mulch shall be evenly spread across the inside the dripline of all trees prior to the issuance of a building permit.

21. Drainage Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building and Public Works Departments a drainage Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2

Page 385 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-12-PC
DS 25206 (Diamond)
April 8, 2026

Page 10 of 13 ends

plan that meets the requirements of the City's drainage guidance, SOG 17-07 and Condition of Approval No. 30. At a minimum, new and replaced impervious area drainage must be dispersed around the site rather than focused on one corner of the property; infiltration features must be sized appropriately and located at least 6 feet from neighboring properties. The drainage plan shall include information on drainage from new impervious areas and semi-pervious areas.

22. BMP Tracking Form. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building and Public Works Departments a completed BMP Tracking form.

23. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building and Public Works Departments an erosion and sediment control plan that includes locations and installation details for erosion and sediment control BMPs, material staging areas, stabilized access and the requirements contained in Condition of Approval No. 31.

24. Conditions of Approval Acknowledgement. Prior to the issuance of a building permit revision, a completed Conditions of Approval Acknowledgment form shall be included in the construction drawings. The form shall be signed by the Property Owner, Applicant, and Contractor prior to the issuance of a building permit.

25. Copper Gutters & Downspouts. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised plan for review and approval by the Planning Division identifying alternative materials for exterior water conveying features, such as gutters and downspouts, which are not documented to release contaminantsinto Carmel Bay -copper may not be considered. All finishes shall be painted to match the existing water conveying features on-site or a similar matte and non-reflective finish.

26. Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Community Planning & Building Director. The construction management plan shall also be coordinated with the requirements of Condition of Approval No. 31.

Special Conditions

27. Plan Revision – Elimination of Roof Deck. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall revise the plans to eliminate access to the roof of the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The plans shall be revised such that the area designated as “roof deck,” or “view deck,” or similar references to said features, as depicted in the plans dated June 27, 2025 prepared by Internation Design Group, and reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2026, is revised to designate the area as “ADU roof” or substantially similar designation. The subject area shall not be used, accessed, or maintained as an accessible, usable, or otherwise functional outdoor living space.

Steps, stairs, or other means of access shall also be eliminated.

No changes to the existing terrace are approved as part of this approval.

28. Site Coverage Limitation. The existing site is not in compliance with site coverage limits and shall not be authorized to increase site coverage (CMC 17.10.030.C.2). Site coverage that was lawfully established but not in compliance with current zoning regulations may be maintained in its current state, however, shall be considered non-conforming. If a non-conforming element is removed, or substantially altered, it shall not be permitted to be rebuilt or re-established in the same location or elsewhere on the site (CMC 17.36.040.E). New or replaced coverage shall require the non-conforming be brought into compliance with the requirements for the R-1 zoning district.

29. Site Coverage Removal. Unless otherwise expressly noted on the approved site plan, all areas Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2

Page 386 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-12-PC
DS 25206 (Diamond)
April 8, 2026

Page 11 of 13 ends

where site coverage is proposed to be removed, or new pathways proposed, as depicted in the plans dated June 27, 2025, prepared by Internation Design Group, and reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2026, shall be replaced with woodchip or mulch. New or replacement improvements that would otherwise count as site coverage (gravel, decomposed granite, pavers, etc) shall not be authorized. All site coverage required to be removed shall be removed prior to final inspection.

30. Setback. Consistent with CMC section 17.20.090.C, all proposed construction, including drainage facilities, shall maintain a setback of at least 15 feet from any property line that also constitutes a park boundary. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall revise the plans to clearly demonstrate that all development, above and below ground, is located at least 15 feet from any property line that also constitutes a park boundary.

31. Civil Plan Revision. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit revised civil drawings (including the erosion and sediment control plan) that are fully coordinated with the approved landscape plan. These revised plans shall relocate all proposed areas for stockpiles, washouts, staging area, etc, to avoid encroachment into existing landscaping areas designated to remain.

In the event that existing landscaping is removed or incidentally damaged during construction, the affected areas shall be rehabilitated. All replacement landscaping shall be designed to establish a natural transition to the adjacent parkland vegetation persuant to CMC section

17.34.090.A.2.

32. CMC ESHA and Tree Protection. The recommendations of the Biological Report prepared by Thompson Wildland Management (TWM), dated January 12, 2026, shall be incorporated herein by reference to implement CMC sections 17.20.220.D and E. The following recommendations from TWM shall be completed prior to building permit issuance:
a. Install resource protection measures to prevent unnecessary construction related impacts and disturbance to the surrounding areas in the backyard of the property.

Resource protection BMP’s include tree protection and erosion & sedimentation control measures, such as high visibility exclusionary fencing that clearly delineates the construction zone and protects the canopy dripline and critical root zone of a few nearby cypress trees, as well as erosion & sedimentation control measures, such as silt fence, straw wattles and soil stabilization measures, that may be necessary. For example and as previously stated, straw wattles or silt fencing shall be installed between the proposed construction footprint and the property fence to the west, as well as a heavy duty green mesh fabric barrier fencing installed and secured along the property fence. Resource protection BMP’s shall be properly installed, monitored, maintained and, if necessary, modified and improved on a as needed basis for the duration of the project. (Also See CoAs #18-22)
b. Just before (i.e., within 5 days) and again during the initial clearing of landscaping vegetation for this ADU construction project, the project biologist should be present to inspect and observe for the black legless lizard (Anniella pulchra nigra) or any other potentially occurring listed species that have protection status. This reptile that resembles a small snake has the potential of occurring in this coastal zone habitat under vegetation and in loose sandy soils. As a result, this backyard area where the ADU will be constructed should be inspected and monitored during initial clearing operations to Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2

Page 387 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-12-PC
DS 25206 (Diamond)
April 8, 2026

Page 12 of 13 ends

make sure the black legless lizard is not present or harmed. c. For any landscape improvements, consideration should be given to using plants that are native or naturalized to this region and are well-adapted to this mixed urban woodland and coastal environment. Plants selected for landscaping operations should be drought tolerant, less flammable and more fire resistant, non-invasive to habitat and open space areas, and suitable and appropriate to this coastal zone environment. (Also see CoA #17) d. As previously stated, nesting birds were not observed during the assessment of this property. However, the nesting season in Monterey County may begin as early as February and continue through August. Consequently, if construction activities begin during this nesting period an additional nesting assessment should be conducted within two weeks of construction activities commencing.
e. The 3 mature and senescing Monterey cypress trees that are located in the vicinity of the proposed ADU will need to be adequately protected with tree protection fencing for the duration of the project. These native specie trees appear to be a safe and sufficient distance away from the proposed construction footprint, and given the proper installation, maintenance and monitoring of tree protection measures, construction related impacts are expected to be minimal, insignificant and not harmful to the health and wellbeing of the subject trees. (Also See CoAs #18-20) *Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval. _____________________ _________________ ___________
Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date
_____________________ _________________ ___________
Applicant Signature Printed Name Date
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BYTHE-SEA this 8th day of April, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Ahlborn, Allen, Locke, LePage
NOES: Karapetkov
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
for International Design Group
Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC 4/15/2026
Jason Diaz
Steve Diamond 4/16/2026
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 388 of 704 ends

Resolution 2026-12-PC
DS 25206 (Diamond)
April 8, 2026

Page 13 of 13 ends

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Michael LePage Shelby Gorman
Chair Planning Commission Secretary
Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2

Page 389 of 704 ends

DS 25206 (Diamond)
Attachment 2 - Project Plans
Planning Commission Meeting
April 8, 2026
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 390 of 704 ends

SCENIC ROAD (E) MAIN RESIDENCE
(E) TERRACE
(E) TERRACE (E) POOL (E) ENTRY (E)GARAGE

SCENIC ROAD (E) MAIN RESIDENCE
(E) TERRACE PROPOSED 800 SF ADU WITH ROOF DECK (E) ENTRY (E)GARAGE (E) POOL SITE PLAN A1.0 SCENIC ROAD, 5 NW OF 8TH AVE CARMEL, CA 93923 DIAMOND ADU PACIFIC GROVE CA. 721 LIGHTHOUSE AVE 93950 PHEMAIL WEB FAX (831) 646-1261 [email protected] (831) 646-1290 idg-inc.net SITE PLAN - EXISTING VICINITY MAP · PLANNING INFO. SITE PLAN - PROPOSED

ATTACHMENT
2

Page 391 of 704 ends

(N) GREAT ROOM (N) KITCHEN (N) BUNKROOM (N) BEDROOM (N) CL. (N) CL. (N) BATH (N) ROOF DECK WALL LEGEND SCENIC ROAD, 5 NW OF 8TH AVE CARMEL, CA 93923 DIAMOND ADU PACIFIC GROVE CA. 721 LIGHTHOUSE AVE 93950 PHEMAIL WEB FAX (831) 646-1261 [email protected] (831) 646-1290 idg-inc.net MAIN LEVEL PLAN A2.0 MAIN LEVEL PLAN - ADU ROOF PLAN - ADU

ATTACHMENT
2

Page 392 of 704 ends

EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND

SCENIC ROAD,
5 NW OF 8TH AVE
CARMEL, CA 93923

DIAMOND
ADU
PACIFIC GROVE CA.
721 LIGHTHOUSE AVE
93950
PH
EMAIL
WEB
FAX
(831) 646-1261
[email protected]
(831) 646-1290
idg-inc.net

ELEVATIONS
SOUTH
A6.0 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING

SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 393 of 704 ends

EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND

SCENIC ROAD,
5 NW OF 8TH AVE
CARMEL, CA 93923

DIAMOND
ADU
PACIFIC GROVE CA.
721 LIGHTHOUSE AVE
93950
PH
EMAIL
WEB
FAX
(831) 646-1261
[email protected]
(831) 646-1290
idg-inc.net

ELEVATIONS
WEST
A6.1 WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING

WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 394 of 704 ends

EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND

SCENIC ROAD,
5 NW OF 8TH AVE
CARMEL, CA 93923

DIAMOND
ADU
PACIFIC GROVE CA.
721 LIGHTHOUSE AVE
93950
PH
EMAIL
WEB
FAX
(831) 646-1261
[email protected]
(831) 646-1290
idg-inc.net

ELEVATIONS
NORTH
A6.2 NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING

NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 395 of 704 ends

SCENIC ROAD, 5 NW OF 8TH AVE CARMEL, CA 93923 DIAMOND ADU PACIFIC GROVE CA. 721 LIGHTHOUSE AVE 93950 PHEMAIL WEB FAX (831) 646-1261 [email protected] (831) 646-1290 idg-inc.net SECTIONS A7.0 SECTION A-A - EXISTING SECTION A-A - PROPOSED

ATTACHMENT
2

Page 396 of 704 ends

(E) BEDRM (E) BATH (E) BATH (E) BEDRM(E) BEDRM (E) BATH (E) TERR. (E)POOL (E) BEDRM (E) FAMILY ROOM (E) TERRACE (E) FAMILY ROOM(E) LIVING ROOM (E) BATH (E) PRIMARY BEDROOM (E) DINING ROOM (E)KITCHEN (E) GARAGE (E) UTILITY ROOM (E) BATH (E) PWDR (E) TERR. BELOW (E) TERRACE BELOW (E) POOL BELOW (E) ENTRY (E) TERR. WALL LEGEND SCENIC ROAD, 5 NW OF 8TH AVE CARMEL, CA 93923 DIAMOND ADU PACIFIC GROVE CA. 721 LIGHTHOUSE AVE 93950 PHEMAIL WEB FAX (831) 646-1261 [email protected] (831) 646-1290 idg-inc.net EXISTING HOUSE FLOOR PLANS D2.0 EXISTING HOUSE - LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN EXISTING HOUSE - MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

ATTACHMENT
2

Page 397 of 704 ends

DIAMOND ADU

GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
A.P.N.: 010-312-012

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA
FOR
STEPHEN P. DIAMOND, TRUST 7 DIAMOND ADU GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN APN: 010-312-012 CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ALNNDSET ENGINE RS,INC. SA LI NA S, CA.

COVER SHEET
1/19/26

ATTACHMENT
2

Page 398 of 704 ends

A
A
B B C2
ALN
NDSET ENGINEERS,INC.

S ALI NAS, CA.

DIAMOND ADU

GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
A.P.N.: 010-312-012

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA
FOR
STEPHEN P. DIAMOND, TRUST
7 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
1/19/26
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 399 of 704 ends

SECTION A-A SECTION B-B C3

DIAMOND ADU

GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
A.P.N.: 010-312-012

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA
FOR
STEPHEN P. DIAMOND, TRUST
7 GRADING SECTIONS & DETAILS
1/19/26
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 400 of 704 ends

C4
ALN
NDSET ENGINEERS,INC.

S ALI NAS, CA.

DIAMOND ADU

GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
A.P.N.: 010-312-012

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA
FOR
STEPHEN P. DIAMOND, TRUST
7 UTILITY PLAN
1/19/26
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 401 of 704 ends

DIAMOND ADU

GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
A.P.N.: 010-312-012

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA
FOR
STEPHEN P. DIAMOND, TRUST
7 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
1/19/26
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 402 of 704 ends

EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: TRASH RECYCLE BMP LEGEND: D E T A I L S CONCRETE WASHOUT SECTION A - A' STAPLE DETAIL WITH STRAW BALES PLAN TYPE "ABOVE GRADE" SILT FENCE FIBER ROLL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE C6 ALNNDSET ENGINE RS,INC. SA LI NAS, CA.

DIAMOND ADU

GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
A.P.N.: 010-312-012

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA
FOR
STEPHEN P. DIAMOND, TRUST 7

EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
TRASH
1/19/26

ATTACHMENT
2

Page 403 of 704 ends

P L A N B NEIGHBORHOOD TRUCK ROUTING PLAN C OVERALL TRUCK ROUTING PLAN A ESA FENCING C7 ALNNDSET ENGINEERS,INC. SA LI NA S, CA.

DIAMOND ADU

GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
A.P.N.: 010-312-012

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA
FOR
STEPHEN P. DIAMOND, TRUST 7

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
1/19/26

ATTACHMENT
2

Page 404 of 704 ends

ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ADU 30'-0" 100'-0"

IRRIGATED

LANDSCAPE

IRRIGATED

LANDSCAPE

IRRIGATED

LANDSCAPE
LEGEND
ZONE 1: ZONE EXTENDS 30 FEET FROM ALL SIDES OF BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, DECKS, ETC OR TO THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICHEVER IS CLOSER. WITHIN THIS ZONE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED:
- REMOVE ALL DEAD PLANTS, GRASS, AND WEEDS (VEGETATION) - REMOVE DEAD OR DRY LEAVES AND PINE NEEDLES FROM YARD, ROOF, AND RAIN GUTTERS. - TRIM TREES REGULARLY TO KEEP BRANCHES A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM OTHER TREES. - REMOVE BRANCHES THAT HANG OVER ROOFS AND KEEP DEAD BRANCHES A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET AWAY FROM CHIMNEYS AND STOVEPIPES.
- WOOD PILES ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THIS ZONE. RELOCATE WOOD PILES TO ZONE 2. - REMOVE OR PRUNE FLAMMABLE PLANTS AND SHRUBS NEAR WINDOWS. - REMOVE OR PRUNE FLAMMABLE ITEMS THAT COULD CATCH FIRE FROM AROUND AND UNDER DECKS, BALCONIES, AND STAIRS.
- CREATE A SEPARATION BETWEEN TREES, SHRUBS, AND ITEMS THAT COULD CATCH FIRE, SUCH AS PATIO FURNITURE, WOOD PILES, SWING SETS, ETC.
- MAINTAIN A TREE, SHRUB OR OTHER PLANT ADJACENT TO OR OVERHANGING A BUILDING FREE OF DEAD OR DYING WOOD.
- MAINTAIN THE ROOF OF A STRUCTURE FREE OF LEAVES, NEEDLES OR OTHER VEGETATIVE MATERIALS.

REMOVE OR PRUNE FLAMMABLE PLANTS AND SHRUBS NEAR WINDOWS ZONE 2: ZONE 2 EXTENDS FROM 30 FEET TO 100 FEET OUT FROM BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, DECKS ETC. OR TO THE PROPERTY LINE WHICHEVER IS CLOSER. FUELS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION SO THAT A

WILDFIRE BURNING UNDER AVERAGE WEATHER CONDITIONS WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO IGNITE THE STRUCTURE. THE ITEMS STIPULATED BELOW DO NOT APPLY TO SINGLE SPECIMENS OF TREES OR OTHER

VEGETATION THAT ARE WELL-PRUNED AND MAINTAINED SO AS TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE FUELS AND

NOT FORM A MEANS OF RAPIDLY TRANSMITTING FIRE FROM OTHER NEARBY VEGETATION TO A STRUCTURE OR FROM A STRUCTURE TO THE OTHER NEARBY VEGETATION. WITHIN THIS ZONE, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED:
- CUT OR MOW ANNUAL GRASS DOWN TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 4 INCHES. - CREATE HORIZONTAL SPACING BETWEEN SHRUBS AND TREES.
- CREATE VERTICAL SPACING BETWEEN GRASS, SHRUBS, AND TREES. - REMOVE ALL DEAD TREES.
- REMOVE FALLEN LEAVES, NEEDLES, TWIGS, BARK, CONES AND SMALL BRANCHES. HOWEVER, THEY MAY

BE PERMITTED TO A DEPTH
OF 3 INCHES.
- ALL EXPOSED WOOD PILES MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET OF CLEARANCE, DOWN TO BARE MINERAL SOIL, IN ALL DIRECTIONS.

ZONE 1 AND 2 - 'OUTBUILDINGS' AND LIQUID PROPANE GAS (LPG) STORAGE TANKS SHALL HAVE 10 FEET OF CLEARANCE TO BARE MINERAL SOIL AND NO FLAMMABLE VEGETATION FOR AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET AROUND THEIR EXTERIOR.

FUEL MANAGEMENT TO FOLLOW PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE 4291 AS DEVELOPED BY CALIFORNIA'S DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION (CALFIRE).

CLEARING BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE MAY ONLY BE REQUIRED IF THE STATE LAW,

LOCAL ORDINANCE, RULE, OR REGULATION INCLUDES FINDINGS THAT THE CLEARING IS

NECESSARY TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE RISK OF TRANSMISSION OF FLAME OR HEAT

SUFFICIENT TO IGNITE THE STRUCTURE AND THERE IS NO FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES POSSIBLE TO REDUCE THE RISK OF IGNITION OR SPREAD OF WILDFIRE TO THE STRUCTURE.

CLEARANCE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY SHALL ONLY BE CONDUCTED FOLLOWING WRITTEN ON CONSENT BY THE ADJACENT LANDOWNER.

G:\.shortcut-targets-by-id\1BZdmYCobewnzvL7zKj8A_6OSRJQCXQrb\2025\2025-28 Diamond Residence Scenic IDG\CAD\25-28_L-1.0 Fuel Mgmt.dwg 1/16/2026

D I A M O N D
A D U
SHEET NO:

SHEET NAME:

PROJECT NO:

DATE:

REVISIONS:

DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUANCE:

S E V E N

S P R I N G S

S T U D I O
2548 EMPIRE GRADE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
831.466.9617
10/31/2025
2025-28

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

SUBMITTAL
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

SCENIC ROAD, 5 NW OF 8TH AVE
CARMEL, CA 93923
APN: 010-312-012

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Signature Renewal Date Date
NO. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT EDS EN ICL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11-30-27 SIMON PHILLIPS 453
10-31-25 2
01/16/2026 CITY RESUBMITTAL
FUEL

MANAGEMENT
PLAN
L-1.0
SHEET NO: CONTENTS:

L-1.0 FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN
L-2.0 PLANTING NOTES
L-2.1 PLANTING PLAN
L-3.0 IRRIGATION NOTES
L-3.1 IRRIGATION PLAN

SHEET INDEX
SCALE: 1/16"= 1'-0" N
16 0 16 32
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 405 of 704 ends

PLANT LEGEND
*WUCCODEBOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE CHARACTER
SHRUBS
L Am ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM COMMON YARROW 4" POT
L Ad ARCTOSTAPHYLOS D. 'SENTINEL' SENTINEL VINE HILL

MANZANITA
15 GAL.

L Ae ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'EMERALD

CARPET'

EMERALD CARPET

MANZANITA
1 GAL.

L Ap ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'PACIFIC MIST' PACIFIC MIST MANZANITA 1 GAL.

L Ar ARTEMISIA PYCNOCEPHALA DUNE SAGEWORT 1 GAL.

L Cg CEANOTHUS GRISEUS CARMEL CEANOTHUS 1 GAL.

L Jp JUNCUS PATENS GREY RUSH 1 GAL.

L Ls LOMANDRA C. 'POM POM' SHORTY MAT RUSH 1 GAL.

L Lp LOMANDRA 'PLATINUM BEAUTY' PLATINUM BEAUTY

LOMANDRA
1 GAL.

L Rf ROSEMARINUS P. 'HUNTINGTON

CARPET'

HUNTINGTON CARPET

ROSEMARY
1 GAL.

MISCELLANEOUS
MULCH
METAL EDGING: WELD ALL JOINTS AND PRIME AND PAINT ONCE WELDED.

I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND

APPLIED THEM ACCORDINGLY FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN.

SIMON PHILLIPS 4532 10-31-2025

MWELO COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
* WATER USE CATEGORY (WUC) KEY
PLANT, TYP.

EDGE OF

PLANTING
x
x
x
y

1. FOR SPACING 'X', SEE PLANTING PLAN LEGEND

2. Y= 1/2X + 12" UON
WUCOLS REGION APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT: REGION 1
H = HIGH; M = MODERATE; L = LOW; VL = VERY LOW; NL = SPECIES NOT LISTED
* FROM: WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES,

A GUIDE TO THE WATER NEEDS OF LANDSCAPE PLANTS (WUCOLS) UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, L.R. COSTELLO, K.S. JONES y
x
x

PLANT SPACING AND PLANTING SETBACK DIAGRAM

TRIANGULAR SPACING SQUARE SPACING
PLANT,
TYP.

EDGE OF

PLANTING
HDR
SIGNED NAME CLA# DATE

REFERENCE NOTES

WATERPROOFING OF ROOF TOP PLANTER BY ARCHITECT - INSTALL

WITH SUITABLE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND LIGHT WEIGHT SOIL MIX

ENGINEERED FOR MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SATURATED SOIL WEIGHT
PER STRUCTURAL DESIGN - MINIMUM SOIL DEPTH TO BE 12".
1 GENERAL NOTES

1. ALL PLANTING AREAS TO BE TREATED WITH A PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE PRIOR TO BEGINNING PLANTING.

2. CONTRACTOR TO TAKE SAMPLES OF PLANTING AREA SOIL, FROM 0"-12" DEEP FROM AT

LEAST THREE SEPARATE LOCATIONS FROM PLANTING AREAS ON THE SITE, MIXED TO FORM A SINGLE COMPOSITE SAMPLE. COMBINED VOLUME OF COMPOSITE SAMPLE SHALL BE AT LEAST 1-QUART. SAMPLE LOCATIONS SHALL BE MARKED ON THE PLANTING PLAN AND SHALL BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED PLANTING TYPES.

3. FORWARD THE COMPOSITE SAMPLES TO THE TESTING LABORATORY FOR TESTING AND

THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO EXACT FERTILIZERS AND SOIL AMENDMENTS TO BE USED IN PLANTING, WAYPOINT ANALYTICAL A05-2 COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

LAB REPORT TO INCLUDE RECOMMENDATION LETTER AND TESTING RESULTS.

LAB REPORT TO INCLUDE AN ESTIMATED INFILTRATION RATE FOR SOIL TESTED.

LAB REPORT TO NOTE THE PROPOSED PLANTING TYPES SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT, GROUND-COVERS, NATIVE GRASSES AND TREES.

4. AMENDMENT AND FERTILIZER RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE TESTING LAB SHALL BE SPECIFIC

TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BE USED AND INCLUDE THE AMENDMENT LAB TEST / SAMPLE ID NUMBER AND TESTING DATE AS REFERENCE. GENERIC RECOMMENDATIONS WILL

BE REJECTED AND WILL REQUIRE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE TESTING LAB.

5. FOR BIDDING PURPOSES ASSUME SOIL AMENDMENT FERTILIZER TO BE COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER, 16-6-8 (N-P-K) UNIFORM PELLET, EXACT FERTILIZER TO BE DETERMINED BY TESTING LAB ANALYSIS.

6. INSTALL COMMERCIAL PLANT FERTILIZER PACKETS / TABLETS, TWO-YEAR CONTROLLED -RELEASE 20-10-05 (N-P-K). BEST TABS BY SIMPLOT PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS, AGRIFORM BY THE SCOTTS COMPANY.

7. SOIL AMENDMENTS TO BE MINERALIZED AND NITRIFIED BARK OR SAWDUST, WITH WETTING AGENT AND PROPERLY PULVERIZED, CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 270LBS. PER CUBIC YARD OF ORGANIC MATTER. SUBMIT SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR APPROVAL.

8. AMENDMENT CHEMISTRY – SUITABILITY CONSIDERATIONS

1.NITROGEN (DRY WEIGHT BASIS): 0.4 TO 0.6%

2.IRON (MINIMUM): 0.08%

3.ORGANIC CONTENT: ABOVE 17%

4.CARBON-NITROGEN RATIO: BELOW 25

5. PH: BELOW 8.0

6.SALINITY (ECE): A VALUE SUCH THAT WHEN COMBINED WITH THE EXISTING SITE SOIL AT A

USE RATE DETERMINED BY THE TESTING LAB ANALYSIS, THE SALINITY OF THE AMENDED SOIL SHALL NOT EXCEED 4.0 DS/M (MMHOS/CM).

9. GYPSUM (IF REQUIRED BY EXISTING SOILS TEST): AGRICULTURAL GRADE, OMRI LISTED.

1.CAL-SUL PELLETIZED GYPSUM BY NORTH PACIFIC, PORTLAND OR

2.ULTRA FINE AG GYPSUM BY WESTERN MINING & MINERALS
3 .APPROVED EQUAL.

10. SULFUR (IF REQUIRED BY EXISTING SOILS TEST): GRANULAR DEGRADABLE SULFUR PRODUCT, TIGER 90CR ORGANIC 0-0-0-90 SULFUR BY TIGERSUL.COM, OR APPROVED EQUAL.

11. ALL PLANTING AREAS TO BE CULTIVATED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 10". SOIL AMENDMENTS

AND COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS TO BE APPLIED AT THE RATES SPECIFIED IN THE TESTING LAB ANALYSIS.

12. CROSS-RIP OR CULTIVATE SUB-GRADE TO THE 10" MINIMUM DEPTH. ADD WATER IF

NECESSARY AND CONTINUE RIPPING OR CULTIVATION UNTIL THE ENTIRE SPECIFIED DEPTH IS LOOSE AND FRIABLE. CROSS RIPING SHALL INCLUDE AREAS IN BETWEEN TREE AND PLANT PITS. UPON COMPLETION OF CROSS RIPPING APPLY THE AMENDMENTS AS SPECIFIED IN THE TESTING LAB ANALYSIS. SETTLE THE SOIL WITH WATER AS NEEDED AND REGRADE HIGH/LOW AREAS TO CREATE A SMOOTH FINISH GRADE.

13. UNIFORMLY SPREAD AND INCORPORATED THE MATERIALS TO OBTAIN A HOMOGENEOUSLY BLENDED SOIL, 6-INCHES IN DEPTH. IF GYPSUM AND/OR SULFUR ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADDED

AS PART OF AMENDMENTS PER SOILS REPORT FROM THE TESTING LAB, MANUALLY WATER

THE AMENDED SOILS USING IMPACT SPRINKLERS OR HOSE-END SPRINKLERS - TO APPLY 1/2-INCH OF WATER OVER ALL PLANTING AREAS. EXISTING SOILS WITH HIGH ALKALINITY AS

DETERMINED BY THE SOILS REPORT FROM THE TESTING LAB WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE

SIMILARLY MANUALLY WATERED TO LEACH THE SALTS DEEPER INTO THE SOIL, AMOUNT OF WATER TO BE DETERMINED BY THE TESTING LAB.

14. PRE-MIX AMENDMENTS INTO SOIL BEFORE BACKFILLING PLANT PITS - DO NOT MIX INSIDE PITS. BREAK LARGE CLODS INTO SMALL PIECES. ALL PLANTING AREAS TO BE TREATED WITH A PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE PRIOR TO BEGINNING PLANTING.

15. INSTALL 3" MULCH TO ALL PLANTING AREAS. MULCH TO BE SHREDDED CEDAR BARK OR SIMILAR. SUBMIT A SAMPLE OF MULCH FOR OWNER & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.

16. INSTALL GOPHER BASKETS ON ALL CONTAINER PLANTS. BASKET SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES CLEARANCE ALL AROUND THE ROOT BALL. TOP OF BASKET SHALL BE FLUSH TO THE ROOT BALL TOP.

17. INSTALL GOPHER WIRE UNDER ALL AREAS OF NATURAL TURF AND RED FESUCE. GOPHER WIRE TO BE OVERLAPPED AT ALL SEAMS A MINIMUM OF 3" AND STAPLE SEAMS AND EDGES A MINIMUM OF 12" O.C. OR TIGHTER IF NEEDED TO REMOVE BUBBLED AREAS OF WIRE. STAPLES TO BE DEEP ENOUGH TO FIRMLY ANCHOR THE WIRE WITHOUT DISTORTING ITS SHAPE.

INSTALL EXTRA STAPLES IN AREAS WHERE THE WIRE IS BUBBLED OR NOT MAKING FULL CONTACT WITH THE GROUND BELOW.

18. COMPOST: COMPOST MINIMUM OF 4 CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000 SQ. FT. OF PERMEABLE AREA TILLED TO A DEPTH OF 6".

19. ALL PLANTING SOIL USED ON STRUCTURES TO BE A LIGHT WEIGHT SOIL MIX INTENDED FOR

USE ON STRUCTURES - CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SATURATED SOIL WEIGHT PRIOR TO INSTALLING SOIL FOR CONFIRMATION THAT IT IS BELOW THE STRUCTURAL MAXIMUM.

ARCTOSTAPHYLOS D. 'SENTINEL'

SENTINEL VINE HILL MANZANITA

ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'EMERALD CARPET'

EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA

ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM

COMMON YARROW

ARTEMESIA PYCNOCEPHALA

DUNE SAGEWORT

LOMANDRA CONFERTIFOLIA 'POM POM'

SHORTY MAT RUSH

ACTOSTAPHYLOS 'PACIFIC MIST'

PACIFIC MIST MANZANITA

JUNCUS PATENS

GREY RUSH

LOMANDRA 'PLATINUM BEAUTY'

PLATINUM BEAUTY LOMANDRA

CEANOTHUS GRISEUS

CARMEL CEANOTHUS
ROSEMARINUS P. 'HUNTINGTON CARPET'

HUNTINGTON CARPET ROSEMARY
G:\.shortcut-targets-by-id\1BZdmYCobewnzvL7zKj8A_6OSRJQCXQrb\2025\2025-28 Diamond Residence Scenic IDG\CAD\25-28_L-2.0 Planting.dwg 1/16/2026

D I A M O N D
A D U
SHEET NO:

SHEET NAME:

PROJECT NO:

DATE:

REVISIONS:

DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUANCE:

S E V E N

S P R I N G S

S T U D I O
2548 EMPIRE GRADE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
831.466.9617
10/31/2025
2025-28

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

SUBMITTAL
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

SCENIC ROAD, 5 NW OF 8TH AVE
CARMEL, CA 93923
APN: 010-312-012

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Signature Renewal Date Date
NO.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
EDS
EN ICL

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11-30-27

SIMON PHILLIPS
453
10-31-25
2 01/16/2026 CITY RESUBMITTAL

PLANTING NOTES
L-2.0
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 406 of 704 ends

7 Ar
2 Rf
2 Lp
7 Ar

EXISTING LANDSCAPING -
TO REMAIN - INCLUDING: · CUPRESSUS MACROCARPA · MELALEUCA SPP. · FEIJOA SELLOWIANA · ECHIUM FASTUOSUM · PHORMIUM SPP. · AEONIUM CANARIENSE · CEANOTHUS 'YANKEE POINT' · LIMONIUM PREZII · THULBAGHIA VIOLACEA · LUECADENDRON 'SAFARI SUNSET' · LEUCOSPERMUM · LEPTOSPERMUM · WESTRINGIA 'GREY BOX' · POLYGALA FRUTICOSA

EXISTING LANDSCAPING -
TO REMAIN - INCLUDING: · CUPRESSUS MACROCARPA · WESTRINGIA 'GREY BOX' · FEIJOA SELLOWIANA · ECHIUM FASTUOSUM · PHORMIUM SPP. · ALOE · ARMERIA MARITIMA · FERNS · AEONIUM CANARIENSE · CEANOTHUS 'YANKEE POINT' · LIMONIUM PEREZII · LANTANA · LEUCOSPERMUM · ACHILLEA · PITTOSPORUM · OLEA 'MONTRA' · POLYGALA FRUTICOSA

EXISTING LANDSCAPING -
TO REMAIN - INCLUDING: · ROSEMARINUS

PROSTRATUS

EXISTING LANDSCAPING -
TO REMAIN - INCLUDING: · CUPRESSUS MACROCARPA · WESTRINGIA 'GREY BOX' · FEIJOA SELLOWIANA · ECHIUM FASTUOSUM · TULBAGHIA VIOLACEA · STRELITZIA REGINAE · PHORMIUM SPP. · ARMERIA MARITIMA · FERNS · ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM · AEONIUM CANARIENSE · CEANOTHUS 'YANKEE POINT' · LIMONIUM PEREZII · PHILODENDRON XANADU · DIETES BICOLOR · DIGITALIS PURPUREA 56 Ls
4 Ap
2 Rf
6 Am
4 Cg
3 Ad
1 Cg
4 Ae
4 Ae
2 Ap

EXISTING
SPA
6 Jp
2 Ad
2 Lp

EXISTING LANDSCAPING -
TO REMAIN - INCLUDING: · OLEA 'MONTRA'
104 Ls

EXISTING LANDSCAPING -
TO REMAIN - INCLUDING: · JUNIPERUS · PITTOSPORUM 11
6 Jp
6 Ap

PLANT LEGEND
*WUCCODEBOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE CHARACTER
SHRUBS
L Am ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM COMMON YARROW 4" POT
L Ad ARCTOSTAPHYLOS D. 'SENTINEL' SENTINEL VINE HILL

MANZANITA
15 GAL. L Ae ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'EMERALD

CARPET'

EMERALD CARPET

MANZANITA
1 GAL. L Ap ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'PACIFIC MIST' PACIFIC MIST MANZANITA 1 GAL.

L Ar ARTEMISIA PYCNOCEPHALA DUNE SAGEWORT 1 GAL. L Cg CEANOTHUS GRISEUS CARMEL CEANOTHUS 1 GAL. L Jp JUNCUS PATENS GREY RUSH 1 GAL. L Ls LOMANDRA C. 'POM POM' SHORTY MAT RUSH 1 GAL. L Lp LOMANDRA 'PLATINUM BEAUTY' PLATINUM BEAUTY

LOMANDRA
1 GAL.

L Rf ROSEMARINUS P. 'HUNTINGTON

CARPET'

HUNTINGTON CARPET

ROSEMARY
1 GAL.

MISCELLANEOUS
MULCH
METAL EDGING: WELD ALL JOINTS AND PRIME AND PAINT ONCE WELDED.

I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND

APPLIED THEM ACCORDINGLY FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN.

SIMON PHILLIPS 4532 10-31-2025

MWELO COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
* WATER USE CATEGORY (WUC) KEY
PLANT, TYP.

EDGE OF
PLANTING x x x y

1. FOR SPACING 'X', SEE PLANTING PLAN LEGEND

2. Y= 1/2X + 12" UON
WUCOLS REGION APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT: REGION 1
H = HIGH; M = MODERATE; L = LOW; VL = VERY LOW; NL = SPECIES NOT LISTED
* FROM: WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES,

A GUIDE TO THE WATER NEEDS OF LANDSCAPE PLANTS (WUCOLS) UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, L.R. COSTELLO, K.S. JONES y x x

PLANT SPACING AND PLANTING SETBACK DIAGRAM

TRIANGULAR SPACING SQUARE SPACING
PLANT,
TYP.

EDGE OF

PLANTING
HDR
SIGNED NAME CLA# DATE

REFERENCE NOTES

WATERPROOFING OF ROOF TOP PLANTER BY ARCHITECT - INSTALL

WITH SUITABLE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND LIGHT WEIGHT SOIL MIX

ENGINEERED FOR MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SATURATED SOIL WEIGHT
PER STRUCTURAL DESIGN - MINIMUM SOIL DEPTH TO BE 12". 1

D I A M O N D
A D U
SHEET NO:

SHEET NAME:

PROJECT NO:

DATE:

REVISIONS:

DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUANCE:

S E V E N

S P R I N G S

S T U D I O
2548 EMPIRE GRADE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
831.466.9617
10/31/2025
2025-28

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

SUBMITTAL
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

SCENIC ROAD, 5 NW OF 8TH AVE
CARMEL, CA 93923
APN: 010-312-012

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Signature Renewal Date Date
NO. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT EDS EN ICL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11-30-25 SIMON PHILLIPS 453
10-31-25 2
01/15/2026 CITY RESUBMITTAL
G:\.shortcut-targets-by-id\1BZdmYCobewnzvL7zKj8A_6OSRJQCXQrb\2025\2025-28 Diamond Residence Scenic IDG\CAD\25-28_L-2.0 Planting.dwg 1/16/2026 SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" N 0 84 16
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 407 of 704 ends

DRIP IRRIGATION POINT SOURCE TYP. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM EMITTER SCHEDULE SEE PLANTING PLAN FOR PLANT SIZES AND LOCATIONS. PE SUPPLY PIPE

AND PE DISTRIBUTION TUBE ALIGNMENTS PER REQUIREMENTS OF PLANTING. INSTALL EMITTERS PER EMITTER SCHEDULE, AND ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PORTS TO EACH PLANT FOR FUTURE NEEDS. LOCATE EMITTERS TOWARDS THE UPHILL SIDE OF PLANTS ON SLOPES. SEE IRRIGATION DETAILS.
1 GAL. 1
5 GAL. 2
15 GAL. 3
24" BOX 4
LEGEND

SYMBOL MANUFACTURER DESCRIPTION
MAIN LINE: 18" MINIMUM COVER. SCH/CLASS FOR PIPE / FITTINGS PER TABLE, BELOW. 1" SCH 40 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

POTABLE SERVICE TO HOUSE: 2" DIA. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.

LATERAL LINE / DRIP IRRIGATION SUPPLY LINE: 18" MIN. COVER, 24" UNDER AC PAVING SCH 40. SEE CHART FOR SIZE.

STUB OUT: WITH LINE SIZED BALL VALVE AND CAP AT END OF
MAINLINE.

NDS FULL PORT, TRUE UNION, PVC BALL VALVE: LINE SIZE
FEBCO

EXISTING BACKFLOW PREVENTER AT IRRIGATION POINT OF
CONNECTION.

HUNTER CONTROLLER WITH MV TERMINAL, WALL MOUNT, 24 STATIONS.

MODEL # PRO-C

METER EXISTING WATER METER
HOSE BIBB MOUNT HOSE BIBB ON 4X4 REDWOOD POST - 24" ABOVE GRADE.

POC POINT OF CONNECTION BC

LEGEND - DRIP IRRIGATION

SYM MANUFACTURER DESCRIPTION
POINT-SOURCE: 3/4" I.D. PE SUPPLY PIPE & 1/4" I.D. PE DISTRIBUTION TUBES. SEE SPECS. SEE IRRIGATION DETAILS. EMITTERS: 2.0 GPH PRESSURE COMPENSATING W/ BUG/DUST CAP. RAINBIRD
XERI-BUG / TORO NGE / NETAFIM WPC. SEE EMITTER SCHEDULE.

MANUAL FLUSH VALVE AT END OF EACH BRANCH OF SUPPLY PIPE.

RAINBIRD DRIP OPERATION INDICATOR AT FURTHEST END OF
EACH ZONE. SEE SCHEMATIC IRRIGATION DIAGRAM.

NETAFIM / RAINBIRD /

TORO PRE-ASSEMBLED
KIT

NETAFIM HIGH FLOW CONTROL ZONE KIT W/ DISC FILTER
(4.5-17.6 GPM). LOW FLOW KIT W/ DISC FILTER (0.25-4.4 GPM) RAINBIRD XCZLF-100- / XCZ-075 CONTROL ZONE KIT. PRBR
FILTER. -100 > 5.0 GPM, -075 < 5.0 GPM AS REQUIRED PER ZONE TORO DZK-TPV-1-LF / MF DRIP ZONE VALVE KIT.

MF > 4.5 GPM LF < 4.5 GPM AS REQUIRED PER ZONE
SUPPLY PIPE: MAX 200-FT / MAX FLOW
IN ONE PIPE = 8GPM.

UP TO (4) EMITTERS PER PLANT. SEE
EMITTER SCHEDULE.

DISTRIBUTION TUBE: MAX 5-FT.

IN-LINE CHECK VALVE: (FOR SLOPED

AREAS IF PRESENT)

BRANCH LAYOUT AS REQUIRED AND
FOR MAX FLOW 8 GPM PER PIPE.

X"
TOTAL IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREA=0.02 AC. ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENT=0.04 ACRE-FEET

PVC PIPE AND SLEEVE UNDER PAVING
AREAS
01 (ZONE 00)
PE PIPE TYPICAL LAYOUT (See Details & Specs)

FLUSH PORT AT END OF EACH BRANCH
OF SUPPLY PIPE, TYP.

DRIP OPERATION INDICATOR AT
FURTHEST END OF ZONE.

PVC PIPE OUT OF RCV: SEE PIPE SIZING
CHART
HBW
W
WW
ZONE

DESIGNATION M

I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND

APPLIED THEM ACCORDINGLY FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN.

MWELO COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
Signed
Simon Phillips 4532 10-31-2025
Name CLA# Date
PIPE SIZING CHART - SCHEDULE 40

POINT-SOURCE DRIP SUPPLY LINES
Zone / Partial Zone
Flow
Pipe Size
0-8 GPM PVC 3/4"

8.1-13 GPM PVC 1"

13.1-22 GPM PVC 1-1/4"

22.1-30 GPM PVC 1-1/2"
3/4" IS MINIMUM PIPE SIZE.

HYDROZONE LEGEND

WATER USE VALVE NUMBER AREA
LOW WATER USE 1, 2, 3, 4 990 SF
POC

1. WARRANTY:

CONTRACTOR TO WARRANT THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR ONE YEAR FOLLOWING INSTALLATION FROM DATE OF ACCEPTANCE.

SYSTEM SHALL BE WARRANTIED FOR DEFECTIVE MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION ISSUES.

2. VERIFICATION:

FOR NEW SYSTEMS, DESIGN IS BASED ON 40 P.S.I. AND 20.P.M. REQUIRED AT DISCHARGE OUTLET OF POINT OF CONNECTION. VERIFY SAME AND NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IF SUCH DATA ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM. SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING AND PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY IRRIGATION WORK.

3. UTILITIES:

VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL ON-SITE UTILITIES. PRESERVE AND PROTECT ALL SUCH UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. RESTORE DAMAGED UTILITIES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, AND AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.

4. SCHEMATIC:

SYSTEM FEATURES ARE SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY. INSTALL ALL PIPING AND VALVES IN COMMON TRENCHES WHERE FEASIBLE AND INSIDE PLANTING AREAS ADJACENT TO WALKWAYS AND INSIDE MEDIANS WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

5. CODES:

IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL CODES AND MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.

NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE BY TELEPHONE AND IN WRITING OF ANY CONFLICTS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.

6. MASTER VALVE / FLOW SENSOR:
a. CONNECT MASTER VALVE, AND FLOW SENSOR IF INCLUDED, TO CONTROLLER WITH COMMUNICATION CABLE. SEE IRRIGATION DETAILS. INSTALL IN DEDICATED 1" DIAMETER PVC CONDUIT. b. NORMALLY CLOSED MASTER VALVES: IF IRRIGATION CONTROLLER DOES NOT HAVE A MASTER VALVE OVER-RIDE FUNCTION / PROGRAM, THEN DEDICATE ONE STATION TO QUICK COUPLER USE.

7. CHECK VALVES:

INSTALL IN-LINE CHECK VALVES IN DRIP IRRIGATION SUPPLY LINES, AS REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE LINE DRAINAGE. ALLOW IN BID PRICE

AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL ADDITIONAL CHECK VALVES TO ACCOMMODATE ANY NECESSARY FIELD CHANGES.

8. BORING
JET BORE OR DIRECTIONAL BORE UNDER EXISTING RIGID PAVING AREAS. DO NOT TRENCH ACROSS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND/OR APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.

9. SLEEVING:

SCH. 40 PVC PIPE FOR ALL WIRING AND IRRIGATION LINES INSTALLED UNDER PAVING AREAS AND THAT PASS THROUGH DRAINAGE TRENCHES WITH DRAIN ROCK. 4-INCH DIA. OR TWICE THE AGGREGATE DIAMETER OF ALL PIPES CONTAINED WITHIN THE SLEEVE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. INSTALL (WITH ENDS CLEARLY MARKED ABOVE GRADE) AT THE NECESSARY DEPTH PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF PAVING AREAS OR FIELD BASES. SLEEVING TO EXTEND 12-INCHES FROM EDGE OF PAVING OR DRAINAGE TRENCH INTO ADJACENT SUBGRADE. NO UNSLEEVED PIPING, ANGLE-BENDS, 90-DEGREE BENDS, OR JOINTS SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER PAVING.

10. DRIP VALVES
GROUP DRIP VALVE RUN TIMES TOGETHER IF REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE MINIMUM FLOW AS REQUIRED BY THE FLOW SENSOR.

INSTALL AIR RELIEF VALVES ON ALL DRIP ZONES - AIR RELIEF VALVES TO BE PLACED AT THE HIGH POINT OF THE ZONE. INSTALL

FLUSH PORTS AT THE ENDS OF ALL DRIP SUPPLY LINES AND CHECK VALVES IN SYSTEMS ON SLOPES TO PREVENT WET AREAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SYSTEM.

INSTALL DRIP LINES PARALLEL TO THE NATURAL SLOPE OF THE PLANTING AREA WHERE POSSIBLE.

11. CONTROLLER:

INSTALL CONTROLLER AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. ALL ABOVE-GRADE CONDUIT SHALL BE RIGID STEEL SECURELY FASTENED TO STRUCTURE AND TO CONTROLLER.

12. PROGRAMMING / SCHEDULING:
a. SET UP ESTABLISHMENT IRRIGATION SCHEDULES FOR OPTIMUM PLANT GROWTH BASED ON ANTICIPATED WEATHER OVER THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD, WATER USE OF PLANTINGS (SEE PLANTING PLAN LEGEND) AND SUN EXPOSURE. ASSUME THE SOIL TYPE TO BE A SANDY LOAM.
b. CONTROLLERS: PRIOR TO THE END OF THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD, PROGRAM THE CONTROLLER PER MANUFACTURER'S DIRECTIONS.
c. DO NOT CYCLE DRIP IRRIGATION APPLICATION MORE THAN ONCE PER DAY, ADJUST LENGTH OF RUN TIME TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED VOLUME OF WATER IN ONE CYCLE.

13. VALVE BOXES:

CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL ALL VALVE BOXES A MINIMUM OF 18" FROM ADJACENT WALKS, WALLS AND PAVING EDGES. BOXES TO BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO THE ADJACENT EDGE WITH THE SHORT END OF THE BOX RUNNING PARALLEL TO THE EDGE.

WHEN MULTIPLE BOXES ARE INSTALLED TOGETHER SEPARATE BOXES BY A MINIMUM OF 12". VALVE BOXES ARE TO BE INSTALLED WITH RODENT SCREENS CONSISTING OF HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED WELDED WIRE MESH AND FILTER FABRIC.

14. OVERHEAD IRRIGATION HEADS:

OVERHEAD IRRIGATION HEADS SHALL BE SETBACK A MINIMUM OF 24" FROM ANY IMPERVIOUS HARDSCAPE UNLESS THE HARDSCAPE IS GRADED TO DRAIN BACK TOWARD THE PLANTING AREA. IF MULTI-STREAM, MULTI-TRAJECTORY ROTATING (MSMTR) HEADS ARE SPECIFIED WHICH MINIMIZE OVERSPRAY AND RUNOFF THIS SETBACK IS REDUCED TO 6". HUNTER MP ROTATORS ARE CONSIDERED MSMTR HEADS. TURF STRIPS OR OTHER AREAS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 10' IN ANY DIRECTION IF IRRIGATED WITH OVERHEAD SPRAY.

15. SYSTEM FLUSHING:

PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF VALVES CONTRACTOR SHALL FLUSH MAIN LINE. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL FLUSH PORTS AT THE END OF ALL DRIP LINES FOR FUTURE MAINTENANCE USE. ENTIRE SYSTEM TO BE FLUSHED AT THE COMPLETION OF INSTALLATION.

16. PRESSURE TEST:

CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESSURE TEST THE MAIN LINE PRIOR AT A MINIMUM OF 100 PSI FOR 2 HOURS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING TRENCHES. SECURE PIPE AS NEEDED PRIOR TO PRESSURE TESTING.

17. AS BUILTS:

AT COMPLETION OF PROJECT CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TO OWNER AN AS BUILT DRAWING SHOWING DIMENSIONS OFF SITE FEATURES OR BUILDING WALLS TO MAIN LINE TRENCHES. AS BUILT PLAN TO SHOW VALVE LOCATIONS AND NUMBERS AS SEQUENCED WITH THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER.

18. HEAD ALLOWANCE:

ALLOW IN BID PRICE AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL AN ADDITIONAL 5 SPRINKLER HEADS OF EACH TYPE SPECIFIED ON PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE FIELD CHANGES. THESE HEADS SHALL BE LOCATED AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. DELIVER TO THE OWNER ANY UNUSED ADDITIONAL HEADS AT THE END OF THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD.

19. FIELD VERIFICATION:

FIELD VERIFY DIMENSIONS OF ALL PLANTING AREAS TO RECEIVE SPRINKLER IRRIGATION. DETERMINE NOZZLE PATTERN (1/2 HEAD, 1/4 HEAD, ADJUSTABLE ARC, ETC.) BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS. ADJUST ALL NOZZLES IN FIELD FOR OPTIMAL COVERAGE AND TO PREVENT OVERSPRAY ONTO WALKS, PAVED AREAS, BUILDINGS, ETC.

20. VALVE TUNING
FOR SPRINKLER CIRCUITS ADJUST FLOW CONTROL ON VALVES, IF REQUIRED, TO OPTIMIZE COVERAGE AND MINIMIZE MISTING.

21. POP-UP HEIGHT:

USE 6" POP-UP SPRAYS IN TURF AREAS AND 12" POP-UP SPRAYS IN THE REMAINING PLANTING AREAS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

SEE LEGEND FOR POP-UP ROTOR HEIGHT.

22. POP-UP LOCATION:

DISTANCE OF POP-UP SPRINKLER FROM PAVING OR HEADERBOARD IS EQUAL TO:
a. MINIMUM 24" IF ADJACENT NON-PERMEABLE SURFACE DRAINS AWAY FROM PLANTING. b. 2" / POP-UP HEIGHT IF ADJACENT NON-PERMEABLE SURFACE DRAINS ENTIRELY TO PLANTING. c. 2" / POP-UP HEIGHT IF ADJACENT SURFACE IS PERMEABLE AND NO RUNOFF OCCURS.

23. PRESSURE REGULATION

ALL SPRAYS AND STREAM ROTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH PRESSURE REGULATING SCREENS OR HAVE PRESSURE REGULATED BODIES.

GENERAL NOTES
G:\.shortcut-targets-by-id\1BZdmYCobewnzvL7zKj8A_6OSRJQCXQrb\2025\2025-28 Diamond Residence Scenic IDG\CAD\25-28_L-3.0 Irrigation.dwg 1/16/2026

D I A M O N D
A D U
SHEET NO:

SHEET NAME:

PROJECT NO:

DATE:

REVISIONS:

DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUANCE:

S E V E N

S P R I N G S

S T U D I O
2548 EMPIRE GRADE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
831.466.9617
10/31/2025
2025-28

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

SUBMITTAL
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

SCENIC ROAD, 5 NW OF 8TH AVE
CARMEL, CA 93923
APN: 010-312-012

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Signature Renewal Date Date
NO. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT EDS EN ICL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11-30-27 SIMON PHILLIPS 453
10-31-25 2
01/16/2026 CITY RESUBMITTAL

IRRIGATION
NOTES
L-3.0
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 408 of 704 ends

(ZONE 03)
(ZONE 03)
(ZONE 01)
(ZONE 04)
(ZONE 02)
(ZONE 03)

WWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWW
W

EXISTING

IRRIGATION

MAINLINE
HB
01 03 02
04 POC C
(ZONE 01)
(ZONE 02)
LEGEND

SYMBOL MANUFACTURER DESCRIPTION
MAIN LINE: 18" MINIMUM COVER. SCH/CLASS FOR PIPE / FITTINGS PER TABLE, BELOW. 1" SCH 40 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

POTABLE SERVICE TO HOUSE: 2" DIA. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.

LATERAL LINE / DRIP IRRIGATION SUPPLY LINE: 18" MIN. COVER, 24" UNDER AC PAVING SCH 40. SEE CHART FOR SIZE.

STUB OUT: WITH LINE SIZED BALL VALVE AND CAP AT END OF
MAINLINE.

NDS FULL PORT, TRUE UNION, PVC BALL VALVE: LINE SIZE
FEBCO

EXISTING BACKFLOW PREVENTER AT IRRIGATION POINT OF
CONNECTION.

HUNTER CONTROLLER WITH MV TERMINAL, WALL MOUNT, 24 STATIONS.

MODEL # PRO-C

METER EXISTING WATER METER
HOSE BIBB MOUNT HOSE BIBB ON 4X4 REDWOOD POST - 24" ABOVE GRADE.

POC POINT OF CONNECTION BC

LEGEND - DRIP IRRIGATION

MANUAL FLUSH VALVE AT END OF EACH BRANCH OF SUPPLY PIPE.

RAINBIRD DRIP OPERATION INDICATOR AT FURTHEST END OF
EACH ZONE. SEE SCHEMATIC IRRIGATION DIAGRAM.

NETAFIM / RAINBIRD /

TORO PRE-ASSEMBLED
KIT

MF > 4.5 GPM LF < 4.5 GPM AS REQUIRED PER ZONE
X"
TOTAL IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREA=0.02 AC. ANNUAL WATER REQUIREMENT=0.04 ACRE-FEET 01 (ZONE 00)
HBW
W
WW
ZONE

DESIGNATION M

POC D I A M O N D
A D U
SHEET NO:

SHEET NAME:

PROJECT NO:

DATE:

REVISIONS:

DATE DESCRIPTION
ISSUANCE:

S E V E N

S P R I N G S

S T U D I O
2548 EMPIRE GRADE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
831.466.9617
10/31/2025
2025-28

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

SUBMITTAL
PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

SCENIC ROAD, 5 NW OF 8TH AVE
CARMEL, CA 93923
APN: 010-312-012

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Signature Renewal Date Date
NO. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT EDS EN ICL STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11-30-27 SIMON PHILLIPS 453
10-31-25 2
01/16/2026 CITY RESUBMITTAL
G:\.shortcut-targets-by-id\1BZdmYCobewnzvL7zKj8A_6OSRJQCXQrb\2025\2025-28 Diamond Residence Scenic IDG\CAD\25-28_L-3.0 Irrigation.dwg 1/16/2026

IRRIGATION PLAN
L-3.1
SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0" N 0 84 16
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 409 of 704 ends

REPORT
to
STEPHEN P. DIAMOND
C/O MS. JULIE PAULSON

INTERNATIONAL DESIGN GROUP
721 LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE
PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950
GEOTECHNICAL and

GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS REPORT
for the proposed

DIAMOND RESIDENCE
ADU and IMPROVEMENTS
SCENIC ROAD 5 NW of 8TH AVENUE
CARMEL BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 93921
A. P. N. 010-312-012-000
by
GRICE ENGINEERING, INC.
561-A BRUNKEN AVENUE
SALINAS, CALIFORNIA 93901
NOVEMBER 2025
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 410 of 704 ends

DS 25206 (Diamond)
Attachment 3 - Geotechnical and
Geological Hazards Report
Planning Commission Meeting
April 8, 2026
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 411 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page i
Stephen P. Diamond
C/O Ms. Julie Paulson
International Design Group
721 Lighthouse Avenue
Pacific Grove, California 93950
Project: Diamond Residence
ADU and Improvements
Scenic Road 5 NW of 8th Avenue
Carmel by the Sea, California 93921
A. P. N. 010-312-012-000
Subject: Geotechnical and Geological Hazards Report
Dear Mr. Diamond,
Pursuant to your request, we have completed our geotechnical and geological hazards investigation and evaluation of the above-named site. It is our opinion that this site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations made herein are followed.

In general, the surface soils to a moderate depth are loose fill.. These and other site characteristics need to be taken into account during design and construction of an accessory dwelling unit and associated improvements. Recommendations are given relative to this and other characteristics within the report and noted under Special Recommendations.

Review of the geologic hazards on and nearby the site indicates no unusual or significant geologic features are located on or nearby which will likely affect the site, buildings or proposed construction. The greatest hazard to construction and occupants of such is seismic shaking during earthquakes which is addressed in conformance with the California Building Codes.

The report contained herein is made with our best effort to evaluate the site, determine the site geotechnical conditions and provide recommendations for those conditions.

We submit this report with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure incorporation of these recommendations into the final plans, and their subsequent implementation in the field.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 412 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page ii
In addition, we recommend that GRICE ENGINEERING, INC., be retained to review the project plans and provide the construction supervision and testing required to document compliance with these recommendations. Should any site condition not mentioned in this report be observed, this office should be notified so that additional recommendations can be made, if necessary.

This report and the recommendations herein are made expressly for the above referenced project and may not be utilized for any other site without written permission of GRICE ENGINEERING, INC.

Please feel free to call this office should you have any questions regarding this report.

Very truly yours,
GRICE ENGINEERING, INC.
11012025 DIGITAL
Lawrence E. Grice, P.E.

R. C. E. 66857
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 413 of 704 ends

NOTICE TO OWNER
Any earthwork and grading performed without direct engineering supervision and material testing by Grice Engineering, Inc., will not be certified as complete and in accordance with the requirements set forth herein.

Foundations placed without observation of bearing conditions, in accordance with the requirements set forth herein, will not be certified.

Inspection of Work
It is recommended that all site work be inspected and tested during performance by this firm to establish compliance with these recommendations.

NOTIFY: GRICE ENGINEERING, INC. SALINAS (831) 422-9619
561-A Brunken Avenue MONTEREY (831) 375-1198
Salinas, California 93901
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
A minimum of 48 hours (2 working days) notification is required prior to commencement of work so that scheduling for testing and inspections can be made.

Please be advised costs incurred during inspection and
testing of all site work are separate and not considered part of the fees as charged by Grice Engineering, Inc., for the report contained herein.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 414 of 704 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction, Method and Scope of Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Site Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Field Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Site Soil Profile.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 GEOLOGIC AND GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS INVESTIGATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Regional Geology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Site Geology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Seismic History.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Active Fault Near-Source Zones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Local Faults. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Major Earthquakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Seismic Hazards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Ground Rupture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Ground Failures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Liquefaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Lurch Cracking and Lateral Spreading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Landslides. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Differential Compaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Differential-Total Settlement-Static and Dynamic.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Ground Shaking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Tsunamis and Seiches.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Inundation Due to Dam Failures.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Inundation Due to Storm Flooding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Hydro-Collapse and Subsidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Slope Stability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Seismic Strength Loss. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Chemical Reactivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Expansive Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Surface Rupture and Lateral Spreading.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Seismicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2022 California Building Code Geoseismic Classifications. . . . . . . . . . . . 11 CONCLUSIONS OF INVESTIGATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Special Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Foundations and Footings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Slabs-on-Grade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Specifications for Rock Under Floor Slabs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Slope Ratio and Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Surface Drainage and Erosion Control.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ATTACHMENT 2

Page 415 of 704 ends

Subsurface Drains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 General Grading Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 APPENDIX A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Vicinity and Location Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Site Map with Boring Locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 APPENDIX B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Boring Logs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Unified Soil Classification Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 ATTACHMENT 2

Page 416 of 704 ends

GEOTECHNICAL and

GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS REPORT
for the proposed

DIAMOND RESIDENCE
ADU and IMPROVEMENTS
SCENIC ROAD 5 NW of 8TH AVENUE
CARMEL BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 93921
A. P. N. 010-312-012-000

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Introduction, Method and Scope of Investigation
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the geotechnical and geological hazard properties of the site relative to the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, ADU and associated improvements. From these findings recommendations are given for the design of the development and subsequent construction.

For this purpose, the site was investigated, and prior information concerning construction and subsurface exploration in this area was examined for soils and materials data. The investigation consisted of a detailed site evaluation, which included a site inspection, review of literature available to GRICE ENGINEERING, INC., including Site Plans from International Design Group, geotechnical drilling and soil sampling, material evaluation, and analysis of the geotechnical and geological hazard properties of the site soils. This report concludes the results of the investigation and provides recommendations based on that work.

The findings and recommendations contained in this report are applicable only to the above-named site and its proposed development, and may not be utilized for any other site or purpose without written permission of GRICE ENGINEERING, INC.

Site Description
The project site is located to the west of Scenic Road 300 feet north of the intersection with 8th Avenue in the City of Carmel by the Sea, an incorporated area located in westernmost Monterey County, California. Please refer to the Vicinity and Location Maps and the Site Map in Appendix “A” for details.

The topography of the 0.37 acre site is located on a shallow bench to the east of Carmel Beach. Currently a residence is located centrally on the eastern portion of the site and is provided with a patio along the western side. The majority of the site, is covered with grass, brush and scattered trees.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 417 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 2
The proposed development includes a accessory dwelling unit located adjacent to and west of the residences patio. The single story addition will provide living space and have a flat roof providing a deck accessible from the existing patio.

The proposed finish floor is positioned approximately 12 feet below the patio grade (lower finish floor). Review of the proposed section indicates the proposed structure will be embedded below existing grade approximately 3 feet along the existing patio and approximately 1 foot along the western extent.

The accessory dwelling unit is to have a footprint of approximately 800 square feet.

The structure is presumed to be of conventional wood framing where above grade with concrete walls around the eastern end where embedded below grade. Support is currently proposed to be provided by shallow spread footings and the interior is to have a concrete slab on grade floor. Subsurface conditions as discussed further in the report may enlist other methods of support.

Field Investigation
Our field investigation consisted of a site inspection, along with drilling and sampling 5 exploratory bores to establish the subsurface soil profile, and obtain sufficient soil specimens to determine the soil characteristics. Drilling was accomplished by hand auger, with the spoil constantly examined, classified, and logged by field method in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification Chart1
, which, is the basis of ASTM D2487-10. In the hand augured bores, penetration resistance values were obtained through use of a dynamic cone penetrometer (ASTM Special Technical Publication #399). The blow count, as measured in this method is Standard Penetration Resistance.

For the location of each boring, please refer to the Site Map in Appendix “A.” * In-situ refers to the in place state of soil. In-situ native soils are those which are in-place as deposited by nature and have not been disturbed by man’s actions in the historic past.

1 Adopted 1952 by Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation. ASTM D-2487 was developed as based on the Uniform Soils Classification Chart and System. The methods are equivalent.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 418 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 3
Site Soil Profile
As found in the exploratory drilling, the site soils are generally consistent between each of the bores.

The five bores encountered fill materials to depths ranging from 2.5 feet in the fifth bore to 9.5 feet in the fourth bore. The first bore encountered loose fill and debris to a depth of 4.9 feet at which depth refusal was meet on concrete debris. The fourth bore also encountered debris including decaying wood, possibly a rotten tree stump. Voids were encountered within this deposit.

The second bore encountered fill to a depth of 3 feet at which depth a layer of geotextile was encountered overlaying a granite gravel of angular form indicating the material to be an imported aggregate. This is presumed to be a storm water dispersal bed.

The native topsoil encountered below the noted fill were comprised of fine sands improved with humic materials giving the sands a brown to dark brown color. These sands contained trace to few amounts of silt and were observed moist and loosemedium dense.

The sands continue with depth and pale in color to an off white with some grey hues.

These materials have lower silt content, were moist and become medium dense to dense.

Complete soil characteristics and comments are reported on the boring logs at the depths observed. The logs are located in Appendix “B.”
Groundwater
No groundwater was encountered at this site to the maximum depth of exploration, approximately 13 feet below grade.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 419 of 704 ends

GEOLOGIC AND GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS INVESTIGATION
Introduction
The purpose of this report section is to evaluate the site and the surrounding areas to determine the geologic characteristics and potential geologic hazards pertaining to the site development and improvements.

In general this includes an inspection and classification of the local rock outcrops, a detailed site inspection for fault induced features or other potential hazards and a field evaluation of the local geology. A search of published and unpublished data was performed to collate geologic information as it pertains to this property. The literature reviewed was extensive and consisted of comparing field observations with published data, analysis of site soil conditions, correlation of site observations with local hazard maps (ground failure, seismicity, dam failure and inundation, etc.) and an analysis of site seismicity.

The Vicinity and Location Map shows the location of interest, with the indication of the site.

Regional Geology
Geologically, the State of California can be separated into natural geomorphic provinces which reflect fundamental differences in both geography and geology.

Monterey County is located in the Coast Range Province. This province consists of thick folded Cenozoic sedimentary rocks and a very distinctive triad of core rocks. The sediments are predominately sandstone, shale or mudstone and vary greatly depending on location. The core rocks of this province consist of three distinct late Mesozoic terrains: The Salinian Block, The Franciscan Series, and The Great Valley Sequence.

The Salinian Block is a complex of granite and high grades metamorphic rocks including gneiss, schist, quartzite, marble and granulite. In this region the granite has been dated as early Cretaceous (C.O. Hutton, 1952). The Franciscan Complex is a heterogeneous assemblage of sandstone, siltstone, shale, volcanic greenstone and chert. It has undergone metamorphism, severe dislocation and pervasive shearing and is only exposed along the Coast to the West of the Sur-Nacimiento Fault Zone and East of the San Andreas Fault Zone. The Great Valley Sequence extends along the East flank of the Coast Ranges near the margins of the Sacramento and the San Joaquin Valley and is a well-ordered series of marine sandstone, shale, mudstone and conglomerate.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 420 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 5
Site Geology
The site geology has been mapped by various researches and compiled on the Geologic Map of the Monterey Peninsula, DF-71, Dibblee Jr. (Reference 23). Notations on this map indicate the site lithology to be “Qs beach sediments, ranging from sand to cobble-boulder gravel”.

Our observation with the local geology is consistent with above.

Seismic History
Although no fault traces are thought to directly cross the building site, Monterey County is traversed by a number of faults most of which are relatively minor hazards for the purposes of the site development. As such, this site will experience seismic activity of various magnitudes emanating from one or more of the numerous faults in the region.

Various maps presently exist, allowing observation on the site of distinctive geologic features. Some maps, such as that by Burkland and Associates (Reference No. 10) developed for Monterey County, are compilations from various sources detailing the locations of studied faults. Faults have inherent variances within their zones, and discoveries of new fault segments or entire faults ongoing. There is also some difference in exact fault line location from source map to map, making precise location of said faults difficult. Therefore, relative to the information contained within this report, the following is considered to be as accurate as is currently possible from information made available to Grice Engineering, Inc.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 421 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 6
Active Fault Near-Source Zones
The Fault Maps as developed for the 1997 Uniform Building Code (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, February 1998, Ref 13) list faults and fault zones for the purpose of determining characteristics relative to seismic engineering. These maps indicate the position of active fault zones which are grouped in three categories, A, B and C, in decreasing influence. For this purpose an active fault is one which has tectonic movement in the last 11,000 years and as such is called a Holocene Fault. Other faults, which have been active during the Pleistocene Period (11,000 to 3,000,000 years ago), but without recent movement, are considered "Potentially Active,” while faults with no activity within these time frames are considered "Inactive.” The following are the nearest listed zones.

Of most concern are active faults which have tectonic movement in the last 11,000 years and as such are called Holocene Faults and potentially active faults. The following are those nearest listed (Reference No. 33).

The nearest B-type fault zone is that of the San Andreas Rift System (Creeping Segment), located approximately 29.5 miles to the northeast. It has the greatest potential for seismic activity with estimated intensities of VI-VII Mercalli in this location.

This fault is listed as a A-type fault (Santa Cruz Mountains Section) perpendicular to the site. However, it is listed as an B-type to the south (Creeping Section).

Other B-type fault zones are the Monterey Bay-Tularcitos Fault Zone, the center of which is located approximately 6.0 miles to the northeast, the Rinconada Fault Zone, approximately 10.9 miles to the northeast, the San Gregorio-Palo Colorado (Sur) Fault Zone, approximately 4.7 miles to the southwest, and the Zayante-Vergeles Fault Zone, approximately 25.1 miles to the northeast. These zones are not as liable to rupture as the San Andreas Fault and a seismic event at any of the above fault zones would likely produce earth movements of a lesser intensity at the site.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 422 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 7
Local Faults
In addition to the fault zones as discussed above, the local faults are as listed below and as shown on the following maps, “Preliminary Geologic Map of the Monterey and Seaside 7.5 minute Quadrangles, Monterey County, California, with emphasis on active faults” (Reference No. 16), “Geological Map of the Monterey and Seaside 7.5 minute Quadrangles, Monterey County, California: A Digital Database” (Reference No. 17), “Geologic Map of the Monterey Peninsula and Vicinity, Monterey, Salinas, Point Sur., and Jamesburg 15-Minute Quadrangles, Monterey County” (Reference No. 23), “Fault Activity Map of California: California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map” (Reference No. 33), and “Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States” (Reference No. 47) including the USGS overlay on Google Earth.

TABLE OF LOCAL FAULTS
FAULT,

PERPENDICULAR

TO SITE

APPROXIMATE

DISTANCE FROM SITE DIRECTION

TIME OF LAST

DISPLACEMENT ON
FAULT (Ref. 32)
Hatton Canyon 1.02 miles Northeast Quaternary
Cypress Point Fault 0.53 miles Southwest Quaternary
Major Earthquakes
Earthquakes with the highest intensities experienced in the area are the result of the 1906 San Francisco (Olema) and the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault.

The epicenter of the 1906, 8.3 (Richter) earthquake was at Olema, approximately 89 miles north of the site. The intensity in the vicinity of this site was estimated to be between VI and VII, Modified Mercalli Scale.

The Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989, was centered in the Santa Cruz Mountains, approximately 33 miles north of the site. This Magnitude 7.1 (Richter) earthquake also developed an intensity of VI within the vicinity of this site.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 423 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 8
Seismic Hazards
A: Ground Rupture: Surface rupture occurs during an earthquake when fault displacement breaks the ground surface along the historic trace of a fault. Our site investigation confirms there are no visible signs of a fault induced features or indications to suggest that a fault directly crosses the site. Therefore, risks from ground ruptures at the site are low.

B: Ground Failures: Ground failures are related to the intensity and duration of the shaking caused by an earthquake, as well as local conditions. A search of historic ground failure documentation indicates that no historic ground failures have occurred at or in the vicinity of the project site nor was visible evidence of such occurrences observed. Therefore, the risks from ground failures at the site are low.

The California Division of Mines and Geology considers four types of ground failures:
(1.) Liquefaction, (2.) Lurch Cracking and Lateral Spreading, (3.) Landslides, (4.) Differential Compaction.

1. Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the loss of strength in saturated granular soils produced by seismic shaking and is often accompanied by the surface occurrence of free water produced by sand boils. For this to occur, the soils must be saturated, at a relatively shallow depth, of a granular (non cohesive) nature, and be relatively loose.

General liquefaction susceptibility based on depth to groundwater is as follows; if less than 10 feet, maximum possible susceptibility for liquefaction to occur is very high, depths from 9-30 feet have a moderate possible susceptibility and groundwater depths greater than 30 feet, liquefaction susceptibility is low.

Historic records of liquefaction indicate this area has not exhibited liquefaction or sand boils, an indication of partial liquefaction. In conjunction with the medium dense to dense soils at a relatively shallow depth it is our opinion the site has a low potential for liquefaction.

2. Lurch Cracking and Lateral Spreading: Soil shaken by an earthquake may settle, become compacted or slide which may produce cracks and fissures, such effects are called lurch cracking. Lateral spreading is the horizontal movement of soil masses caused by seismic waves, usually such movement is toward an open face or steep slope and occurs along weakened strata of saturated soils.

As the soils at the proposed site are medium dense to dense, they therefore have a low susceptibility to the effects and damage from lurch cracking.

3. Landslides: Landslides are generally mass movements of loose rock and soil, either dry or water saturated and is usually gravity driven. Obviously, steep slopes enhance such movements.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 424 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 9
As no steep slopes exist adjacent to the site and the site is underlaid by medium dense to dense sands the site generally has minimal potential from the threat of landslides.

4. Differential Compaction: Differential Compaction is a loss of volume resulting from seismic ground shaking. Generally, for this to happen the site soils must be of low relative density and dilatant. Differential Compaction is more likely in water saturated, low density alluvial material, such as paleo-swamps and/or marshes, or strata of low density and of fine-grained silt and sand.

The recommendations given in this report preclude any potential of differential compaction.

5. Differential-Total Settlement-Static and Dynamic: The recommendations given in this Geotechnical Report is such that concerns of settlement are negligible. The total settlement is expected to be less than 1/4 an inch and the expected differential settlement less than one half that.

C: Ground Shaking: Ground shaking is the soil columns response to seismic energy transmission. Intensity of ground shaking and the potential for structural damage is greatly influenced by local soil conditions. Therefore, it is important that all structures be designed and built in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code current edition, Seismic Zone IV. All buildings should be founded on undisturbed native soil and/or accepted engineered fill to prevent resonance amplification between soil and structure.

D: Tsunamis and Seiches: Tsunamis and Seiches are inundations by oceanic or fresh water waves generated by seismic events. The highest recorded wave height in the Monterey Bay is 9 feet and no bodies of fresh water are near the site. Since the site is approximately 40 feet above sea level there is little potential for inundations due to Tsunamis or Seiches. As such, the property is deemed safe from either hazard.

E: Inundation Due to Dam Failures: The site is not within the inundation plane of any dam.

F: Inundation Due to Storm Flooding: The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Limits Map does not show the parcel within the 100 year event or the building area at an elevation lower than the Coastal Flooding Zone VE designated as being at an elevation of 16 feet.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 425 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 10
Hydro-Collapse and Subsidence
As observed, the near surface soils up to an approximate depth of 9.5 feet are sufficiently soft to possess some capacity to settle under hydraulic loading. Some amounts of voids and debris was observed to these depths. The recommendations given in this report were established to reduce the potential of this occurring.

The area is not within a known Subsidence Zone.

Slope Stability
Inspection of the site indicates that no landslides are located above or below the building area and the area is generally not susceptible to a slope failure due to the shallow to moderate slopes.

Seismic Strength Loss
The site soils are considered resistant to seismic strength loss and the resulting momentary liquefaction. The relatively short duration of earthquake loading will not provide a significant number of high amplitude stress cycles to alter the strain characteristics. Additionally the clay-silt fraction is not considered quick nor sensitive, as such it will not have the associated loss of strength.

Chemical Reactivity
The area is well developed with structures, generally found on Portland Cement products. Additionally these structures date back to the 1950's or earlier. Much of the concrete used in these structures has remained as cast. The area soils are not known for sulfate reaction with Portland Cement products and as such chemical reactivity is not considered a problem in this area.

Expansive Soils
In general the site soils generally fine sands with low amounts of silts or clays. These soils are typical to the area. Expansivity has not been influential to the local existing structures or pavements as no deformations attributable to expansive soils were observed. Additionally there are no known problems with expansive soils in the area.

Surface Rupture and Lateral Spreading
The project site is located 0.53 miles to the northwest of the Cypress Point Fault. The site inspection did not reveal any surface features indicating a fault rupture has occurred at the site. The existing structures, driveways and roads do not reveal any strains which would be attributable to subsurface lateral or vertical displacements ATTACHMENT 2

Page 426 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 11
resulting from a fault slip. Therefore, surface rupture from fault activity across the site is considered improbable.

The project site is underlain by relatively strong soils. These materials are considered resistant to lateral spreading. As such surface rupture from lateral spreading is considered improbable.

Seismicity
It is recommended that all structures be designed and built in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code current edition. All buildings should be founded on undisturbed native soil and/or certified engineered fill to prevent resonance amplification between soil and structure.
2022 California Building Code Geoseismic Classifications The California Building Code, 2022 Edition (Reference No. 14), provides for seismic design values. These values are to be utilized when evaluating structural elements.

The soils profile determination is based on the penetration resistance data developed from advancement of exploratory bores. Using averaged penetration values per depth of soil type gives an overall site value of 15 to 50 blows/foot penetration resistance as per Equation 20.4-3, ASCE 7-16 and Supplement 1 (02/01/19). The Geoseismic character is as listed in the following table.
2021 IBC - 2022 CBC EARTHQUAKE LOADS: SECTION 1613
LATITUDE 36.553376 SOIL PROFILE: Stiff Soils
LONGITUDE -121.929166 SITE CLASS D
PERIOD S F Sm Sd

0.2 sec Ss = 1.259 Fa = 1.000 Sms = 1.259 Sds = 0.839

1.0 sec NOTE 1 S1 = 0.475 Fv = Note 1 Sm1 = Sd1 =
Seismic Design Category to be assigned by Structural Engineer or Designer Note 1: Refer to Section 11.4.8 ASCE 7-16 for other requirements.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 427 of 704 ends

CONCLUSIONS OF INVESTIGATION
In general the suitable in-situ* native soil and certified engineered fill are acceptable for foundation purposes and display engineering properties adequate for the anticipated soil pressures, providing the recommendations in this report are followed. Review of documents and site evaluation indicates the parcel is not subject to Geologic Hazards other than seismic events.

Special Recommendations
Significant loose fill containing some debris was observed in all of the exploratory bores. The deepest portions were observed in the first and fourth bores near to the edge of the existing retaining wall forming the patio. The second bore encountered what is presumed to be a gravel filled storm water dispersion pit.

After encountering this unqualified material the existing patio structure and terrain was evaluated. No notable deformations were observed. The lack of deformations generally presents an interest into the type of foundation upon which the patios retaining wall and other structures were built as the presence of stacked concrete and wood with significant voids would presumably lead to settlement.

The terrain to the north and south of the property did have undulations as typical to active dune deposits forming a depression landward of the fronting dune. Envisioning the continuance of the depression onto this property suggests the fill may have been placed to raise and level the yard as well as reduce material off haul as indicated by the buried debris.

As such some amount of field observations will need to be completed during the initial stage of construction with further recommendations issued as necessary. Depending on the embedment depth of the foundation supporting the retaining wall of the adjacent patio and features (spa), underpinning of the foundation may be necessary.

Suitable bearing materials currently present as observed in the subsurface explorations are the medium dense sands below the native topsoil.

In general it is recommended that all unsuitable materials be processed as engineered fill in the condition they would support foundations or on-grade engineered structures such as interior floor slabs. Due to the variable depth of un-qualified fill and topsoil the depth of such processing would need to be determined in the field.

The area has been developed and as such underground utilities may be located within the area of proposed construction. In addition, buried objects or deeply disturbed soils may also be encountered. As such, all care and practice is to be exercised to observe for and locate any such objects. Where these objects are to be removed or use discontinued, they are to be removed in their entirety and all disturbed soils are to be processed as engineered fill.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 428 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 13
The base of all excavations and over excavations are to be inspected by the Soils Engineer prior to further processing, steel or form placement.

Any further site activity, especially grading and foundation excavations, should be under the direction of a qualified Soils Engineer or their representative.

Should the spectrum of development change, this office should be notified so that additional recommendations can be made, if necessary.
* Suitable, in-situ, native soils are those soils which are in-place as deposited by nature and have characteristics adequate for support of the intended load or application.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 429 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 14
Foundations and Footings
The subsurface exploration noted conditions that will need further evaluation during the initial stages of construction. Under the presumption that a building pad comprised of engineered fill can be developed, support can be provided by shallow foundations. The minimum embedment for shallow, spread foundation is 12 inches for single stories, 18 inches for two stories into suitable engineered fill. Embedment depths do not take into account the loose upper top soils, disturbed soils or any other unacceptable soils which exist at the site, e.g., any unengineered fill, landscaping soils, etc.

VERTICAL SOIL PRESSURES1
FOOTING TYPE DEAD + LIVE LOAD, kips/ft2
Spread & Isolated NOTE 3 3.0
LATERAL SOIL PRESSURES1
TYPE VALUE, lbs/ft2
Active Earth Pressure 28 lbs/ft3
E.F.P.

Restrained Earth Pressure 45 lbs/ft3 E.F.P.

Seismic 3 lbs/ft3
x H2
applied at 0.6H
Friction at Base 0.38 × Dead Load
Passive Earth Pressure 325 lbs/ft3 E.F.P. NOTE2
Uplift Friction (rock) 210 lbs/ft2
× H
Notes: LL = Live Load; DL = Dead Load; H = Vertical height of material retained.

One-third increase to be allowed for wind and seismic forces. 1 For depths into acceptable native materials or engineered fill. 2 Excludes near surface 0.5 feet of in-situ soils.
3 For depth into suitable materials
Pile or pier foundation information is not provided as none are required or proposed at this time. All foundation excavations are to be cleaned of debris and loose or otherwise unsuitable soils prior to placement of concrete.
* Suitable, in-situ, native soils are those soils which are in-place as deposited by nature and have characteristics acceptable for support of the intended load or application.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 430 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 15
Slabs-on-Grade
All slabs should be constructed over a prepared subgrade placed on a suitable in-situ* native material or certified engineered fill. The site exploration observed that the existing surficial soils are comprised of un-qualified fill soils and wood debris to depths of approximately 9.5 feet. These materials should not be relied upon for support of slabs-on-grade or other surficial structures.

As such, where any unsuitable materials remain after excavation to subgrade, they are to be processed as engineered fill, prior to further fill placement or construction of the on-grade structure. At a minimum the upper 6 inches of subgrade below all surficial structures should be processed as engineered fill in areas of on-grade structures.

The subgrade materials should be observed and accepted by a qualified Soils Engineer or their representative prior to placement of forms, reinforcing or concrete.

On-grade slabs should be placed over a moisture vapor barrier consisting of a waterproof membrane (Moist Stop 10 mil Visqueen or equal) with a 2-inch protective sand cover. The waterproof membrane should be placed over a capillarity break consisting of 4 inches of open graded rock, round and sub-round rock is recommended to prevent punctures of the membrane. Open graded crushed aggregate may be utilized, provided the vapor barrier is protected from punctures by a cushion of filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equal) laid over the aggregate prior to placement of the membrane. Where such concerns are not warranted, alternative underlayment may be utilized at the owners discretion.

All care and practice required to prevent punctures of the membrane during placement and pouring of covering slabs should be utilized during construction. Unless otherwise required for structural purposes, all slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 4, Grade 40, deformed steel reinforcing bars, 24 inches o.c., each way, to prevent separation and displacement in cases of cracking.
* Suitable, in-situ, native soils are those soils which are in-place as deposited by nature and have characteristics acceptable for support of the intended load or application.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 431 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 16
Specifications for Rock Under Floor Slabs
Definition: Graded gravel of crushed rock for use under floor slabs shall consist of a minimum thickness of mineral aggregate placed in accordance with these specifications and in conformance with the dimensions shown on the project plans. The minimum thickness is specified under the section Slabs-on-Grade above.

Material: The mineral aggregate for use under floor slabs shall consist of broken stone, crushed or uncrushed gravel, quarry waste, or a combination thereof. The aggregate shall be free from adobe, vegetable matter, loam, volcanic tuff, and other deleterious substances. It shall be of such quality that the absorption of water in a saturated dry condition does not exceed 3 percent of the oven dry weight of the sample.

Grading: The mineral aggregate shall be of such size, that the percentage composition by dry weight as determined by the use of laboratory sieves, U.S. Standard, in compliance with ASTM C-136-06, “Standard Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates,” will conform to the following grading specification:

SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING SIEVE
3/4 inch 100 %
No. 4 0 - 10 %
No. 200 0 - 2 %
Placing: Subgrade upon which gravel or crushed rock is to be placed shall be prepared as outlined in the Recommended Grading Specifications. In addition, the subgrade shall be kept moist so that no drying cracks appear prior to pouring slabs. If cracks appear, subgrade shall be moistened until cracks close.

Slope Ratio and Drainage
Analysis of site soils indicate that cut and fill slope ratios of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical will be satisfactory provided they are landscaped with soil retaining ground covers and are protected against concentrated over slope drainage.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 432 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 17
Surface Drainage and Erosion Control
All concentrated roof and area drainage should be conveyed and released to the lower portions of the site. The surficial native due sands are considered of moderate to high permeability, as such surficial release of collected runoff should perform suitably. A subsurface dispersal system can be used on this site but should be placed no closer than 10 feet to any structure and is to be provided with an overflow releasing to grade at a safe location.

Design and construction of the project should fit the topographic and hydrologic features of the site. It is important to minimize unnecessary grading of or near steep slopes. Disturbing native vegetation and natural soil structure allows runoff velocity and transport of sediments to increase.

General surface drainage should be retained at low velocity by slope, sod or other energy reducing features sufficient to prevent erosion, with concentrated over-slope drainage carried in lined channels, flumes, pipe or other erosion preventing installations.

Runoff flows should be directed into pipes or lined ditches and then onto an energy dissipater before discharging into streams or drainage ways. De-silting should be provided as necessary and may take form of stilling basins, gravel berms, forested/vegetated screens, etc.

Recent changes to the drainage requirements have the potential to alter drainage patterns. This has been observed to affect structures which have otherwise not been affected or to alter the way they are affected. As such new drainage modifications on this and adjacent parcels may negatively affect drainage patterns.

During construction, never store cut and fill material where it may wash into streams or drainage ways. Keep all culverts and drainage facility free of silt and debris. Keep emergency erosion control materials such as straw mulch, plastic sheeting, and sandbags on-site and install these at the end of each day as necessary.

Re-vegetate and protect exposed soils by October 15. Use appropriate grass/legume seed mixes and/or straw mulch for temporary cover. Plan permanent vegetation to include native and drought tolerant plants. Seeding and re-vegetation may require special soil preparation, fertilizing, irrigation, and mulching.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 433 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 18
Subsurface Drains
Use of spun filter fabric is not recommended for use in construction subsurface drains as this type of fabric typically becomes clogged. Should filter fabric be necessary it is recommended that a woven fabric be used such as Mirafi Filterweave 300. Filter fabric should only be utilized to separate gravel from earth or as cover at grade. Complete encapsulation of the gravel is not recommended.

Otherwise we would recommend omission of the fabric and placement of Caltrans Class 1, Type “A” or “B” drain rock, and that any fabric only be placed near the top of the trench between the gravel and earth backfill or where the gravel extends to grade 1 foot below finished grades.

CLASS 1

SIEVE SIZES PERCENTAGE PASSING

TYPE A TYPE B

50.0-mm/2 inches ---- 100

37.5-mm/1.5 inches ---- 95-100

19.0-mm/0.75 inches 100 50-100

12.5-mm/0.5 inches 95-100 -----

9.5-mm/0.415 inches 70-100 15-55

4.75-mm/No. 4 0-55 0-25

2.36-mm/No. 8 0-10 0-5

75.0-µm/No. 200 0-3 0-3
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 434 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 19
General Grading Recommendations
For those items not directly addressed, it is recommended that all earthwork be performed in accordance with the following.

General: This item shall consist of all clearing and grubbing, preparation of land to be filled, excavation and fill of the land, spreading, compaction, and control of the fill, and the subsidiary work necessary to complete the graded area to conform with the lines, grades and slopes as shown on the approved plans.

The Contractor shall provide all equipment and labor necessary to complete the work as specified herein, as shown on the approved plans as stated in the project specifications.

Preparation: Site preparation will consist of clearing and grubbing any existing structures and deleterious materials from the site, and the earthwork required to shape the site to receive the intended improvements, in accordance with the recommended grading specifications and the recommendations as provided above.

All vegetable matter, irreducible material greater than 4 inches and other deleterious materials shall be removed from the areas in which grading is to be done. Such materials not suitable for reuse shall be disposed of as directed.

After the foundation for fill has been cleared, it shall be brought to the proper moisture content by adding water or aerating and compacting to a Relative Compaction of not less than 90% or as specified. The soils shall be tested to a depth sufficient to determine quality and shall be approved by the Soils Engineer for foundation purposes prior to placing the engineered fill.

General Fill: The general fill shall be placed only on approved surfaces, as engineered fill, and shall be compacted to 90% Relative Compaction. Native soils accepted for the fill or the existing aggregate fill may be used for fill purposes provided all aggregate larger than 6 inches are removed. The material for the engineered fill shall be approved by the Soils Engineer before commencement of grading operations.

Each layer shall be compacted to a Relative Compaction of not less than 90% or as specified in the soils report and on the accepted plans. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area of each layer.

The selected fill material shall be placed in layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed 6 inches in thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading to ensure uniformity of material in each layer.

The fill shall be placed such that cross fall does not exceed 1 foot in 20 unless otherwise directed.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 435 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 20
When fill material includes rock or concrete rubble, no irreducible material larger than 4 inches greatest dimensions will be allowed except under the direction of the Soils Engineer.

Imported Materials: Materials imported for fill purposes shall be classified as: SAND, group symbol SW, SP, SC or SM, as given in ASTM 2487-10, "The Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes.” In all cases the portion finer than the No. 200 sieve shall not contain any greatly expansive clays and shall be free from vegetable matter and other deleterious materials. The material for the engineered fill shall be approved by the Soils Engineer before commencement of grading operations.

Structural Backfill: Trench, wall and structural backfill shall be placed only on approved surfaces, as engineered fill, and shall be compacted to 95% Relative Compaction.

Materials imported for backfill purposes shall have a Sand Equivalent of no-less than 30 and shall be classified as Clean Sands as designated in “The Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes” (ASTM 2487-10).

Pavement Grades: All pavement grades shall be of uniform thickness, density and moisture prior to placement of the next grade. Flexure of each or all grades shall not exceed 0.25 inches in 5 feet under an axial load of 18.5 kips.

Aggregate Base Course: All aggregates used for specified base courses, shall be handled in a manner which prevents segregation and non-uniformity of gradations.

Compaction: All re-compacted soil and/or the engineering fill, should be placed at a minimum 90% Relative Compaction or at the value required for that portion of the work.

All pavement sections should be compacted to a minimum of 95% Relative Compaction.

Field density testing shall be completed by the Soils Engineer on each compacted layer or as determined by the Soils Engineer. At least one test shall be made for each 500 cubic yard or fraction thereof, placed with a minimum of two tests per layer in isolated areas. Where a sheep-foot roller is used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches.

Density tests shall be taken in compacted materials below the disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof, is below the required density, that particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density has been obtained.

Moisture: During compaction moisture content of native soils should be that consistent with the moisture relative to 95% Relative Compaction and in no case should these materials placed at less than 3 percent above the specific optimum moisture content for the soil in question. The engineer may elect to accept high moisture compact soils provided the materials are at 95% Relative Wet Density at that moisture content.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 436 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 21
The moisture content of the fill material shall be maintained in a suitable range to permit efficient compaction. The Soils Engineer may require adding moisture, aerating, or blending of wet and dry soils.

All earth moving and work operations shall be controlled to prevent water from running into and pooling in excavated areas. All such water shall be promptly removed and the site kept drained.

Tests: All materials placed should be tested in accordance with the Compaction Control Tests: “Density of Soil in-place by Sand Cone Method” (ASTM D-1556-07), “Moisture-Density Relationship of Soils” (ASTM D-1557-09), and “Density of Soils inplace by Nuclear Method” (ASTM D-6938-10).

The standard test used to define maximum densities of all compaction work shall be the “Moisture-Density Relationship of Soils” (ASTM D-1557-09), using a 10-pound ram and 18-inch drop. All densities shall be expressed as a relative density in terms of the maximum density obtained in the laboratory by the foregoing standard procedure.

Deleterious Materials: Materials containing an excess of 5% (by weight) of vegetative or other deleterious matter may be utilized in areas of landscaping or other nonstructural fill. Deleterious material includes all vegetative and non-mineral material, and all non-reducible stone, rubble and/or mineral matter of greater than 6 inches.

Over-Excavations: Over-excavations, when required, should include the foundation and pavement envelopes. Such excavations should extend beyond the edge of development a minimum of 5 feet and to an imaginary line extending away and downward at a slope of 45 degrees from the edge of development.

Depending on other site characteristics such lateral over-built distances are not suitable or practical. In these cases a specific inspection can be completed to assess the condition and develop more appropriate recommendations.

The process shall include the complete removal of the required soils and subsequent placement of the engineered fill. After removal of the soils to the required depth, the base of the excavation shall be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or his representative prior to further soils processing or placement. Based on this inspection other recommendations may be made.

Existing Conditions: In developed areas underground utilities may be located within the area of proposed construction. In addition, buried objects or deeply disturbed soils may also be encountered. As such, all care and practice is to be exercised to observe for and locate any such objects. Where these objects are to be removed or use discontinued, they are to be removed in their entirety and all disturbed soils are to be processed as engineered fill.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 437 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 22
Key: All fill on slopes greater than 1 vertical to 6 horizontal shall be keyed into the adjacent soil. The toe of all slopes should be supported by a key cut a minimum of 3 feet into undisturbed soils to the in side of the fill toe. This key should be a minimum of 6 feet in width and slope at no-less than 10% into the slope. In addition, as the fill advances up slope benches 3 feet across it should be scarified into the fill/undisturbed soil interface.

Seasonal Limits: When the work is interrupted by rain, fill operations shall not be resumed until field tests by the Soils Engineer indicate that the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified and the soils to be placed are in suitable condition.

Unusual Conditions: In the event that any unusual conditions are encountered during grading operations which are not covered by the soil investigation or the specifications, the Soils Engineer shall be immediately notified such that additional recommendations may be made.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 438 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 23

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations of this report are based on our understanding of the project as represented by the plans, and the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those represented in this site soil investigation. Therefore, should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during construction, or if the actual project will differ from that planned at this time, GRICE ENGINEERING, INC., should be notified and provided the opportunity to make addendum recommendations if required.

NOTIFY: GRICE ENGINEERING, INC. SALINAS (831) 422-9619
561-A Brunken Avenue MONTEREY (831) 375-1198
Salinas, California 93901
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
This report is issued with admonishment to the owner and to his representative(s), that the information contained herein should be made available to the responsible project personnel including the architects, engineers, and contractors for the project. The recommendations contained herein should be incorporated into the plans, the specifications, and the final work.

It is requested that GRICE ENGINEERING, INC., be retained to review the project grading and foundation plans to ensure compliance with these recommendations.

Further, it is the position of GRICE ENGINEERING, INC., that work performed without our knowledge and supervision, or the direction and supervision of a project responsible professional Soils Engineer renders this report invalid.

It is our opinion the findings of this report are valid as of the present date, however, changes in the Codes and Requirements can occur and change the recommendations given within this report concerning the property. In addition changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, due either to natural processes or to the works of man and may affect this property. In addition, changes in standards may occur as a result of legislation, or the broadening of knowledge, and these changes may require reevaluation of the conditions stated herein. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly, or partially, by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. REVISED 12-06-2021
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 439 of 704 ends

APPENDIX A
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 440 of 704 ends

Vicinity Map
Location Map
Vicinity and Location Map
New ADU and Improvements; Diamond Residence
Scenic Road 5 NW of 8th Avenue
Carmel by the Sea, California

Page 25 ends

SITE
SITE
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 441 of 704 ends

561A Brunken Avenue Salinas, California Salinas: (831) 422-9619 Monterey: (831) 375-1198 FAX: (831) 422-1896

ENGINEERING GEOTECHNICS HYDROLOGY SOILS FOUNDATIONS EARTH STRUCTURES SITE PLAN with BORE LOCATIONS
New ADU and Improvements; Diamond Residence
Scenic Road 5 NW of 8th Avenue, Carmel by the Sea, California

Page 26 ends

ATTACHMENT
2

Page 442 of 704 ends

APPENDIX B
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 443 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 28
Boring Logs
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 444 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 29
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 445 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 30
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 446 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 31
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 447 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 32
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 448 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 33
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 449 of 704 ends

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION & ASTM D2487: INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION FIELD IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES Excluding particles larger than 3 inches and basing fractions on estimated weights GROUP SYMBOLS N. TYPICAL NAMES INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR DESCRIBING SOILS LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA

COARSE GRAINED SOILS
than No. 200 sieve size is larger More than half of material is FINE GRAINED SOILS than No. 200 sieve smaller More than half of material is size (The No. 200 sieve size is about the smallest particle visible to the naked eye) GRAVELS More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve size
(For visual classifications, the 1/4" size may be used as equivalent to the No. 4 sieve size.) SANDS More than half of coarse fraction
is smaller than No. 4 sieve size

SANDS WITH
FINES
(Appreciable
amount of fines)

CLEAN SANDS
(Little or no
fines) GRAVELS WITH FINES
(Appreciable
amount of fines)

CLEAN GRAVELS
(Little or no
fines)
Wide range in grain size and substantial amounts of all intermediate particle sizes.

Predominatly one size or a range of sizes with some
intermediate sizes missing.

Non-plastic fines (for identification procedures see ML below).

Plastic fines (for identification procedures see CL
below).

Wide range in grain sizes and substantial amounts of all intermediate particle sizes.

Predominatly one size or a range of sizes with some
intermediate sizes missing.

Non-plastic fines (for idendification procedures see ML below).

Plastic fines (for identification procedures see CL
below). IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES ON FRACTION SMALLER THAN No. 40 SIEVE SIZE

SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid limit less than
50 SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid limit greater
than 50 DRY STRENGTH (CRUSHING CHARACTERISTICS) DILATANCY (REACTION TO SHAKING) TOUGHNESS (CONSISTENCY NEAR PLASTIC LIMIT) None to slight Quick to slow None Medium None to very slow Medium to high Slight to medium Slow Slight Slight to medium Slow to none Slight to medium High to very high None High Medium to high None to very slow Slight to medium HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Readily identified by color, odor, spongy feel and frequently by fibrous texture. GWGP GMGC SWSPSMSCML CLOL MHCHOHPt Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures. Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures. Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixtures. Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay mixtures. Inorganic silts and very vine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands withg slight plasticity. Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low plasticity. Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. Peat and other highly organic soils. Give typical name, indicate approximate percentages of sand and gravel, max. size; angularity, surface condition, and hardness of the coarse grains; local or geologic name and other pertinent descriptive information, and symbol in parentheses. For undisturbed soils add information on stratification, degree of compactness, cementation, moisture conditions and drainage characteristics. EXAMPLE: Silty Sand, gravelly; about 20% hard, angular gravel particles 12 inch maximum size; rounded and subangular sand
grains coarse to fine, about 15 %
non-plastic fines with low dry strength,
well compacted and moist in place,
alluvial sand; (SM).

Give typical name, indicate degree andcharacter of plasticity, amount and maximum size of coarse grains, color in
wet conditions, odor if any, local or
geologic name, and other pertinentdescriptive information, and symbol in parentheses. For undisturbed soils add information or structure, stratification, consistency in undisturbed and remolded states,moisture and drainage conditions. EXAMPLE: Clayey silt, brown, slightly plastic, small percentage of fine sand, numerous
vertical root holes, firm and dry in place,
loess; (ML).

Use grain size curve in identifying the fractions as given under field identification.

Determine percetages of gravel and sand from grain size curve.

Depending on percentage of fines (fractin smaller than No. 200 sieve size) coarse grained soils are classified as follows: Less than 5% GW,GP, SW, SP More than 12 % GM, GC, SW, SC cases requiring use of Borderline 5% to 12%
dual symbols. LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY CHART FOR LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION OF FINE GRAINED SOILS

PLASTICITY INDEX
C
C
u
c =
=
D Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW 60 D10 Greater than 4 D 30 D10 ( )2 D60 x Between one and 3
( )
C
C
u
c =
=
D 60 D10 D 30 D10
( )2 D60 x ( ) Greater than 6 Between one and 3 Atterberg limits below "A" line or PI less than 4 Atterberg limits above "A" line or PI greater than 7 Above "A" line with PI between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
Atterberg limits below "A" line or PI less than 4 Atterberg limits above "A" line or PI greater than 7 Above "A" line with PI between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols N. Boundary classifications: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of group symbols. For examle GW-GC, well graded gravel-sand mixture with clay binder. N. All sieve sizes on this chart are U.S. Standard. FIELD IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR FINE GRAINED SOILS OR FRACTIONS These procedures are to be performed on the minus No. 40 sieve size particles, approximately 164 inches. For field classification purposes, screening is not intended; simply remove by hands the coarse particles that interfere with the test.

DILATANCY (Reaction to shaking)
After removing portions larger than No. 40 sieve size, prepare a pot of moist soil with a volume of about one-half cubic inch. Add enough water if necessary to make the soil soft but not sticky.Place the pot in the open palm of one hand and shake horizontally, stricking vigorously against the other hand several times. A positive reaction consists of the appearance of wateron the surface of the pot which changes to a livery consistancy and becomes glossy. When the sample is squeezed between the fingers, the water and gloss disappear from the surface,the pot stiffens and finnally it crackes or crumbles. The rapidity of appearance of water during shaking and of its diappearance during squeezing assist in identifying the character of the fines in a soil. Very fine clean sands give the quickes and most distinct reactoin whereas a plastic clay has no reaction. Inorganic silts, such as a typical rock flour, show a moderately quick reaction. ADOPTED BY: CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-JANUARY 1962 IO3-D-347 DRY STRENGTH (Crushing characteristics) After removing particles larger than No. 40 sieve size, mold a pat of soil to the consistency of putty, adding water if necessary. Allow the pat to dry completely by oven, sun, or air drying, and then test its strength by breaking and crumbling between the fingers. This strength is a measure of the character and quality of the colloidal fraction contained in the soil. The dry strength increases with increasing plasticity. High dry strength is characteristic for clays of the CH group. A typical inorganic silt possesses only very slight dry strength. Silty fine sand and silts have about the same slight dry strength, but can be distinguished by the feel when powdering the dried specimen. Fine sand feels gritty whereas a typical silt has the smooth feel of flour. TOUGHNESS (Consistency near plastic limit) After removing particles larger that the No. 40 sieve size, a specimen of soil about one-half inch cube in size is molded to the consistency of putty. If too dry, water must be added and if sticky, the specimen should be spread out in a thin layer and allowed to lose some moisture by evaporation. Then the specimen is rolled out by hand on a smooth surface of between the palms into a thread about one-eight inch in diameter . The thread is then folded and rerolled repeatedly. Durning this manipulation the moisture content is gradually reduced and the specimen stiffens, finally loses its plasticitiy, and crumbles when the plastic limit is reached. After the thread crumbles, the pieces should be lumped together and a slight kneading action continued until the lump crumbles. The tougher the thread near the plastic limit and the stiffer the lump when it finally crumbles, the more potent is the colloidal clay fraction in the soil. Weakness of the thread at the plastic limit and quick loss of coherence of the lump below the plastic limit indicate either inorganic clay of low plasticity, or materials such as kaolin-type clays and organic clays which occure below the A-line. Highly organic clays have a very weak and spongy feel at the plastic limit. COMPARING SOILS AT EQUAL LIQUID LIMIT Toughness and dry stenghth increases with increasing plasticity index.

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
conforms to Unified Soils Classification
and ASTM D2487

Page 34 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 450 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 35

REFERENCES

1. American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-05, including Supplement No. 1, 2006, pp 385.

2. C. R. Allen, 1975, Geological Criteria for Evaluating Seismicity, GSA Bull v 86, pp 1041-1057.

3. E. H. Bailey, W. P. Irwim and D. L. Jones, 1964, Franciscan and Related Rocks and their significance in the Geology of Western California, CDMG Bulletin 183, pp 177.

4. E. H. Bailey, 1966 Edition, Geology of Northern California, CDMG Bulletin 190, pp 507.

5. M. L. Blair, and W. E. Spangle, 1979, Seismic Safety and Land-Use Planning - Selected Examples from California, USGS Professional Paper 941-B.

6. B. A. Bolt, 1975, Geological Hazards, Springer-Verlag, pp 328.

7. W. A. Bryant, 1985, Faults in The Southern Monterey Bay Area, CDMG Fault Evaluation Report FER-167, pp 13.

8. K. C. Bullis, 1980, Environmental Constraints Analysis of Monterey County, Part I:

Seismic and Geologic Hazards, Monterey County Planning Department General Update Program, Second printing June 1982, pp 54 and appendices.

9. K. C. Bullis, 1981, Environmental Constraints Analysis of Monterey County Part I:

Flood, Fire and Miscellaneous Hazards, Emergency Preparedness, Monterey County Planning Department General Update Program, pp 55-104 and appendices.

10. Burkland and Associates, 1975, Seismic Safety Element of the Monterey County General Plan, pp 50 and appendices.

11. Burkland and Associates, 1975, Geotechnical Study for the Seismic Safety Element, Monterey County California File No. K3-0113-M1, pp 125.

12. California Department of Conservation, 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, data date s a m e a s i n f o r m a t i o n o n r e p o r t , i n t e r a c t i v e , U R L :
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam.

13. California Department of Conservation, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault NearSource Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, International Conference of Building Officials, Introduction & Maps.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 451 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 36

14. 2022 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Volumes 1 & 2, California Building Standards Commission, based on the 2021 International Building Code.

15. J. C. Clark and J. D. Reitman, 1973, Oligocene Stratigraphy, Tectonics, and Paleogeography Southwest of the San Andreas Fault, Santa Cruz Mountains and Gabilan Range, California Coast Ranges, USGS Professional Paper 783, pp 18.

16. J. C. Clark, T. W. Dibblee, Jr., H. G. Greene and O. E. Bowen, Jr., 1974, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Monterey and Seaside 7.5 minute Quadrangles, Monterey County, California, with Emphasis on Active Faults, USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-577.

17. Joseph C. Clark, William R. Dupré and Lewis I. Rosenberg, Geological Map of the Monterey and Seaside 7.5 minute Quadrangles, Monterey County, California: A Digital Database, 1997 US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-30, Map and Pamphlet, pp 26.

18. Joseph C. Clark, Earl E. Brabb and Lewis I. Rosenberg, 2000, Geologic Map of the Spreckels 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Monterey County, California, USGS Department of the Interior Map MF-2349 and Pamphlet, pp 22.

19. Joseph C. Clark and Lewis I. Rosenberg, March 1999, Southern San Gregorio Fault Displacement: Stepover Segmentation vs through going Tectonics, USGS Department of the Interior National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Award Number 1434-HQ-98-GR-00007, pp 22 with no appendices.

20. G. B. Cleveland, 1975, Landsliding in Marine Terrace Terrain, California, CDMG Special Report 119, pp 24.

21. R. R. Compton, 1966, Granitic and Metamorphic Rocks of The Salinian Block California Coast Ranges, CDMG Bulletin 190, pp 277-287.

22. T. W. Dibblee, Jr., 1966, Evidence for Cumulative Offset on The San Andreas Fault in Central and Northern California, CDMG Bulletin 190.

23. T. W. Dibblee, Jr., 1999, Geologic Map of the Monterey Peninsula and Vicinity, Monterey, Salinas, Point Sur, and Jamesburg 15-Minute Quadrangles Monterey County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-71.

24. William R. Dickinson, Mihai Duccea, Lewis I. Rosenberg, Gary H. Greene, Stephen A.

Graham, Joseph C. Clark, Gerald E. Weber, Steven Kidder, Gary W. Ernst and Earl E.

Brabb, 2005, Net Dextral Slip Neogene San Gregorio-Hosgri Fault Zone, Coastal California: Geologic Evidence and Tectonic Implications, Geological Society of America Special Paper 391, pp 43.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 452 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 37

25. E. Dittmer and C. Stein, 1977, Salinas Seismic Hazards Technical Report, Department of Community Development, City of Salinas, pp 73.

26. W. R. Dupre and J. C. Tinsley, III, 1980, Geology and Liquefaction potential of Northern Monterey and Southern Santa Cruz, California: USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 1199, Scale 1:62,500, 2 sheets.

27. W. R. Dupre, 1990, Maps Showing Geology and Liquefaction Susceptibility of Quaternary Deposits in the Monterey, Seaside, Spreckels and Carmel Valley Quadrangles, Monterey County, CA, US Geological Survey and University of Houston Map #MF-2096, 2 Sheets.

28. D. L. Durham, 1974, Geology of the Southern Salinas Valley Area California, USGS Professional Paper 819 pp 111.

29. H. G. Greene, W. H. K. Lee, D. S. McCulloch and E. E. Brabb, 1973, Faults and Earthquakes in the Monterey Bay Region California, USGS MF 518 maps and paper, pp 14.

30. H. G. Greene, 1977, Geology of the Monterey Bay Region, USGS Open-File Report, pp 77-718.

31. W. W. Hays, 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions, USGS Professional Paper 1114, pp 77.

32. C. W. Jennings and R. G. Strand, 1958, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition Santa Cruz Sheet, Scale 1:250,000, Third Printing 1971.

33. C. W. Jennings and W. A. Bryant, 2010, Fault Activity Map of California: California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6, Map Scale 1:750,000 includes “An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California”, pp 94.

34. Don L. Lee, Seldon Gudson and Marvin E. Kauffman, 1978, Physical Geology 5th Edition, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, pp. 490.

35. A. G. Lindh, 1983, Preliminary Assessment of Long-term probabilities for large earthquakes along selected Fault Segments of the San Andreas Fault System in California, USGS Open File Report 83-63, pp 15.

36. R. D. Nason and T. H. Rogers, 1967, Self-Guiding Map to Active Faulting in the San Juan Bautista Quadrangle Conference on Geologic Problems of The San Andreas Fault System, Stanford University scale 1:24,000.

37. T. H. Nilsen, T. W. Dibblee, Jr., and M. C. Blake, Jr., 1990, Geology of the Central Diablo Range, CA, Field Trip June 2-3.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 453 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 38

38. G. B. Oakeshott, 1966, San Andreas Fault in The California Coast Range Province in Bailey, E. H., Edition, Geology of Northern California, CDMG Bulletin 190, pp 357- 373.

39. G. Plafker and J. P. Galloway, 1989 Edition (approved for publication), Lessons Learned from the Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989, USGS Circular 1045, pp 48.

40. R. G. Ray, 1960, Aerial Photographs in Geologic Interpretation and Mapping, USGS Professional Paper 373, Seventh Printing 1984, pp 230.

41. Real Estate Data, Inc., 1980, Aerial Map Volume of Monterey County, California, Photo 110, 2398 NW 119th St., Miami, FL 33167, Fifteenth Edition.

42. S. L. Robbins, 1982, Complete Bouguer Gravity, Aeromagnetic, and Generalized Geologic map of the Hollister 15-minute Quadrangle, CA, Geophysical Investigations Map GP 945, 2 sheets, Scale 1:62,500.

43. A. M. Sarna-Wojcicki, E. H. Pampeyan and N. T. Hall, 1975, Maps Showing Recently Active Breaks along the San Andreas Fault between the Central Santa Cruz Mountains and the Northern Gabilan Range, CA, 2 maps, text is on map 2, Scale 1:24,000.

44. Wm Spangle and Associates, Burkland and Associates, and Richard R. Thorup, July 1974, Faults, Seismicity and Tsunami Hazards: Monterey County, California: Part of Geological Report, County Map 3 File No. K4-0113-M1.

45. J. C. Tinsley, III, 1975, Quaternary Geology of Northern Salinas Valley, Monterey County, California: Stanford University Ph D. Thesis, map scale 1:62,500, pp 194.

46. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1978 Soil Survey, Monterey County, CA, 226 pages and maps.

47. US Geological Survey, California Geological Survey 2006 Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States, access date same as report, from URL:
http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults.

48. US Geological Survey California Geological Survey 2006, the USGS Store map locator, access date same as report, from URL: http://store.usgs.gov/ click on ‘map locator’.

49. USGS Open File Report 88-398, 1988 Probabilities of Large Earthquakes Occurring in California on the San Andreas Fault, by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, pp 62.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 454 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 39

50. R. E. Wallace, 1970 Earthquake Recurrence Intervals on The San Andreas Fault, GSA Bulletin v 81.

51. David L. Wagner, Gary H. Greene, George J. Saucedo and Cynthia L. Pridmore, compiled by Sarah E. Watkins, Jason D. Little and Joseph J. Bizzarro, digitalized by 2002, California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of the Monterey 30' x 60' Quadrangle and Adjacent Areas, CA, 3 maps and CD-ROM.

52. P. L. Ward and R. A. Page, 1989, The Loma Prieta Earthquake of Oct 17, 1989, USGS Pamphlet, L. D. Hodgen and J. A. Troll Edition, Second Printing, revised January 1990.

53. M. Wyss, 1979, Estimating Maximum expectable magnitude of Earthquakes from Fault Dimensions, Geology v 7 n 7, pp 336-340.

54. T. L. Youd and S. N. Hoose, 1978, Historic Ground Failures in Northern California Triggered by Earthquakes, USGS Professional Paper P-993, pp 177.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 455 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
December 29, 2025 Page 1 of 4
Stephen P. Diamond
C/O Ms. Julie Paulson
International Design Group
721 Lighthouse Avenue
Pacific Grove, California 93950
Project: Diamond Residence
ADU and Improvements
Scenic Road 5 NW of 8th Avenue
Carmel by the Sea, California 93921
A. P. N. 010-312-012-000
Subject: Geotechnical and Geological Hazards Report
Addendum No. 1
Dear Mr. Diamond,
Pursuant to a request from the planning department of the City of Carmel by the Sea we have prepared this addendum to detail the setback from a descending steep slope.

In general the request is to detail the required setback of the ADU addition to a steep bluff. The requirements are a 50-foot distance from the bluff top or beyond a line ascending at 20% from the toe of the bluff, whichever is greater.

The attached plan detailing terrain beyond the parcel down to the beach of the Pacific Ocean west of the parcel. The terrain is that available through Google Earth as acquired from the National Map (USGS). A section details the terrain and distances from the toe and top of the bluff to the closest point of the proposed addition. As noted the addition is 134± feet from the bluff top and 78± feet from the intersection between the 20% ascending slope and the existing grade.

The report contained herein is made with our best effort to evaluate the site, determine the site geotechnical conditions and provide recommendations for those conditions.

We submit this report with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure incorporation of these recommendations into the final plans and their subsequent implementation in the field.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 456 of 704 ends

File No. 8091-25.10
December 29, 2025 Page 2 of 4
In addition, we recommend that GRICE ENGINEERING, INC., be retained to review the project plans and provide the construction supervision and testing required to document compliance with these recommendations. Should any site condition not mentioned in this report be observed, this office should be notified so that additional recommendations can be made, if necessary.

This report and the recommendations herein are made expressly for the above referenced project and may not be utilized for any other site without written permission of GRICE ENGINEERING, INC.

Please feel free to call this office should you have any questions regarding this report.

Very truly yours,
GRICE ENGINEERING, INC.
12292025 DIGITAL
Lawrence E. Grice, P.E.

R. C. E. 66857
Attachments:

Site Plan with Section Line through Bluff @ Steepest Portion, page 3 Section through Bluff @ Steepest Portion to face of ADU Addition, page 4 ATTACHMENT 2

Page 457 of 704 ends

0+00.00
1+00.00
2+00.00
2+45.21
BP: 0+00.00
EP: 2+45.21
STA 0+00.00 DESIGN SPEED = 60 mi/h
0+50.00
1+50.00

32.000

20.000

30.000

30.000 40.000

40.000

40.000 50.000

50.000 60.000

60.000 70.000

70.000

40.000

40.000
561A Brunken Avenue Salinas, California Salinas: (831) 422-9619 Monterey: (831) 375-1198 FAX: (831) 422-1896 ENGINEERING GEOTECHNICS HYDROLOGY SOILS FOUNDATIONS EARTH STRUCTURES SITE PLAN with SECTION LINE THROUGH BLUFF @ STEEPEST PORTION ADU @ DIAMOND RESIDENCE, SCENIC 5 NW OF 8TH, CARMEL BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA Page 3 SCALE 1 INCH = 25 FEET NORTH±

ATTACHMENT
2

Page 458 of 704 ends

Elevation
Elevation Station Profile View of Alignment - (1) Steepest Section Through Bluff 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 -0+01.000+00.00 0+00.00 0+40.00 0+80.00 1+20.00 1+60.00 2+00.00 2+40.002+45.21 2+60.00 -0+01.000+00.00 0+00.00 0+20.00 0+40.00 0+60.00 0+80.00 1+00.00 1+20.00 1+40.00 1+60.00 1+80.00 2+00.00 2+20.00 2+40.002+45.21 2+60.00 BEACH TOE OF BLUFF PROVIDED SETBACK FROM INTERSECTION OF 20% SLOPE AND EXISTING TERRAIN PROPOSED ADDITION TOP OF BLUFF ASCENDING BLUFF 20% ASCENDING LINE 50.00 FEET

REQUIRED

BLUFF TOP
SETBACK 78.17 FEET

REQUIRED

STEEP SLOPE
SETBACK 134.97 FEET PROVIDED SETBACK FROM TOP OF BLUFF 561A Brunken Avenue Salinas, California Salinas: (831) 422-9619 Monterey: (831) 375-1198 FAX: (831) 422-1896 ENGINEERING GEOTECHNICS HYDROLOGY SOILS FOUNDATIONS EARTH STRUCTURES SECTION THROUGH BLUFF @ STEEPEST PORTION TO FACE OF ADU ADDITION ADU @ DIAMOND RESIDENCE, SCENIC 5 NW OF 8TH, CARMEL BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA Page 4 SCALE 1 INCH = 25 FEET

ATTACHMENT
2

Page 459 of 704 ends

DS 25206 (Diamond)
Attachment 4 - Biological Assessment
Planning Commission Meeting
April 8, 2026
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 460 of 704 ends

THOMPSON

WILDLAND MANAGEMENT
Environmental Management & Conservation Services
International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist # WE-7468A Department of Pesticide Regulation Qualified Applicator Lic. #QL50949 B Environmental & Arborist Assessments, Protection, Restoration, Monitoring & Reporting Wildland Fire Property Protection, Fuel Reduction & Vegetation Management Invasive Weed Control, and Habitat Restoration & Management Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Resource Ecologist
January 12, 2026
Diamond Residence
Scenic Road 5NW of 8th Avenue
Carmel, CA. 93923
APN: 010-312-012-000
Subject: Pre-construction Biological Assessment for Scenic Road, 5NW of 8th Avenue Per City of Carmel-By-The-Sea Community Planning & Building Department permit requirements, a biological assessment was recently conducted for the property located on Scenic Road, 5NW of 8th Avenue in Carmel (APN: 010-312-012) in preparation for an ADU construction project. This already developed and impacted lot is situated in a densely developed urban woodland residential community and coastal environment that is a short distance to the east of Carmel Beach. This pre-construction assessment involved performing a ground level visual inspection of the subject parcel to record and document biological resources, vegetation types and habitat characteristics; determine the presence or absence of biological resources that have protection status under federal and state laws (e.g., Federal Endangered Species Act [FESA], California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] and California Endangered Species Act [CESA]); confirm that the proposed project is consistent with the policies and regulations that are identified in the Carmel Municipal Code - Section 17.20.220; and provide resource protection and mitigation recommendations that may be necessary in preparation for the proposed ADU project.

This biological assessment was conducted by performing a thorough walk through and inspection of the subject property and reviewing the ADU construction plans (refer to the corresponding project plans for construction details). A larger and smaller scale aerial image of the property is provided at the end of the report (refer to the attached Exhibits A1 & A2), and, where possible, the characteristics and conditions described in this report are depicted in the attached photographs (refer to Figures 1-10). Findings and recommendations are provided herein.
1 ATTACHMENT 2

Page 461 of 704 ends

It should be noted that this biotic assessment that was conducted on October 27, 2025 was not performed during the optimal time of year (i.e., the spring season) for identifying native annual plant species that have the potential of occurring on the property and in the surrounding areas.

However, for this project this should not be a significant issue or concern, since it is clear that native annual flora, including protected plant species, are not present or known to occur in this fairly small, insignificant and previously disturbed and impacted backyard area of the property that is primarily composed of maintained and irrigated landscaping plants.

I. SITE CHARACTERISTICS & BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In the Carmel region there are natural open space areas where development has been limited or has not occurred. In these areas where natural vegetation communities remain intact and have not been significantly impacted or disturbed there is often a healthy diversity of native flora and fauna and healthy functioning habitat and ecological processes, including the presence of protected special status species and sensitive habitat types. However, in regards to the subject property addressed in this report that has been significantly developed and impacted (refer Figures 1-7), it is clearly evident that protected species or habitat do not appear to be present at this time.

This beachside and coastal zone parcel is 0.367 acres in size and is in a region that is significantly influenced by seasonally temperate coastal environmental conditions. This property is located in a densely developed urban woodland community with little open space occurring in this area of the Carmel community, the exception being Carmel Beach, which is a short distance to the west of the subject property. Scenic Road is to the east of the parcel and two developed lots are located immediately to the north and south of the property. None of these adjacent properties will be impacted by ADU construction activities and do not appear to support sensitive habitat or ecological resources.

Prevailing winds are primarily out of a westerly direction and soils on this developed and previously disturbed parcel appear to be stable and sufficient for supporting property development and landscape improvements. Per the project plans, the proposed ADU will utilize a portion of the existing rear patio footprint, as well as some of the surrounding landscaped areas (refer to Figures 1-7). It should be noted that this is a relatively flat lot and no development or soil disturbance will be occurring on steep slopes with high erosion potential.

In regards to the nearby Carmel Beach, which is a coastal zone habitat and ecological resource, this particular area of the beach appears to have little habitat value due to high intensity use and traffic by beach visitors and a relatively low presence and diversity of native plants that would typically occur in healthier and more robust coastal dune, strand and/or scrub type vegetation community that are fairly common in the central coast region. It should be noted that immediately to the west of the property, between the rear property fencline and Carmel Beach, there is a dense and compact stand of non-native invasive acacia shrubs and hedges that is not a sensitive or protected resource (refer to the attached Exhibits A1 & A2 and Figures 1, 2 & 8-10). 2 ATTACHMENT 2

Page 462 of 704 ends

However, this area with dense acacia can provide good cover and habitat for birds and other species of wildlife. This acacia population is not located on the subject property and will not be impacted by project operations (refer to Figures 8-10). It should be noted that these exotic acacias appear to be regularly pruned to a fairly low and compact height in order to prevent view obstructions.

Trees occurring in this urban woodland community primarily consist of mature and senescing mid- to upper-canopy Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) trees, with Monterey pines (Pinus radiata) and lower- to mid-canopy coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) occurring to a lesser extent. On this particular property, there are 3 significant Monterey cypress trees located in the backyard area in the vicinity of the proposed ADU (refer to the attached Exhibit A2 and Figures 1-6). These trees appear to be a safe and sufficient distance away from the proposed building footprint and are not expected to be significantly impacted or adversely affected by grading and construction activities.

In regards to the overall health and condition of these 3 mature and senescing cypress trees, they appear to be in sound physiological health and structural condition. Biotic (e.g., pathogens, disease and/or insect pests) and/or abiotic disorders currently appear to be absent in levels that are harmful or detrimental to the health and viability of these trees and the surrounding urban woodland environment.

As previously indicated, the subject property is significantly landscaped in the front, side and backyard areas around the home (refer Figures 1-7). Maintained and irrigated landscaping plants primarily consist of non-native and introduced ornamental shrubs, herbaceous perennials, succulents and smaller ornamental trees; however, there are a few native plant species (i.e., Yankee Point ceanothus, common yarrow and Pacific thrift and California poppy) that have also been introduced to this maintained landscape.

Per the assessment of this developed and previously disturbed and impacted lot, it is clearly evident that the subject parcel does not support federally and/or state protected special status species, sensitive habitat and/or environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA), and none of these resources will be impacted by the proposed ADU project. There are no known occurrences of protected species or resources occurring on the property and none were observed during the assessment. Additionally, actively nesting birds were not observed on or adjacent to the subject property, which was expected due to this assessment occurring outside of the nesting season.

In regards to ESHA, this begins approximately 30 feet to the west of the proposed building footprint on the other side of the property fence and hedge that delineates the western property boundary. This nearby ESHA area is a part of the Del Mar Dunes system, which is dominated by non-native invasive acacia and ice plant (refer to Figures 8-10).

Per City of Carmel requirements and conditions of approval (i.e., Section D of 17.20.220 Environmentally Sensitive Habitats under Title 17. Zoning), ADU construction activities will be 3 ATTACHMENT 2

Page 463 of 704 ends

limited and contained to the backyard area of the property and will not in any way encroach upon or impact nearby ESHA. Impacts such as construction related noise, dust and sediment runoff is expected to be negligible and insignificant and will not adversely affect or harm ESHA.

In order to ensure that no ecological impacts occur, the rear gate of the property will be locked during construction operations in order to prevent the possibility of any construction related activities or workers moving into ESHA. Additionally, silt fencing or straw wattle sedimentation control measures will be properly installed on the property in a suitable location between the proposed construction footprint and the property fence to the west, as well as a heavy duty green mesh fabric barrier fencing installed and secured along the property fence. This green barrier fencing, along with the existing property fence and dense and well established hedge, will assist in ensuring a secure and contained construction site.

The 3 Monterey cypress trees located in the backyard area are the most noteworthy and ecologically valuable resource occurring on or adjacent to the subject property. In addition to these mature and senescing cypress trees, the following species are the only native plants that are inhabiting the parcel. These native species were introduced to this maintained landscape and are occurring amongst several of species of non-native ornamental plants. Native species observed include Yankee Point ceanothus (Ceanothus griseus var. horizontalis), common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Pacific thrift (Armeria maritima) and California poppy (Eschscholzia californica).

Non-native invasive plants that can be degrading and harmful to habitat are not inhabiting the subject property, which has a well kept and maintained landscape.

Special status plant and animal species identified in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) that have the potential of inhabiting the parcel and surrounding vegetation community were not observed or detected during the property assessment, and none of these species are known to occur on the subject property. These sensitive and protected fauna and flora include the following species: Black legless lizard (Anniella pulchra nigra), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi), Menzie's wallflower (Erysimum menziesii), sand gilia (Gilia tenuiflora), Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens), Tidestrom's lupine (Lupinus tidestromii), sea cliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium), coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), little sur manzanita (Arctostaphylos edmundsii) and sandmat manzanita (Arctostaphylos pumila). As previously noted, none of these species appear to be occurring on the subject parcel and are not expected to be impacted by project operations. However, it is possible for the listed animal species to move in and out of areas during certain time periods, which makes it more difficult for them to be observed and detected. That being said, there is no evidence of these listed animal species being present on the subject property and it is very unlikely that they would be impacted by this small scale ADU construction project. In regards to the black legless lizard, refer to the monitoring and inspection recommendations provided in the following section that is recommended just before and during initial vegetation clearing operations. 4 ATTACHMENT 2

Page 464 of 704 ends

Additionally, actively nesting birds or raptors were not observed on or adjacent to the subject property, which was to be expected since this fall assessment was performed outside of the nesting season. However, if construction related activities or tree work occurs during the bird nesting season, which in Monterey County may begin as early as February and continue through August, an additional nesting survey should be conducted to confirm that nesting birds are not present.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following resource protection measures and best management practices (BMP’s) shall be implemented prior to the beginning of the ADU construction project:
1) Install resource protection measures to prevent unnecessary construction related impacts and disturbance to the surrounding areas in the backyard of the property. Resource protection BMP’s include tree protection and erosion & sedimentation control measures, such as high visibility exclusionary fencing that clearly delineates the construction zone and protects the canopy dripline and critical root zone of a few nearby cypress trees, as well as erosion & sedimentation control measures, such as silt fence, straw wattles and soil stabilization measures, that may be necessary. For example and as previously stated, straw wattles or silt fencing shall be installed between the proposed construction footprint and the property fence to the west, as well as a heavy duty green mesh fabric barrier fencing installed and secured along the property fence. Resource protection BMP’s shall be properly installed, monitored, maintained and, if necessary, modified and improved on a as needed basis for the duration of the project.
2) Just before (i.e., within 5 days) and again during the initial clearing of landscaping vegetation for this ADU construction project, the project biologist should be present to inspect and observe for the black legless lizard (Anniella pulchra nigra) or any other potentially occurring listed species that have protection status. This reptile that resembles a small snake has the potential of occurring in this coastal zone habitat under vegetation and in loose sandy soils.

As a result, this backyard area where the ADU will be constructed should be inspected and monitored during initial clearing operations to make sure the black legless lizard is not present or harmed.
3) For any landscape improvements, consideration should be given to using plants that are native or naturalized to this region and are well-adapted to this mixed urban woodland and coastal environment. Plants selected for landscaping operations should be drought tolerant, less flammable and more fire resistant, non-invasive to habitat and open space areas, and suitable and appropriate to this coastal zone environment.
4) As previously stated, nesting birds were not observed during the assessment of this property.

However, the nesting season in Monterey County may begin as early as February and continue through August. Consequently, if construction activities begin during this nesting period an additional nesting assessment should be conducted within two weeks of construction activities commencing.
5) The 3 mature and senescing Monterey cypress trees that are located in the vicinity of the proposed ADU (refer to Figures 1-6) will need to be adequately protected with tree protection 5 ATTACHMENT 2

Page 465 of 704 ends

fencing for the duration of the project. These native specie trees appear to be a safe and sufficient distance away from the proposed construction footprint, and given the proper installation, maintenance and monitoring of tree protection measures, construction related impacts are expected to be minimal, insignificant and not harmful to the health and wellbeing of the subject trees.

III. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, a pre-construction biological assessment was recently conducted for the property located on Scenic Road, 5 NW of 8th Avenue in Carmel in preparation for an ADU construction project that will be occurring in the previously disturbed and significantly landscaped backyard area of the subject parcel. Biological resources that are protected under federal and state laws (e.g., FESA, CESA and CEQA) were not observed or detected during this pre-construction assessment and are not known to occur on this developed and impacted property. Consequently, it is evident that protected special status species and/or ESHA are not occurring on the subject property and will not be impacted by project operations.

The proper implementation of the resource preservation BMP’s and guidelines provided in this report will assist in preventing construction related impacts to ecological resources, as well as complying with City of Carmel-By-The-Sea Community Planning & Building Department permit requirements and conditions of approval. Additionally, the proposed ADU development project appears to be consistent with the policies and regulations that are identified by the City in the Carmel Municipal Code - Section D of 17.20.220 Environmentally Sensitive Habitats under Title

17. Zoning and the Shoreline Management Plan and the Del Mar Master Plan.

Best regards,
Rob Thompson January 12, 2026
Resource Ecologist Date
ISA Certified Arborist, WE-7468A
Thompson Wildland Management (TWM)
57 Via Del Rey
Monterey, CA. 93940
Office (831) 372-3796; Cell (831) 277-1419
Email: [email protected] ; Website: www.wildlandmanagement.com 6 ATTACHMENT 2

Page 466 of 704 ends

7 Exhibit A1: The subject property is identified by the red arrow. Carmel Beach is a short distance to the west of the property. It should be noted that immediately to the west of the property, between the rear property fencline and Carmel Beach, there is a dense and compact stand of non-native invasive acacia shrubs and hedges (identified by yellow arrow) that will not be impacted by ADU development activities. To the east of the lot is Scenic Road and to the north and south are two developed properties, neither of which appear to support sensitive or protected ecological resources.

N
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 467 of 704 ends

8 Exhibit A2: The proposed ADU construction site is identified by the light blue arrow. The 3 cypress trees are identified by the yellow circles and the exotic acacia population is identified by the yellow arrow.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 468 of 704 ends

9 Figure 1. The proposed ADU will come off of the rear patio and into the heavily landscaped area towards the center of the photo.

The dense acacia stand located off of the rear of the property is visible in the back between the backyard area and the beach.

Figure 2. The 3 cypress trees will be retained and protected. No sensitive habitat or protected species will be impacted by this project. The acacia population is visible off of the rear of the property in the back ground.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 469 of 704 ends

10 Figure 3. Another view of the significantly landscaped ADU site primarily consisting of non-native and introduced ornamental plants and the mature cypress trees. The cypress trees are not expected to be adversely affected.

Figure 4. The proposed ADU site and landscaped area currently does not support any protected species or sensitive habitat.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 470 of 704 ends

11 Figure 5. This rear patio area and retaining wall is where the eastern end of the ADU will be located.

Figure 6. Rear patio will be the eastern end of the proposed ADU.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 471 of 704 ends

12 Figure 7. The ADU construction footprint looking east back towards the main house. No significant ecological impacts will be occurring as a result of this fairly small scale construction project.

Figure 8. Dense exotic acacia stands begin immediately to the west of the property fence. Invasive ice plant is also abundant.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 472 of 704 ends

13 Figure 9. View of ESHA area with abundant ice plant and acacia that is to the east of Carmel Beach and west of subject property.

Figure 10. Dense acacia stand looking east towards the subject property.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 473 of 704 ends

THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE CLIENT AND IS BASED ON THE

FINDINGS AND PROFESSIONAL OPINION OF QUALIFIED PERSONAL WITH THOMPSON WILDLAND MANAGEMENT (TWM). TWM ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS USE BY OTHER INDIVIDUALS OR PARTIES.

CLIENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS REPORT, AND ANY OPINIONS, ADVICE OR RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPRESSED OR GIVEN, ARE BASED ON THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY CLIENT AND ON THE DATA, INSPECTIONS, MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT AND OBTAINED BY TWM.

ALTHOUGH OPINIONS MAY BE OFFERED REGARDING THE RESULTS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER, TWM CANNOT GUARANTEE ANY PARTICULAR RESULT. CLIENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT TWM HAS MADE NO PROMISE

ABOUT THE OUTCOME AND THAT ANY OPINION OFFERED IN THE FUTURE WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A GUARANTEE.
14 ATTACHMENT 2

Page 474 of 704 ends

DS 25206 (Diamond)
Attachment 5 - Public Correspondence
Planning Commission Meeting
April 8, 2026
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 475 of 704 ends

!
"#$%! &'())*+( ,
,
9*:;<*/=>;=?=@*:@A=&B< C7A(D7/:36456*/'(156*5E) FG HI%JKLMNOPQRSTMURVRMTUWW ab\cOUccR[U^ROUdMNONefc\TUgNeMNM[RS\hRf\NS] i.*j; k(7lj:m(m4):7/46m7'(*:)6(j46nok7p(4+m:m5q:m*)r((jr/7E+m::77E/*::(j:47jrsj(4+mr7/):m*::m(/(4)*t/7t7)(0uvw7j :m(67*):14j(7pv4*'7j0t/7t(/:s7j96(j465 k(m*.()(.(/*167j6(/j)x yE():47jp7/:m(67*):*167''4))47j/(+*/04j+uvw)r(4j+*tt/7.(0p7/:m(0((t17:)(z:(j04j+:7:m(r(/')j(z::776(*jxlm*:4) :m(l(4+m:rE/0(j7j:m(r(/'*17j+:m(67*):14j({Cm4)4)*67j6(/jp7/E)*)l(*/()4::4j+7j:m*:67*):14j(r(/'*j04p'*js *004:47j*1m7'()*/(*117l(0:m*:r(/'l411m*.(*+/(*:l(4+m:rE/0(j*j0:m*:r(/'67E10p*414jlm46m6*)(7E/m7'(l7E10r( 4't*6:(05k411:m(67*):*167''4))47jr(/()t7j)4r1(p7/67j):/E6:4j+/(:*4j4j+l*11):7)Ett7/::m(l(4+m:rE/0(j)p7/:m(uvw){ 9(67j0|E():47j+4.(juvw)r/4j+4j/(j:(/)lm*:l411r(:m(t*/D4j+4't*6:)p7/m7'(7lj(/)7j)6(j46{ }7ll411:m(4't*6:7p.4(l)r(m*j01(0p7/m7'(7lj(/)lm7l(/()710m7'()7j)6(j46l4:m*))E/*j6()7pj7j(lrE4104j+)r(4j+ *117l(0:mE)4't*6:4j+:m(4/.4(l){Cm4)04'4j4)m():m(.*1E(7p:m7)(m7'()5 ~*):1s:m4))(:)*t/(6(0(j:p7/*110((t17:)*17j+)6(j46:7:m(67*):14j(:7*tt1sp7/:m4))*'(uvw5 B1(*)(67j)40(/:m(67j6(/j)*j0t1(*)(67j)E1::m(67*):*167''4))47j7jr(/'4't*6:)*j0/(:*4j4j+l*11|E():47j):7)Ett7/: (z4):4j+m7'()l4:m:m(*00(0l(4+m:t/47/:7*tt/7.*1)p7/67*):*1r(/'j(lm7'(rE4104j+)5 Cm*jDs7E uj0/(* ATTACHMENT 2

Page 476 of 704 ends

!"#
$%& '()**+,) -./
>+<?@+ABC?BDBE+<'DFGHI@ J9FK)59A<683:8+A()4:8+:L*K0)59A<683:8+A()4:8+:L*= MN$ "OP

"QRSTUVWXTYZ[\]^_ mY\_Ui__gfiegUinSTUToj_\bipToSTSfgZ\qgj\TZh rs+;?+;2t+A()4u4+;;3;,89((3**39; Jv+;5w9Lx9A<+53;,<3()<9())<y3<vL*w)*<)A2+w9s)A<v)+79s) A)x)A);8)27L3423;,uA91)8<: I*w9L5;9yy)+A)<v)+2193;3;,uA9u)A<w9y;)A*<9<v);9A<v+;2v+s) );19w)29LA7)+8vxA9;<498+<39;x9A(9A)<v+;x9A<ww)+A*: z)+A)s)Aw+y+A)9xv9ysL4;)A+74)<v3**v9A)43;)v+73<+<3*<9<v))xx)8<*9x89+*<+4 )A9*39;?u+A<38L4+A4w3;<v)y3;<)A(9;<v*: t9+*<+483<3)*+44+8A9**<v)89L;<Awv+s)A)*<A38<)289;*<AL8<39;9;<v)98)+;xA9;< 2L)<9<v))xx)8<*9x89+*<+4)A9*39;2L)<9,497+4y+A(3;,: {;<v)u+*<<v)t3<wv+*29;)+,9921973;uA9v373<3;,v9()9y;)A*xA9((9s3;,*)+y+A2xA9()|3*<3;,x99<uA3;<y3<v89;*<AL8<39;: z)+A)+*53;,<v)t3<w<92);w<v)I}~89;*<AL8<39;u)A(3<9;<v)8)+;*32)9x<v)+uu438+;<*)|3*<3;,2y)443;,yv38v3*;)+A4wEDD *:x<:+;2y)44+79s)<v)(+|3(L(+449y+74): Jv)9<v)A)4)();<{y3*v<9+22A)**3*<v)3(u+8<9xs3)y*<v)uA91)8<8+L*)*: )3,v79A*9;79<v*32)*y3447)3(u+8<)2+;2s3)y*y3447)u+A<3+44w3(u+3A)2(+2))s);y9A*)7w+449y3;,<v)A99x<97)+; );<)A<+3;3;,2)85:Jv)uA91)8<y3447)89() s)Aws3*374)xA9(<v)uL74387)+8v9;8)v3*,+A2);)A*+A)3;*<AL8<)2<9<A3(<v)I8+83+ ,A9y<v9;<v)98)+;yv38v3*;9A(+44w29;))s)Aw*3|(9;<v*:Jv)<A3((3;,97s39L*4w v+*7));8LA<+34)2L;<34+x<)A+uuA9s+4: L*<3(+,3;)3xy)+442)832)2<9+22I}~L;3<*7)+8v*32)9x9LA4+A,)(+3;2y)443;,*:{<y9L422A+*<38+44w8v+;,)<v)7)+8v9s)A4+w +A)+: )+*)4)<<v3*r(+347)9LAx9A(+4A)L)*<x9A2);3+49x<v)+79s)A)x)A);8)2uA91)8<: Jv+;59L 9v;+<A383+}345* ATTACHMENT 2

Page 477 of 704 ends

!"#$$%&# '()
6%789%-:;8:<:=%7>?@>A9 B4?#C4-71,23,%-"#.3,%3D$ EFGHIJKH HILMNOPQRSTUVUWXYUZZT[\]N ghT[P][[Uc]XUP]iNOPOj\[T_]aOjNONcUVTkU\TOVd B4?lm%no4-7%n+Bp#q%-"#.A.%nn2n&q4""2$$24n8 r-4"?s2%n%%n+q-%2&9,q%..2$7#- >-+tu;7p4n6,#n2, Ap4n# s#%-lm%n%n+Bp#q%-"#.A.%nn2n&q4""2$$24n8 u#%-#|-4|#-704}n#-$7}4+44-$64D7p~-4"7p#s2%"4n+#$2+#n,#3u#%-#+##|.0,4n,#-n#+}27p7p#s2%"4n+$|-4|4$#+|.%n74 /D2.+%nsDn274n7p#4|#n$|%,#4n7p#,4%$7.2n#4~7p#2-|-4|#-703 n#4~7p#-#%$4n$}#|D-,p%$#+4D-|-4|#-70}%$/#,%D$#4~7p#}4n+#-~D.6,#n2,m2#}4~A#//.##%,p%n+7p##%D72~D.q4m#4~ q%-"#.#%,p747p#t4-7p4~D$3Bp2$4|#n$|%,#2$2"|4-7%n774

r64n6,#n2,4%+%n+27}2../#,4"|.#7#.0-D2n#+}27p%Dn27 /D2.7$4,.4$#747p#/#%,p37}2../.4,C%..4~4D-m2#}$3 A.#%$#~##.~-##74,%..D$v|p4n#nD"/#-%/4m#y%n+,4"#+4}n74$##7p#2"|%,77p2$|-4|4$#+$7-D,7D-#}2..p%m#4nD$3 Bp%nC04D~4-,4n$2+#-2n&74+#n07p#2-|#-"27~4-7p2$s3 62n,#-#.03 s2%n%%n+q-%2&9,q%..2$7#- ATTACHMENT 2

Page 478 of 704 ends

!"#$%&%'()# *+!
, -./0012/0 3

45
6 B1CDE1F-GD-H-I1CIJKLME N?JO/P?FC=9Q@91F./7@91@R0O6/P?FC=9Q@91F./7@91@R0ADS1TF/<9/U:1;/<6 DBC/V/WQ1.?<X Z[!*\$! ]^_`abcdef_ghigijekgh sjtuaguuevgieagw_`a`xyutzgo`x_`_vehtkeyt`hp W/1FBQF{ |1.0/<XQ<2C:Q0/.1Q7?<}?C:.>}/:17~1<XC:1C?~1<?0C/FT:?Q0.></CX??F</Q2:}?F@RF:?./0 1F/XQF/9C7>199F?00C:/0CF//C~F?.C:/WQ1.?<X0:?./T:Q9:Q0C:/0R}8/9C?~C:/YF?Y?0/X19CQ?<@ /}?C:1F/C?C177>Q<0RYY?FC?~177?TQ<2C:/WQ1.?<X0C?9?<0CFR9CC:/W 10QCQ09RFF/<C7>X/0Q2</X@ S1FF>U:1;/< S1TF/<9/@U:1;/< U1F./7DU1@K-L E?}Q7/ 3

45
B1CDE1F-GD-H-I1CIJ-ME N?JO/P?FC=9Q@91F./7@91@R0O6/P?FC=9Q@91F./7@91@R0ADBC/V/WQ1.?<X6 D71TF/<9/9:1;/< Z[!*\$! ]^_`abcdef_ghigijekghldmiijekghnoej``pi`aqr
sjtuaguuevgieagw_`a`xyutzgo`x_`_vehtkeyt`hp V1< E>.Q0C1P/@|1.TFQCQ<2?RF0RYY?FC?<.>}/:17~1<X.></Q2:}?F1</70?< <?C1<?0C/F@/FX/9/10/X:R0}1<X0~QF0C<1./T10?0C/F@ S1FF> S1TF/<9/@U:1;/< U1F./7DU1@K-L
R?C/XC/C:QXX/<
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 479 of 704 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 480 of 704 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 481 of 704 ends

subjective or discretionary barriers that would effectively preclude its development. However, this project is not limited to a ministerial ADU. It includes a roof deck, requires a Coastal Development Permit, and is subject to Design Study review within multiple overlay districts. Accordingly, while the ADU itself may be protected, the City retains full authority to deny or condition discretionary elements and to require findings under the Coastal Act and Carmel Municipal Code.

The proposed roof deck introduces direct and elevated views into adjacent residential properties, including private outdoor areas and habitable rooms. Under Carmel’s Design Study framework (CMC Title 17), approval requires findings that the project maintains reasonable visual privacy between neighboring properties, avoids overlooking and intrusive sightlines, and is compatible with surrounding residential development patterns. The roof deck fundamentally alters the existing condition by creating new elevated vantage points not historically present, enabling direct downward views into private yards, and increasing the intensity of outdoor use at an elevated level. These impacts are inherent to the design and cannot be mitigated through minor conditions. As proposed, the project fails to satisfy required privacy and compatibility findings.

To the extent the applicant relies on ADU law to justify the project as proposed, that reliance is misplaced. State law protects the existence and basic envelope of an ADU, but it does not protect discretionary features such as roof decks, elevated outdoor gathering spaces, or design elements that create new privacy impacts. The City must evaluate these discretionary components independently, and approval of the ADU does not compel approval of the roof deck or associated design features.

It is also important to recognize that Carmel’s current ADU ordinance contains provisions that are inconsistent with state law, including limitations on size, height, and the application of zoning controls that are preempted by state statute. As a result, the City cannot rely on those provisions to justify denial or to impose unlawful constraints. Instead, the City must rely on valid discretionary authorities, including Design Study and Coastal Development Permit findings, and apply them rigorously and consistently.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 482 of 704 ends

Under the California Coastal Act and Carmel’s Local Coastal Program, the Commission must find that the project protects neighborhood character and visual resources, avoids adverse impacts to adjacent residential uses, and is consistent with the scale and pattern of surrounding development. The proposed roof deck and intensification of use introduce visual and privacy impacts that are inconsistent with neighborhood character, create new overlook conditions affecting adjacent properties, and increase activity levels in a manner that conflicts with the established residential pattern.

As currently designed, the required Coastal Development Permit findings cannot be made.

With respect to parking, while state law limits the imposition of parking requirements for ADUs in certain contexts, the City retains the authority to evaluate actual neighborhood conditions and cumulative impacts on coastal residential streets. This area of Scenic Road is already constrained by visitor demand, coastal access, and limited on-street parking availability. The addition of an ADU and associated intensification of use creates a reasonable likelihood of spillover parking impacts. At a minimum, the Commission should require a project-specific analysis or impose conditions to address these impacts.

Finally, the project is proposed as categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. However, the Commission must evaluate whether exceptions apply under Section 15300.2, including unusual circumstances and cumulative impacts. The presence of an elevated roof deck, direct privacy impacts, and the constrained coastal setting provide a reasonable basis to conclude that such exceptions may apply.

In conclusion, this project should not be treated as a simple ADU.

It is a discretionary coastal development project that includes an ADU component. While state law limits the City’s ability to deny a compliant ADU, it does not require approval of discretionary design elements that create direct privacy impacts, conflict with neighborhood character, and fail required Coastal Development Permit findings.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the Design Study and Coastal Development Permit as proposed, or require substantial redesign, including elimination or significant modification of the roof deck, design changes to eliminate direct overlook into adjacent properties, and a ATTACHMENT 2

Page 483 of 704 ends

demonstration that the project will not create adverse parking impacts.

Sincerely,
Susan McClatchy
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 484 of 704 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 485 of 704 ends

Thank you for any help you can be on this problem.

Patty Dilks
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 486 of 704 ends

Steve and Marti Diamond
Scenic Road 5 NW of 8th Avenue
Carmel by the Sea, 93921
Steve:

Marti:

April 1, 2026
Dear Neighbors,
RE: DS 25206 (Diamond)
We are writing to you directly regarding our proposed ADU.

This ADU has been planned for an important long-term purpose: to provide space for a caretaker as we age. We have handled this carefully, worked with a top architect, and taken care to ensure that the design is appropriate to the property and respectful of the surrounding neighborhood. Our daughter recently passed unexpectedly. She was the one who we anticipated would take care of us when we needed someone by our side. We realized we had to step into action while we were able.

We understand that concerns have been raised, but we want to be very clear: this ADU will not interfere with your view, and parking will not be an issue. We have two parking spaces in our garage. The intended use of the ADU is limited and practical. The project is not being pursued in a way that would create the kind of impact that has been suggested.

What is most disappointing is that, despite our effort to invite direct conversation and review the plans with neighbors, this has instead become a divisive issue in the neighborhood. We have been and remain particularly saddened by that. It has affected us deeply. We would have much preferred a straightforward conversation about any concerns before the situation got so escalated and hostile.

Even now, we remain open to speaking with you directly and respectfully about any outstanding questions or concerns. We continue to hope that is still possible. Please see attachments. We welcome you to share this letter and notice to those who have been contacted by others and may have a concern.

Most Sincerely,
Marti and Steve Diamond
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 487 of 704 ends

!"#$%&'(&)#* +(&)(,-. /#'012#304546)$7893:; <#)=$>>>>>>>>>>/"#?)#@ @* --)A >>>>>>>>> /#"*8BCDEF<1GHF<. <)$ 8/#'012#304546)$I836J1; K,LM &$8<K49456N<')*"O@P H"8 !"#$%&'(&)#* +(&)(,- !"#$%&'(&)#* +(&)(,-.

G&8;)#$'<')*"O@NEF<1GHF<PEF<1GHF<. QRSTUVWXYTVZTU[\]^_`abYcVdeVefgWUUhbijQklmnQkop qrst_uttvwuxv_uy]^_^z{ts|u}^z]^]wv~sv{s^~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

Page 488 of 704 ends

!"#$%&'()'*$+!,)'*)-./ 0$(123$415657*%89:5;< =$*>%??????????0#$@*$A!A+!..*B!????????? 0$#+9C DE FG=2HIG=/ =*%!90$(123$415657*%J5955K;< L-MN!'%9=(*+#OA2=P3!$+(%=L5:567 I#9 !"#$%&'()'*$+!,)'*)-./ QRSTUVWXYTVZTU[\]^_`aYbcWVdeeXWSefghiQjklmQjno pqrs_tssuvtwu_tx]^_^yzsr{t|^y]^]vu}r~uzr^}

¡¢£
¤
¥£¦§£¨£© £ª««¡¤¬®©¨ £ ¯°©«±«¯° £¨£©«¨ ¯«²°¥³©´¤®¤
¦« «©««°¨¥£ª¦ ««±««¨«µ £© ª³©´¤®¤
¨©£ª ±«©«¨±«©« °¨«©«¨©¶°©±« £ª¯«¨«µ·¨£© ¨±«£¨©°°¨©«««° ATTACHMENT 2

Page 489 of 704 ends

" #

$

%&'

!

(

!
!

(

)

*

"

*

*

!

)

#

" ,

!

!

(

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 490 of 704 ends

!
"

#
"

$
%&
'

()*+(,-

-$

()*++.

$

/

0

-

1

-

!

2

#

/
!
2

2

!

"

" -

3
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 491 of 704 ends

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-12-PC

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE (AS) OVERLAY DISTRICT, PARK (P) OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND BEACH AND RIPARIAN (BR) OVERLAY; AND APPROVING A DESIGN STUDY REFERRAL FOR THE INSTALLATION

LANDSCAPING CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN AS AUTHORIZED BY THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. APN: 010-312-012-000.

Page 492 of 704 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2.5

Page 493 of 704 ends

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, consistent with the requirements of CMC sections

17.20.110.C, 17.20.160.A.8, and 17.20.160.B.9, the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea does hereby find:

CMC Section 17.58.060.B – Findings for Design Review Approval YES NO

1. Conform to the applicable policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program ✔

2. Comply with all applicable provisions of this code; and ✔

Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2.5

Page 494 of 704 ends

Carmel-by-the-Sea City CouncilJune 1, 2026

Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
June 1, 2026