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.
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 neighborhood compatibility (CMC section 17.20.160.A.3)
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 2.5
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:
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: 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 2.5
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 2.5
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 2.5
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 2.5
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 2.5
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 2.5
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 2.5
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 2.5
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Michael LePage Shelby Gorman
Chair Planning Commission Secretary
Docusign Envelope ID: BD361531-06A6-49CD-B45A-B6B258859CCC ATTACHMENT 2.5
ATTACHMENT 3
!"#
$%& '()**+,) -./
>+<?@+ABC?BDBE+<'DFGHI@ J9FK)59A<683:8+A()4:8+:L*K0)59A<683:8+A()4:8+:L*= MN$ "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 4 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 5)
ATTACHMENT 4 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 5)
Thank you for any help you can be on this problem.
Patty Dilks
ATTACHMENT 4 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 5)
Partial transcript of Planning Commission hearing from April 8, 2026 Planning Commission hearing pertaining to agenda item #8, DS 25206 (Diamond). The transcript below includes the public testimony given at the April 8, 2026 hearing of the appellants for APP 26134 (Diamond).
The transcript below is an automatic transcription of the audio sourced from the associated YouTube recording published on the city’s official YouTube channel. The transcript is provided asis based on the automatic transcription and spelling and/or grammar errors based on the transcription have not been corrected. The source video is cited at the end of the transcript. -Start of public testimony from appellants3:58:57 John Dilks: Evening. I'm John Dilks and I own the house next door and have for 45 years.
3:59:03 And uh one of the things that I'm really concerned about is coastal erosion. Uh Mr. 3:59:12 uh the attorney, forget his name now, uh he argued that it's not an issue, and it is 3:59:20 an issue. And just because you use a a 100year uh margin for erosion, that that doesn't
3:59:29 cover it. Ask anybody that lives in Florida or along the Southern California, Capistrano Beach or any of
3:59:37 those areas in the Southland that's being impacted by erosion. Uh you'll know when it starts, forget the hundred years, forget 50 years, forget 20 years. 3:59:48 Once it starts and gets exacerbated, you can't control it without begging coastal commission approval for seaw
3:59:56 walls. And my whole worry is that there are there are five unsubdivided beachto 4:00:05 street lots. They're all in a row. And if Mr. Diamond thinks he's going to put an ADU out right up above the the
4:00:14 maximum setback and other people aren't going to follow because he creates a tunnel vision of the ocean. He's wrong.
4:00:22 Now, I want you to just picture that beautiful area you saw today with all five of them with 800 more feet of
4:00:29 concrete ADU. And if you don't think that's going to have a negative impact on the backside of that dune, you're
4:00:36 sadly mistaken. And there's not one coastal engineer that could predict the outcome of that.
4:00:43 Uh once that escarment gets dislodged from the backside through uh what they ATTACHMENT 5
Planning Commission Meeting Transcript
4:00:50 call diagonal vibrations, you can't control it and then you get the exacerbation of a really stiff winter
4:00:58 storm which we have about every other year here. I mean at least every other year I walk out to take my daily swim. I
4:01:06 go in the water every day and you can't get over the dune and there are some Februaries where you actually see the
4:01:13 spray coming up over and we have a an old chain link fence that you step over 4:01:20 this far and it used to go all the way down to to six feet the the fence and I've left it in order to hold the dune
4:01:29 and um that's my big concern. I lived with beach erosion on my house in Hawaii and
4:01:38 it's catastrophic and you can pick up any Hawaii newspaper and read about what's gone on on Lanekai Beach and the
4:01:46 Northshore and the houses just fall in because the state won't allow seaw walls and they won't allow the homeowner to
4:01:54 tear their house down. It's it falls down and then the state goes after them for proliferation on the beach.
4:02:01 And you don't realize how quickly this that this can happen here. 4:02:07 And if you go back to the slide where it shows the uh plot plans. 4:02:14 Now I've I've owned this house for 45 years. So believe me, I can speak from experience. If you can go back where it shows the the lots. 4:02:26 Just this morning, front page of the Wall Street Journal had a big picture of beach erosion in Nantucket
4:02:33 and it's costing everybody millions and populations are are fighting one another because they have to move houses and
4:02:41 they're not. And I'm telling you, if you take a look at this inscarment right here, uh there's Diamond's house.
4:02:48 There's mine. And I come down to the beach every afternoon and take a dip. 4:02:52 And that that can change so quickly. It can change from June to February like that where you can't get down and water is bashing up against uh the escarment. 4:03:04 Now there's a very well-known expert in coastal engineering and coastal erosion.
ATTACHMENT 5
4:03:11 Uh he's passed away now. His name is Orin Pelky and he's a professor amiritis at Duke University
4:03:19 and his proteége is Dr. Chip Fletcher who runs head of the oceanography department at University of Hawaii. And
4:03:26 they have both written over and over again that it's a mistake to think that coastal erosion is attributable only to
4:03:35 the oceans force. It's not. It's often started by decentralizing and de 4:03:43 stabilizing the dune from the backside through construction, through vibration, through not having proper setbacks
4:03:51 towards the ocean. And then everybody's dumb and happy enjoying whatever they built out there. And then a few years
4:03:59 later comes a catastrophic winter or worse yet a tsunami. And there's no stabilization because the slant that holds that dune from the back is gone. 4:04:10 And the escarment on the ocean is now vertical and perpendicular. And the waves have nothing to resist it.
4:04:19 That's why a couple of years ago, if you'll recall, the city was toying with putting a boardwalk along that dune
4:04:28 and taking out the acacia. And it was Mr. Lombardi who was hired by one of the coastal front neighbors of ours to fight
4:04:37 it and they came up with the idea that it would destabilize the dune that was one of the reasons and I just for all of
4:04:47 our heirs and everybody who enjoys Carmel Beach and I I know that the minute in a coastal community the minute
4:04:55 a beach goes away the tourism goes away and when tourism goes away tax dollars go away.
4:05:04 Don't allow it to happen here in order to check one more box for an ADU for Sacramento. Don't allow it to happen.
4:05:14 Another thing I want to say, if you look at this diagonal here on the beach, if you went further back towards 8 Street,
4:05:21 every year I've watched, it used to be a straight line of the coastline. Now it's ATTACHMENT 5
4:05:28 like a half moon. The water's getting closer and closer and closer to 8th Street and to those three houses that
4:05:36 are down closer. In fact, one of them is even worrying about having to apply for seaw wall permits, which their house
4:05:45 will be wiped out before they could get approval. 4:05:48 Takes so long to get approval for something like that. I'm adamant about this because I lived in Hawaii and people have lost millions and neighbors 4:05:56 are against each other and houses are falling off the ocean off the bluffs on the north shore and the state won't allow them to fortify the shoreline. 4:06:06 Instead, they take their land from them as public domain as it falls off onto the public beach and then they cite the homeowner for proliferating the beach. 4:06:16 You got to move your house. Okay. Yeah, I think it can happen here. 4:06:21 Chair LePage: Can you can summarize? I think you're you've used your time.
So, I think we I think we understand that you are not in favor of the ADU because of coastal erosion.
4:06:31 John Dilks: Yeah, I'm very passionate about it because I've lived it. I've spent millions in Hawaii fortifying my property and getting permits. It's impossibly difficult.
4:06:42 Okay, don't you can't let it happen here because you are so close to Ocean Avenue.
It will deeply affect the public
4:06:49 beach and it will deeply affect your coffers on uptown on those shops on Ocean Avenue.
4:06:57 That's that's my concern. Okay.
4:07:00 And I don't know why somebody with 5600 square ft has to add another 800 square ft just just to be grander and bigger.
4:07:10 And I'm not against ADUs. Put it over the garage. Find when you got 16,000 square ft of land, find a spot somewhere
4:07:19 else, but not in this precious area that's so vulnerable to mother nature. That's it. 4:07:27 This is my lovely wife, Patty.
ATTACHMENT 5
4:07:31 Patricia Dilks: I have questions. If if there is going to be allowed planting on top of the roof, how do you how do
4:07:39 you get any guarantees that the planting isn't going to get 6 feet tall or whatever? 4:07:45 Uh he's talking about bringing it down what a few inches for soil, but how is there any assurance of what's going to be planted?
4:07:55 I think that should be part of the what you agree on ahead of time. 4:08:02 Okay.
4:08:08 And I'm against the ADU being on the beach. I'm against the um 4:08:16 entertainment center that he was planning to build. And I appreciate you all seeing that and nixing that. I do appreciate it. Thank you very much. … (Additional Speakers: Diana McAllister, Larry Chasen, Anthony Lombardo, Marti Diamond, Jun Sillano)
4:15:53 John Dilks: Anybody who thinks that dune is a protection is sadly mistaken. 4:15:59 When erosion hits, it moves so quickly and can be so catastrophic there's nothing you can do.
4:16:06 You get a a winner with 20 30 foot surf out there, you can't there's nothing you can do. Man can protect, but just get
4:16:13 out of the way. And I'm telling you, you weaken that dune with construction. It's not going to be just one ADU will do it.
4:16:22 But if you end up with five out there, keep in mind, you may not be listening to us about it. We're all older older
4:16:29 gents. the properties are going to change hands and everybody wants to get as close to the water as they can get,
4:16:36 but it's a big mistake. Every city in the in the country that's on coastal on the ocean is pushing back setbacks.
4:16:47 They're pushing back against giving permits. They're telling people you cannot add on on the ocean side of your house.
4:16:57 Don't don't allow this to happen. If we can't if the city if the homeowners and the people who
4:17:06 enjoy that beach every day can't look to the council to be their advocates to ATTACHMENT 5
4:17:13 keep this beach for next generations, who do we look to? You know, we're looking to you not not for Diamond's ADU
4:17:22 or not for Dilk's view. We're looking for you to protect this environment because it adjoins the public domain. It
4:17:30 It's not just like my lot adjoins you, Michael. It disjoins the public domain. 4:17:37 We have to look to the municipalities to be our advocates. And not based on just what's going on today, but based on what
4:17:45 science is telling us that's going to get worse and worse and worse. And that's coastal erosion due to global
4:17:53 warming. You've got to look ahead because once it happens, you can't fix it. 4:18:00 You can't fix it without more concrete and it just doesn't work. 4:18:07 So, please think about everybody's grandkids and the tourists that enjoy this place because as the beach goes,
4:18:15 the tourists go. As the tourists go, the economy goes. 4:18:20 And another thing to think about is what Evan was talking about is lateral access.
There's no guarantee that the
4:18:29 coastal commission won't say, "Sure, we'll allow all you guys to build as close to the ocean as you want, but we want another public access from scenic. 4:18:38 Let's put it between Dilks's and Diamond's house." Just what we all want. 4:18:44 Think about all this. This this could be catastrophic. Over 18 ADU to satisfy Sacramento.
4:18:52 Push back on Sacramento. Say not not on this not on this public buffer land that's own basically going to be owned
4:19:01 by the uh the public domain and affect everybody. Not just affecting Diamond and I. It's affecting everybody.
-End of public testimony from appellantsCitation:
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. (2026, April 8.) Planning Commission Regular Meeting | Wednesday, April 8, 2026 [Video and Auto-generated Transcript of Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/live/SKTdHoW8IDI?si=3POPZq0d_CYFttgN ATTACHMENT 5
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
APPENDIX A
ATTACHMENT 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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
SITE
SITE
ATTACHMENT 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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
ATTACHMENT 6
(from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
APPENDIX B
ATTACHMENT 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 28
Boring Logs
ATTACHMENT 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 29
ATTACHMENT 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 30
ATTACHMENT 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 31
ATTACHMENT 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 32
ATTACHMENT 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
File No. 8091-25.10
November 01, 2025 Page 33
ATTACHMENT 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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
ATTACHMENT 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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
20.000
20.000
30.000
30.000
30.000 40.000
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 6
(from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 6
(from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 3)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 7 (from Planning Commission Packet: Attachment 4)
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 8
(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
8
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 8
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 8
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 8
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
8
(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
8
C1
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
8
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 8
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 8
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 8
C5
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 8
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
8
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
8
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 8
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 8
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 8
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 8
(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
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
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 8
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council
Staff Report
June 1, 2026
PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Katherine Wallace, Associate Planner
APPROVED BY: Brandon Swanson, Acting City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution 2026-034 - Consideration of an appeal, APP 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace), by Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC, of the Historic Resources Board's April 20, 2026 decision to support a property owner-sponsored National Register of Historic Places Nomination for the "Reimers' Stonehouse Terrace" located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue in the Service
Commercial (SC) District. APN: 010-145-018-000. Consideration of options including a resolution to deny the appeal, a resolution to grant the appeal, or other actions related to the appeal as directed by Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Council take one of the following actions:
1. Motion to Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) to: 1) find, pursuant to CEQA regulations, consideration of APP 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace) is “not a project” as defined in Public Resources Code section 21065 and section 15378 of the CEQA guidelines; 2) deny the appeal (APP 26148, Stonehouse Terrace) of the action taken by the Historic Resources Board on April 20, 2026; 3) provide comments on the pending “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” National Register of Historic Places Nomination; and 4) issue a Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources for the property located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District, APN: 010-145-018-000.
OR
2. Motion to Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) to: 1) find, pursuant to CEQA regulations, consideration of APP 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace) is “not a project” as defined in Public Resources Code section 21065 and section 15378 of the CEQA guidelines; 2) grant the appeal (APP 26148, Stonehouse Terrace) of the action taken by the Historic Resources Board on April 20, 2026; 3) provide comments on the pending “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” National Register of Historic Places Nomination; and 4) issue a Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources for the subject property located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District, APN: 010-145-018- 000.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY:
Background/Summary:
The City Council is being asked to consider an appeal (APP 26148) of the Historic Resources Board's April 20, 2026 decision to support a property owner-sponsored National Register of Historic Places Nomination for the "Reimers' Stonehouse Terrace” property located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue.
Historic evaluations in Carmel-by-the-Sea are typically conducted at the request of a property owner. However, in this case, the City initiated a historic evaluation of the property after receiving a notice from the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), dated February 26, 2026 (Attachment 3) regarding a property ownersponsored National Register of Historic Places Nomination (Attachment 4) agendized for consideration by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) on May 7, 2026. The letter from OHP contained requests for staff comments and Historic Resources Board comments on the pending Nomination.
As the subject property had not previously been assessed as a potential historic resource eligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory, the City engaged Margaret Clovis, a City-contracted qualified professional, to prepare an intensive survey. Per Carmel-bythe-Sea Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.32.060.B.5 (Intensive Survey), intensive surveys are required to be performed by a qualified professional.
As part of the intensive survey, Ms. Clovis prepared a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Form (Attachment 5) and determined that, although the 1977 “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” appears significant as a good example of the Organic style designed by significant local architect Olof Dahlstrand, it is ineligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory at this time having not yet reached 50 years of age. Therefore, staff prepared a Determination of Ineligibility (Attachment 6) for the HRB with a custom expiration date aligning with the development’s 50-years-of-age mark: October 21, 2027.
Staff presented the Determination of Ineligibility and presented the State’s National Register Nomination review and comment request to the Historic Resources Board at the Board’s regular April 20, 2026 meeting, along with a staff report (Attachment 7) addressing the above-stated documents. It was the Board’s decision not to issue the
Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory. Further, Board members expressed support for adding the property to the Carmel Inventory at a future date.
The three members of the Board in attendance unanimously supported the National Register Nomination and passed a motion made by Vice Chair Dyar “to recommend the Stonehouse building go on the National Registry and we support the application and the report by Barbara Lamprecht.” The Board meeting recording is available online here (meeting recording time stamp 1:28:38), and adopted minutes are provided as Attachment 8.
On April 29, 2026, City staff relayed the Board’s comments on the pending National Register Nomination – along with staff comments – to the State OHP for inclusion in the SHRC May 7, 2026 hearing item packet. The City’s comment letter (Attachment 9) contained the following comments:
1. Staff Comments:
The “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” property located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue has not yet reached 50 years of age and does not appear to be of exceptional importance to the City, State, or nation based on input from the City’s contracted professional historian. However, when the property does reach 50 years of age, on October 21, 2027, it appears eligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources under Criterion C (Architecture), as a good example of the Organic style designed by significant local architect Olof Dahlstrand. Staff comments (Attachment A, “April 20, 2026 HRB Staff Report”) are supported by the findings of a City-contracted qualified professional, Ms. Margaret Clovis (Attachment B, “DPR 523 Form prepared by Ms. Clovis”).
2. Historic Resources Board Comments:
The HRB considered the “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” National Register Nomination and the City staff-prepared draft “Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources” during the Board’s Regular Meeting on April 20, 2026. The Board did not issue the Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory, nor did the Board take action to list the property on the Carmel Inventory, though Board Members expressed support for adding it at a future date.
The three members of the Board in attendance unanimously supported the National Register Nomination; a motion was passed recommending listing on the National Register and supporting the Nomination prepared by Barbara Lamprecht. Prior to the motion, Board Members provided comments in support of the Nomination, summarized as follows: Olof Dahlstrand, a master architect and prominent civic leader who served on the Carmel Planning Commission and City Council, created an outstanding, forward-thinking, adaptive re-use design for the Reimers, a longtime Carmel family since the 1920s, by integrating old and new to combine retail, office
and living space around a central landscaped courtyard – a typology specific to Carmel.
The City’s comment letter additionally explained that, per CMC Sections 17.54.010.B and 17.54.040.C, actions taken by the Historic Resources Board are appealable to the City Council.
On April 30, 2026, the City received a timely appeal, APP 26148 (Attachment 10, see Staff Analysis section below), and subsequently sent a follow-up letter to the State OHP (Attachment 11), notifying the State that an appeal had been received and therefore the City’s consideration of the Nomination was not yet complete. The “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” National Register Nomination was ultimately pulled from the SHRC’s May 7, 2026 agenda and continued to the next Commission meeting (August 6-7, 2026) due to incomplete noticing to all property owners (Attachment 12).
The matter of multiple property owners (not all of whom were involved in the preparation and submission of the National Register Nomination to the State) arose during the City’s review process. Unlike the City’s local Inventory, where properties may be listed despite owner objection, private properties may not be listed on the National Register over the objection of its owner, or in the case of a property with multiple owners, over the objection of a majority of owners. Following the April 20, 2026 Historic Resources Board meeting, the City received confirmation that the National Register Nomination will not face owner objection. In the scenario the SHRC supports the Nomination, a nomination file would be submitted by the State OHP to the “Keeper of the National Register” who has 45 days to determine listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AND IDENTIFIED OPTIONS ON ACTION Based on the analysis below, staff provides two potential options for the City Council to consider; deny or grant the appeal. In either case, staff recommends the City Council also consider providing comments to State OHP and issuing a Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources.
Denial of the Appeal. As discussed below and demonstrated in Attachment 1, if Council finds the appeal has no merit, then the appeal must be denied.
Grant of the Appeal. If after considering the facts presented and public testimony provided during the hearing, Council finds that the appeal has merit, then the option to grant the appeal can move forward through adoption of the draft resolution found as Attachment 2.
Provide Comments to OHP/SHRC. As discussed above, the City provided comments to State OHP and SHRC on April 29, 2026, that included Staff Comments supported by the findings of a City-contracted qualified professional and HRB Comments as provided at their April 20, 2026 meeting. Regardless of denying or granting the appeal, staff recommends Council provide comments as part of their action to either: confirm/agree
with the HRB comments relayed in April 29th comment letter, provide additional/supplemental comments or replace and provide revised comments altogether.
Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources.
Pursuant to CMC Section 17.32.040.H, a resource less than 50 years old may be eligible if it is of exceptional importance to the City, State, or nation. The City-contracted qualified professional found that although the subject property appears to be eligible upon reaching 50 years of age, it does not qualify for listing prior to 50 years of age as an exceptional resource. Therefore, the Council should consider issuing a Determination of Ineligibility with a custom expiration date aligning with the 50 years of age date.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Response to Historic Resources Board Direction
During the April 20, 2026 Stonehouse Terrace discussion, Historic Resources Board members requested Ms. Clovis conduct additional research and revise her DPR Form to reflect the findings of the Board, summarized as follows: Olof Dahlstrand, a master architect and prominent civic leader who served on the Carmel Planning Commission and City Council, created an outstanding, forward-thinking, adaptive re-use design for the Reimers, a longtime Carmel family since the 1920s, by integrating old and new to combine retail, office and living space around a central landscaped courtyard – a typology specific to Carmel.
Upon review of the discussion and the Board’s request, with the knowledge the matter of Stonehouse Terrace’s historicity would be heard by the Council, and at the request of the Planning Division, Ms. Clovis prepared an addendum memorandum (Attachment 13) for the Council’s consideration. The memorandum responds to the Boards’ request for additional information and reaffirms Ms. Clovis’ independent conclusion that the property is not eligible for listing (on local, state, or federal registries) at this time. Planning staff concurs with Ms. Clovis’ assessment.
Staff Summary and Response to Appeal APP 26148
Per CMC Section 17.54.010.B, The findings and actions of the Historic Resources Board shall be final and conclusive from and after the date of final action unless an appeal is filed with the City Council or the Coastal Commission pursuant to CMC §
17.54.040(C) or 17.54.040(D), 17.54.050 and the provisions in this chapter. Per CMC Section 17.54.040C, Appeals to the City Council, decisions to approve or deny projects made by the Planning Commission, Forest and Beach Commission or the Historic Resources Board may be appealed to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal in writing in the office of the City Clerk within 10 working days following the date of action by the decision-making body and paying the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.
Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC filed APP 26148 on April 30, 2026, prior to the
close of the ten working day appeal period which concluded on May 4, 2026. The appeal form includes the date of decision being appealed (April 20, 2026) and the specific action or decision being appealed: (2026-001-HRB, HE 26090 Stonehouse Terrace). Staff note: The HRB did not adopt Resolution 2026-001-HRB, however, the City’s legal counsel confirmed the HRB’s action constituted an appealable action.
The five primary claims of the Esperanza appeal are directly quoted below, followed by individual staff responses to each claim.
A. Claim: The HRB lacks authority under CMC Chapter 2.74 to send a support letter, especially one that gives the reader the impression that a building will, in the future, be listed as a historic resource.
Staff response: This appeal contention has no merit. CMC Section 2.74.020, Duties and Powers of the Historic Resources Board, defines the duties, powers and responsibilities of the Historic Resources Board. The subsections of CMC Section 2.74.020 do not specify the Board’s role in the review and comment of pending State or National Register nominations, however, CMC Section
2.74.020A identifies the Board’s power “to administer the historic preservation program pursuant to this chapter.”
The referenced chapter is CMC Chapter 17.32, Historic Preservation. CMC Section 17.32.010.E states that “Participating in Federal and State preservation processes and programs” is one of the purposes of the historic preservation ordinance. Therefore, the Board’s participation in the State/Federal preservation process by considering and providing comment on a pending nomination is appropriate. The State OHP prompted the Board’s participation by sending the City the review and comment notification letter (refer to Attachment 3), which states, “Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, we have also provided a copy of the nomination to your local preservation commission. Your local preservation commission may comment on whether the nominated property, in its opinion, meets the criteria for the National Register and forward their comments to [staff]. Please transmit your local preservation commission’s comments with your comments to California State Parks…” B. Claim: A letter supporting the eligibility of a property as a Carmel Historical Resource that is currently ineligible for consideration, is both speculative and presumptive declaring the outcome of a future HRB action.
Staff response: This appeal contention has no merit. The property is eligible for consideration as a historic resource. The Land Use and Community Character Element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan describe that, “When evaluating resources for potential historic value, the threshold of 50 years old is often used by historic resource professionals as a trigger that such a review is needed. The passing of fifty years provides sufficient time for evaluators to determine whether a particular resource may have become significant in a particular context. Of course, it is also important that decision makers have the
discretion and ability based on the recommendation of a qualified professional to determine that resources less than 50 years old are historic, as sometimes a younger resource does rise to a level of historic significance. The Carmel LCP provides the appropriate policies and procedures to allow evaluation of potential historic resources, whether older than 50 years or not. (LUP)” Per CMC Section 17.32.060B.1, historic evaluations “as initiated by the Department” shall be conducted to determine whether properties may have historic resource potential. CMC Section 17.32.040.C specifies that eligible resources should be a minimum of 50 years of age, however, they are not required to be. CMC Section 17.32.040.H offers further clarification, specifying (emphasis added), A resource less than 50 years old may be eligible if it is of exceptional importance to the City, State, or nation based on its unusually strong contribution to history, architecture, engineering or culture, or because it is an integral part of an historic district.
C. Claim: HRB advisory authority runs internally and its activities are limited to serving in an advisory capacity for the Planning Commission and City Council, and does not extend to external state bodies.
Staff response: This appeal contention has no merit. See section “A” above.
D. Claim: The HRB support letter potentially could direct harm to Appellant's pending discretionary applications and CEQA Categorical Exemption status by the HRB action that exceeds their authority.
Staff Response: This appeal contention has no merit. As demonstrated in Section “A” above, the HRB has the authority provide comments to State OHP.
Further, the CEQA action on the pending discretionary application referenced by the appellant is not final nor does the comment letter from the HRB involve the pending project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, environmental review shall commence once a discretionary project is deemed complete and prior to approving the project, the decision making body shall either find the project categorically or statutorily exempt, adopt a negative declaration or mitigated declaration or certify a final environmental impact report.
E. Claim: The HRB issuance of a support letter directly violates proper public notice requirements.
Staff response: This appeal contention has no merit. The item before the HRB provided the required public notice (published in the Pine Cone on April 10, 2026) which read:
“Consideration of a property owner-sponsored National Register of Historic Places Nomination and a City-initiated Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources for the "Reimers' Stonehouse Terrace" located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest
of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District. APN: 010-145- 018-000.”
The notice appropriately identified the Board’s consideration of the National Register Nomination. A notice containing the same contents was also handdelivered to all occupants within 100-feet and mailed to all property owners within 300-feet of the subject site as described in CMC Section 17.52.110.
Council Action
The first option before Council is to deny the appeal. The appellant’s claims focus on the powers of the HRB and how comments to State OHP are speculative and potentially affect a pending discretionary permit application. As demonstrated above, staff reviewed the appellants’ contentions and found that their claims have no merit.
However, the hearing on the appeal is de novo and therefore staff provides an alternative. Should Council receive public testimony that provides sufficient evidence that the appellant’s claims do have merit, the second option before Council is to grant the appeal.
Whether or not Council finds the appeal to have merit or not, pursuant to CMC Section
17.32.040.H, a resource less than 50 years old may be eligible if it is of exceptional importance to the City, State, or nation. National Register Bulletin 15 states that a property that has achieved significance within the past 50 years can be evaluated only when sufficient historical perspective exists to determine that the property is exceptionally important. Further, National Register Bulletin 22 states that in evaluating and justifying a resource as exceptionally importance, it is critical to identify properties in a geographic area that portray the same values or associations and determine those that provide the best example. As found by the City-contracted qualified professional, the subject property does not meet this test. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council include a Determination of Ineligibility as part of either action described above.
Although not specifically recommended by staff, the Council has other actions related to the appeal that can be considered. For example, if the Council finds that the Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace is potentially exceptional, Council could direct staff to contract with another qualified professional (e.g. third party review) to reassess the eligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory and remand the action back to the HRB.
Environmental Review: The denial or granting of APP 26148, provision of comments on a National Register Nomination, and issuance of a determination of ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources is “not a project” as defined in Public Resources Code section 21065 and section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. The actions do not grant any permits or entitlements approving a project that would result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
At the request of the Planning Division, Ms. Clovis prepared a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form for consideration by staff and by the Historic Resources Board at a cost of $2,400. Ms. Clovis prepared an addendum memorandum to respond to the concerns raised by the Historic Resources Board at a cost of $960. The invoices were paid from the FY 25-26 Community Planning and Building Department budget.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachment 1 - Resolution to DENY - APP 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace)
2. Attachment 2 - Resolution to GRANT - APP 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace)
3. Attachment 3 - OHP CLG Review and Comment Request Letter
4. Attachment 4 – National Register of Historic Places Nomination
5. Attachment 5 - DPR 523 Form prepared by Ms. Clovis
6. Attachment 6 - Draft Determination of Ineligibility
7. Attachment 7 - 04.20.2026 Stonehouse Terrace HRB Staff Report
8. Attachment 8 - 04.20.2026 HRB Minutes
9. Attachment 9 - CLG Comments on Reimers Stonehouse Terrace NR Nomination
10. Attachment 10 - APP 26148 (Stonehouse Terrace) Application and Letter_Redacted
11. Attachment 11 - CLG Comments on Reimers Stonehouse Terrace Nomination_rev.04.30.2026
12. Attachment 12 - Reimers Stonehouse Terrace Nomination_Removal from May 7 SHRC Agenda
13. Attachment 13 - Stonehouse Terrace Ms. Clovis Addendum Memo
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026-034-CC
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA FINDING THAT THE DENIAL OF APP 26148 (STONEHOUSE TERRACE) IS “NOT A PROJECT” AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21065 AND SECTION 15378 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES; DENYING THE APPEAL (APP 26148, STONEHOUSE TERRACE) OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD ON APRIL 20, 2026; PROVIDING COMMENTS ON THE PENDING “REIMERS’ STONEHOUSE TERRACE” NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NOMINATION; AND
ISSUING A DETERMINATION OF INELIGIBILITY FOR LISTING ON THE CARMEL INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT SAN CARLOS STREET 2 SOUTHWEST OF 7TH AVENUE IN THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC) DISTRICT, APN: 010-145-018-000.
WHEREAS, in March, 2026, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea received a 60-day review and comment period notification letter from the State Office of Historic Preservation regarding the property ownersponsored “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” National Register of Historic Places Nomination agendized for public hearing by the State Historical Resources Commission on May 7, 2026; and WHEREAS, in response, the City (“Applicant”) initiated a Historic Evaluation application “HE 26090 (Stonehouse Terrace)” for a Phase 1 Intensive Review for the property located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District (Block 91, south 20 ft of Lot 3, all of lots 5 & 7); and
WHEREAS, the 11,009 square-foot property contains one 1977 building designed by a significant local architect, Olof Dahlstrand, and one c.1904 building remodeled by Dahlstrand in 1977; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code [CMC] Chapter 17.32), as initiated by the [Planning] Department, an initial assessment of historic significance shall be conducted to determine whether the property may have historic resource potential sufficient to warrant conducting an intensive survey (CMC Section 17.32.060.B.1); and WHEREAS, in accordance with CMC Section 17.32.060.B, if a property appears to meet the criteria for the Inventory, a qualified professional under contract to the City shall prepare an intensive survey of the property; and
WHEREAS, a qualified professional under contract with the City, Margaret Clovis, completed a Phase 1 Intensive Review on a DPR 523A Form and concluded that the “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” is significant under California Register Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a good example of the Organic style designed by significant local architect Olof Dahlstrand, and retains substantial integrity, yet is ineligible for listing in the Carmel Historic Inventory as it has not yet reached 50 years of age; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CMC Section 17.32.070.D, upon making a determination that a property does not qualify for the Carmel Inventory, the City shall issue a determination of ineligibility; and WHEREAS, on or before April 10, 2026, the City posted the Historic Resources Board public
ATTACHMENT 1
meeting notice on the project site, hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site, and published a notice in the Pine Cone indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on or before April 17, 2026, the Historic Resources Board 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 20, 2026, the Historic Resources Board held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony, including without limitation, the information provided to the Board by City staff and through public testimony on the determination of ineligibility and on the National Register of Historic Places Nomination; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Resources Board did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgement to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, although discussed during deliberation, the Historic Resources Board did not specifically make a determination on whether the subject property qualifies as an exceptionally significant property that merits listing prior to reaching 50 years of age; WHEREAS, the Historic Resources Board did not adopt the determination of ineligibility, nor did the Board act to place the subject property on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources though Board Members expressed support for adding it at a future date; and WHEREAS, the Board provided comments on the “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” National Register Nomination forstaff to relay to the Office of Historic Preservation as summarized as follows: Olof Dahlstrand, a master architect and prominent civic leader who served on the Carmel Planning Commission and City Council, created an outstanding, forward-thinking, adaptive re-use design for the Reimers, a longtime Carmel family since the 1920s, by integrating old and new to combine retail, office and living space around a central landscaped courtyard – a typology specific to Carmel; and WHEREAS, Vice Chair Dyar made a motion “to recommend the Stonehouse building go on the National Registry and we support the application and the report by Barbara Lamprecht” which passed 3- 0-0; and
WHEREAS, May 30, 2026, Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC (“appellant”), submitted a timely appeal (APP 26148) of the Historic Resources Board’s action (“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
ATTACHMENT 1
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 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-By-The-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 item 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 find the five claims of the appellant are without merit as follows:
a. Historic Resources Board Lacks Authority. Pursuant to CMC Section 2.74.020 and
17.32.010.E, it is the Historic Resources Board’s duty to administer the historic preservation program and participate in federal and state preservation processes and programs.
b. Support of an Property Ineligible for Consideration is Speculative and Presumptive. The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace is eligible for consideration as a historic resource.
c. Historic Resources Board Authority Runs Internally. Pursuant to CMC Section
2.74.020 and 17.32.010.E, it is the Historic Resources Board’s duty to administer the historic preservation program and participate in federal and state preservation processes and programs.
d. Potential Harm to Appellant’s Application and CEQA Exemption. Pursuant to CMC Section 2.74.020 and 17.32.010.E, it is within the Historic Resources Board’s power to provide comments to the State Office of Historic Preservation and State Historical Resources Commission. The appellant’s application referenced in the appeal is pending and therefore the appropriate CEQA determination is also pending.
e. Improper Noticing. The item considered by the Historic Resources Board was appropriately noticed.
4. The City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby submit the following
ATTACHMENT 1
comments on the pending “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” National Register Nomination to the State Office of Historic Preservation and State Historical Resources Commission:
a. [City Council to provide language at the June 1, 2026 meeting.] b. [City Council to provide language at the June 1, 2026 meeting.] c. [City Council to provide language at the June 1, 2026 meeting.]
5. The City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby issue a Determination of Ineligibility for Listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources, with a custom expiration date aligning with the property’s 50 years of age date: October 21, 2027.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby FIND the Council’s action “not a project” as defined in Public Resources Code section 21065 and section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. The action does not grant any permits or entitlements approving a project that would result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby DENY the appeal by Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC (APP 26148, Stonehouse Terrace) of the Historic Resources Board’s April 20, 2026 action regarding “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District. APN: 010-145-018-000.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 1st day of June 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Dale Byrne Nova Romero
Mayor City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2026-034-CC
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA FINDING THAT
GRANTING THE APPEAL IS NOT A PROJECT AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21065 AND SECTION 15378 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES; GRANTING THE APPEAL (APP 26148,
STONEHOUSE TERRACE) OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD ON APRIL 20, 2026; PROVIDING COMMENTS ON THE PENDING “REIMERS’ STONEHOUSE TERRACE” NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NOMINATION; AND ISSUING A DETERMINATION OF
INELIGIBILITY FOR LISTING ON THE CARMEL INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT SAN CARLOS STREET 2 SOUTHWEST OF 7TH AVENUE IN THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL (SC) DISTRICT, APN: 010-145-018-000.
WHEREAS, in March, 2026, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea received a 60-day review and comment period notification letter from the State Office of Historic Preservation regarding the property ownersponsored “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” National Register of Historic Places Nomination agendized for public hearing by the State Historical Resources Commission on May 7, 2026; and WHEREAS, in response, the City (“Applicant”) initiated a Historic Evaluation application “HE 26090 (Stonehouse Terrace)” for a Phase 1 Intensive Review for the property located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District (Block 91, south 20 ft of Lot 3, all of lots 5 & 7); and
WHEREAS, the 11,009 square-foot property contains one 1977 building designed by local significant architect, Olof Dahlstrand, and one c.1904 building remodeled by Dahlstrand in 1977; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code [CMC] Chapter 17.32), as initiated by the [Planning] Department, an initial assessment of historic significance shall be conducted to determine whether the property may have historic resource potential sufficient to warrant conducting an intensive survey (CMC Section 17.42.060.B.1); and WHEREAS, in accordance with CMC Section 17.32.060.B, if a property appears to meet the criteria for the Inventory, a qualified professional under contract to the City shall prepare an intensive survey of the property; and
WHEREAS, a qualified professional under contract with the City, Margaret Clovis, completed a Phase 1 Intensive Review on a DPR 523A Form and concluded that the “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” is significant under California Register Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a good example of the Organic style designed by significant local architect Olof Dahlstrand, and retains substantial integrity, yet is ineligible for listing in the Carmel Historic Inventory as it has not yet reached 50 years of age; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CMC Section 17.32.070.D, upon making a determination that a property does not qualify for the Carmel Inventory, the City shall issue a determination of ineligibility; and WHEREAS, on or before April 10, 2026, the City posted the Historic Resources Board public
ATTACHMENT 2
meeting notice on the project site, hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site, and published a notice in the Pine Cone indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on or before April 17, 2026, the Historic Resources Board 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 20, 2026, the Historic Resources Board held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony, including without limitation, the information provided to the Board by City staff and through public testimony on the determination of ineligibility and on the National Register of Historic Places Nomination; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Resources Board did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations, and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgement to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, although discussed during deliberation, the Historic Resources Board did not specifically make a determination on whether the subject property qualifies as an exceptionally significant property that merits listing prior to reaching 50 years of age; WHEREAS, the Historic Resources Board did not adopt the determination of ineligibility, nor did the Board act to place the subject property on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources though Board Members expressed support for adding it at a future date; and WHEREAS, the Board provided comments on the “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” National Register Nomination forstaff to relay to the Office of Historic Preservation as summarized as follows: Olof Dahlstrand, a master architect and prominent civic leader who served on the Carmel Planning Commission and City Council, created an outstanding, forward-thinking, adaptive re-use design for the Reimers, a longtime Carmel family since the 1920s, by integrating old and new to combine retail, office and living space around a central landscaped courtyard – a typology specific to Carmel; and WHEREAS, Vice Chair Dyar made a motion “to recommend the Stonehouse building go on the National Registry and we support the application and the report by Barbara Lamprecht” which passed 3- 0-0; and
WHEREAS, May 30, 2026, Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC (“appellant”), submitted a timely appeal (APP 26148) of the Historic Resources Board’s action (“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
ATTACHMENT 2
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 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-By-The-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 item 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 submit the following comments on the pending “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” National Register Nomination to the State Office of Historic Preservation and State Historical Resources Commission:
a. [City Council to provide language at the June 1, 2026 meeting.] b. [City Council to provide language at the June 1, 2026 meeting.] c. [City Council to provide language at the June 1, 2026 meeting.]
4. The City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby grant the appeal for the purpose of issuing a Determination of Ineligibility for Listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources, with a custom expiration date aligning with the property’s 50 years of age date: October 21, 2027.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby FIND the Council’s action “not a project” as defined in Public Resources Code section 21065 and section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines. The action does not grant any permits or entitlements approving a project that would result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby GRANT the appeal by Esperanza Carmel Commercial LLC (APP 26148, Stonehouse Terrace) for the reasons stated above.
ATTACHMENT 2
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 1st day of June 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Dale Byrne Nova Romero
Mayor City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required Information
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Primary # ___________________________________________
HRI # ______________________________________________
Trinomial ___________________________________________
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code ______ Reviewer ______________________ Date _______________________
P1. Other Identifier: San Carlos 2 SW of 7th Ave.
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Monterey and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary) *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Monterey Date 2012 T ; R ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; Mount Diablo B.M. c. Address San Carlos 2 SW of 7th Ave. City Carmel by the Sea Zip 93921 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone ; mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) APN 010-145-018, Block 91, S 20 FT of lot 3; All of lots 5 & 7 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting and boundaries) The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace commercial complex is located on the west side of San Carlos Street, between 7th and 8th Avenues. There are two separate buildings within the complex: the southernmost building was constructed about 1904, and the northernmost building was constructed in 1977.
Ruth Milwain bought lot 7, Block 91 from the Carmel Development Company in 1904 (Pajaronian, 8/11/1904, p. 6). She later bought lots 3, 5, and 9 in the same block. The 1910 Sanborn Map indicates that she built a onestory wood-framed L-shaped cottage on lot 7. A small front porch was located on the northeast corner of the house. By 1930, the Sanborn Map (Figures 16-19) indicates a small addition was added to the southeast corner of the house, and a garage was added to lot 5 (this may have been BP# 984, issued in May 1925). The Reimers family bought the property in the late 1930s. Two permits for remodeling the house were issued in 1944 (BP# 1104) and 1948 (BP# 1710). The first was for building an unspecified addition and adding the (cont. p. 3) P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #) Front Elevation,
03/2026
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: c. 1904; 1977
Historic
Prehistoric Both
BP# 76-191
*P7. Owner and Address:
Reimers Family Trust
POB 41
Carmel, CA. 93921
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
Meg Clovis
14024 Reservation Rd.
Salinas, CA 93908
*P9. Date Recorded: 03/2026
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP6, 1-3 story commercial building; HP3, multiple family dwelling *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) *P11. Report Citation: (cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none.”) Carmel Historic Resources Survey, 1990 *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List)
ATTACHMENT 5
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required Information
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Primary # __________________________________________
HRI # _____________________________________________
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace B1. Historic Name: Reimers Residence
B2. Common Name: San Carlos 2 SW of 7th Ave.
B3. Original Use: Residence B4. Present Use: Mixed-Use Commercial *B5. Architectural Style: Organic
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alteration, and date of alterations) Cottage built c. 1904; Commercial building built in 1977 (see P3a for description of alterations and dates). *B7. Moved? x No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect/Designer: Olof Dahlstrand b. Builder: Ausonio Construction *B10. Significance Theme: The Carmel Dynamic Continues (1966-1986) Area Carmel by the Sea Period of Significance: 1977 Property Type: Building Applicable Criteria: CR3 (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Address integrity.)
Ruth May Milwain (1858-1947) bought lot 7, Block 91 in 1904 from the Carmel Development Company. By 1910 a small one-story cottage was developed on the property (1910 Sanborn Map). Ruth Milwain was born in Placer County. She was the daughter of Alexander Milwain, a carpenter, who immigrated from New York to California with the Argonauts of 1849 (also known as the “forty-niners”, seeking their fortunes in the California Gold Rush). The family later settled in Oakland where Mr. Milwain opened a contracting business. Ruth’s brother, William Milwain, was an architect who worked in Oakland and San Francisco. Ruth likely received help from her father and brother to build the small vacation cottage in Carmel. In 1916 Ruth bought lots 3, 5, and 9 in Block 91 (The Californian, 12/9/1916, p. 6).
Norwegian immigrants Niels Juel Reimers (1899-1969) and Kristi Reimers (1903-1964) settled in Carmel in the 1920s. The couple borrowed $10,000 from Barney Segal in the late 1930s and bought lots 5, 7, and 9 in Block
91. At that time, a plumbing shop was on lot 9 (presently APN 010-145-019-000, located directly south of the subject property). They remodeled the plumbing shop into the Carmel Inn, and they lived in the cottage. Niels was an electrician for Rohr Electric in the Village and Kristi managed the Inn. (cont. p. 5) (This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes (List attributes and codes):
*B12. References:
Carmel Context Statement & Historic Preservation Ordinance Building File, Carmel Planning Dept.
National Register Bulletin 15
Gunnar Reimers Obit., Carmel Pine Cone, 10/11/2019.
Niels Reimers Oral History, Harrison Memorial Library, 3/18/2016 Census Records & US Directories accessed through Ancestry.com.
Newspapers accessed through Newspapers.com.
Sanborn Maps
B13. Remarks
*B14. Evaluator: Meg Clovis
*Date of Evaluation: 03/2026
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
P3a. Description continued:
rock veneer that faces the building today. The second permit was for another addition, a new foundation, a general remodel and more chalk rock veneer. By 1962 the Sanborn Map reveals that the footprint had changed to a U-shape and the northeast porch had been enclosed. In 1977 the Reimers’ sons, Gunnar and Niels, significantly remodeled the house to incorporate it into their new Stonehouse Terrace development (BP# 76- 191). This remodel, designed by architect Olaf Dahlstrand, included building a one-story addition with a rooftop patio across the front elevation. The final change to the building was the removal of the chalk rock chimney and fireplace in 2013 (no building permit on file). There is no record of what the Milwain cottage originally looked like, and it can be safely said that the building no longer resembles the Milwain vacation cottage or the Reimers’ home where the family lived in the 1940s and 1950s. For this reason, no character-defining features are identified for the former cottage.
Today the former Milwain/Reimers cottage is a two-story building with an antique store on the ground level and a restaurant on the second level. On the east façade, plate glass windows flank the central Dutch door.
Another entry is located on the ground floor on the south elevation. A plaque on the wall above the south door is inscribed Solveig Marie Reimers, the name of the Reimers’ one month old daughter who passed away in 1930.
Concrete stairs lead up to the second floor to the restaurant entrance at the north elevation. The entrance is in the indent of the U plan. The restaurant’s rooftop patio is above the antique store and faces San Carlos Street.
Most of the building’s original fenestration was changed in 1977 to serve the building’s new commercial use.
In 1977 Olof Dahlstrand designed and executed the Reimers Stonehouse Terrace mixed-use commercial building, located on lot 5. The L plan building has mid-level retail and office units, two apartment units on the upper level, and a lower-level parking garage below the north wing. The building is located on a parcel that slopes down towards San Carlos Street. Dahlstrand used the topography as an opportunity to step the building up the site. A single-story store is located on the ground level facing San Carlos Street. From there, the building moves up the slope into its three-story massing. A low-pitched cross hipped roof system is used throughout.
The wide, overhanging boxed eaves are a prominent feature. Most exterior walls are covered with cement stucco, especially the less visible elevations. Chalk rock faces the ground floor exterior walls along San Carlos Street and then the siding transitions into vertical redwood planks in the courtyard area. A variety of window types are used throughout the building. Many are fixed plate glass windows, but others are shallow bay windows, located along the mid-level retail and office walkway. 1 The windows in the west wing are fixed glass
with grid frames. Doors vary as well. Dahlstrand used both glazed doors and Dutch doors, the latter of which can be credited to a long-standing Carmel design tradition. The upper-level apartments have balconies.
The courtyard between the two buildings is an important defining space. Like the 1977 building, the landscape features are stepped up the site, in a network of stairs and terraces. Photographs indicate that Dahlstrand 1 Figure 20 shows multipaned windows in the midlevel walkway, but there is no evidence that they were actually installed.
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
incorporated chalk rock planters, aggregate walkways, and concrete steps up to the mid-level retail space.
These provided the foundation for lush plantings. There is no record in the building file that a landscape architect was responsible for the landscape plan.
In 2012 the Reimers brothers hired architect Robert Littell to build an enclosure for the existing ADA lift within the north wing of the mixed-use building and to redesign the entrance to the Stonehouse Terrace courtyard.
Littell’s design did not change the spatial relationships between the two buildings, which is defined by the courtyard. It did result in the stepped chalk rock planters that border the entry stairs today, rebuilt stairs, new planters, and new railings throughout the courtyard.
Dahlstrand was recognized for his Usonian or Organic2style buildings and he used Usonian principles in his design of the Stonehouse Terrace. These principles include:
▪ The Stonehouse Terrace building harmonizes with its natural environment. This is demonstrated by how Dahlstrand’s design responded to the sloped terrain of the site. ▪ Dahlstrand design used regional and natural materials, such as chalk rock and redwood to relate to the building’s setting.
▪ Dalhstrand’s design used a low-pitched roof with deep overhanging eaves to provide protection from the weather.
▪ Dahlstrand’s design incorporates a wide variety of windows to connect indoors and outdoors.
The character-defining features of the Reimers’ Stonehouse terrace property includes the following:
1977 Mixed-Use Commercial Building
▪ The low-pitched hipped roof system with wide overhanging boxed eaves. ▪ The L-shaped plan, one and two-story massing, and stepped arrangement of the building on the site. ▪ The chalk rock, vertical redwood siding and cement stucco siding. ▪ Original window and door openings including all original door and window variations. 1977 Site Features
▪ Primary pedestrian access to courtyard from San Carlos Street. ▪ The central courtyard space.
▪ The brick along the mid-level retail walkway.
▪ Hardscape features such as the chalk rock planters and chalk rock walls.
Most of the alterations to the 1977 Stonehouse Terrace building have focused on interior changes and/or repairs. The building has been reroofed three times: in 1989 (BP# 89-119), in 2002 (BP# 02-02C), and in 2009 (BP# 09-02C). The original shake roofing was replaced with composition roofing in 2002. The Reimers brothers hired architect Robert Littell to design an enclosure for the ADA lift (located on the northeast side of the 2 Carmel’s Historic Context Statement refers to the Usonian style as the Organic style (see p. 137).
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
courtyard) in 2012 (BP# 12-182C). This slightly extended the roofline, and new windows were added to the second level of the east, west and south elevations of the new enclosure (see Figure 4). The simple design and arrangement of the windows do not compete with Dahlstrand’s more complex window types. They are both compatible and differentiated from the original windows in the building and the ADA lift enclosure does not affect the building’s integrity.
The 2012 alterations included constructing new aggregate concrete entry stairs into the courtyard and changing other elements within the courtyard. New chalk rock planters were added that bordered the stairs and new metal railings were added to the mid-level retail walkway. Although compatible materials were used to construct these alterations, the result was the removal of Olaf Dahlstrand’s original courtyard entrance.
B10. Significance continued:
Their two sons, Niels and Gunnar, were raised in the cottage. Gunnar Reimers (1931-2019) attended Sunset School. After graduation he entered St. Olaf’s College where he earned a degree in Physics. He then attended the University of California, Berkeley, where he graduated with a Business degree. Gunnar Reimers worked for Philco Ford Aerospace where he built satellite tracking stations worldwide. He retired in Carmel Valley.
Niels Reimers (1933- ) studied at Stanford and Oregon State and received a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering. After serving three years in the US Navy, he worked in manufacturing, engineering, and contract management at Ampex Corporation and Philco Western Development Laboratories. He joined Stanford University in 1968 and founded the Office of Technological Licensing, serving as its director until his retirement in 1991. Niels Reimers currently lives in Carmel.
Ruth Milwain nor any member of the Reimers family are included in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement as significant people.
In 1977 the Reimers brothers remodeled their old family home on San Carlos Street and built a new commercial complex, Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace, which included a restaurant, retail shops, offices and two apartments.
They hired architect Olaf Dahlstrand to remodel the residence and design the new commercial complex.
Olof Dahlstrand (1916-2014) was born in Wisconsin, the son of Swedish immigrants. In 1939 he graduated from Cornell University with a degree in architecture. After designing buildings for the defense industry during World War II, he moved to the San Francisco Bay area and worked as an associate for Fred and Lois Langhorst. He became responsible for the practice in 1950 when they moved to Europe. Later he worked for Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. Between 1950 and 1958 Dahlstrand designed seven “Usonian” residences in the San Francisco Bay area. He opened an architectural office in Carmel in 1960, designing residences, schools, and commercial buildings. Locally he is best known for designing the Carmel Valley Shopping Center (1966) and the ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Wells Fargo Bank in Carmel (1964).3 Dahlstrand retired in 1984 and went on to serve on Carmel’s Planning Commission and City Council. Olof Dahlstrand is included in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement as a significant architect.
Both the Milwain/Reimers cottage (c. 1904) and the Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace (1977) were included in the Carmel Historic Resource Inventory that was completed in 19904. Although the buildings were identified in the survey they were not evaluated for significance. Neither building is included in the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD).
Evaluation for Significance
Historians use National Register Bulletin 155 as a guide when evaluating a property’s significance whether on a local, state, or national level. As a first step, to determine whether a property is significant, it must be evaluated within its historic context and the City of Carmel’s Historic Context Statement6 provides this context. The City of Carmel’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Section 17.32.040) reiterates the role of National Register Bulletin 15 in the evaluation of historic resources. Adopted eligibility criteria is modeled on the California Register’s four criteria with the addition of specific qualifications for Criterion 3 (Section 17.32.040.D).
The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace complex is not eligible under Criterion One (Events, Patterns, Trends) because no specific event led to the construction of the complex, and no important event took place in the complex.
The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace complex is not eligible under Criterion Two (Person) because neither Ruth Milwain nor any member of the Reimers family made any notable contributions to the village of Carmel-by-theSea.
Criterion Three (Architecture) has three eligibility factors as follows:
a) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or b) The property represents the work of a master or important creative individual; or c) The property possesses high artistic values.
Bulletin 15 defines distinctive characteristics as the physical features that commonly recur in individual types, and “to be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true 3 The Wells Fargo Bank building is included in the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Built Environment Resource Directory as a significant building with a status code of 5S2 (individual property eligible for local listing or designation). 4 Other Cultural Resource Surveys have been completed in Carmel since 1990, and the 1990 survey should not be confused with the most recent survey which is posted on the City’s website. 5 National Register Bulletin 15. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Park Service. 1998. 6 Historic Context Statement: Carmel-by-the-Sea. Approved by the City Council January 2025.
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
representative of a particular type.” The Milwain cottage was remodeled in 1944, 1948, and 1977, which significantly changed the footprint of the house, added a second story, changed the exterior siding, and materially altered the front elevation. It is not a contributing building within the complex.
The Olof Dahlstrand-designed commercial complex, constructed in 1977, exhibits several of the Organic style’s character-defining features, as described in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement (see p. 137). These include the low-pitched hipped roof system with wide, overhanging boxed eaves, the use of modernist construction methods using natural and local materials, wide expanses of glass, and the central courtyard that links the old and new buildings. The Dahlstrand hardscape features within the courtyard were changed in 2012, but the space remains the same. The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace building meets the first part of Criterion Three.
The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace complex was designed by Olof Dahlstrand who is included in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement as a significant architect because he was an important creative individual. The building meets the second part of Criterion Three.
Bulletin 15 explains the third part of Criterion Three as follows:
“A property is eligible for its high artistic values if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible, however, if it does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type.” In Carmel the Organic style is fully articulated by the Mrs. Clinton Walker House on Scenic Avenue, which was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace complex does not meet the third part of Criterion Three because it does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than the Walker House.
The California Register’s Fourth Criterion (Information Potential) is generally reserved for archeological sites.
The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace complex is not located within Carmel’s Archeological Overlay Zone, and there is no evidence in the historical record that the complex meets the eligibility requirements for Criterion Four.
Integrity
Integrity is defined as the ability of a property to convey its significance. There are seven aspects of integrity and to retain integrity, a property must retain several, if not most aspects. Carmel’s Historic Context Statement states that buildings designed by a significant architect should be strong examples of a particular architectural style, in this case the Organic style, and should possess sufficient historic integrity. ▪ Location: the Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace is still in its original location. The building retains integrity of Location.
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
▪ Design: the Dahlstrand designed commercial building has retained important design features such as the hipped roof system with wide, overhanging boxed eaves and the wide variety of fenestration types and patterns.
▪ Setting: the Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace complex is in a commercial setting which has not changed since its construction in 1977.
▪ Materials: the Dahlstrand designed commercial building within the complex retains integrity of materials, such as the redwood and chalk rock siding.
▪ Workmanship: the Dahlstrand designed commercial building within the complex has retained integrity of workmanship which is visible in the chalk rock siding and construction details. ▪ Feeling: Integrity of Feeling requires a property to contain enough physical features to convey its historic character. The Dahlstrand designed building within the complex retains enough physical features to illustrate an Organic style building, and therefore it retains integrity of Feeling. ▪ Association: Association is only applicable to properties that are significant under Criteria One and Two.
To be eligible for the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources a property must represent a theme in the Context Statement, retain substantial integrity, be at least 50 years old, and meet at least one of the four criteria for listing in the California Register. The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace complex is not 50 years old, but it meets California Register Criterion Three. The building does retain substantial integrity, and it represents the Historic Context theme The Carmel Dynamic Continues (1966-1986). The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace complex does not meet the eligibility criteria for the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources because it is not 50 years old.
However, Carmel’s Historic Preservation Ordinance provides exceptions to this rule, as discussed below.
The Fifty-Year Rule
In 1948 the National Park Service established the 50-year rule to operate as a filter to ward off potentially controversial decisions regarding historic significance. The National Register, California Register, and Carmel Historic Preservation Ordinance have different interpretations of the 50-year rule and when there may be exceptions.
The National Register’s Criterion G states that “a property achieving significance within the last 50 years is eligible if it is of exceptional importance.” Example of properties that are considered exceptionally important are presidential sites and resources associated with the country’s atomic heritage. A resource does not need to be nationally significant; rather, to determine if a property is exceptionally important it must be measured within its context.
The California Register states that “a resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance.” ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
A resource less than 50 years old may be eligible for the Carmel Historic Resources Inventory. Carmel’s Historic Preservation Ordinance states that “a resource less than 50 years old may be eligible if it is of exceptional importance to the City, State, or Nation based on its unusually strong contribution to history, architecture, engineering or culture, or because it is an integral part of a historic district (Carmel Municipal Code
17.32.040.H).” In Carmel, there have been debates in the past about listing buildings less than 50 years old. One such debate involved the Burde and Shaw designed Northern California Savings and Loan building on the southeast corner of Seventh Avenue and Dolores Street. Although the building is widely recognized as a significant Modern Movement building and was evaluated by the City prior to its 50-year date, it was not listed until it had officially reached the 50-year threshold. To date, no building in Carmel-by-the-Sea was less than 50 years old when it was listed on the City’s Inventory. When considered within its context, there is no evidence that the Stonehouse Terrace complex makes an unusually strong contribution to Carmel’s outstanding collection of Modern Movement buildings. It is not listed in the state’s Built Environment Resource Directory. It was not included in the retrospective of Carmel Modernism (2016) at the Carl Cherry Center, and it is not mentioned in any academic articles about the Modern Movement in Carmel.
In summary, the Carmel Context Statement, the Carmel Historic Preservation Ordinance, and the historical record do not support the eligibility of the Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace complex for the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources because it is not 50 years old and does not demonstrate exceptional importance to the City, State, or Nation.
Photographs of Dahlstrand Designed Building
Figure 1: View of the mid-level retail space, looking north. The chalk rock hardscape in the foreground and walkway railings were installed in 2012. The bump-out at image right accommodates access to the 2012 ADA lift.
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Figure 2: View of façade & partial north elevation (image right) looking southwest.
Figure 3: View of the parking garage on the north elevation, looking southwest.
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Figure 4: 2012 ADA elevator enclosure and extended roofline indicated in red.
Figure 5: Looking west down mid-level retail/office walkway with bay windows.
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Figure 6: Mid-level retail windows in west wing.
Figure 7: West elevation, looking east.
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Photos of Milwain/Reimers Cottage
Figure 8: View of cottage south elevation (image left) and east façade, looking northwest.
Figure 9: View of cottage east façade and north elevation, looking southwest.
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Figure 10: View of cottage north elevation, with recessed restaurant entrance, looking southeast.
Figure 11: View of cottage north elevation (image center) and rear west elevation (image right).
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Figure 12: View of cottage south elevation, looking north from neighboring property.
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Photos of Original Courtyard
Figure 12: View of upper courtyard looking west.
Figure 13: View of original stairs with metal railing.
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Figure 14: Current view of front stairs.
Figure 15: Dahlstrand Entrance Plan, 1976. Courtesy of Kristi Reimers.
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Sanborn Maps Showing Milwain/Reimers Cottage Transitions
Figure 16: 1910 Sanborn Map.
Figure 17: 1924 Sanborn Map.
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Figure 18: 1930 Sanborn Map.
Figure 19: 1962 Sanborn Map.
ATTACHMENT 5
State of California -- The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI#
Trinomial
*Recorded by Meg Clovis *Date 03/2026 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required Information
Dahlstrand Rendering
Figure 20: Dahlstrand rendering of Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace, 1976. Note multipaned windows on mid-level walkway. Courtesy of Kristi Reimers.
ATTACHMENT 5
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DETERMINATION
OF INELIGIBILITY
For the Carmel Historic Resources Inventory
On April 20, 2026, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Resources Board made a determination that the property identified below does not constitute an historic resource and is therefore ineligible for the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources.
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 010-145-018-000
Current Owner: REIMERS KRISTIE E ET AL
Block: 91; Lots: Part lot 3, All lots 5, 7
Street Location: San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue Lot Size: 11,009 sq. ft.
Original Date of Construction: 1977
The basis for this determination is:
The property lacks sufficient age to be considered historic. The property has substantially lost its historic integrity through alterations, additions, deterioration, changes in the surrounding environment or other causes. The property does not relate to historic themes or property types established in the Historic Context Statement for Carmel-by-the-Sea.
The property has no association with important events, people or architecture that are identified in the Historic Context Statement or that represent the historical/cultural evolution of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
There are other better examples of the builder’s work in the city.
This determination shall expire when the property reaches 50 years of age on October 21, 2027.
ATTACHMENT 6
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
April 20, 2026
PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Historic Resources Board Members
SUBMITTED
BY:
Katherine Wallace, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: HE 26090 (Stonehouse Terrace): Consideration of a property ownersponsored National Register of Historic Places Nomination and a Cityinitiated Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources for the "Reimers' Stonehouse Terrace" located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District. APN: 010-145-018-000 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board issue a Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources for the “Reimers' Stonehouse Terrace” located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue, and provide comments on the property owner-sponsored National Register of Historic Places Nomination formalized under Resolution 2026-001-HRB to relay to the State Office of Historic Preservation.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Historic Resources Board (HRB) is being asked to consider a property ownersponsored National Register of Historic Places Nomination (Attachment 2) and a Cityinitiated Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources (Attachment 1 and 4) for the “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” property located at San Carlos Street 2 southwest of 7th Avenue. Historic evaluations in Carmelby-the-Sea are typically conducted at the request of a property owner. However, in this case, the City initiated a historic evaluation of the property after receiving a notice from the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), dated February 26, 2026, regarding a property owner-sponsored National Register of Historic Places Nomination agendized for consideration by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) on May 7, 2026.
As the subject property had not previously undergone an evaluation as a potential ATTACHMENT 7
historic resource eligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory, the City engaged Margaret Clovis, a City-contracted qualified professional, to prepare a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Form (Attachment 3). Ms. Clovis determined that, although the 1977 “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” appears significant as a good example of the Organic style designed by significant local architect Olof Dahlstrand, it is ineligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory having not yet reached 50 years of age. Therefore, staff prepared a Determination of Ineligibility with a custom expiration date aligning with the 50-year mark: October 21, 2027.
The HRB’s decision on the City-initiated Determination of Ineligibility - and related comments on the National Register of Historic Places Nomination - will be relayed to the California OHP via Resolution 2026-001-HRB (Attachment 1 and 4). The Resolution will be included in the State Historical Resources Commission hearing item packet, and, pending the outcome of that meeting, would be included as part of the nomination file submitted by the California OHP to the “Keeper of the National Register.” The Keeper has 45 days to determine listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY
Property Description
In 1904, Ruth Milwain purchased lot 7 (block 91) from the Carmel Development Company. Recorded in 1910, the earliest available Sanborn map depicts a one-story, wood-framed, L-plan cottage with porch. The 1930 Sanborn map indicates the cottage had been expanded with a small southeast addition (possibly approved under BP# 984, issued May 1925).
Norwegian immigrants Niels Juel Reimers and Kristi Reimers purchased lots 5, 7 and 9 in the late 1930s. Permits issued in 1944 (BP #1104) and 1948 (BP #1710) indicate the Reimers received approval for an unspecified addition, a new foundation, and addition of rock veneer to the cottage. The 1962 Sanborn map reveals the cottage footprint had changed from an L-plan to a U-plan, and the northeast porch had been enclosed.
The Reimers hired local architect Olof Dahlstrand to transform the 11,009 square-foot subject property into the mixed-use development that exists today. To accommodate a new shop and new restaurant, Dahlstrand remodeled the c.1904 cottage under BP #76- 191 to feature a one-story addition with a roof-top patio at the front (east) elevation.
Dahlstrand also designed a new L-plan, Organic-style building to the north/west of the cottage, with commercial units on the first floor and apartments on the second floor. A vehicular driveway adjacent to the north property line provided access to a below grade (exposed) parking level, with pedestrian access served via a set of stairs leading from the San Carlos Street sidewalk into a central courtyard. The project was completed in 1977.
National Register Nomination Form vs. DPR 523 Form
In March 2026, the City received a review and comment period notification letter from OHP regarding the “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” National Register of Historic Places Nomination agendized for public hearing by the SHRC on May 7, 2026. The property ATTACHMENT 7
owner-sponsored nomination prepared by Barbara Lamprecht, a qualified professional, concludes the property is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under National Register Criterion C: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. As summarized in section 8, page 9 of the Nomination form, Ms. Lamprecht asserts:
“Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance under Criterion C in the Area of Architecture as an excellent example of master architect Olof Dahlstrand’s expertise in integrating a work of his design to harmonize with an existing and much older building. The addition’s Modern design employs his repertoire of character-defining features and embodies Dahlstrand’s respect for the existing built fabric surrounding the property. With its simple palette of natural materials, deep overhangs, and lush planting and landscaping, Dahlstrand’s work also recalls Carmel’s older allegiance to nature, simplicity, and rusticity. The two periods of significance represent the 1910 year of construction for the cottage and 1977 when construction of Dahlstrand’s surrounding complex was complete. The property’s contribution to Carmel’s history, architecture and culture has the necessary exceptional significance within the local context to meet Criteria Consideration G: Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years.”
Upon receipt of the SHRC meeting notice from the California OHP, containing a request for comments on the pending National Register of Historic Places Nomination, the City initiated a historic evaluation of the “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” property.
As the property owner did not engage with the City to apply for a historic evaluation, Historic Evaluation application #26090 (Stonehouse Terrace) is City-sponsored. The City contracted a qualified professional, Margaret Clovis, to author a DPR 523 Form for the subject property. Ms. Clovis conducted a site visit, completed primary and secondary-source research, and concluded that the “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” is ineligible for listing on the Carmel Historic Inventory at this time due to that fact it has not yet reached 50 years of age. Carmel-by-the-Sea (CMC) Section 17.32.040.C specifies that eligible resources should be a minimum of 50 years of age. CMC Section
17.32.040.H offers further clarification, specifying, A resource less than 50 years old may be eligible if it is of exceptional importance to the City, State, or nation based on its unusually strong contribution to history, architecture, engineering or culture, or because it is an integral part of an historic district. Ms. Clovis did not find the subject property to be of exceptional importance.
Both the property owner-sponsored National Register Nomination form and the Cityinitiated DPR 523 form conclude the property is significant due to its architectural style and architect. However, there are several differences between the reports, including but not limited to the items in the table below. Additional staff analysis is provided below.
ATTACHMENT 7
NRHP Form DPR 523 Form
Evaluates the property against the criteria
for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places.
Evaluates the property against the criteria
for listing on the Carmel Inventory of
Historic Resources, inclusive of the
California Register criteria.
Property is significant under National
Register Criterion 3: Property embodies
the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or
possesses high artistic values, or
represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinction.
• Specifically, as the work of a
master, possessing high artistic
values
Property is significant under CA Register
Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the
work of an important creative individual,
or possesses high artistic values.
• Specifically, as a good example of
Organic-style architecture,
representative of the work of
Dahlstrand, an important creative
individual
Period of Significance: 1910 and 1977 Period of Significance: 1977 Meets Criteria Consideration G:
Properties That Have Achieved
Significance Within the Last Fifty Years
Does not meet CMC Section 17.32.040.H
: A resource less than 50 years old may
be eligible if it is of exceptional
importance to the City, State, or nation
based on its unusually strong contribution
to history, architecture, engineering or
culture, or because it is an integral part of
an historic district.
Cottage construction date: 1910, based
on earliest Sanborn map
Cottage construction date: c.1904, based
on purchase date
Both buildings are “contributors” Only the 1977 building is a “contributor” Dahlstrand is a “master” architect Dahlstrand is a “significant” architect Uses the term “Usonian” architecture Uses the term “Organic” architecture
STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff concurs with Ms. Clovis’ analysis and conclusion that the “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” appears to meet California Register Criterion 3, parts 1 (Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction) and 2 (or represents the work of an important creative individual), and satisfy the necessary Carmel Inventory criteria under CMC Section 17.32.040.D, as an Organic design by Olof Dahlstrand, yet is ineligible for listing on the Carmel Inventory due to the fact it has ATTACHMENT 7
not yet reached 50 years of age.
Significance Assessment
California Register Criterion Three (Architecture) has three eligibility factors as follows:
a) The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or
b) The property represents the work of a master or important creative individual; or c) The property possesses high artistic values.
The c.1904 cottage does not meet any of the California Register significance criteria.
Apart from the knowledge gleaned from the 1910 Sanborn map, there is no record of what the c.1904 one-story, wood-frame, L-plan cottage looked like. However, subsequent Sanborn maps and the permit record provide sufficient evidence that the building no longer resembles the original Milwain cottage, nor does it resemble the Reimers’ home of the 1940s and 1950s. Due to numerous additions, a second story, enclosure of a porch, addition of stone veneer, fenestration changes, and loss of a stone chimney, no character defining features can be identified for this building. While Dahlstrand is credited with the front addition (with rooftop patio), the building cannot be considered a good example of a style nor a good example of Dahlstrand’s work. For that reason, the c.1904 cottage is not considered a contributing resource and has been omitted from the property’s 1977 “period of significance.” The 1977 Dahlstrand-designed building, however, exhibits several key Organic style features, as described in the Carmel Historic Context Statement (p.137), including a low-pitched hipped roof system with wide, overhanging boxed eaves, the use of modernist construction methods using natural and local materials, wide expanses of glass, and the central courtyard that links the old and new buildings. The building embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, therefore, the first part of Criterion 3 is met. The character defining features for the “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” are as follows:
1977 Mixed-Use Commercial Building
▪ The low-pitched hipped roof system with wide overhanging boxed eaves. ▪ The L-shaped plan, one and two-story massing, and stepped arrangement of the building on the site.
▪ The chalk rock, vertical redwood siding and cement stucco siding. ▪ Original window and door openings including all original door and window variations. 1977 Site Features
▪ Primary pedestrian access to courtyard from San Carlos Street. ▪ The central courtyard space.
▪ The brick along the mid-level retail walkway.
▪ Hardscape features such as the chalk rock planters and chalk rock walls.
Additionally, because the complex was designed by Olof Dahlstrand, who is included in ATTACHMENT 7
the Carmel Historic Context Statement as a significant architect, the second part of Criterion Three is met: The property represents the work of a master or important creative individual.
Bulletin 15 explains the third part of Criterion Three as follows: “A property is eligible for its high artistic values if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible, however, if it does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type.” In Carmel-by-the-Sea, the Organic style is fully articulated by the Mrs. Clinton Walker House on Scenic Avenue, which was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace complex does not meet the third part of Criterion Three because it does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than the Walker House.
Integrity Assessment
The 1977 Dahlstrand-designed building has undergone few exterior changes over the years. The permit record indicates that an original wood shake roof was replaced with composition shingle (BP #’s 89-11; 02-02C; and 09-02C). Visual observation reveals that divided-light bay windows have been replaced with non-divided-light bay windows within original openings. Additionally, while the Dahlstrand-designed pedestrian entry site stairs from San Carlos Street were remodeled in 2012, the circulation pattern was retained. In 2012, an ADA lift was added in a sensitive manner.
The “Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace” retains integrity.
• Location: The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace is still in its original location. The building retains integrity of Location.
• Design: The Dahlstrand designed commercial building has retained important design features such as the hipped roof system with wide, overhanging boxed eaves and the wide variety of fenestration types and patterns. • Setting: The Reimers’ Stonehouse Terrace complex is in a commercial setting which has not changed since its construction in 1977.
• Materials: The Dahlstrand designed commercial building within the complex retains integrity of materials, such as the redwood and chalk rock siding. • Workmanship: The Dahlstrand designed commercial building within the complex has retained integrity of workmanship which is visible in the chalk rock siding and construction details.
• Feeling: Integrity of Feeling requires a property to contain enough physical features to convey its historic character. The Dahlstrand designed building within the complex retains enough physical features to illustrate an Organic style building, and therefore it retains integrity of Feeling. • Association: Association is only applicable to properties that are significant under Criteria One and Two.
Olof Dahlstrand
ATTACHMENT 7