9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Council Report
June 2, 2015
To:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Douglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator
From:
Rob Mullane, AICP, Planning and Building Director
Subject:
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commissions approval of

Design Study (DS 14-107) and the associated Coastal Development
Permit for the construction of a new single-family residence located in the
Single-Family Residential (R-1), Park Overlay (P), and Beach and
Riparian Overlay (BR) Zoning Districts. The application is being appealed
by neighboring property owners: Heather Ryan and David Dube (HBE
Holdings, Inc).
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions approval of
Design Study (DS 14-107) and the associated Coastal Development Permit.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The project site is developed with a 1,322-square foot one-story
framed log cabin that was constructed in 1927. A detached one-car garage that faces San
Antonio was constructed in 1964. On May 20, 2013, the Historic Resources Board determined
that the house is ineligible for architectural significance, and a Final Determination of Historic
Ineligibility was issued on May 21, 2013.
The applicant has submitted a Design Study application (DS 14-109) to demolish the existing
residence and garage, and to construct a new 2,269-square foot one-story residence with a
partial subgrade lower level and a new detached garage. The Design Study application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at two separate meetings. The project received
conceptual review approval on December 10, 2014, and final review approval on April 8,
2015. The Planning Commissions approval was on a unanimously vote.
The approval is being appealed by the adjacent property owners to the north of the project
site: Heather Ryan and David Dube. The appellants primary concerns with the project are its
on impacts related to views, solar access, privacy, and proposed roof material. The appeal
application is included as Attachment 1. Findings for Approval of the project are included as
Attachment 2, and the projects Conditions of Approval are included as Attachment 3.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:
Project Description
The subject property is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1) and subject to two overlay
districts: the Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay District and the Park (P) Overlay District. The
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 1
proposed residence would be 2,269 square feet in size, which includes 1,468 square feet on
the main level and 801 square feet on the lower level. Staff notes that the residence is
classified as one-story because the lower level is primarily below grade. The new garage
would be partially attached to the residence by an adjoining roof element and would be 201
square feet in size. The proposed residence is designed with Modern-style architecture and
includes a combination of stucco (plaster), stone, and a single-ply Duro-Last roof. A full-color,
three-dimensional rendering of the proposed residence is included with the plan set
(Attachment 11).
Planning Commission Review and Staff Analysis
This project received Concept Review acceptance by the Planning Commission on December
10, 2014. The Commission concluded that the design of the proposed residence was
consistent with the Citys Residential Design Guidelines. The Commission also supported the
proposed flat-roof design as consistent with the Contemporary style of the residence and
important in reducing the buildings mass from public viewpoints along both Scenic Road and
San Antonio Avenue. In addition, the proposed residence is smaller in both mass and height
compared to the adjacent residences to the north and south. With regard to views and solar
access, the proposed building set-back from Scenic Road was determined to be adequate to
help maintain the ocean views and solar access enjoyed by the adjacent residences.
Prior to the Planning Commissions Concept Review, the appellant raised concerns regarding
the projects design. On the December 10, 2014 Tour of Inspection, the Planning Commission
visited the appellants property to assess potential view impairment, solar access issues, and
privacy impacts. At the ensuing public hearing, the appellant, Ms. Ryan, and her attorney, Ms.
Kemp, provided testimony reiterating their concerns with the project. The Planning
Commission expressed general support for the proposed building design, but asked the
applicant to work with the neighbors to the north to address their concerns. The applicant met
with the representatives of the appellant prior to the April 8, 2015 Final Review hearing in an
attempt to address these concerns.
This project received Final Review approval by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2015. At
that meetings Tour of Inspection, the Planning Commission again reviewed the concerns of
Ms. Ryan regarding the revised design. At the April 8, 2015 Planning Commission meeting,
the applicant went over the revisions prompted by the Planning Commissions direction at the
Concept Review meeting. The design revisions were also noted in the Final Review staff
report (See Attachment 4). At the Final Review meeting, the appellant and her attorney
provided additional testimony, including two letters, regarding ongoing concerns with the
project (letters included in Attachment 4). The Planning Commission, however, concluded that
the revised design was satisfactory and approved the project on a 5-0 vote.
Basis for Appeal
The appeal application notes several grounds for appeal. Below is a summary of these
concerns along with staff responses.
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 2
1.
Failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Response: As identified in the Planning Commission staff reports, the Hoffman Design Study,
a discretionary project, was found to be categorically exempt under CEQA pursuant to
Section 15302 Replacement or Reconstruction and Section 15303 Construction or
modification of a limited number of new or existing structures. Projects determined to be
categorically exempt do not require the preparation of more detailed environmental
documents.
The appellant asserts that the Hoffman project is not exempt from CEQA due to the proposed
demolition of the 1927 log cabin. On May 20, 2013, the Historic Resources Board (HRB)
reviewed the historicity of the existing residence and determined that the existing log cabin
does not constitute a significant City historic resource. Historic determinations are valid for a
period of 5 years, and therefore, the Citys historic determination for the log cabin remains
valid until May 21, 2018. The HRBs determination included the review of a preliminary
historic analysis of the subject property. This analysis was completed by the Citys historic
preservation consultant, Kent Seavey. Mr. Seaveys report noted that the property should
qualify as historically significant under Criterion 3 (architecture), as it represents a significant
architectural type (log cabin), period (1927), and method of construction (engineered log
building).
Staff reviewed Mr. Seaveys report and in the staff report for the HRBs determination, noted:
While the log cabin is unique and contributes to the diversity of the community, it does not
have a strong relationship to the Historic Context Statement. Additionally, there is no record of
the architect or builder, and the house has undergone numerous alterations of the years. The
HRB concurred with this staff analysis and made the determination that the existing log cabin
was not a significant historic resource. Given this determination, which was appealable to the
City Council, the Hoffman project does not require further CEQA review under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. Nor does the proposed demolition of the cabin result in a
significant historic impact. The Citys Determination of Ineligibility, which includes the HRB
staff report and the historians report is included as Attachment 8. The minutes of that meeting
are included as Attachment 9.
The appellant also asserts in the appeal correspondence that the Hoffman project involves
excavation within 50 feet of a coastal bluff, which grading is also considered a special
circumstance, creating the potential for a significant environmental impact. The closest
portion of the proposed residence is set back approximately 20 feet from the landward side of
Scenic Road and approximately 60 feet set back from the top of the coastal bluff. It is not on
the seaward side of Scenic Road or in an area prone to bluff retreat. There is no evidence that
the proposed development will require shoreline protective structures, and the grading
associated with the Hoffman project does not present a special circumstance nor create any
unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact.
Regarding grading, the Hoffman project is an infill project located on a lot zoned for singlefamily residential use. Scenic Road is developed with single-family residences. Given the
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 3
more-restrictive height limits that apply to this area, several of these residences along Scenic
Road include subgrade spaces that involve a moderate level of grading. Standard shoring
requirements, erosion control measures, and truck haul route requirements avoid significant
environmental impacts related to grading.
In the P Overlay District, the only regulation that applies to bluff protection includes the
requirement that a drainage plan be prepared to prevent erosion and excess runoff as
determined by the Building Official. A preliminary drainage plan is included on the Site Plan
(Attachment 11, Sheet A1.1), and a standard requirement of Building Permit issuance is a
final drainage plan included with the construction plan set for review and approval by the
Building Official. The design of discharge structures is reviewed to ensure that the design
does not result in the creation of undue erosion.
Finally, CMC Section 17.20.170 Application Content Additional Requirements is not
applicable to this project. This section states that permit applications for development on
ocean-fronting parcels are required to provide (where applicable) an erosion control plan and
geology report. As stated above, the project site is on the landward side of Scenic Road; it is
not an ocean-front parcel.
2.
The Project violates the City Design Guidelines and City Zoning Code.
A. Roof Elevations and Plate Heights

Regarding roof elevations and plate heights, the appellant asserts that the interior plate
heights and exterior roof elevations violate the City Design Guidelines and Zoning Code. The
appellant also asserts that the proposed flat roof is inconsistent with the Citys Residential
Design Guidelines.
Response: Staff has the following responses:
Roof Design: With regard to roof design, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed flat
roofs and determined that it was consistent with the Residential Design Guideline 8.3, which
states: Flat roofs may be used to a limited extent on smaller, one-story structures. They
should not be used on large buildings or two-story elements.
Plate and Ridge Heights: Residential Design Guideline 7.7 states: Using a low building plate
height is encouraged. The maximum plate height for the first floor of a building is 12 feet. (See
the Land Use Code for details.) However, this maximum is established to accommodate
sloping building sites. In cases where a building site is relatively flat, a lower plate height is
appropriate. Interior wall heights should generally not exceed 8 feet. The subject property
(within the proposed building envelope) slopes from east to west approximately 10 feet. In
approving the project, the Commission did not require a reduction in plate heights in part
because of the project sites slope. CMC Section 17.10.030 B. Height Limits establishes a
maximum of 12-foot plate heights for the first story. Regarding ridge height standards, the BR
Overlay District establishes a maximum of 18 feet for ridge height above the existing or

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 4
finished grade, whichever results in a lower height. As identified in the Final Review staff
report, the Hoffman project does not exceed this height limit.
Building Mass: Residential Design Guideline 5.3 states: Locate major building masses to
maintain some views through the site from other properties; and Consider keeping the mass
of a building low in order to maintain views through the site from other properties. As noted in
the staff report for the projects Concept Review, the mass and bulk of the proposed
residence is reduced by locating the lower level partially below existing grade; and the
proposed residence is substantially smaller in both mass and height compared to the adjacent
residences.
Preservation of Views, Open Space, and Solar Access:
View protection requirements within the BR Overlay District stipulate that development be
sited and designed to protect public views of the ocean and scenic coastal areas, be visually
compatible with the character of the surrounding areas, and (where feasible) restore and
enhance the visual quality in visually-degraded areas, while ensuring the private property
owner reasonable development of land. The proposed residence is set back 38 feet from
Scenic Road on the north side of the property in order to maintain ocean views and light
currently provided to the northern neighbor. Between the conceptual and final reviews, the
project was revised in an attempt to address the appellants concerns. A list of the design
revisions incorporated into the final design is provided in the Final Review staff report (See
Page 3 of Attachment 4).
B. Plastic Roofing Material.
The appellant objects to the proposed Duro-Last stone-pattern roofing material and its
visibility from neighboring properties.
Response: In review of the project, staff noted that the proposed roofing material was
potentially inconsistent with the Residential Design Guideline 9.8, which states: Metal, plastic
and glass roofs are inappropriate in all neighborhoods. While natural roofing materials are
recommended by the Guidelines, the Planning Commission has reviewed, and at times
approved, alternative synthetic-roofing materials if the materials are consistent with the
architectural style of the building and fit within the context of the neighborhood. In this
instance, the Commission was supportive of the proposed material. However, as the appellant
asserts, the visibility of the proposed roofing material may be greater than what was
presented to the Commission. As such, the City Council may require the applicant to revise
the roofing material to one that is more consistent with the Citys Design Guidelines.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 5
3.
Failure to Provide Adequate Safeguards for the Ryan/Dube Property Including

Lack of Volume Calculation, Grading/Lack of Geology and Geotechnical Reports,
and Elevation and Setback Confirmation
A. Lack of Volume Calculation:

The appellant asserts that the project fails to provide adequate safeguards regarding volume
requirements, grading, and elevation and setback confirmation.
Response: It is standard City procedure to require the volume study to be conducted after the
Final Design is approved by the Planning Commission. After the Design Study was approved
on April 8, 2015, staff contracted with City volumetrics consultant, Bill Vasilovich, to calculate
volume and prepare the analysis. The Hoffman project was found to meet the Citys volume
requirements.
B. Grading/Lack of Geology or Geotech Reports
Response: The City requires a Grading Plan to be submitted with the Plan set for a Design
Study application. The grading plan should note areas of proposed cut and fill yardage
amounts. The Grading Plan identifies less than 15 cubic yards of cut and 15 cubic yards of fill
on-site in areas outside of the footings. In addition, less than 2 cubic yards of cut and 2 cubic
yards of fill are identified for off-site grading of the new driveway in the San Antonio ROW.
The applicant has provided information on the grading required for the excavation of the lower
level: 296 cubic yards. For grading that involves export or import of soil, the City has a
standard requirement for utilization of a City-approved truck haul route.
Technical engineering studies, such as geotechnical reports and shoring plans, are generally
not required for Design Review applications. During the review of the Building Permit, the
Building Official reviews the plans for any necessary technical engineering studies.
C. Elevation and Setback Configuration
The applicant requests that the City condition the project to require the applicant to provide a
Certificate of Survey to verify roof heights and building setbacks.
Response: Staff does not support the addition of such a condition. The applicant may,
however, agree to provide this accommodation to the appellant, and if so, such a condition
could be applied.
4.
Discrepancies in the Plans.
The appellant is concerned about possible discrepancies in roof elevations, the design of the
north facing windows, and site coverage and FAR issues. The appellant states that the roof
elevations shown on the plans state to eaves and are inaccurately represented as the
maximum roof elevations.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 6
A. Roof Elevations
Response: Staff accepted the depiction of the maximum roof height elevations to be
identified as the top of each roof eave or to eave. Each flat-roof element will be
approximately 2-inches higher at the center of the element to allow for proper storm-water
drainage. The applicant indicated to staff that this 2-inch deviation, which is limited to the
center of each roof element, would not be seen from ground level. Special Condition #25 has
been added to clarify the roof elevations and ensure that the peak roof heights do not exceed
the to eave heights.
B. North Facing Windows
Response: The appellant stated that the window schedule (See Attachment 11, Sheet A4.1)
does not reflect the revision in the number and location of windows as shown on the North
Elevation drawings (Attachment 11, Sheet A3.1). Staff notes that the applicant does need to
update the window schedule, which staff will ensure is corrected when the construction
drawings are submitted for review by planning staff. Staff did not require the north facing
windows to be a specific distance from the main level finished floor; however the location of
these windows will need to be consistent with the elevation drawings approved by the
Planning Commission. Special Condition #26 has been added to ensure that the construction
plan set is revised to include the correct window schedule.
C. Site Coverage - FAR
The appellant asserts that a 190-square foot bonus area (See Attachment 11, Sheet A2.0)
extends into an open space or yard area outside the building foot print and therefore does
qualify as bonus floor area. The bonus floor area is actually 100 square feet. CMC
17.10.030.D.4.c. does require bonus floor area to be located within the perimeter established
by the exterior, above-ground walls of the primary dwelling site. As shown on the plans, the
applicant has identified the 100-square foot area, and this area is located directly under the
main level within the building footprint. Therefore, the 100-square foot bonus area identified
on the Lower Level Floor Plan does qualify as bonus floor area, and the remaining 90-square
foot adjustment is for stairs, which also is consistent with the Citys requirements.
Alternative Options
This hearing is a de novo hearing. The Council is responsible for reviewing the entire project
and is not bound by the decision of the Planning Commission. The December 10, 2014
(Concept Review) and April 8, 2015 (Final Review) Planning Commission staff reports are
included as Attachments 4 and 6 for the City Councils consideration. Attachments 5 and 7
include the minutes of these respective meetings. Based on the Planning Commissions
action and an analysis of the components of the appeal, staff recommends that the City
Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions approval. Draft Findings for
Approval and Conditions of Approval are included as Attachments 2 and 3 respectively.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 7
Alternative 1: In upholding the Planning Commissions approval of Design Study (DS 14107), the Council may include additional or revised conditions of approval. As discussed
above, the Council may consider conditioning the project to require different roofing material.
Alternative 2: The Council could grant the appeal and deny Design Study (DS 14-107).
Findings for Denial of the Design Study would be brought to the Council at a future meeting
for adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT:
In compliance with the Citys certified Local Coastal Program, the City does not collect a fee
of when an appeal to the City Council is filed for a property within the Coastal Commission
Appeal Jurisdiction. The staff-time costs to process the appeal are paid out of the Citys
General Fund.
Budgeted (yes/no)
No
Funding Source( general fund, grant,

state)
General Fund
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION/DECISION HISTORY:

Design Study (DS 14-107) was considered by the Planning Commission on 12/10/14 and
4/8/15. The Commission approved the Design Study on 4/8/15 by a vote of 5-0.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 Appeal Application
Attachment 2 Findings for Approval (Denial of Appeal)
Attachment 3 Conditions of Approval
Attachment 4 4/8/15 PC Final Staff Report and Appellant Team Correspondence
Attachment 5 4/8/15 PC Minutes
Attachment 6 12/10/14 PC Concept Staff Report
Attachment 7 12/10/14 PC Minutes
Attachment 8 Determination of Ineligibility with HRB staff report and historian report
Attachment 9 5/20/13 HRB minutes
Attachment 10 Site Photographs
Attachment 11 Project Plans and Three-Dimensional Rendering
Attachment 12 Recent Correspondence from the Appellant Team

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 8
APPROVED:
____________________________________
Douglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator
Date: ________________

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 9
ATTACHMENT #1
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
APR 2 2 2015
APPEAL OF PLANNING CO:M1v1ISSION DECISION
Received
(FILING FEE: ~) ~otf.82-
Appellant:
Heather Ryan & David Dube (HBE Holdings, Inc.)
Property Owner:
Mailing Address:
_S_am_e_as_ ab_o_v_e._ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
c/o Christine Kemp, Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss 470 Camino El Estero
Monterey, CA 93940
Phones: Day:( 831) _3'-.:.7-'-3-_3_62_2_

Fax: (83 1)
649-3043
_ _ _ _ Evening:
Email:
( 306) _2_4_1_-7_20_0_ _ _ __
ckemp@nheh.com I heatherryan@shaw.ca
Date Board heard the matter: _A_,_p_ri_l 8....:.,_2_0_15_ _ _ __ _ __ _

Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office of the City Clerk within
10 working days following the date of action by the Planning Commission and paying
the requiredfiling fee as established by City Council resolution.
Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal:
San Antonio 3NW of 13th
Lot(s): '-Po=r-'-.4 - ' - - - - - Block: - 'A5

-'""-----COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED:
APN:
010-292-006
April 8, 2015 Planning Commission Approval
ofDS-_1_
07~offm~a~
n~----------------------------
If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicanfs representative, please state the
evidence that you are an aggrieved party: Appellant appeared at the Planning Commission
hearing on the ~offman Project. Appellant owns property (0 10-292-005) immediately north of the
Hoffman project. Appellants' property will be impacted by the Hoffman Project.
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 10
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors or
omissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)
See attached.
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE

AND CORRECT:
DATEDAT:j?~ ,THIS ~ DAYOF
,20 l~
Aenr{
N/A Coastal Zone
$295.00 fee* received: (Staff Initial)
Receipt#:
ATTEST:
(JXtJJ/)A)
City Clerk
*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city to

impose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.
IMPORTANT: If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and

inclusion in the City of Carmel-b~the-8~s Council agenda packet, the materials must be
submitted to the City Clerk by
5/2fj5
working days after the decision of the
Commission. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on
_q_WU- :l ~IS
dotaC/m 'OwndVAPPI!AL PLANMNG FORM.doe

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 11
Appellant Heather Ryan/David Dube

Applicant Hoffman (DS-14-107) and
Associated Coastal Development Permit
Grounds for Appeal
1.
Failure to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The City exempted the Hoffman project from CEQA review. The Hoffman project
involves the total demolition of the 1927log cabin cottage on the site. Kent Seavey, the City' s
Historical Consultant, prepared an historic survey of the property, finding the cottage to be
historic.
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15064.5 the demolition of any structure which may qualify
as historic under a wide range of criteria, is per se, deemed a potential significant environmental
impact for which heighted CEQA review is required. Additionally, the Hoffman project
involves excavation within 50 feet of a coastal bluff, which grading is also a special
circumstance, creating the potential for a significant environmental impact.
The Hoffman project is not exempt from CEQA and an Initial Study must be done to
determine the appropriate level of CEQA review and required mitigations.
2.
The Project Violates the City Design Guidelines and City Zoning Code
A.
Roof Elevations and Plate Heights
The interior plate heights of 9' -8" and 11 '-8" and exterior roof elevations of 54' -7" and
56' -7" violate the City Design Guidelines and Zoning Code in that:
The City' s Residential Design Guidelines specifically disfavor the use of flat roofs, as
well as, the use of high interior plate heights, encouraging the use oflow plate heights no higher
than 8' to reduce the height of exposed walls. (See Guidelines 7.7; 8.3; 8.4 and 8.5). This project
violates these guidelines, not only with its flat roof, but also with its very high interior plate
heights. When specifically questioned by the Commission if the 8' plate height was a
requirement, staff stated it was a minimum not a maximum.
The City Design Guidelines disfavor a large expansive building mass and require the
preservation of open space and access to light between properties (See Guidelines 7.1 and 7.3)
and require maintaining the mass of buildings low to maintain views over the structure (See
Guideline 5.3).
City Code Section 17.10.010 (D) requires that buildings not present excess visual mass or
bulk to adjoining properties and that plate heights be kept as close to grade as possible. In this
case, the flat roof and solid mass of wall creates a large solid mass when viewed from the
Ryan/Dube property. In addition the project has very high plate heights of 9'8" and 11 ' 8", well
2 1426\000\589708. 1:42215
1
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 12
above the recommended 8' plate heights.

City Code Section 17.10.010 (F) requires that designs preserve reasonable access to light,
air, and open space for surrounding properties, as well as avoid taller bulky buildings near an
adjoining site that is already partially boxed in by previous development. In this case, the flat
roof and solid mass of wall creates a large solid mass blocking sun and light and views of the sky
and trees from the Ryan/Dube property.
City Code Section 17.10.010 (G) requires that designs respect the privacy of neighbors,
including the placement of windows. In this case, the north facing windows face into the
Ryan/Dube property.
City Code Section 17.10.010 (H) requires that the design of structures be coordinated
with open space to enhance the City's park-like environment and that open space is a shared
community resource. In this case, the flat roof and solid mass of wall creates a large solid mass
blocking views of the sky and trees from the Ryan/Dube property.
City Code Section 17.10.010 (K) requires that private views be protected and that
buildings which substantially eliminate an existing view enjoyed by another owner should be
avoided. In this case, the flat roof and solid mass of wall creates a large solid mass, blocking the
Ryan/Dube's existing view of the sky and trees from their property, as well as blocking the
Ryan/Dube existing ocean view over the existing Hoffman house from the eastern portion of
their garden.
The property is in the Beach Overlay which, pursuant to City Code Section 17 .20.160(A),
requires enhanced public view protection, yet this project violates this code section by cutting off
the public view of the ocean and point from San Antonio, as well as the eastern side of the
Ryan/Dube property.
City Code Section 17.20.170(B) requires a geologic report be submitted with this
application, yet, in violation of this requirement, there is no geological on file for the project, nor
any requirement as to how soil stability or shoring will be done to protect the Hoffman property,
the City's property, or the surrounding properties.
To reduce the visual, shade, and boxed in impacts to the Ryan/Dube property, the plate
heights should be reduced to from 9' -8" to 9' -0" for the main roof and from 11 '-8" to 10' -6" for
the upper roof; with the exterior roof elevations reduced to from 54'- 7' to 53 ' -11" for the main
roof and 56' -7" to 55 ' -5" for the upper roof.
B.
Plastic Roofing Material
The Hoffman project was approved with a non-conventional Duro-Last plastic membrane
roof with polymer coating. Only a tiny sample of the roofing material was given to the Planning
Commission. When questioned by the Commission if this material would be seen by the public,
staff or the applicant stated, "No", but, in fact, the roof will be seen from San Antonio, as well
as, from the second story of the Ryan/Dube home. The plastic roofing material is highly
reflective and not in keeping with the natural materials required by the City.
21426\000\589708.1 :42215
2
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 13
Conventional non-reflective roofing material should be required for the project
3.
Failure to Provide Adequate Safeguards for the Ryan!Dube Property

A.
Lack of Volume Calculation
Despite the high plate heights and ceilings and flat roof, there was no Exterior
Volume calculation done as required by City Code Section 17.10.030.D.3
B.
Grading/Lack of Geology and Geotechnical Reports
The Hoffman project involves significant excavation in close proximity to the Ryan/Dube
property and home. There was more protection given to the roots of the tree on site as well as
potential impact to archeological resources than there was to grading impacts on the Ryan/Dube
property. There are no geological or geotechnical reports on file for the project, nor any
requirement as to how the required shoring will be done to protect the Ryan/Dube property. This
excavation could have serious consequences on Ryan/Dube property.
The following conditions should be added to the revised project to address this issue:
Require Preparation of a Geological Report, Geotechnical Report, and Shoring
Plan prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Require the Shoring Plan to be approved by a licensed structural engineer on
behalf of Ms. Ryan and Mr. Dube to protect the Ryan!Dube property.
C.
Elevation and Setback Confirmation
Additionally, because the project is height and set back sensitive, the following condition
should be added to assure conformance with the approved plans:
Provide a Certificate of Survey to confirm the upper roof and lower roof
elevations match the elevations stated herein, and that property setbacks along the
north side, match the setbacks shown on the 3/ 17/2015 plans. In addition, the 44'0" main finished floor elevation shall be confirmed by a Certificate of Survey for
which Ms. Ryan will pay.
4.
Discrepancies in the Plans

A.
Roof Elevations
The roof elevations shown on the plans state to "eaves", yet the elevations are
represented to be the maximum roof elevations. To address this issue, confirmation that the roof
elevations are the maximum roof elevations, not just eave elevations, is required.
21 426\000\589708.1 :42215
3
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 14
B.
North Facing Windows
The window specification sheet does not match the windows shown on the plans. To
address this issue, require the north facing windows to a singular window with a glazing height
of no higher than 6'-8" from the main level finished floor.
C.
Site Coverage - FAR
The plans have a credit for 190 sf of "bonus area" in the Site Coverage and Floor Area
calculations, yet under City Code Section 17.10.030.D.4, the lower portion of the house should
not be considered a basement or bonus area because the lower portion of the house extends into
an outside yard area.
21426\000\589708.1 :42215
4
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 15
ATTACHMENT #2
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
DS 14-107
Carl and Mary Hoffman
San Antonio 4 NW of 13th
Block: A5, Lots: S portion of 4
APN: 010-292-006
CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of Final Design Study (DS 14-107) and associated Coastal Development Permit
application for the construction of a new residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R1), Park Overlay (P), and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay Zoning Districts
RECITALS:
1.
The project site is located on San Antonio 4 parcels northwest of San Antonio Avenue.
The property is a double-frontage lot, fronting on both San Antonio Avenue and Scenic
Road. The site is developed with a 1,322-square foot single-family residence. The project
site is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1), Park Overlay (P), and Beach and
Riparian (BR) Overlay Zoning Districts.
2.
The applicant applied for a Design Study (DS 14-107) application on September 29,
2014, to demolish the existing one-story residence and detached garage and construct a
new one-story residence and detached garage (attached only by a partial roof).
3.
The Planning Commission accepted the design concept on December 10, 2014. The
Planning Commission approved the Design Study and associated Coastal Development
Permit application on April 8, 2015 subject to findings and conditions.
4.
An Appeal of Planning Commissions decision was filed by a neighboring residents,

Heather Ryan and David Dube (HBE holdings, Inc), on April 22, 2015. The grounds for the
appeal as asserted by the appellant include impacts related to CEQA, violations of the
Citys Residential Design Guidelines and Zoning Code, failure to provide adequate
safeguards, and discrepancies in the plans.
5.
The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, pursuant to

Section 15302 (Class 2) Replacement of an existing structure where the new structure
will be located on the same site as the structure replaced. The proposed new residence
does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant
environmental impact.
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 16
DS 14-107 (Hoffman)
June 2, 2015
Findings for Approval
Page 2
FINDINGS FOR DECISION

FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR FINAL DESIGN STUDY APPROVAL (CMC 17.64.8 and LUP Policy P1-45)
For each of the required design study findings listed below, staff has indicated whether the
submitted plans support adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no" the staff report
discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission decision-making. Findings checked
"yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.
Municipal Code Finding
YES
1. The project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site, or has
received appropriate use permits and/or variances consistent with the zoning
ordinance.
2. The project is consistent with the Citys design objectives for protection and
enhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources and site design. The
projects use of open space, topography, access, trees and vegetation will maintain
or establish a continuity of design both on the site and in the public right of way that
is characteristic of the neighborhood.
3. The project avoids complexity using simple/modest building forms, a simple roof
plan with a limited number of roof planes and a restrained employment of offsets
and appendages that are consistent with neighborhood character, yet will not be
viewed as repetitive or monotonous within the neighborhood context.
4. The project is adapted to human scale in the height of its roof, plate lines, eave
lines, building forms, and in the size of windows doors and entryways. The
development is similar in size, scale, and form to buildings on the immediate block
and neighborhood. Its height is compatible with its site and surrounding
development and will not present excess mass or bulk to the public or to adjoining
properties. Mass of the building relates to the context of other homes in the
vicinity.
5. The project is consistent with the Citys objectives for public and private views
and will retain a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites. Through
the placement, location and size of windows, doors and balconies the design
respects the rights to reasonable privacy on adjoining sites.
6. The design concept is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies related to
residential design in the general plan.
7. The development does not require removal of any significant trees unless
necessary to provide a viable economic use of the property or protect public health
and safety. All buildings are setback a minimum of 6 feet from significant trees.
NO

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 17
DS 14-107 (Hoffman)
June 2, 2015
Page 3
8. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained in
character, consistent and well integrated throughout the building and
complementary to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or repetitive
in context with designs on nearby sites.
9. The proposed exterior materials and their application rely on natural materials
and the overall design will as to the variety and diversity along the streetscape.
10. Design elements such as stonework, skylights, windows, doors, chimneys and
garages are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines and will complement the
character of the structure and the neighborhood.
11. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefully
designed to complement the urbanized forest, the approved site design, adjacent
sites, and the public right of way. The design will reinforce a sense of visual
continuity along the street.
12. Any deviations from the Design Guidelines are considered minor and reasonably
relate to good design principles and specific site conditions.
Beach and Overlay District Findings

13. The combined area contained within all setbacks is at least equal to the area of
the lot that would be included within setbacks if the special beach setback
established in subsection (B)(9) of this section were applied (i.e., achieving no net
loss of setback area.
14. A minimum width of at least three feet will be maintained for the full length of
all setbacks.
15. By reducing any setbacks the proposed structure will not interfere with safe
access to other properties in the neighborhood or otherwise result in damage or
injury to the use of other adjoining properties.
16. Structures proposed for construction within reduced setback areas will be
compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood and will exhibit a
human scale without excessive building bulk or visual mass.
17. The proposed setbacks afford maximum protection for the adjoining parklands
for the benefit of the public while still accommodating reasonable development of
the property.
18. The proposed setbacks are designated on an approved plan attached to the
permit or on a scenic easement for purposes of documentation and recordation.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Park Overlay District Findings

19. The proposed setbacks afford maximum protection for the adjoining parklands
for the benefit of the public while still accommodating reasonable development of
the property.
N/A

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 18
DS 14-107 (Hoffman)
June 2, 2015
Page 4
Coastal Development Findings (CMC 17.64.B.1):

20. Local Coastal Program Consistency: The project conforms with the certified Local
Coastal Program of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 19
ATTACHMENT #3
No.
Conditions of Approval
Standard Conditions
1.
Authorization: This approval of Design Study (DS 14-107) authorizes the

demolition of an existing 1,322-square foot residence and garage, and the
construction of a new 2,269-square foot residence, which includes 1,468 square
feet on the main level and 801 square feet on the lower level (bonus floor area
includes 90 square feet for stairs and a 100-square foot basement bonus floor
area), the construction of a 210-square foot garage, and the installation of 731
square feet of new site coverage. Finish materials include a combination of
plaster, limestone veneer, and a single-ply Duro-Last roof. The residence shall be
consistent with the June 2, 2015 approved plan set.
2.
The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the

local R-1 zoning ordinances. 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 at the time such
plans are submitted, such changes may require additional environmental review
and subsequent approval by the Planning Commission.
3.
This approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of action
unless an active building permit has been issued and maintained for the
proposed construction.
4.
All new landscaping, if proposed, shall be shown on a landscape plan and shall
be submitted to the Department of Community Planning and Building and to the
City Forester prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan will
be reviewed for compliance with the landscaping standards contained in the
Zoning Code, including the following requirements: 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 3) the project shall meet the Citys
recommended tree density standards, unless otherwise approved by the City
based on site conditions. The landscaping plan shall show where new trees will
be planted when new trees are required to be planted by the Forest and Beach
Commission or the Planning Commission.
5.
Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the City Forester or
Forest and Beach Commission as appropriate; and all remaining trees shall be
protected during construction by methods approved by the City Forester.
6.
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,

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 20
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. Twelve inches (12) of mulch shall be
evenly spread inside the dripline of all trees prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
7.
Approval of this application does not permit an increase in water use on the
project site. Should the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
determine that the use would result in an increase in water beyond the
maximum units allowed on a 5,302-square foot parcel, this permit will be
scheduled for reconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared for
review and adoption by the Planning Commission.
8.
The applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building
staff any proposed changes to the approved project plans prior to incorporating
changes on the site. If the applicant changes the project without first obtaining
City approval, the applicant will be required to either: a) submit the change in
writing and cease all work on the project until either the Planning Commission
or staff has approved the change; or b) eliminate the change and submit the
proposed change in writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its
compliance to the approved plans prior to final inspection.
Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less (incandescent equivalent,
i.e., 375 lumens) per fixture and shall be no higher than 10 feet above the
ground. Landscape lighting shall be limited to 15 watts (incandescent
equivalent, i.e., 225 lumens) or less per fixture and shall not exceed 18 inches
above the ground.
10.
All skylights shall use non-reflective glass to minimize the amount of light and
glare visible from adjoining properties. The applicant shall install skylights with
flashing that matches the roof color, or shall paint the skylight flashing to match
the roof color.
11.
The Carmel stone faade shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar

masonry pattern. Setting the stones vertically on their face in a cobweb pattern
shall not be permitted. Prior to the full installation of stone during construction,
the applicant shall install a 10-square foot section on the building to be reviewed
by planning staff on site to ensure conformity with City standards.
N/A
12.
The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that have
been approved with divided lights shall be constructed with fixed wooden
N/A
9.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 21
mullions. Any window pane dividers, which are snap-in, or otherwise

superficially applied, are not permitted.
13.
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 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 proceeding, to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project
approval. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any legal proceeding,
and shall 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 the resolution of
all such actions by the parties hereto.
14.
The driveway material shall extend beyond the property line into the public right
of way as needed to connect to the paved street edge. A minimal asphalt
connection at the street edge may be required by the Superintendent of Streets
or the Building Official, depending on site conditions, to accommodate the
drainage flow line of the street.
15.
This project is subject to a volume study.
16.
Approval of this Design Study shall be valid only with approval of a Variance.
17.
A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with the

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District prior to issuance of a
demolition permit.
18.
The applicant shall include a storm water drainage plan with the working
drawings that are submitted for building permit review. The drainage plan shall
include applicable Best Management Practices and retain all drainage on site
through the use of semi-permeable paving materials, French drains, seepage
pits, etc. Excess drainage that cannot be maintained on site, may be directed
into the Citys storm drain system after passing through a silt trap to reduce
sediment from entering the storm drain. Drainage shall not be directed to
adjacent private property.
An archaeological reconnaissance report shall be prepared by a qualified
archaeologist or other person(s) meeting the standards of the State Office of
Historic Preservation prior to approval of a final building permit. The applicant
shall adhere to any recommendations set forth in the archaeological report. All
new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if materials of
archaeological significance are discovered on the site and shall not be permitted
to recommence until a mitigation and monitoring plan is approved by the
19a.
N/A
N/A

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 22
Planning Commission.
19b.
20.
21.
23.
24.
25.
26.
All new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if cultural

resources are discovered on the site, and the applicant shall notified the
Community Planning and 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 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 excavation, no further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and distribution pursuant
to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.
Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall provide for City
(Community Planning and Building Director in consultation with the Public
Services and Public Safety Departments) review and approval, a truck-haul route
and any necessary temporary 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.
All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a fullsize sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building
Safety Division.
Special Conditions
On the construction plan set, the applicant shall revise the landscape plan,
replacing one of the Japanese Maple trees with a 15 gallon (minimum size) Coast
live oak and add a note stating that all ivy shall be removed from the site.
On the Grading Plan submitted with the construction plan set, the applicant
shall identify the southernmost perimeter of the on-site grading area to be
excavated for the south-end of the terrace, and shall add a note regarding the
requirement for hand-excavation that states, Prior to initiating excavation, the
City Forester shall be notified prior to commencement of excavation. This area,
along the southernmost perimeter, shall be carefully hand-excavated. The
applicant shall notify the City Forester if any roots, 2-inches or greater, are
discovered. At the time hand-excavation is completed, contact the City Forester
for an inspection prior to commencing construction.
Prior to approval of the Building Permit, the applicant shall include on the
construction plan seta note indicating the peak roof heights and noting that
these shall not exceed the to eave heights by more than 2 inches.
Prior to approval of the Building Permit, the applicant shall provide on the
construction plan set a revised window schedule that conforms to the window
number and locations as should on the approved North Elevation drawings.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 23
*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.

______________________
Property Owner Signature
__________________
Printed Name
__________
Date
Once signed, please return to the Community Planning and Building Department.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 24
ATTACHMENT #4
Planning Commission Report
April 8, 2015
To:
Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners
From:
Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director
Submitted by:
Christy Sabdo, Contract Planner
Subject:
Consideration of Final Design Study (DS 14-107) and associated Coastal

Development Permit for the construction of a new residence located in
the Single-Family Residential (R-1), Park Overlay (P), and Beach and
Riparian (BR) Overlay Zoning Districts
Recommendation:
Approve the Design Study (OS 14-107) and the associated Coastal Development Permit subject
to the attached findings and conditions
Application:
OS 14-107 (Hoffman)
APN: 010-292-006
Block:
AS
Lot: S portion of 4
Location:
Property Owners: Carl and Mary Hoffman
Applicant: Craig Holdren, Architect
Background and Project Description:

The project site is located on San Antonio Street four parcels northwest of 13th Avenue. The
5,659-square foot property is developed with a one-story framed log cabin that was
constructed in 1927 and that is clad with engineered horizontal-log siding. A detached garage
that was constructed in 1964 faces San Antonio, and the residence faces Scenic. On May 20,
2013, the Historic Resources Board determined that the house is ineligible for architectural
significance, and a Final Determination of Historic Ineligibility was issued on May 21, 2013.
The existing site coverage consists of an asphalt driveway, brick and stone walkways, stone and
paver patios, and a wood deck. The site is accessed from the San Antonio property frontage.
The portion of the San Antonio Right-of-Way (ROW) between the front property line and the
edge of pavement is largely unimproved, although there is an asphalt driveway, shrubs and a
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 25
28 Monterey Cypress. The portion of the Scenic ROW fronting the rear of the property is also
unimproved except for a row of shrubs.
The owner has submitted plans to demolish the existing 864-square foot, one-story residence
along with the 458-square foot detached garage; and to construct a new Modern one-story
residence with a partial subgrade lower level and a new one-car attached (via a roof extension)
garage. The proposed residence would be 2,079 square feet in size, including 1,378 square feet
on the main floor and 701 square feet on the lower floor/partial subgrade. There would also be
100-square feet of basement bonus floor area, and the new garage would be 210 square feet in
size. All existing site coverage would be removed and replaced with new site coverage.
The individual components of the applicant's proposal include:
1) the demolition of the existing one-story residence and detached garage
2) the removal of all existing site coverage
3) the construction of a new 2,079-square foot one-story residence that includes a 1,378square foot main level and a 701-square foot partial subgrade lower level in addition to
100 square feet of basement bonus floor area
4) the construction of a new 210-square foot garage
5) the installation of 731 square feet of new site coverage including a Carmel stone entry
patio, paver patio, stone walkways, retaining walls and stairs, deck, and paver driveway
The proposed residence is designed in a Modern-style architecture and includes a combination
of stucco (plaster), stone, and a single-ply Duro-Last roof. A detailed description of the exterior
finish materials is provided in the staff analysis. The applicant will present a three-dimensional
color rendering at the Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission reviewed this project on December 10, 2014, and had concerns with
the finish materials for the proposed residence, including the type of limestone veneer, the
quality and look of the proposed painted wood, and the design of the tempered glass gate
north of the garage, visible from San Antonio. The Planning Commission described the
proposed Concept Design as reasonable with minimal privacy impacts, if any; however the
applicant was asked to work with the neighbor to the north to minimize any privacy concerns.
The Planning Commission suggested different ways to maintain privacy for the neighbors
courtyard, such as reducing portions of the plate heights and shifting portions of the high roof
element or the entire residence south. The Planning Commission approved the Concept Design,
but asked that the applicant work with staff and owners to the north to explore any further
ways to minimize the effect of the north wall and its proximity to the setback, and move the
high roof element to the south as proposed. The applicant has revised the design to address the
recommendations made by the Planning Commission, as discussed below.
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 26
Staff analysis:
Previous Hearing: The following is a list of recommendations made by the Planning
Commission and a staff analysis on how the applicant has or has not revised the design to
comply with the recommendations:
1.
The applicant shall work with staff and property owners to the north to explore any
further ways to minimize the effect of the north wall and its proximity and setback from
the residence to the north; and the high roof element shall be moved to the south.
Analysis: The applicant has met on the site and has been in communication with the neighbors
to the north, Mr. and Mrs. Ryan, as well as their attorney, Ms. Christine Kemp, and their
architect, Mr. Jun Sillano. The applicant has made the following revisions since the Concept
Design stage, in response to Mr. and Mrs. Ryans concerns with the Concept Design proposal:
Moved the proposed new residence to the south by 1-ft 1-in, so that the minimum
setback from the north property line is 4-ft 2-in (originally 3-ft 1-in)
Dropped the height of the main roof (low roof) by 3-inches (from 54-ft 10-in to 54-ft 7in)
Dropped the height of the high roof, located over the living room, by 1-in (from 56-ft 8in to 56-ft 7-in)
Shifted a portion of the higher roof (living room) to the south by 7-ft 4-in so that it aligns
with the middle pilaster of the dining room on the west elevation
Along the north elevation, eliminated the clere-story windows at the master bedroom,
bathroom, powder room, and laundry room
Along the north elevation, eliminated all windows at the kitchen and dining room
All remaining five windows along the north elevation will have window headers that are
no higher than 7-ft from the 44-ft finished floor level
Added two 3-ft by 2-ft skylights over the kitchen, since kitchen and dining room
windows along the north elevation were eliminated
Ensured that roof slope will not exceed 2%
Along the north elevation, limited the width of the eaves on the upper and lower
elevations to no more than 4-in
In addition, the Hoffmans allowed Jon Hagemeyer, a surveyor hired by the Ryans, to verify that
the staking and netting on the subject property was accurate. Ms. Christine Kemp, the Ryans
attorney, conveyed to City staff and the applicant that based on the surveyors results, there
were errors in the staking distances and pole heights. City staff suggested that the applicant
team make any necessary corrections at least 10-days prior to the public hearing date to
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 27
address potential staking errors. On Friday, March 20, 2015, the applicants surveyor re-staked
the property. Staff notes that the staking and ribbon is intended to be help staff, the
Commission, and potentially-affected neighbors to better evaluate view and privacy impacts.
While it is helpful to have the staking as accurate as possible (within reason), a perfect
representation of the staking and netting is challenging and not a requirement under the Citys
Municipal Code.
Overall, the applicant has revised the proposed project in response to the Planning
Commissions recommendation to work with the neighbor to the north. Staff supports the
applicants changes as they are responsive to the neighbors concerns regarding privacy, light,
and visual impacts.
PROJECT DATA FOR THE 5,659 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations
Allowed
Existing
Proposed
Floor Area
2,359 sf (42%)
1,322 sf (23.4%)
Demolition proposed
2,079 sf residence*
210 sf garage
Site Coverage*
745 sf (13.2%)*
978 sf
731 sf (12.9%)
Trees (upper/lower)
4/3 (recommended)
1/0
1/2
Ridge Height (Main floor)
18 ft (Beach and
Overlay District)
15 ft 7 in
16 ft 3 in
Plate Height (Main floor)
12 ft/ 18 ft
12 ft 2 in
15 ft 4 in
Setbacks
Minimum Required
Existing
Proposed
Front Yard**
San Antonio Ave.
Scenic Rd.
15 ft
15 ft
15 ft
33 ft 6 in
15 ft
15 ft 9 in
Composite Side Yard
10 ft (25%)
15 ft 3 in (38%)
10 ft (25%)
Minimum Side Yard
3 ft
3 ft 3 in
4 ft 2 in (north)
3 ft 4 in (garage, south)
Rear
n/a
n/a
n/a
*Includes 100 sf of bonus floor area that qualifies as a basement

2.
The applicant shall install one-lower canopy tree from the Citys recommended tree list
and remove all ivy from the site.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 28
Analysis: The applicant is proposing two new 6-in lower canopy Japanese Maple trees. The City
Forester is recommending that one of the proposed Japanese Maple trees be replaced with a
15-gallon Coast live oak. Staff has added a Condition of Approval regarding the Coast live oak
tree as well as a requirement that all ivy be removed from the site.
3.
Prior to Final Design Review by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall work with
the City Forester to determine the appropriate actions for minimizing over excavation in
the southwest corner of the property where the stepped terrace is proposed.
Analysis: As shown on the Proposed Site Plan during Concept Design Review, grading is
proposed at the southwest corner of the subject property for the purpose of installing a
stepped terrace. The grading for the terrace encroaches within the no cut/fill area identified by
the City Forester for a 33 Monterey Cypress tree. The City Forester asked the applicant to
provide exploratory hand excavation in the area of concern. Prior to the Planning Commission
meeting, the hand excavation was prepared and inspected by the City Forester. As a result, staff
has added a Condition of Approval in order to ensure that excavation along the southernmost
perimeter of the area to be excavated for the terrace is hand-excavated. In addition, the
Condition of Approval would require the contractor to notify the City Forester prior to
commencing the hand-excavation as well as if any roots over 2-in or greater are uncovered
during excavation.
Other Project Components:
Finish Details: The Citys Residential Design Guidelines state: Stucco, in conjunction with some
natural materials, may be considered depending on neighborhood character but should not be
repeated to excess within a block. In regard to stone: The application of stone should appear
structural and authentic. A gratuitous or purely decorative appearance should be avoided. In
regard to windows: By far wood frame windows are the most typical, but metal windows are
found, especially on some styles that reflect Modernist influences. In regard to roof materials:
plasticroofs are inappropriate in all neighborhoods.
The applicant is proposing a plaster (stucco) finish for the new residence with a Giallo limestone
veneer that would be applied on certain vertical elements of the residence, and painted wood
trims and a wood trellis. The proposed limestone veneer is located on vertical elements on all
elevations and have the appearance of being structural and authentic (see Attachment F,
Project Plans, Proposed Elevation Drawings). The windows are proposed to be Bloomberg 225
Series, aluminum, in a red color. According to the Residential Design Guidelines, aluminum
windows are appropriate for homes that reflect Modernist influences. The proposed new
residence is a Modern-style residence; and therefore, aluminum windows are appropriate and
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 29
consistent with the Guidelines. All doors on the residence would be glass. The main garage
door, visible from San Antonio, would be wood with an aluminum side door. The flat roofs
would be finished with a thermoplastic, single-ply Duro-Last rock-ply roofing system with a
stone pattern. Staff requests the Planning Commission review the proposed roofing type as
plastic-like roof materials are inconsistent with the Guidelines. Samples of the proposed finish
materials are included as Attachment D.
Fencing: The existing fence along the south property line is proposed to be replaced with a new
6-ft high vertical wood plank fence, and a 4-ft fence within both 15-ft front-yard setbacks. The
existing fence along the north property line, outside of the front yard setbacks, varies in height
from 5-ft 6-in to 6-ft 4-in. The applicant is proposing to patch and repair this fence as needed.
The existing fence along the north property line within the two 15-ft front yard setbacks varies
in height from 4-ft 6-in to 5-ft 6-in on the San Antonio Avenue side and 5-ft to 6-in on the Scenic
Road side. Staff has added a Condition of Approval that will require the applicant to reduce the
height of the northern fence within both 15-ft front-yard setbacks to no more than 4-ft, which
is the maximum allowable height.
Along the western property line, the applicant is proposing to replace the existing fence with a
new 4-ft high vertical plank wood fence and a 4-ft high gate. North of the garage, approximately
15-ft from the eastern property line, a 4-ft high stone veneer pillar is proposed. A 4-ft high
stained cedar gate connects the pillar with a 4-ft high limestone veneer fence located
approximately 19-ft 4-in from the eastern property line. Originally, the applicant proposed a
tempered glass gate; however, due to the Planning Commissions concerns with the proposed
glass gate, the applicant has revised the proposed material of the gate to cedar (see
Attachment F, Project Plans, East Elevation).
Public ROW: The subject property is located between San Antonio Ave and Scenic Road and is a
double-frontage lot. San Antonio Ave and Scenic Road both have 15-foot front setbacks. The
site is accessed from the San Antonio property frontage. The San Antonio Right-of-Way (ROW)
along the property frontage is largely unimproved. The existing asphalt driveway would be
removed and replaced with a semi-permeable plank paver driveway, approximately 8-ft 6-in in
width with a 30-in Asphalt Concrete (AC) short return that meets the existing AC rolled berm
(see Attachment D, Samples of Finish Materials). The Scenic ROW would remain unimproved
and the existing shrubs would be maintained.
Exterior Lighting: Carmel Municipal Code Section 15.36.070.B. provides exterior lighting
requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. This section requires that the exterior wall-mounted
lighting not to exceed 25 Watts incandescent equivalent (i.e., approximately 375 lumens) per
fixture.
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 30
The applicant is proposing five wall-mounted exterior lights to be located at the entryways. The
two different types of proposed wall-mounted light fixtures are downward-lit with LED light
bulbs that produce 325 lumens or less, which meets the Citys exterior lighting standards.
Landscape lighting, including eight path lights (3 Watt LED, 200 Lumens) and five step lights (5
Watt LED, 200 Lumens) are proposed. The proposed lighting complies with the Citys exterior
lighting requirements and Residential Design Guidelines.
Landscape Plan: The applicant is proposing new landscaping as identified on the Landscape
Plan (See Attachment F, Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1). The City Forester has reviewed and
approved the Landscape Plan with one condition. The applicant will be required to replace one
of the two proposed new Japanese Maple trees with a 15-gallon Coast live oak. Staff has added
this condition to the Final Conditions of Approval.
Environmental Review:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA
requirements, pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3) Construction or modification of a limited
number of new or existing small structures. The proposed new residence does not present any
unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A Site Photographs

Attachment B Findings for Approval
Attachment C Conditions of Approval
Attachment D Samples of finish materials
Attachment E Original Proposed Site Plan and Proposed Elevations
Attachment F Project Plans

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 31
Christy Sabdo
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Rob Mullane
Thursday, April 02, 2015 4:49 PM
Don Goodhue; Michael LePage; Keith Paterson; Janet Reimers; Jan Martin
Christy Sabdo
FW: For PC- OS 14-107 (Hoffman)- Letters/Attachments from Christine Kemp and Heather
Ryan
OS 14-107 (Hoffman) - Letter from Heather Ryan dated 040215.pdf; OS 14-107 (Hoffman) Letter from Christine Kemp dated 040215.pdf
Follow up
Flagged
Commissioners:
Please see the attached correspondence from the neighbor and neighbor's attorney for the Hoffman Design Study.
These came in after the packet was finalized; however, Ms. Kemp requested that we send these along to you. We will
have copies for you at the dais.
Robert A. Mullane, AICP

Community Planning and Building Director
P.O. DrawerG
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
main (831} 620-2010
direct (831) 620-2057
rmullane@ci.carmel.ca.us

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 32
Christy Sabdo
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Heather Ryan [heatherryan@shaw.ca]

Thursday, April 02, 2015 1:55 PM
Christy Sabdo
'Kemp, Christine'
Ryan & Dube Submission Re: Hoffman Proposal
Ocean View.JPG; Summary Timeline.docx; flat roof sun block.JPG; wall sun blockage.jpg
April 2, 2015
Carmel City Planning Commission
c/o Christy Sabdo, Contract Planner
Re: DS 14-107 {Hoffman)
Sent via email.
Dear Planning Commission :

As the attached summary outlines, we have made every possible effort to work with the Hoffmans to reach a mutually
agreeable compromise as quickly as possible. Although we were not informed of any planned changes to their property
prior to the Public Notice that was put on our doorstep on December 1, we have worked diligently with their
representatives throughout the process. I have had to make four, last minute, unscheduled trips to california trying to
be accommodating and reach an agreement. Their representatives have not followed the advice or the directions in the
Planning Guidelines, so the process has been awful, and the proposed design would have serious negative impacts on
our property.
This proposal would completely block the ocean view, and view of the Point, that the east part of our property has
enjoyed since the original cottage was built 85 years ago, in 1929. It also would completely block the ocean view for
people walking or driving on San Antonio. The flat roof and excessively high proposed interior wall height of almost 12
feet would seal off that view.
We ask that the plate height of that "higher roof' portion be lowered to 10'6"; adding their proposed roof thickness
of 10", the corresponding roof height maximum elevation would be lowered to 55'4". This will help preserve at least
a portion of the ocean view. That still allows for extremely high Interior walls, far in excess of the 8' plate height
generally not to be exceeded in the Planning Guidelines.
We request the plate height of the "main roof'' be lowered to 9'. Again adding their proposed roof thickness of 10",
the corresponding maximum roof height elevation would be 53'10".
Their flat roof design blocks the sun from our garden and patio, especially in the winter months. As the ridgeline is right
at the edge of the building, it has an enormously larger negative impact than a normal pitched roof design would have
RECEIVED
on a neighboring property.
It blocks all sky from our kitchen and our living area and our guest room ... standing in our kitchen, ourA~iftna..se2 m~ our
guest room we would see nothing but their wall. In the winter months especially, when the sun is lower orftn e fiorizon,
it casts our garden and our patio into cold, dark shade.
1
Planning aBuilding Dept.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 33
It shortens the day for our entire garden and patio.

It blocks all sky and sun from our 1929 Cottage window. From the bedroom we would see nothing but their wall; all
sunlight from the south and all sky would be blocked .
This process has been made much more difficult by the inaccurate staking. The surveyor that we hired, at our own
expense, twice found significant inaccuracies in the staking. One was in height. .. the "higher roof' poles closest to our
property were actually almost 6" LOWER than the proposed design.
Later it was also found that most of the staking closest to our property was actually FARTHER AWAY than what was
being proposed, by as much as 7". The result of course is a higher and closer wall, and when the eaves (at 4", twice as
wide as we were told in January) are added to the flat roof and wall it compounds the impact. We are asking for the
above height reductions to help mitigate these negative effects.
The Applicant has focussed attention on the appearance from the street of their proposal, which although important, is
entirely separate from the impact on the neighboring property. Their high volume, flat roof design has a far more
negative impact on our property than a more traditional design. Flat and mansard roofs are specifically listed as "should
not" be used in the Planning Guidelines because of this. Many municipalities, who do allow flat roofs, have
reformulated their maximum height to adjust for the negative impacts. They lower the maximum allowable height, and
then measure from the mid-point between eave and peak.
This has been a very expensive and entirely unpleasant process. I have had to take considerable time away from work,
family and other responsibilities to react each time plans have been submitted without any communication from the
Applicant, even though each time in meeting with their representatives they agreed to send us the plans BEFORE
submitting. I have also had to make myself available on short notice for meetings with the Applicant in attempts to
reach agreements. The inaccurate staking and the changing and confusing revisions on the plans, coupled with additions
like the wider eaves, have unfortunately made for a constantly changing impact and moving target.
With the reductions requested above: lower the "higher roof' portion to a plate height of 10'6", with their proposed
10'' roof thickness for a maximum roof height elevation of 55'4", and lower the " main rooF portion to a piate height
of 9', with their proposed 10" roof thickness for a maximum roof height elevation of 53'10", we would support t hese
plans, with their included addenda and agreements, including confirmation of finished floor elevation of 44' and roof
height elevations at our expense, retention of the existing fence under Patch and Repair, our prior approval of
Geotechnical and Structural Reports prior to Excavation to avoid potential damage to our property, and the listed
windows, skylight and eave details. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Heather Ryan & L David Dube
(306) 241-7200; (306) 241-3489
heatherryan@shaw.ca; ddube@concordegroup.com

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 34

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 35

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 36
Summary Timeline
It is very unfortunate that not once in the entire process to date has the applicant (Hoffman),
represented by Architect Mr. Craig Holdren followed the Planning Guidelines' recommendations, the
Commission's directions, or adhered to any of the multiple agreements that have been struck at the
several meetings we have arranged with them .
Public Notice was not delivered until the afternoon of Monday December 1, 2014 (8, or at most
9 days prior to Planning Commission Meeting December 10). No Public Notice was ever mailed .
Staking was not put up until 5:00pm Monday December 1, 2014. Again, 8 or at most 9 days
prior to December 10 Planning Commission Meeting.
We therefore had to rearrange our schedules to make an unscheduled, last minute flight back to
California in order to attend the December 10 Planning Commission meeting.
No attempt to discuss the project with us, the next door neighbors, was made prior to the
original Plan Submittal. Mr. Holdren admitted at the Tour that it was the first time he had come
over to our property.
As per the Commission's direction at the December 10, 2014 meeting, I met with Mr. Holdren
on the steps of City Hall immediately following the meeting, and gave him my contact
information, and also my husband's contact information. Mr. Holdren said he would contact the
Hoffmans to discuss possible changes, but with the holiday coming up, was not sure when he
would know anything, but would let us know.
Mr. Holdren resubmitted plans to the City the afternoon of December 23, without any attempt
to contact us first.
We cancelled our Christmas vacation so I could fly back to California, another last minute trip, to
pick up these plans on Monday December 29, 2014. We engaged Architect Jun Sillano of
International Design Group to assist in deciphering the plans and to help make suggestions as to
reasonable changes to mitigate the negative impact on privacy, solar access, shadowing, glare
and view blocking.
January 15: Made third last minute trip in order to meet with Mr. Holdren to discuss plan
changes in an attempt to be as accommodating as possible, despite the lack of contact, and
plans submitted without any notice or ability to review. Christine Kemp, Jun Sillano, Heather
Ryan, Craig Holdren and Kevin Bell were all present at this meeting, and we believed that an
agreement had been reached, and that Mr. Holdren would make the changes necessary to
reflect that agreement and submit to us for review. There was the caveat that this agreement
was based upon Surveyor Jon Hagemeyer confirming that the story poles accurately reflected
the plans.
January 23: Mr. Holdren again resubmitted plans to the City without allowing us to review first.
The plans did not reflect the agreement we had reached at the January 15 meeting.
The 4" roof reduction we believed he had put in, commensurate with the 4" plate height
reduction on the December 23 plans (the main roof plate height drops from 10' to 9' 8" on these
plans), was not reflected on the January 23 plans. At the January 15 meeting we had asked for
additional height reductions. Mr. Holdren responded that he had come down 4" already. We

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 37
asked for 2 additional inches, and he suggested we split the difference and just drop one
additional inch. The plans show a 5" plate height reduction, but only a 1" roof height
reduction.
The eave width was not the 2" Mr. Holdren said they would be at the meeting; when he finally
confirmed width in writing that had changed to 8" wide eaves, a 4x increase in width. With a
flat roof the eave brings the roof and wall the distance of its width closer, increasing the
negative impact.
The large windows along the north side we offered to allow him to put back in the plans at the
January 15 meeting, as long as they were behind the fence, show on the plans as rising far above
the fence.
He included both a skylight and kitchen windows, in contravention of our agreement.
February 6: Surveyor Jon Hagemeyer shot the revised staking, and found significant errors.
February 10: Meeting with Surveyor Jon Hagemeyer and Architect Jun Sillano to review staking
errors. The closest poles to our property of the highest roof section were almost 6" lower than
the proposed roof height would have been.
February 17: Comments sent to Mr. Holdren to address discrepancies in January 26 plans from
January 15 meeting agreements and incorrect staking. Timeline detailing efforts made to
expedite a resolution included.
February 20: Email detailing agreements and discrepancies and another offer of resolution sent
to City, Mr. Holdren and Mr. Hoffman in response to Mr. Holdren's February 18 email.
March 2: Meeting set up for March 9 with Mr. Holdren, Ms. Kemp, Mr. Sillano and Ms. Ryan.
March 9: Meeting with Mr. Holdren, Ms. Kemp, Mr. Sillano, Ms. Ryan and attorney for the
Hoffmans. Agreement reached based on staking being confirmed as accurate, plans submitted
to Ms. Ryan for review prior to submittal to the City, and adherence to the written agreement
covering other details such as: Approval of Shoring plans by Licensed Structural Engineer at Ms.
Ryan' s expense prior to issuance of Building Permit, retaining existing fence with Patch and
Repair, pulling plans for new fence from Plans, maximum net glazing on skylight of 2'x 6',
skylight located no closer than 3'10" to the north wall and maximum skylight height of 7",
maximum height of 7' header, with corresponding maximum glass height of 6'8" for windows
along north wall from finished floor level elevation 44', maximum 4" eave width, provision of
Certificate of Survey to confirm roof elevations match the elevations stated within and
confirming the 44' main floor elevation.
March 11: Surveyor Jon Hagemeyer shoots poles for accuracy of side setback and finds that
many of them are incorrectly set farther away from Ryan property than the plans call for, up to
7", making the impact ofthe proposed building far more negative than shown by the netting.
March 18: Mr. Holdren again submits plans to the City w ithout submitting to Ms. Ryan for prior
review, and without any height adjustments to counter the incorrect staking. Mr. Holdren
agrees in writing to keeping existing fence under patch and repair, but submits plans for new
fence to City.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 38
NOLAND /
HAMERLY
ETIENNE
HOSS
Attorneys at l.aw
WWW.NHEH.COM
E-MAIL CKEMP@NHEH.COM
831-373-3622 EXT. 271
0URl'IU;No. 21426.000
A PROFESSIONAL COR P ORAT ION
April 2, 20 15
Step/1111 W. Pearson
Lloyd W. Lowrry, Jr.
AnMK.&cker
Rllndy Meyenberg
Michael Miuut/Q
Christim G. Kemp
Jo Marie Omeur
Turence R. O'C01111or
Timothy J. Baldwin
Leslie E. FilfMgan
VIA E-MAIL csabdo@ci.carmel.ca.us
City of Carmel-by-the.-Sea Planning Commission

c/o Christi Sabdo
City Planner
P.O.BoxCC
Charles Des Roches

A.~tt~C
Re:
Toledo
Roberl D. SimpsOII
&liNt/
Myron E. Etie-, Jr.

PeurT. Hoss
James D. Sclrweftl, Jr
Harry I. Noland
Hoffman Project- Scenic Road

April 8. 2015 Planning Commission Meeting
Dear Members of the Commission:

I am writing on behalf of Heather Ryan and David Dube, owners of the
property immediately north of the above.-referenced project, to request that you deny the
Hoffman project, as proposed.
(1904-1991)
PmdM.H-rly
(1920-2000)
CER'IIFIUJ BPECJAUST1J/
PIIOBATE. ESTATEP1ANN1JI(1,
AND TRUSfUFBY
THE CAUFORNU BOARD OF
LEGAL SPECIALIZA170N
STATEIWIOFCAUFORNIA.
Ms. Ryan and Mr. Dube have made every effort to work with the Hoffinans'
architect to resolve the issues affecting their property, yet the Hoffinans have
continually resubmitted plans without Ms. Ryan's review or approval, which plans were
not in conformance with their agreements 1 Additionally the Hoftinans' staking was
done incorrectly, as to both height and setbacks, causing Ms. Ryan and Mr. Dube to
make concessions based on inaccurate information2 Accordingly, Ms. Ryan and Mr.
Dube cannot agree to the plans, as submitted.
Ms. Ryan and Mr. Dube request that your Commission deny the project as
submitted, and require the following revisions be made prior to project approval to
protect existing view of the ocean and light and air coming into the Ryan/Dube
property.
1
See Ms. Ryan's time line attached hereto.
For these reasons, we requested the Planning Commission hearing be continued to May, to
work out resolution on these additional issues, but staff indicated they would proceed with the
project in April.
RECE~VEO
PHONE 831-424-1414
FROM MONTEREY 831-372-7525
FAX 831-424-1975
333 SALINAS STREET POST OFFICE BOX 2SIO SALINAS, CA 93902-2SIO
APR
21426\000\587958.1:421 s
0 2 2015
City of Carm&lbvihe.seo
Planning aBuilding Dept.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 39
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission

April 2, 2015
Page2
1.
The interior plate heights be reduced to 9'-0" for the main roof and 10'-6",
for the upper roof; with the exterior roof elevations reduced to 53'-10" for the
main roof and 55'-4" for the upper roof, to reduce the impact on the Ryan/Dube
property.
The City's Residential Design Guidelines specifically disfavor the use of flat
roofs, as well as, the use of high interior plate heights, encouraging the use oflow plate
heights (no higher than 8') to reduce the height of exposed walls. (See Guidelines 7.7;
8.3; 8.4 and 8.5). This project violates these guidelines, not only with its flat roof, but
also with its very high interior plate heights.
The proposed Hoffman house has a main roof interior plate height of 9' -7''[sic
8"] and an upper roofinterior plate height of 11 '8".
Main Roof
Reducing the main roof plate height from 9'-7" to 9'-0", with the exterior
roof 10" above the plate height, results in an exterior lower roof elevation of
53'-10".
Upper Roof
Reducing the upper roof plate height from 11'-S"to 10'-6", with the exterior
roof 10" above the plate height, results in an upper roof exterior elevation of
55'-4" .
Both these interior plate heights and exterior roof reductions are easily
achievable without any significant impact on the Hoffman project. It is only a reduction
of"air space".
As designed, with its flat roof and very high interior ceilings, the Hoffman
project will have a much greater impact on the Ryan/Dube property than a house ofthe
same height with a pitched roof which allows sun and light to infiltrate the area along
the sloped roof. Conversely, the flat roof creates a solid barrier of wall blocking all sun
and light right up to the edge of the structure. Additionally, the upper roof, as proposed,
blocks existing views of the ocean from the eastern side of the Ryan/Dube property, as
well as ocean views from San Antonio.
The City Design Guidelines disfavor a large expansive building mass and
require the preservation of open space and access to light between properties (See
Guidelines 7.1 and 7.3) and require maintaining the mass of buildings low to maintain
views over the structure (See Guideline 5.3).
City Code Section I 7.10.010 (D) requires that buildings not present excess
visual mass or bulk to adjoining properties. In this case, the flat roof and solid mass of
wall creates a large solid mass when viewed from the Ryan!Dube property.
21426'000\587958.1 :4215

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 40
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission

April 2, 2015
Page3
City Code Section 17.10.010 (F) requires that designs preserve reasonable
access to light, air, and open space for s'ilrrounding properties, as well as avoid taller
bulky buildings near an adjoining site that is already partially boxed in by previous
development. In this case, the flat roof and solid mass ofwall creates a large solid mass
blocking sun and light and views of the sky and trees from the Ryan/Dube property.
City Code Section 17.10.010 (G) requires that designs respect the privacy of
neighbors, including the placement of windows. In this case the north facing windows
face into the Ryan/Dube property.
City Code Section 17.10.010 (H) requires that the design of structures be
coordinated with open space to enhance the City's park-like environment and that open
space is a shared community resource. In this case, the flat roof and solid mass of wall
creates a large solid mass blocking views of the sky and trees from the Ryan!Dube
property.
City Code Section 17.10.010 (K) requires that private views be protected and
that buildings which substantially eliminate an existing view enjoyed by another owner
should be avoided. In this case, the flat roof and solid mass of wall creates a large solid
mass, blocking the Ryan/Dube's existing view of the sky and trees from their property.
2.
Retain the existing fence as a "patch and repair''.
When Ms. Ryan, Mr. Sillano and I met with the Hoffinans' architect and
attorney on March 9th, both their attorney and architect agreed that the existing fence
would remain in its existing location as a ''patch and repair" and any reference to a new
fence would be removed from the plans that would be resubmitted. plans. While sheets
A2.0 and Al.1 on the 3/17/15 plans indicate the existing fence is to remain as a ''patch
and repair'', as the parties agreed, sheet A3.2 contains a contrary fence detail for a new
fence, inconsistent with the parties' agreement.
Retention of the existing fence is a key issue for Ms. Ryan and Mr. Dube as the
fence has been in this location for decades, is covered with and surrounded by mature
landscaping, and provides privacy, from end to end, for the Ryan!Dube residence.
3.
Add the following Conditions of Approval to the revised project
The Hoffinan project involves significant excavation in very close proximity to

the Ryan/Dube property and home. There were no geological or geotechnical reports
mentioned in the December 1Oth staff report, yet this excavation could have serious
consequences on Ryan/Dube property. Accordingly the following conditions should be
added to the revised project:
a.
Require Preparation of a Geological Report, Geoteebnical Report,
and Shoring Plan prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
21426\000\587958. 1:4215

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 41
City of Cannel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission

April2, 2015
Page4
b.
Require the Shoring Plan to be approved by a licensed structural
engineer on behalf of Ms. Ryan and Mr. Dube to protect the Ryan/Dube property.
Additionally, because the project is so height sensitive, the following condition

should be added to assure conformance with the approved plans.
c.
Provide a Certificate of Survey to confirm the upper roof and lower
roof elevations match the elevations stated herein. In addition, the 44'-0" main
finished floor elevation shall be confirmed by a Certificate of Survey for which Ms.
Ryan will pay.
4.
In summary, Ms. Ryan and Mr. Dube request that your Commission,
1.
Reduce the interior plate heights to:

9' -0" for the main roof; and
10' -6" for the upper roof.
2.
Commensurately, reduce the exterior roof elevations to:

53' -1 0" for the main roof; and
55'-4" for the upper roof.
3.
Retain the existing fence as a "patch and repair" in its current location.
4.
Require the above three (3) additional Conditions of Approval be added
to a revised project to protect the Ryan/Dube property.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of these important issues.

Sincerely,
CGK:aac
Encl: timeline
cc:
Ms. Heather Ryan

Ms. Christy Sabdo, City Planning
Mr. Jun Sillano
21426\000\S879S8.1 :421 S

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 42
Summary Time line

It is very unfortunate that not once in the entire process to date has the applicant (Hoffman),
represented by Architect Mr. Craig Holdren followed the Planning Guidelines' recommendations, the
Commission's directions, or adhered to any of the multiple agreements that have been struck at the
several meetings we have arranged with them.
Public Notice was not delivered until the afternoon of Monday December 1, 2014 (8, or at most
9 days prior to Planning Commission Meeting December 10). No Public Notice was ever mailed.
Staking was not put up untiiS:OO pm Monday December 1, 2014. Again, 8 or at most 9 days
prior to December 10 Planning Commission Meeting.
We therefore had to rearrange our schedules to make an unscheduled, last minute flight back to
california in order to attend the December 10 Planning Commission meeting.
No attempt to discuss the project with us, the next door neighbors, was made prior to the
original Plan Submittal. Mr. Holdren admitted at the Tour that it was the first t ime he had come
over to our property.
As per the Commission's direction at the December 10, 2014 meeting, I met with Mr. Holdren
on the steps of City Hall Immediately following the meeting, and gave him my contact
information, and also my husband's contact information. Mr. Holdren said he would contact the
Hoffmans to discuss possible changes, but with the holiday coming up, was not sure when he
would know anything, but would let us know.
Mr. Holdren resubmitted plans to the City the afternoon of December 23, without any attempt
to contact us first.
'
We cancelled our Christmas vacation so I could fly back to California, another last minute trip, to
pick up these plans on Monday December 29, 2014. We engaged Architect Jun Sillano of
International Design Group to assist in deciphering the plans and to help make suggestions as to
reasonable changes to mitigate the negative Impact on privacy, solar access, shadowing, glare
and view blocking.
January 15: Made third last minute trip in order to meet with Mr. Holdren to discuss plan
changes in an attempt to be as accommodating as possible, despite the lack of contact, and
plans submitted without any notice or ability to review. Christine Kemp, Jun Sillano, Heather
Ryan, Craig Holdren and Kevin Bell were all present at this meeting, and we believed that an
agreement had been reached, and that Mr. Holdren would make the changes necessary to
reflect that agreement and submit to us for review. There was the caveat that this agreement
was based upon Surveyor Jon Hagemeyer confirming that the story poles accurately reflected
the plans.
January 23: Mr. Holdren again resubmitted plans to the City without allowing us to review first.
The plans did not reflect the agreement we had reached at the January 15 meeting.
The 4" roof reduction we believed he had put in, commensurate with the 4" plate height
reduction on the December 23 plans (the main roof plate height drops from 10' to 9'8" on these
plans), was not reflected on the January 23 plans. At the January 15 meeting we had asked for
additional height reductions. Mr. Holdren responded that he had come down 4"' already. We

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 43
asked for 2 additional inches, and he suggested we split the difference and just drop one
additional inch. The plans show a 5" plate height reduction, but only a 1" roof height
reduction.
The eave width was not the 2" Mr. Holdren said they would be at the meeting; when he finally
confirmed width in writing that had changed to 8" wide eaves, a 4x increase in width. With a
flat roof the eave brings the roof and wall the distance of its width closer, increasing the
negative impact.
The large windows along the north side we offered to aII ow him to put back in the plans at the
January 15 meeting, as long as they were behind the fence, show on the plans as rising far
above the fence.
He included both a skylight and kitchen windows, in contravention of our agreement.

February 6: Surveyor Jon Hagemeyer shot the revised staking, and found significant errors.
February 10: Meeting with Surveyor Jon Hagemeyer and Architect Ju.n Sillano to review staking
errors. The closest poles to our property of the highest roof section were almost 6" lower than
the proposed roof height would have been.
February 17: Comments sent to Mr. Holdren to address discrepancies in January 26 plans from
January 15 meeting agreements and incorrect staking. Timeline detailing efforts made to
expedite a resolution included.
February 20: Email detailing agreements and discrepancies and another offer of resolution sent
to City, Mr. Holdren and Mr. Hoffman in response to Mr. Holdren's February 18 email.
March 2: Meeting set up for March 9 with Mr. Holdren, Ms. Kemp, Mr. Sillano and Ms. Ryan.
March 9: Meeting with Mr. Holdren, Ms. Kemp, Mr. Sillano, Ms. Ryan and attorney for the
Hoffmans. Agreement reached based on staking being confirmed as accurate, plans submitted
to Ms. Ryan for review prior to submittal to the City, and adherence to the written agreement
covering other details such as: Approval of Shoring plans by Licensed Structural Engineer at Ms.
Ryan's expense prior to issuance of Building Permit, retaining existing fence with Patch and
Repair, pulling plans for new fence from Plans, maximum net glazing on skylight of 2'x 6',
skylight located no closer than 3'10" to the north wall and maximum skylight height of 1",
maximum height of 7' header, with corresponding maximum glass height of 6'8" for windows
along north wall from finished floor level elevation 44', maximum 4" eave width, provision of
certificate of Survey to confirm roof elevations match the elevations stated within and
confirming the 44' main floor elevation.
March 11: Surveyor Jon Hagemeyer shoots poles for accuracy of side setback and finds that
many of them are incorrectly set farther away from Ryan property than the plans call for, up to
7", making the impact of the proposed building far more negative than shown by the netting.
March 18: Mr. Holdren again submits plans to the City without submitting to Ms. Ryan for prior
review, and without any height adjustments to counter the incorrect staking. Mr. Holdren
agrees in writing to keeping existing fence under patch and repair, but submits plans for new
fence to City.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 44
ATTACHMENT #5
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES
April 8, 2015
A.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR TOUR OF INSPECTION

PRESENT:
Commissioners: Martin, Paterson, Reimers, LePage and Goodhue
ABSENT:
Commissioners: None
STAFF PRESENT:
B.
Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning & Building Director

Marc Wiener, Senior Planner
Ashley Hobson, Contract Planner
Roxanne Ellis, Planning Commission Secretary
Sally Rideout, Contract Planner
Sharon Friedrichsen, Special Projects Manager
Mike Branson, City Forester
TOUR OF INSPECTION
The Commission convened at 2:45 p.m. and then toured the following sites:
C.
DS 14-99 (Ryan); gth Ave 2 NW of Monte Verde, Block: B; Lot: SW pt. of 15 and
W Yz of17 & 19
DS 14-107 (Hoffman); San Antonio 3 NW of 13th, Block: A5; Lot: pt.of 4
DS 15-007 (Nussbacher); N Carmelo 3 SE of 2nd Block: MM Lot: 34
DS 14-139/UP 15-067 (Pate); Camino Real8 NW of 4th, Block: MM; Lot: 21
SI 15-051 (Carmel Bakery); Ocean 3 SE of Lincoln; Block: 75; Lots: 6
ROLLCALL
Chairman Goodhue called the meeting to order at 4:15p.m.
D.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Members of the audience joined Commission Members in the Pledge of Allegiance.
E.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
Chair Goodhue announced that Tudor Wines was taken off the agenda for lack of quorum
and will be heard at the May 6th City Council meeting
F.
APPEARANCES
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

April, 8 2015
1

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 45
Barbara Livingston noted that Kent Seavey, City Historic Consultant, spoke to the CRA
and gave a great presentation. She noted and bought Mr. Seavey's book Carmel: A
History of Architecture and donated it to the City.
G.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items placed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and are acted upon by
the Commission in one motion. There is no discussion of these items prior to the
Commission action unless a member of the Commission, staff, or public requests specific
items be discussed and removed from the Consent Agenda. It is understood that the staff
recommends approval of all consent items. Each item on the Consent Agenda approved
by the Commission shall be deemed to have been considered in full and adopted as
recommended.
1. Consideration of draft minutes from March 10, 2015 Special Meeting
2. DS 14-73 (McCarthy)
Jon Erlandson
Lincoln 3 SW ofTenthAve.
Block: 114, Lots: 5 and N 1/8 of 7th
APN: 010-182-002
Consideration of a Final Design Study (DS 14-73)

and associated Coastal Development Permit
application for the substantial alteration of an
existing residence located in the Single-Family
Residential (R-1) Zoning District
3. DS 14-134 (Yeslek)
Don McBride
Dolores 2 SE of 11th
Block: 131, Lot 6
APN: 010-154-014

applications for the construction of a new single
family residence located in the Single-Family
4. DS 15-049 (Thomas Trust)

Claudio Ortiz
NE Comer of Casanova & 1Oth
Block: D, Lots: S Y2 of Lots 18 & 20
APN: 010-186-010

applications for the construction of a new singlefamily residence located in the Single-Family
Chair Goodhue pulled Item G.4 because of a lighting issue that needs to be discussed.
Commissioner Reimers moved to approve Items G.1, G.2, and G.3 with revisions
noted to Item G.1 [page 11 of the Planning Commission Packet] regarding
"Contract Planner" changing to "Senior Planner". Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Paterson, and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: PATERSON, MARTIN, LEPAGE

GOODHUE & REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
April, 8 20 15
2

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 46
4. DS 15-049 (Thomas Trust)

Claudio Ortiz
NE Comer of Casanova & 1Oth
Block: D, Lots: S 11 of Lots 18 & 20
APN: 010-186-010

applications for the construction of a new singlefamily residence located in the Single-Family
Commissioner Reimers recused herself from this item.

Marc Wiener, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and discussed lighting request
and alternatives.
Chair Goodhue opened the public hearing.
Speaker #1: Claudio Ortiz, project architect spoke in favor for the two lighting fixtures
instead of the preferred single fixtures.
Mr. Mullane stated that as the technology continues in the future more options will be
available and that low lighting is a requirement in the City's Municipal Code as well as in
the Design Guidelines.
Seeing no other speakers, Chair Goodhue closed the public hearing.

There was a discussion by the Commission, and revisions were made to Item G .4 by
staff.
Vice Chair LePage moved to accept DS 15-049 with the with the lights requested by
the applicant with revisions to the lantern light at the entry to have a diffuser.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Paterson, and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
H.

GOODHUE
COMMISSIONERS : NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: REIMERS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. MP 15-100 (Beach Fire
Management)
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Carmel Beach from 8th Ave to
Martin Way
Consideration of a Coastal Development Permit

application (MP 15-1 00) for the Carmel Beach along
and seaward of Scenic A venue from Eighth Avenue
to Martin Way. The City proposes to implement a
multi-year beach fire management pilot program
requiring the use of City rings for wood and

April, 8 2015
3

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 47
charcoal burning fires south of Tenth Avenue. The

proposal includes site preparation, placement of fire
rings at various locations on the beach and the
installation of temporary signage on beach fire rules.
Sharon Friedrichsen, Special Projects Manager, presented the staff report, and went over
the proposed pilot program and presented fire ring conceptual designs. Ms. Friedrichsen
also fielded questions from the Commission on cleaning and length of pilot program.
Speaker #1: Barbara Livingston, raised concerns with the number of fire rings being
proposed during holidays.
Speaker #2: Scott McKenzie, expressed his disapproval for the pilot program, he suggests
objectives and action items.
Speaker #3: Katherine Bang, spoke regarding the process of developing the program and
the opportunities for public input.
Speaker# 4: Karen Ferlito, spoke on the reasoning for the proposed fire pit designs and
noted her support for the pilot program.
The Commission had a discussion on the design of fire pits, preserving the aesthetics of
the Beach, concerns with air quality, fire pits conducting too much heat, and the pilot
program.
Commissioner LePage moved to approve the Costal Development Permit
Application with the Special Conditions and the amendment of Special Condition #4
to read "report prepared and submitted to Forest and Beach Commission, Planning
Commission, and City Council" and to dedicate an individual to clean and enforce
the beach. Motion seconded by Commissioner Reimers, and carried on a 4-0-1 vote
as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:MARTIN,LEPAGE,GOODHUE& REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: PATERSON
2. UP 14-02 (Tudor Wines)

Dan and Christian Tudor
NW Cor. of Mission & 7th Avenue
Block 77, Lots: 15, 17, 19 & 21
Consideration of a Public Bench and Plaque

Consideration of a Use Permit (UP 14-02)
application to establish a retail wine shop with wine
tasting as an ancillary use in an existing commercial

April, 8 2015
4

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 48
APN: 010-141-003
space located in the Central Commercial (CC)

Zoning District (Tudor Wines)
This Item was taken off the agenda and will be referred to City Council due to the lack of
a Planning Commission Quorum.
3. DS 14-107 (Hoffman)
Craig Holdren
Blk: A5, Lot: portion of 4
APN: 010-292-006
Consideration of a Final Design Study (DS 14-1 07)

application for the construction of a new single
family residence located in the Single-Family
Residential (R-1) Zoning District and Beach and
Riparian Overlay (RO) Zoning District
Christy Sabdo, Contract Planner, presented the staff report.

Speaker 1: Jim Heisinger, Representing the Property Owner, spoke in support of the Staff
report.
Speaker 2: Craig Holdren, Project Architect, offered some clarifications on the design
and proposed roofing materials, floor height, proposed revisions, and attempt to meet the
concerns of the neighbors.
Speaker 3: Barbara Livingston, asked that contractors be educated and required to hand
excavate around tree roots.
Speaker 4: Roberta Miller, noted concerns with proposed roof design looking too flat and
not being in correspondence with Design Guidelines.
Speaker 5: Christine Kemp, representing neighbor to the north (the Ryans), noted
concerns with the staking not being done correctly.
Speaker 6: Heather Ryan, northern neighbor, noted concerns with impacts to view and
solar axes
Speaker 7: Terry Maio, attorney for the Ryans, requested that the northern fence not be
part of the Planning Commission's consideration as there is an active legal dispute
regarding this fence.
Speaker 2: Craig Holdren, addressed questions from the Commission and offered some
clarity on design of project and window height.
Mr. Mullane noted that the contractors will know about the hand excavation because they
require a sheet on the Building Plans to note all conditions of approval. One of the
conditions requires the contractor to notify City Forester before excavation begins. Mr.
April, 8 2015
5

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 49
Mullane offered clarity on legal dispute raised by Mr. Maio, and recommend the
Condition #25 be stricken.
Vice Chair LePage moved to accept the application with the elimination to Special
Condition #25. Motion seconded by Commissioner Paterson, and carried by the
following vote 5-0-0:
...I\YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:

GOODHUE & REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
The Commission took a 10 minute recess

4. DS 14-99 (Ryan)
Ron Marlette
gth Ave 2 NW of Monte Verde
Block: B, Lot: SW pt. of Lot 15, and
W Y2 of17 & 19, andE 1/5 of18
& 20
APN: 010-195-016
Consideration of a Concept Design Study (DS 1499) and associated Coastal Development Permit
Sally Rideout, Contract Planner, presented the staff report and summarized the proposed
project.
Speaker 1: Ron Marlette, project architect, spoke on the potential impacts to the neighbor
to the west.
Speaker 2: Barbara Livingston, asked a question on the historic value of the proposed
property and asked that trees be considered.
Speaker 3: Mayla Murphy, neighbor to the east, asked a question on location of proposed
french door, balcony size, and the addition.
Speaker 4: Tom Ashburn, neighbor to the northwest, noted concerns with the large
windows on the dormer on the second level of the west elevation.
The Commission had a brief discussion.
Commissioner Martin moved to accept the application with staff-recommended

conditions with the direction that the applicant work with neighbors to mitigate
April, 8 2015
6

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 50
impacts and explore redesigning the garage to minimize tree impacts. Motion
seconded by Commissioner Reimers and carried on a 5-0-0 vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: PATERSON, MARTIN, REIMERS

GOODHUE & LEPAGE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
5. DS 15-007 (Nussbacher)
Darren Davis
N Carmelo 3 parcels SE of 2nd
Block: MM, Lot: 34
AA\J: 01 0-241-030
Consideration of Design Study (DS 15-007)

application for the 36 square foot expansion of a
second-story balcony and other minor alterations on
a property located in the Single-Family Residential
(R-1) Zoning District
Ms. Rideout, Contract Planner, presented the staff report and proposed design of the
railing for the balcony.
Speaker 1: Daren Davis, Project Architect, fielded questions from the Commission on
proposed design and noted that the railing is decorative.
Commissioner Paterson moved to accept design with the three standard conditions
recommended by staff and the addition of a fourth condition to work with Staff to
keep railing design simple and not too decorative.
Motion seconded by
Commissioner Reimers and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: PATERSON, LEPAGE, MARTIN

GOODHUE & REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
6. DS 14-139/UP 15-067 (Pate)

Cody West
Camino Real 8 parcels NW of 4th
Block: MM, Lot: 21
APN: 010-241-029
Consideration of a Design Study (DS 14139) and associated Use Permit Amendment
(UP 15-067) application for minor alterations
to a nonconforming residence located in the
Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning
District

April, 8 2015
7

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 51
Christy Sabdo, Contract Planner, presented the staff report, which included a brief
explanation of the proposed design and Use Permit.
Speaker 1: Cody West, applicant, addressed questions from the commission on lighting.
Seeing no other speakers, Chair Goodhue closed the hearing.
Commissioner Martin moved to accept the application with the requirement of a
diffuser on the light fixture to reduce glare shining into the street. Motion seconded
by Vice Chair LePage and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: PATERSON, LEPAGE, MARTIN

GOODHUE & REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
7. SI 15-051 (Carmel Bakery)

Richard Pepe
Ocean 3 SE of Lincoln
Block: 75, Lot 6
APN: 010-147-014
Consideration of a Sign Permit (SI 15-051 )

application for a new storefront business sign
at a commercial space located in the Central
Commercial (CC) Zoning District (Carmel
Bakery)
Commissioner Reimers recused herself from this item.

Ashley Hobson, Contract Planner, presented the staff report, which included a brief
explanation of the proposed double sided foam board sign that is not consistent with
exterior guidelines.
Speaker 1: Rich Pepe, spoke on the history of his business.
Speaker 2: Bob Wecker, project designer, spoke on the design of sign and the existing
and proposed materials.
Speaker 3: Roberta Miller, stated she is not in favor of signs with block plastic
weathering and sign design with foe material because it does not enhance the village
character.
Speaker 4: Barbara Livingston, noted she is not in favor of the sign design and proposed
brackets.
April, 8 20 15
8

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 52
Vice Chair LePage moved to accept the application with the added condition that
the proposed sign material not be faux material and incorporate wood. The
Commission also requested the applicant work with staff to provide more muted
and flat Oow sheen) colors for the design. Motion seconded by Commissioner
Paterson and carried on a 4-0-1 vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: LEPAGE, MARTIN,

GOODHUE, PATERSON
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
8. Capital Improvement Plan Review

Consideration of a Resolution (15-00 1) for

the review of the FY 2015/16 Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) and determination
of consistency with the City's General Plan
Commissioner Reimers returned to the dais.

Rob Mullane, Planning and Building Director, presented the staff report and review for
the 2015-2016 Capital Improvement projects.
Chair Goodhue opened this item to the public
Speaker 1: Barbara Livingston asked a question on grey water and if that technology is
able to be used in the City.
Seeing no speakers the item was closed to the public.
Commissioner Reimers and Commissioner Paterson asked that the dunes restoration plan
be placed on a future agenda.
Vice Chair LePage moved to adopt PC Resolution No. 2015-001 with a correction to
the last paragraph of the resolution to revise "ADOPTED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL" to read "ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION". Motion
seconded by Commissioner Martin and carried on a 4-1-0 vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: LEPAGE, MARTIN,

GOODHUE, PATERSON
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE

April, 8 2015
9
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 53
I.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Update from the Director

Mr. Mullane provided the Commission with the Department's monthly permit
actlvtty reports. He went over recent City Council items of interest to the
Commission and provided an update on replacement of the retaining wall at the
Sunset Center's North Parking Lot. The Commission expressed support for the
concept of enhancing the wall design and using board-formed concrete.
J.
SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS
It was announced that the Roofing Sub-Committee would be holding a public workshop
on Monday, May 11th at 3:30pm, and that staff would contact roofers and seek their
participation.
K.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Goodhue adjourned the meeting at 8:43p.m.
The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be:
Wednesday, May 17,2015, at 4:00p.m. - Regular Meeting
SIGNED:
Ah~
R6xanne Ellis, Planning Commission Secretary

April, 8 2015
10

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 54
ATTACHMENT #6
Planning Commission Report
December 10, 2014
To:
Chair Reimers and Planning Commissioners
From:
Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director
Submitted by:
Subject:
Consideration of a Concept Design Study OS 14-107 (Hoffman) and

associated Coastal Development Permit application for the construction
of a new residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1), Park
Overlay (P), and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay Zoning Districts
Recommendation:
Accept the Conceptual Design Study (OS 14-107) subject to the attached findings and
recommendations/draft conditions
Application:
OS 14-107 (Hoffman)
Block:
AS
lots:
S portion of 4
Location:
APN:
010-292-006
Property Owners: Carl and Mary Hoffman
Applicant: Craig Holdren, Architect
Background and Project Description:

The project site is located on San Antonio Street four northwest of 13th Avenue. The 5,659square foot property is developed with a one-story framed log cabin clad with engineered
horizontal log siding and was built in 1927. A detached garage that was built in 1964 faces San
Antonio, and the residence faces Scenic. On May 20, 2013, the Historic Resources Board
determined that the house is ineligible for architectural significance. A Final Determination of
Historic Ineligibility for the subject residence was issued by the Community Planning and
Building Department on May 21, 2013.
The existing site coverage consists of an asphalt driveway, brick and stone walkways, stone and
paver patios, and a wood deck. The site is accessed from the San Antonio property frontage.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 55
DS 14-107 (Hoffman)
December 10, 2014
Staff Report
Page2
The portion of the San Antonio Right-ofWay (ROW} between the front property line and the
edge of pavement is largely unimproved, although there is an asphalt driveway, shrubs and a
28" Monterey Cypress. The portion of the Scenic ROW fronting the rear of the property is also
unimproved except for a row of shrubs.
The owner has submitted plans to demolish the existing 864-square foot, one-story residence
along with the 458-square foot detached garage; and to construct a new one-story residence
with a partial subgrade lower level and a new one-car detached garage. The proposed
residence would be 2,269 square feet in size, including 1,468 square feet on the main floor and
801 square feet on the lower floor/partial subgrade; the new garage would be 210 square feet
in size. All existing site coverage would be removed and replaced with new site coverage.
The individual components of the applicant's proposal include:
1} the demolition of the existing one-story residence and detached garage
2) the removal of all existing site coverage
3) the construction of a new 2,269 square foot one-story residence that includes a 1,468square foot main level and a 801-square foot partial subgrade lower level
4) the construction of a new 210-square foot detached garage
S} the installation of 729 square feet of new site coverage, including, a Carmel stone entry
porch, paver patio, stone walkways, retaining walls and stairs, deck, and paver driveway
Staff has scheduled this application for conceptual review. The primary purpose ofthis meeting
is to review and consider the site planning, privacy and views, mass, and scale related to the
project. However, the Commission may provide input on other aspects of the design such as
architectural detailing and finish materials.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 56
OS 14-107 (Hoffman)
December 10, 2014
Staff Report
Page3
PROJECT DATA FOR A 5,659 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
---------
Site Considerations
Allowed
Existing
Proposed
Floor Area
2,359 sf (42%)
1,322 sf (23.4%}-
2,479 sf (44%)- bonus
Demolition proposed
floor area of 190 sf for

partial subgrade lower
level and stair
Site Coverage*
745 sf (13.2%)*
978 sf
729 sf (12.8%)
Trees (upper/lower)
4/3 (recommended)
1/0
1/1
Ridge Height (Main floor)
18ft (Beach and
15ft 7 in
16ft 6 in
Overlay District)
Plate Height (Main floor)
12ft/18ft
12ft 2 in
4 ft 1 in/ 15 ft 1 in
Setbacks
Minimum Required
Existing
Proposed
Front Yard**
San Antonio Ave.
Scenic Rd.
15ft
15ft
15ft
33ft 6 in
15ft
16ft 3 in
Composite Side Yard
10ft (25%}
15 ft 3 in (38%}
10ft (25%)
Minimum Side Yard
3ft
3ft 3 in
3ft 1 in
Rear
n/a
n/a
n/a
*Allowable site coverage with bonus, if 50% or more ofthe site coverage is permeable.
**This property has a double-frontage lot.
Staff Analysis:
Forest Character: Residential Design Guidelines 1.1 through 1.4 encourage maintaining "a
forested image on the site" and for new construction to be at least six feet from significant
trees.
The property contains one significant upper canopy, Monterey Cypress tree. The City Forester
recommends that one new lower-canopy tree from the City's recommended tree list be planted
on-site and that all ivy be removed from the site. A condition has been drafted to address the
City Forester's recommendations.
In addition, the grading proposed at the southwest corner of the subject property for the
stepped terrace is within a no cut/fill area identified for a 33" Monterey Cypress tree, which is

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 57
OS 14-107 (Hoffman)
December 10, 2014
Staff Report
Page4
located on the neighbor's property to the south. The City Forester has concerns with the
proposed excavation in this area. The applicant was asked to provide an exploratory hand
excavation in the area of concern for inspection by the City Forester, prior to the Planning
Commission's review of the Final Design plan set. A Condition of Approval has been drafted that
will require the applicant to work with the City Forester to determine the appropriate actions
for minimizing over excavation in the southwest corner of the property for the proposed
stepped terrace.
Privacy & Views: Residential Design Guidelines 5.1 through 5.3 pertain to maintenance of
"privacy of indoor and outdoor spaces in a neighborhood," organization of 'Junctions on a site

to preserve reasonable privacy for adjacent properties," and maintenance of "view
opportunities."
The proposed new residence does not appear to impact the privacy or views of adjacent
residences to the north and south. The proposed residence is smaller in both mass and height
compared to the adjacent residences. In addition, the proposed residence is set back 16.3 ft
from the west property line along Scenic, approximately 20 ft on the south side and 38 feet on
the north side in order to maintain any ocean views and light enjoyed by the adjacent
residences. The layout of the proposed residence with the courtyard in the center, avoids any
potential view and privacy impacts to the neighboring residence to the south, where the mass
of the neighboring residence is more substantial.
Mass & Bulk: Residential Design Guidelines 7.1 through 7.5 encourage a building's mass to
relate "to the context of other homes nearby" and to "minimize the mass of a building as seen
from the public way or adjacent properties."

The applicant is proposing to demolish a one-story residence and build a new one-story
residence with a partial subgrade lower level. The mass and bulk of the residence is reduced by
locating the lower level partially below existing grade, therefore minimizing the mass and bulk
as seen from Scenic Road. The lower level would be accessed by a stepped terrace at the back
of the residence.
In addition, the subject property is in the Beach and Overlay District, which restricts building
heights to 18ft. The maximum ridge height of the proposed new residence is 16ft. 6 in., which
is under the allowable building height. The ridge height of proposed new residence, as shown
on the Street Elevations (Sheet A1.2), is approximately 6 ft 6 in lower than the neighboring

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 58
DS 14-107 (Hoffman)
December 10, 2014
Staff Report
PageS
residence to the south and approximately 12 ft lower than the neighboring residence to the
north (not including chimney heights). The neighboring residences to the north and south ..
fronting Scenic, are both two-story homes that are larger in mass than the proposed, new onestory residence (see Attachment D, West Street Elevation, Sheet A1.2). The proposed new
garage fronting San Antonio is substantially smaller in mass than the neighboring residences to
the north and south (see Attachment D, East Street Elevation, Sheet A1.2). The width of the
driveway would also be reduced to conform to City Municipal Code and Design Guideline
requirements. With regard to mass and bulk, in staff's opinion, the proposed addition is
consistent with Residential Design Guidelines 7.1 through 7.5.
Building & Roof Form: Residential Design Guidelines 8.1 through 8.3 state that /'building forms
should be simple. Basic rectangles, Lor U-shapes are typical" and "basic gable and hip roofs are
traditional and their use is encouraged" and "in general, moderately pitched roofs (4:12 to 6:12}
are preferred."
As proposed, both the new residence and the detached garage have flat roofs, which minimize
the appearance of mass from Scenic and compliment the Contemporary architectural style of
the home. The Residential Design Guidelines state: "Flat roofs may be used to a limited extent
on smaller, one-story structures. They should not be used on large buildings or two-story
elements." The Planning Commission in the past has supported flat roofs If they are consistent
with the architectural style of the building. Staff supports the proposed flat roofs as being in
keeping with the Contemporary style, and as these would minimize the building mass from
public viewpoints along both Scenic Road and San Antonio Avenue.
Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements,
pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 2)- Replacement or Reconstruction. An existing, 864-square
foot, non-historically significant single-family residence and 458-square foot garage would be
demolished and replaced by a new 2,269-square foot residence and a 210-square foot
detached garage. The proposed alterations to the residence do not present any unusual
circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Site Photographs
Attachment B- Findings for Concept Accepta nce
Attachment C - Recommendations/Draft Conditions
Attachment D- Project Plans

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 59
ATTACHMENT #7
PLANNING COMMISSION- MINUTES
December 10,2014
A.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR TOUR OF INSPECTION

PRESENT:
Commissioners: Paterson, Martin, Goodhue, and Reimers
ABSENT:
Commissioners: LePage
STAFF PRESENT:
B.
Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning & Building Director

Sharon Friedrichsen, Special Projects Manager
Ashley Hobson, Contract Planner
Roxanne Ellis, Planning Commission Secretary
TOUR OF INSPECTION
The Commission convened at 2:08p.m. and then toured the following sites:
1. DS 14-107 (Hoffman); San Antonio 3 NW of 13th, Block: A5; Lot: South portion of 4
2. MP 12-01 (Carmel-by-the-Sea); West side of Scenic Road at the intersection of Santa
Lucia
3. DS 14-90 (Shannon); Monte Verde 3 NW of 4th Ave. Block: II; Lots: North 'l'2 of 9 &
South 'l'2 of 11
4. DS 14-115 (Churchward); Santa Fe 5 SW of 5th Ave. Block: 60; Lot: 9
5. DS 14-114 (OSBT); NE Comer of Forest & 7th Block: 2; Lots: 5
6. DS 14-117 (Pedersen); Torres 4 SE of 8thAve. Block: 100; Lots: 10
7. DS 14-33 (Levett); SE Comer of Ocean and Mission Block: 58; Lots: 2 & 4
8. MP 14-03 (Carmel-by-the-Sea) Citywide
C.
ROLLCALL
Chairman Reimers called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
D.
Members of the audience joined Commission Members in the pledge of allegiance.
E.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
Commissioner Paterson stated that he was disappointed that Planning Commission was not
given the option to review the City's Parking Plan on Ocean and noted that he is not in favor
of the project because it is out of line with the guardianship of the Carmel village character
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10,2014
1

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 60
and requested that the Planning Commission be included in discussion after the parking
pilot is over.
Mr. Mullane stated as a pilot program that various City Staff felt it did not need to go
before the Planning Commission at that time and noted that the pilot design is not
permanent, the parking units are on loan and this City project will come back before the
Commission if it goes beyond the pilot program.
Commissioner Goodhue also expressed his disapproval to the design of the pilot project.
F.
APPEARJlNCES
Chair Reimers opened the meeting to public comment.
Speaker 1: Barbara Livingston, resident, noted that the Planning Commission needs to be
involved with all the planning in the City.
Seeing no other speakers, Chair Reimers closed the public hearing.
G.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items placed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and are acted upon by the
Commission in one motion. There is no discussion of these items prior to the Commission
action unless a member of the Commission, staff, or public requests specific items be
discussed and removed from the Consent Agenda. It is understood that the staff
recommends approval of all consent items. Each item on the Consent Agenda approved by
the Commission shall be deemed to have been considered in full and adopted as
recommended.
Chair Reimers pulled Item G.l and G.2 because the Commission had revisions.
1. Consideration of draft minutes from October 8, 2014 Regular Meeting
Commissioner Paterson moved to approve item G.l as revised. Motion was seconded
by Commissioner Goodhue.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: GOODHUE, PATERSON, MARTIN,

&REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: LEPAGE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
2. Consideration of draft minutes from November 12, 2014 Regular Meeting
Commissioner Paterson moved to approve item G.2 as revised. Motion was seconded
by Commissioner Goodhue.
December 10,20 14

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 61
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
H.
COMMISSIONERS: PATERSON, MARTIN,

GOODHUE & REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.
MP 14-03 (Carmel-by-the-Sea)
Citywide
Consideration of Municipal Project (MP 14-03):

Design Options and Locations for Cigarette
Receptacles
Sharon Friedrichsen, Special Projects Manager, presented the staff report, which included a
brief explanation on the design options for cigarette receptacles for selected locations
citywide as part of a pilot Municipal Project. Ms. Friedrichsen addressed questions from the
Commission on design and cost.
Chair Reimers opened the public hearing.
Speaker 1: Barbara Livingston, resident, noted her support for the project.
The Commission expressed their concerns with separate receptacles looking cluttered and
the actual effectiveness of the proposed pilot project.
Commissioner Paterson moved to continue item. Motion seconded by Commissioner

Goodhue and carried on a 4-0-1 vote as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: PATERSON, MARTIN, GOODHUE, &

REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
2. MP 12-01 (Carmel-by-the-Sea)
City of Cannel-by-the-Sea
West side of Scenic Road at the
intersection of Santa Lucia
APN: 010-294-001
Update on Scenic Road Restroom Project (MP 1201) and the associated landscape plan
Marc Wiener, presented the staff report, which included an overview of the proposed
landscape plan.
December I 0, 20 14
3

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 62
Ms. Friedrichsen addressed questions from the Commission on design and cost. She noted
that as discussed during the Tour of Inspection, the side walls for the restroom are now
proposed to be extended approximately 8 feet with the last few feet being tapered.
Mike Branson, City Forester, addressed question from the Commission on the proposed
greenery.
Speaker 1: Barbara Livingston, resident, stated her support for the Scenic bathrooms and
noted that 23 years ago the bathrooms on Scenic were recommended by the 2016
Committee.
Speaker 2: Roberta Miller, resident, spoke in favor of the restrooms.
Seeing no other speakers, Chair Reimers closed the public hearing. Commissioner Goodhue
had questions on the landscaping proposed for the south side of the restroom and
recommended an additional 100-feet of landscaping be installed to make for a better
transition.
Commissioner Goodhue moved to accept the plan with further consideration to add
landscaping to the area to the south of the restroom and remove the salt bushes to open
up the view permanently with lower planting. Motion seconded by Commissioner
Paterson and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:

GOODHUE & REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
3. DS 14-90 (Shannon)
Carl and Dianne Shannon
Monte Verde 3 NW of 4th Ave
Blk: II, Lots: North Yz of Lot 9 & South
Yz of 11
APN: 010-223-032
Consideration ofFinal Design Study (DS 14-90) and

associated Coastal Development Permit application
for the construction of a new residence located in the
Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Archaeological
Significance Overlay (AS) Zoning Districts
Marc Wiener, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, noting the revisions to the project
since it was last reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Mullane clarified that the generator be relocated so that a noise issue is not created for
the neighbor and it meets the requirements for the zoning code.
Mr. Wiener stated that the code only permits generator use during a power outage.

December 10,2014
4

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 63

Speaker 1: Justin Pauly, project architect, spoke on project changes and attempts to address
the neighbor's concerns.
Speaker 2: Carl Shannon, property owner, spoke on the concerns of the neighbors.
Speaker 3: Mae Olson, neighbor to the north, read a letter she prepared noting her history
with her home and stated her disapproval for the project because of the impacts on her
views.
Speaker 4: Ron Olson, neighbor to the north, spoke his disapproval of the proposed project
and the impacts to views and solar access.
Speaker 5: Barbara Livingston, asked questions on the proposed tree and fence.
Speaker 1: Justin Pauly, addressed questions from the Commission on trying to meet the
concerns of the neighbor to the north.
Chair Goodhue moved to accept the application with staff-recommended Special

Conditions. Motion seconded by Commissioner Martin and passed by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:

GOODHUE & REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
4. DS 14-117 (Pedersen)
Ole M. Pedersen
Torres 4 SE of 8th Ave
Blk: 100, Lot: 10
APN: 010-053-007
Consideration of Design Study (DS 14-117) for the

replacement of a wood-shake roof with composition
shingles on a residence located in the Single-Family
Residential (R-1) District
Christy Sabdo, Contract Planner, presented the staff report.

Speaker 1: Ole Pedersen, applicant, spoke in support of the project and reasoning for
proposing a composition roof instead of a wood shake roo
Speaker 2: Roberta Miller, stated her disapproval for the proposed composition shingles.

December 10,2014
5

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 64

Commissioner Martin spoke of alternative roofing materials and asked the applicant if he
had considered alternative roofing materials besides composition shingle.
Chair Reimers reopened the public hearing.
Speaker 1: Ole Pedersen stated that he was told that no synthetic options were available.
Chair Reimers closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Paterson made a motion to accept application. Motion died due to lack
of second.
Commissioner Martin moved to allow the applicant to work with staff on a synthetic
wood shingle or wood shake option, or that the applicant proceed with wood roofmg
material. Motion seconded by Chair Reimers and passed by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: MARTIN,
GOODHUE & REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: PATERSON
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
5. DR 14-33 (Levett)
Dennis Levett
SE Corner of Ocean and Mission
Blk: 58, Lots: 2 & 4
APN: 010-098-015
Consideration of a Design Study (DR 14-33) for the

replacement of a composition roof with composition
shingles on a commercial building located in the
Service Commercial District
Mr. Mullane introduced Contract Planner, Ashley Hobson.

Ashley Hobson, Contract Planner, presented the staff report.
Mr. Mullane added clarity on the municipal code having strong design guidelines for
residential zoning to have composition shingles but that the commercial zoning code does
not have strong guidelines for wood shake.
Speaker 1: Bobby Richards, applicant, went over the project. He provided clarifications on
the proposed composition shingle roofing color.
Speaker 2: Barbara Livingston, noted her disapproval for the proposed application and
expressed a preference for wood shake or shingles.

December 10,2014
6

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 65
Commissioner Paterson moved to accept the application with dark grey shake color to
match the existing color to the extent possible. Motion seconded by Commissioner
Goodhue and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:

GOODHUE & REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Consideration of Concept Design Study (DS 14-114)
6. DS 14-114 (OSBT)
Alan Lehman
NE Comer of Forest and 7th
Block 2, Lot 5;
APN: 009-201-013
Ms. Hobson presented the staff report noting the revisions to the project since it was last
reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Mullane noted that there is a change to the driveway width.
Speaker 1: Alan Lehman, project architect, went over the project. He presented
clarifications on the width of the driveway, property setbacks, and the north elevation design
and addressed questions from the Commission.
Mr. Mullane stated that applicant wishes to keep the bay window and in order to do this they
would need a variance and findings for a variance would need to be made, which is this
case, may be difficult.
Seeing no other speakers, Chair Reimers closed the public hearing. The Commission
discussed the project and options for variance.
The Commission had a brief discussion on the front yard setbacks, proposed solar tube, and
other roofing alternatives besides composition shingle.
Commissioner Martin moved to accept the concept with conditions recommended by

staff and a new Special Condition to move solar tube to the east facing side. Motion
seconded by Commissioner Goodhue and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:

GOODHUE & REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
December 10, 2014
7

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 66

7. DS 14-115 (Churchward)
Santa Fe Street 5 SW of 5th Ave
Blk: 60, Lot: 9;
APN: 010-092-004
Commissioner Martin recused himself from this item.

Mr. Wiener presented the staff report, which included an overview of the proposed project.
Speaker 1: Darren Davis, project architect, went over the project.
Speaker 2: Barbara Livingston, resident, stated her support for the project and asked if an
Upper Canopy tree is being proposed.
Seeing no other speakers, Chair Reimers closed the public hearing and noted her support for
the existing planting in the right-of-way.
Chair Reimers reopened the public hearing.
Speaker 3: Guy Churchward, property owner, addressed the Commissions' questions on the
right-of-way. He noted a willingness to remove some of the encroachments.
Chair Reimers closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Paterson moved to accept concept design with Conditions #1 and #2 and
revised Condition #3 to delete the reference to the fence but to add: "and other
hardscaping" to the listed encroachments and to note that these shall be eliminated.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Martin and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: PATERSON,
GOODHUE & REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: MARTIN
application for the construction of a new residence
located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1 ), Park
Overlay (P), and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay
Zoning Districts
8. DS 14-107 (Hoffinan)
Blk: AS, Lots: South portion of 4
APN: 010-292-006

December 10,2014

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 67
Commissioner Martin returned to the dais.

Christy Sabdo, Contract Planner, presented the staff report, which included an overview of
the proposed project, the proposed flat roof, concerns of neighbors to the north, and stairs
encroaching onto the City right-of-way.
Speaker 1: Craig Holdren, project architect, provided an overview of the project and the
steps taken in design to minimize view impacts.
Commissioner Martin made a disclaimer that the current tenant of the house is a colleague
that occasionally refers work to him and noted that this will not affect his judgment.
Speaker 2: Barbara Livingston, asked a question on what is in the public right-of-way and
who monitors the digging to assure tree roots are being protected.
Mr. Wiener noted that the Building Official monitors digging when he goes on building
inspections and if there are issues he notifies the City Forester. Applicants are also required
to do hand excavation when roots may be impacted.
Mr. Mullane explained the proposal for a narrower driveway, pathway, and landscaping.
Speaker 3: Heather Ryan, Neighbor to the north, spoke concerns with the proposed project
impacting privacy and solar access for her property. She suggested a change in plate height
to address impacts to the view.
Speaker 1: Craig Holdren, and Speaker 3: Heather Ryan, fielded questions from the
Commission. The Commission discussed possible ways to mitigate view impacts to Ms.
Ryan's home.
Commissioner Goodhue moved to approve the concept and work with staff and
neighbor to the north to address potential view impacts and high elements to be moved
as proposed and reconsider design of tempered glass gate. Motion Seconded by
Commissioner Paterson and carried on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:

GOODHUE & REIMERS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE

December 10, 2014
9

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 68
I.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
1. Update from the Director
Mr. Mullane announced that there is a supplemental memo available to the audience on the
City Council's key initiatives for 2015 and the Departmental work-plan for 2015.
Mr. Mullane provided an update on recent City Council and Department issues of interest to
the Commission. He noted the recent extension of AI Fasulo's contract for code compliance
and that the City may consider adding a per bag fee to their plastic bag ban ordinance.
Mr. Mullane also provided some highlights of the December 1 and 2 City Council
meetings, including the consideration of a comment letter on a draft environmental impact
report for the Eastwood Odello Water Rights Change Petition project, the status for the
appeal by Seventh and Dolores, and a recent Mills Act contract.
Mr. Mullane provided a summary on the median lighting workshop and noted that the item
will come to full commission Wednesday, January 21st at 4:30pm for a special meeting of
the Planning Commission.
2. Goals and Departmental Work-Plan for 2015
Mr. Mullane presented the staff report and importance of prioritizing departmental goals
because of the Planning and Building Department's heavy workload. The Planning
Commission provided their input. One recommendation was to have the North Dunes
Habitat Restoration Plan made a Key Initiative for the City Council. Another suggestion
was to focus the City's Information Technology Goal on updating the City website. The
efforts of the Roofing Sub-Committee and the Wine Tasting Policy Sub-Committee were
noted as short term priorities for the 2015 Departmental Work-Plan.
3. Review and possible amendment to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure
There was no discussion, and the item will be discussed at a future meeting when the full
Commission is present.
J.
SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Report from Median Lighting Subcommittee
Chair Reimers announced that there will be a public workshop conducted by the Median
Lighting Subcommittee on Wednesday, January 21st at 4:30p.m.
2. Report from Other Sub-Committees
Mr. Wiener announced that there will be a public workshop conducted by the Wine
Tasting Policy Sub-Committee on Thursday, January 15th at 4:00 p.m.
December 10,2014
10

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 69
K.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Reimers adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be:
Wednesday, January 14, 2015, at 4:00p.m.
SIGNED:
et Reimers, Planning Commission Chair

ATTEST:
Roxanne Ellis
Acting Planning Commission Secretary

December 10, 2014
11

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 70
ATTACHMENT #8
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
NOTICE OF INELIGIBILITY
For The Carmel Historic Resources Inventory
On 21 May 2013 the Department ofPlanning and Building detennined that the property
identified below does not constitute an historic resource.
Assessor' s Parcel Number: 010-292-006

Current Owner: ANN ROOK
Block: AS
Lot: 4
Street Location: San Antonio 4 NW of 13th
The basis for this detennination is:
D
~
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 Cannel-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 Cannel-by-the-Sea.
t;(
There are a sufficient number of other, better preserved or more important

resources of the same type elsewhere within the City
*Reviewed by Historic Resources Board on 20 May 2013.

This detennination shall remain valid for a period of five (5) years and shall expire on 21
May2018.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 71
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
AGENDA CHECKLIST
MEETING DATE: 20 May2013
BLOCK: AS LOT:
FIRST HEARING: X
ITEM NO: HA 13-1
CONTINUED FROM: N/A

OWNER: Ann C. Rook
STREAMLINING DEADLINE: N/A

SUBJECT:
Consideration of a recommendation to place an existing structure located in the Single Family
Residential (R-1) District on the City's Inventory ofHistoric Resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Exempt (Class 31)
ZONING:
LOCATION:
R-1
ISSUES:
1.
Does the property meet the eligibility requirements to qualify as an historic resource
(CMC17.32.040)?
OPTIONS:
1.
2.
3.
Accept the recommendation to place the structure on the City's Inventory.

Dismiss the recommendation to place the structure on the City's Inventory.
Continue the application with a request for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION:
Option #2 (Dismiss the recommendation to place the structure on the City's Inventory.)
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
Staff Report dated 20 May 2013.

Consultant Report.
Applicant Submittal.
STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 72
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT Determined Ineligible 5/20113
APPLICATION: HA 13-1
APPELLANT: Ann C. Rook
BLOCK:
A5
LOT: 4
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
Consideration of a recommendation to place an existing structure located in the Single
Family Residential (R-1) District on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources.
BACKGROUND:
This subject property is developed with a one-story wood framed log cabin with
engineered horizontal log siding. The property fronts both San Antonio Avenue and
Scenic Road. A detached garage that was built in 1964 faces San Antonio while the log
cabin faces Scenic. The log cabin was built in 1927 for WaterS. Weeks. There is no
record of the architect or builder and the cabin was likely a kit house.
The property owner submitted an application for a historic review of the property. Staff
contracted a local preservation consultant to review the property and make a
recommendation as to whether it should be added to Cannel's Historic Inventory. The
consultant concluded that the property should qualify as historically significant under
Criterion 3 (architecture). The consultant indicated that the property clearly represents a
significant architectural type (log cabin), a period (1927), and a method of construction
(engineered log building).
Staff has scheduled this application for the HRB to review the information and determine
whether the property should qualify as historically significant. The applicant does not
wish the residence to be added to the inventory and has provided a response to the
consultant's report.
EVALUATION:
Review Process: The Code states that the Director and the Historic Resources Board,
based on recommendations of qualified professionals, shall use certain criteria in making
determinations of eligibility of properties for the Carmel Inventory (See attached - CMC
17.32.040). Below is a summary of four eligibility criteria that are required to determine
whether the property would qualify as summarized historically significant followed with
a response from staff.
1.
Relationship to Context Statement: To be eligible for the City's Inventory, the

building should be representative of at least one theme included in the Historic
Context Statement.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 73
HA i3-1 (Rook)
20 May 2013
Staff Report
Page2
Response: The Historic Context Statement states that throughout the City "architectural
styles include the simple vernacular cottages from the earliest period, craftsman
bungalows, and the revival styles popular during the 1920s and 1930s. Many Carmel
residences also represent the work of notable architects and designer/builders. "
The Context statement also states that "significant single family residences are those that
are related to Carmel's architectural chronology ... that reflect Carmel 's pronounced
taste for individualism; or that represent the work ofa master builder or architect. "
While the subject log cabin does reflect a taste for individualism, the log cabin style does
not have a strong connection to the themes described in the Context Statement. There are
also no plans or permits of record indicating that the structure was the work of a master
builder or architect.
2.
Shall retain substantial integrity: The Code requires that the structures retain
substantial integrity. Integrity is established by comparing the existing conditions
of the resource with the original building plans or early records.
Response: While the structure maintains much of its original integrity there have been
several alterations, most notably an eight foot wide dining room addition on the front
elevation that was built in 1981. Other alterations include the installation of new
windows, the addition of a deck on the south elevation and the roofing materials have
been replaced.
3.
Should be a minimum of 50 years of age: The structure must be at least 50 years

old to qualify for the City's Historic Inventory.
Response: The structure was built in 1927 and meets the 50 year requirement.
However, the garage that fronts Santa Antonio Avenue was built in 1964 and is just under
50 years old.
4.
To qualify for the Carmel Inventory, an historic resource eligible under

California Register criteria No. 3 (subsection (C)(3) of this section) only,
should:
1.
Have been designed and/or constructed by an architect, designer/builder or

contractor whose work has contributed to the unique sense oftime and
place recognized as significant in the Historic Context Statement; or

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 74
HA 13-1 (Rook)
20May2013
Staff Report
Page3
2.
Have been designed and/or constructed by a previously unrecognized

architect, designer/builder or contractor if there is substantial, factual
evidence that the architect, designer/builder or contractor contributed to
one or more ofthe historic contexts of the City to an extent consistent with
other architects, designer/builders or contractors identified within the
Historic Context Statement; or
3.
Be a good example of an architectural style or type ofconstruction

recognized as significant in the Historic Context Statement; or
4.
Display a rare style or type for which special consideration should be

given. Properties that display particularly rare architectural styles and
vernacular/utilitarian types shall be given special consideration due to
their particularly unusual qualities. Such rare examples, which contribute
to diversity in the community, need not have been designed by known
architects, designer/builders or contractors. Rather, rare styles and
types that contribute to Carmel's unique sense oftime and place shall be
deemed significant.
Response: Subsections # 1 and #2 require that the structure was designed by an architect
whose work has contributed to the City. As previously noted, there are no records of
who designed or built the house.
Subsection #3 requires that it be a good example of an architectural style or type of
construction recognized as significant in the Historic Context Statement. As previously
noted, log cabin style architecture is not addressed in the Context Statement.
Subsection #4 requires that the structure display a rare style or type that would contribute
to the diversity of the community. Staff fmds that the log cabin style is rare and that
subject residence does contribute to the diversity of the community.
Summary: Staff concludes that the subject property should not be added to the City's
Historic Inventory. While the log cabin is unique and contributes to the diversity of the
community, it does not have a strong relationship to the Historic Context Statement.
Additionally, there is no rec9rd of the architect or builder and the house has undergone
numerous alterations over the years.
The property owner has submitted a report outlining the reasons that the structure should
not be added to the City's Historic Inventory (see attached). The reasoning is similar to
what has been indicated by staff. The applicant makes the point that the house was
constructed from a prefab kit and should not be considered unique.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 75
HA I3-l (Rook)
20May 2013
Staff Report
Page4
RECOMMENDATION:
Dismiss the recommendation to place the structure on the City's Inventory.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 76
KENT L. SEAVEY
3 1 0 LIGHTHOUSE A VENUE
PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFOR.NTA 93950
(831)375.-8739
February 18, 2013

Mr. Mark Weiner /Senior Planner
Carmel Planning &,Building Department
City of Carmel by-the-Sea
P.O. Drawer G
Carmel, CA 93921
Dear Mr. Weiner:
Thank you for the opportunity to prepare a prelim.inary historic
analysis of the residential property located 4 NE of 13th (Blk A.5 Lot
4) on the east side of Scenic Dr. (APN# 010-292-006) in Carmel,
Monterey County, as required by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Carmel.

Carmel building records indicate that the subject property was
constructed in 1927 for Mr. WalterS. Weeks. a mining engineer and
U .C. professor, whose primru.y residence was in Berkeley, California.
The local building records show demolition of a detached garage on
the San Antonio side (east) of the property in 1964 (CBP# 4083) and
construction of a new garage in the same general location. In 1981 a
dining room addition was constructed off the NW comer of the Weeks
cabin {CBP# 81-207) employing engineered logs similar to those
found on the origincl1927 bullding exterior.
Based on available Sanbom fire insura.Tice maps of Carmel, it is
suggested that an enclosed decky off the SW corner of the cabin, may
have been constructed at this time {1981. or possibly as part of the
1964 garage rebuild, as the deck does not appear on the 1962
Sanborn map.
The subject property is a one-story, wood-framed log cabin,
irregular in plan, resting on a cinder block foundation. The exterior
wall cladding is an engineered horizontal log siding. The individual
log members are elliptical in section, having a board spine
sandwiched between two curved log members. The board spine may
project from the base cf the fabricated log, nesting into a slot a1ong
the top the next l~wer log.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION IVIUSEUIVl INTERPRETATION

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 77
However~
narrow horizontal wood fillets cover the spaces between the

logs where one would usually find a lime mortar noggmg. concealing
the method of attachment.
The low-pitched gable roof has wide, overhanging eaves with
exposed rafter-tails faced by simple wood facias. The gable ends of
the cabin have log brackets in their apexes. A short, shed -roofed
extension of the building envelope. on the NW comer of the main
building block was added in 1981 (CBP# 81-207) to enlarge the
dining area. The log members for this addition may have come from
the demolition of an original detached garage off the east end of the
cabin in 1964. A raised~ and enclosed flat-roofed porch, extending off
the SW corner of the cabin may date from either 1981 or 1964, as
this feature does not appear on an 1962 Sanborn insurance map of
Carmel. Two flat metal skylights were added on the east end of the
roof in 1982 (CBP# 82-117). An interior metal chimney stack projects
from the SW comer of the roof plane of the main building block. The
roof covering for the cabin is composition shingles. The enclosed
porch appears to be covered with a fiberglass roofing material.
Fenestration is irregular, with a combination of single and
paired 6/6 double-hung wood sash and a band of three 2 I 4 fixed
wood windows on the main building block, with a large, multi-paned
fixed focal window in the west elevation of the 1982 dining room
addition and smaller pair of multi-paned wood casement type
windows on the south elevation of this feature. The undated enclosed
porch has large multi-paned fixed wood windows, simiJar to those
found on the dining room addition, with glazed wood doors on the
east and west elevations.
The subject property is sited back from Scenic Road behind a
wood grape stake fence in an informal landscape setting of low
shrubbery and one or two mature cypress trees. A wood-framed
detached garage,. on the east side of the parcel, facing San Antonio St.
was constructed in 1964. The property is located in a wooded
residential neighborhood, above Carmel beach, of one and two-story
homes of varying ages, sizes and styles. Character-defining features of
the subject property include:
Engineered logs as the exterior wall cladding,
Multi-paned wood windows ofvaryi..11g sizes and types
2

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 78
A low~pitched gabled roof with log brackets in the gable

apexes .
An enclosed, flat-roofed deck, constructed after 1962.
The property may be significant, within the theme of

architectural development identified in the 2008 Carmel-by~the-Sea
Historic Context Statement. This would be at the local level of
significance under California Register criterion 3, in the area of
architecture, as an example of the early use of engineered log
construction in Carmel.
Walter Scott Weeks (1882-1946) as noted above, was a mining
engineer. He published Ventilation of Mines, in 1926, and as an
academic at U .C. Berkeley and was the first chairman of the
Department of Mining and Metallurgy, when UC's College of Mining
and College of Engineering merged in 1942. Based on U.S. Census
records, Prof. weeks log cabin in Carmel was a vacation home. Prof.
Weeks association with Carmel falls within that "Professors Row"
group of academics that made up part of the village's cultural tenet
mix in the teens and twenties of the twentieth century. His name does
not show up in the 2008 Histortc Context Statement as a significant
figure in the community, nor does it appear in any of the standard
Carmel historic reference books.
Percy H. Wilson and his wife Elizabeth may have been the
second owners of the subject property. Mr. Wllson was an
AeronautiCal Engineer, also from Berkeley. Wilson first appears in
local business directories for the Monterey Peninsula in 1965, as
retired. The California Death Index, 1940-1997 shows he died in
Monterey in 1977. His wife Elizabeth continued occupancy of the
subject property and was responsible for the physical changes to the
residence in 1981-1982 fCBP #82-117).
There is no record in the Carmel building files of an architect or
builder for the log cabin, nor does the Carmel Pine Cone or Monterey
Daily Herald shed light on the subject in their respective issues from
May 1,. 1927. through June 31,. 1927. it is possible that WalterS.
Weeks was an owner /builder and the cabin was a prefabricated kit
house, but this is only speculation, not supported by specffic
documentation. The property ciearly represents a significant
architectural type (log cabin), a period ( 192 7), and method of
construction ( engineered log building).
3

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 79
Review of the thematic criteria for architectural significance

outlined in the 2008 Cannel Historic Context Statement includes the
following guidelines:
"Cannel is essentially a residential community with single family
homes as the most prevalent property type."
"A taste for simplicity, often articulated by the use of shingles or
board-and-batten siding, transcends the divisions of time and
architectural fashion."
"Significant single family residences are those that are related to
Carmel's architectural chronology...that reflect Carmel's pronounced
taste for individualism, or that reflect the work of a master builder or
architect."
..Architectural integrity should be substantially intact, and
should be considered for architectural merit."
The subject property is clearly a single family dwelling house.
Its log construction expresses a taste for simplicity that transcends
the divisions of time and architectural fashion. The residence certainly
reflects Carm.ers pronounced taste for individualism, and its
architectural integrity appears to be substantially intact, as
constructed in 1927.
As early as 1846 pioneer Carmel settler Matthew Murphy
constructed a single-pen,. hewn V-notched log barn in the sand
dunes above Carmel beach. By 1905 artist Jane Gallatin Powers
transformed the log barn into an early Carmel artists studio, which is
still standing. In 1903 Alameda attomey George H. Richardson built
a log cabin on Monte Verde St., between 4th and 5th, which became
the first Carmel home of noted poet Robinson Jeffers in 1914. It Js
also still standing. Stanford medical doctors Levi Lane and Virginia
Smiley had "Log Haven" constructed on the north side of 8th near
Carmelo in 1907. For many years this log cabin was part of the La
Playa Hotel. It too is still standing. As is "the bark House", at the NW
comer of Monte Verde and 13t..lt, designed by an independent and
creative woman, J.S. Cone in 1922.
The 1927 WalterS. Weeks log cabin, with its early engineered
log method of construction, would appear to make a significant
contribution to the eclectic collection of!og homes in Cannel that
clearly reflect the thematic criteria for architectural significance
outlined in the 2008 Cannel Historic Context Statement.
Respectfully Submitted,
~_b ~
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 80
WalterS. Week. Cabin-Carmel

(BlkA.5, Lot 4) 4 NE of 13th on the east side of Scenic Dr.
photo #I. Looking NE at the west side-elevation.

2013.
Photo #2. Looking west at t..'le east side-elevation,

January. 2013.
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 81
ATTACHMENT #9
MINUTES
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
May 20, 2013
I.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Erik Dyar at 3:34 p.m.
II.
PRESENT:
Gregory Carper
Erik Dyar
Elinor Laiolo
Sharyn Siebert
ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

Margi Perotti, Administrative Coordinator
TOUR OF INSPECTION
The Board left to tour the following site: Rook, San Antonio 4 NW of 13th; Wulff, Lincoln 3 SE of
10th; and Sheingart, NE Corner Carpenter and 5th. They returned to City Hall to begin the regular
meeting at 4:12 p.m.
III.
Members of the audience joined the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance.
IV.
APPEARANCES
There were no appearances.
V.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of the HRB meeting minutes for November 19, 2012. The minutes were
unanimously approved. Siebert/Laiolo/Unanimous.
VI.
APPLICATIONS
1.
Ann C. Rook (HA 13-1)

Blk A5, Lot 4
1
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 82
Consideration of a recommendation to place an existing structure located in the Single Family

Residential (R1) District on the Citys Inventory of Historic Resources.
Senior Planner Marc Wiener presented the staff report. Chair Dyar opened the public hearing at 4:13
p.m. Linda Miller appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public
hearing was closed at 4:14 p.m.
Board Member Carper moved to deny the request to place the structure on the Citys Inventory of
Historic Properties, seconded by Board Member Laiolo and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
2.
Carper, Laiolo, & Siebert, Dyar

None
None
None
Marsha Wulff (DS 13-16)

Lincoln 3 SE of 10th
Blk 115, Lots 6
Consideration of an application for construction of a detached garage in the front setback to a historic
residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Senior Planner Marc Wiener presented the staff report. Chair Dyar opened the public hearing; Bill
Vasliovich appeared before the Board. No other appearances.
Board Member Carper moved to approve the construction with the following special conditions:
1.
The applicant shall eliminate the bump out on the north side of the building. The building
width shall be limited to 12 max.
2. The stucco siding on the new garage shall have a texture that is differentiated form the
historic stucco siding. The applicant shall use roofing material that is a newer style of Spanish
tile material and shall be differentiated from the older style tiles.
3. Prior to the beginning of construction, the applicant shall convene a pre-construction meeting
to include the contractor and the project planner to ensure compliance with the Secretary of
Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Seconded by Board Member Siebert and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Carper, Dyar, Laiolo & Siebert

None
None
None
3. Kim and Roy Sheingart (MA 13-1)

NE Corner of Carpenter and 5th
Block 2A, Lot 14
2
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 83
ATTACHMENT #10
Attachment 11 Site Photographs
Facing north on San Antonio Street
Facing south on San Antonio Street

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 84
Front of residence along San Antonio Street
Second frontage along Scenic Road

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 85
Attachment 11
SHEET INDEX
~HITI:CllJ!O.AI..
A1.0
~ !:iHEET, PRO.JEGT DAT...
C.1
TOf'OGR.A.PHIC MAP
A1.0
I'W..l- REMOV...vT~ DOI"'N

SITE I DIOAINAGE PLAN
...1.1
A4.1
Aa.2
Fl-OOR I..EV'EL- ~. STREET ELEVATIONS

c.GNC.EPT PLANS
M.-\JN HOUSE ~01': ELEVATIONS
<7...1':AGE E.><T'EI':IOI'O. ELEVATIONS
t'iiNDO~ a DOOR SC.HEDUl..E5 t DETAII-5
DET-"1-5
L--1
SITE LIGHTING I L.ANDSGAP!: PLAN
...1.2
A:2.0
~.1
~.;;!
.
.
,
r
,~L .
~
~
OY'lt<a<,
SVRVE'T'OR,
LANDSET ENGJNE!'RS INC..
52013 Gr:t.AX'f HORSE. CANYON
s...LINAS , GA <e<!O?
PH !>51-+43-6'110
SITE""~'
SAN ~'fONIO 5 'Ni"t OF l~TH
~EL-BY'-1)l~
CA 'flq;21
:.:....-..."'
\.} '
\(
...
'U~
G..
k'l
~J<::Y:
().
..
1,
~'\ .~J
s~ ;,; ' "l:Z'!"'-~ ~~1\ \~1
HOLDREN+LIETZKE
ARCHITECTURE
225 CANNERY RON SUITl: A
MON'TIREY, CA 93940
iJ
Ph~
831.649.6001
Fax: 831.649.6003
www.hklft',CQm
.,
\
;!/'11/'15
J>t.TE
SC'AU':
CRA.WN:
EB
JOB NUMBER:
-1
..
..,,..,c~
-~-r~~,
r'__.:,
0
.........
f:c.--~f~e--Tl'-~'C--
EL VN..I.E!' FOP.
1
5ANTA L!!rciA AvE
CA:.-~
r!UM
J2_ o
c..--
-c::::>
--------
14.09
REYlSlON
..
''or~,~
LL
NO~TH
SCALE: N.T.S.
C/)
----
--
RIO RD.
SURVEY NOTE
... LETTER FROM THE SIJ!>.VE'T'O!O. 'JllAT THE ROOF HEIGHT 16 1'1 COMPL-J.'.NC.E l"tlTH THE APP1<DVED
PLAN SHAW.. BE PROVIDED TO THE C.I1Y OF CAI'tMa-BY-THE-6EA BUIL-D~6 SAFETY DIVISION PRIOR
TO ROOF SHEATHING- INSPECTION.
FROJECT DATA
6C.OPE OF r!Of<IS DEMOUT<O>N OF (E) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDI'l<CE AND DETACHED 1n:> CAR.
G-~E. C.ONS'lRJ.IC.TION Of NEI'! SIN<SLE fAMILl" RESlDENC.E l"'tn! e,o,sfMENT AND DETACHED
5~&l.E
CAR.G~E
5jliE Q'3'8FP11QN: ~110N OF L-OT 4 IN 6LOCIC A5, CAR.MB.. BY 111E SEA YOL...IJME ::2 "GmES AND
TOffi6", PME 23, R!SCORD5 Of M~ c.ouNT'f
.o-\t I/
LOT SIZE< 5.65q 5.F.
lREE INFORMATION NO EXJSTING- 1RES TO
El~
ro:EMOV!!D
1}
OC.C.UPANC'f GROUP RESIOENCEo l't-3

G-~cu
.P>-
BASE sa. FT. I

PROPOseD FL.OOR N<EA
}<Mol !'1-00R
LOI"<E'''l!'LOOIO:
GAAA<>E
1,468 sa. FT.,

001 5G. PT.
210 5G. FT.
TGiAL FLOQII:iAA,EA
2.4'1q sa. FTI
TOTAL ~Ot"'ABL.E FL.OOR.-
=2,46'1 S.!'. (-1'10 S.F. BONUS~

IMPERMIAEIL.E I
S/TECOVI!J<M;E
ENTRY PORC-H, P...'TlO I l"'N-!<
RET.-\JNING I'W.J..S
=~<15T-"lR
= FT. i'PE'f<. ~EL OOLDING- C.ODE)
106 SGI. FT.

52 sa. FT.
150 5G.FT.
PINEI"'A'f
2,!0!5!>.'16
~E
TOTALS
901! 5G. FT.
~\ ~ ~- ~
'
'~~..,y1
\l.J
~{.~- ~
':I
L __ _--=-t~-
0,..
(b.
'
~
-.
~
<
l ~ 0"
\ . . ,
\\
.~,,
1----rr-----1
}.
'
zw
sa. FT.
SEMI-PB<MJAaL.E
20e>
-.
26 SG. FT.
1~ SG.FT.
. --~:~
4:29
sa. 'fl.
~--- "'151 SG!. FT.
SITE C.OVEI<A6.E ALl..Oi"'ED (229& OF BASE FLOOR~'

~IIO,q S.F.
PLUS SJ'Il: ~E AI..LOI'eD FOR 509& PERMIABL OR SEMI-PERMIABI..J! ~c -:~~s S,F.
TOTAL sm: COVEI<A6E ~O!'eD,
IAfJ.2 S.F.
c: . ->- : ~~
--.
y-)~
," c* '
- .
;/'
-/
"--.7
-- ..
_,.,......_
1-1
.;..
U)
--
.~~~~-
~- .. ~w~
.b"---:LJ-~--,~
Dcg _
r'-IU>rc.urlv't:--/ 'f(.otj 1:
_v
<Q,.j
I.D
0
~r
sa. P'T.
~\..__~
Srrf
D\
J~
- '10 5G. FT. (STAIR}

- 100 SG. PT. (BoNUS FL.OOR ~
2,2llq
~~v~.
~~~(~\\!/~
\, \
~
/)
"-v\"L..
'{
"".JlJS'!MI'J''fS
-t1
-~-yftL
-.
c:r~
~
~
~i
F_!--.
, . Jl._>
'r"'to.1_f
).
~1<5
-~
TYPE OF CONSTR!JC.TION V-B
Rl'aVII<a> Fl'tONT 5CTJ3AC.KS 15'.0'

PROPOSED FRONT~: $AA Ak'fClNIO =- 15'...0~ OC.ENIC = 15'~
R!!GUIRI!P 5IDE Slm:IAc.IG TOTAL OF 25% OF 5JTE I"'ID'TH 10'..0'
P!WP05W SIDE SEll5Ac.J<S EGIJAI.. 10'-<7 IN ~ I..DCATION5
~~'
~~~
A.Jr-oJ I o Ml\.R!: 1 1GI5
:I:
~;;
.....
N
0'1
N
0:::
lL
z~ 0:
~ 1) <(
z 3::,....o
tuw <(
z"' .-t
""""'0
0~
:r.
\f)
~
~5 .
It u..
u.. !zJZ
.q; LU
~0
:r:
Citv of cannel-by-1he9Se...IL.---____J
Ptanntn9 aBulldlng De t.
A1.0
ATTACHMENT #11

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 86
. .
___.,.
~
CCt.:/N
u.
u.
0
.e:::').... . .
.
.
.
==;::=-=~
F-'Cii-IC
<(
~
'r-
a:
z
. , '
A.<CHTEGT
HOL.DREN UETZI<E AACH I-rn:;li!RE
225 ~NNER'f ROY<. SUITE ...
MONTEI>e'f, CA ~40
PH: ~1-~6001
CARL I ""'N(Y tiefA'=MAN
y\J_-
v
~s , ~- . ~ "' ~~ ~
~fst.F
~~-\~.
~~
~~ .-.
t. :
FROJECT TEAM
12:25 E. l'llARNE'R ROJA.D
TEMPE, AZ. 1!52&4
PH: 400-l'.28-31T1
~.'J,~)
,tv
a 6-FV.DI)'lG PLAN
1l
&;
LEGEND:
GENERAL NOTES
I) El.VA.TIONS ARE" BASED ON AN ASSIJJriED D.A 7UU. PRO.ECT BOJCJ-IMARK JS A. FOUND
1/2" IRON PIP, lfCE 424, LOGAW AT 11/f: SOU'rHE.UTCRL Y PROPOJTY COR/1/ER.
E!"VA1iON "" SO.OO~ AS -SHOWN.
2) 7H 80.'"11NG OF S 89' So'oo' f; M FOUND MONUI.IENrflJ .11').$ US0 FOR 7H BAs/S

FOR 1HIS PROJCT. AS SHOKN ON 7HE: lri/P ENnTLBJ "' IMP OF AIJDt710N NO. lJ,
CARilla B'f 'TH 5J\. MONTRF:Y CCJCINTY. C. .L \ltJL 2 OF aTJ~$ .A- lDMNS AT PAGE 2.J,
TN 1HE COUNTY RCOROER OF r.ta>TTERY COONTY.
.J') Nor N.J. UNDERGROUND UTIUnCS 1\ER' LOCA 1m CM.Y VlSIBl. FAC/UT1ES ,.(80\ AND
FLUSH' Hf'J'hl TH SURFACE Aft SHQ~ SUB-SURFAIT Um.JTr UN~ C.1'AI'\N UAY Nor
8 C~ AfJ() SHOUW .-: ~IF'1D - Y F1LD RCONNAJSSANCE. lJfiiOCRGROOHD
U71lfTY LOCA71CJNS CAN BE OBTAINED fflO'I 7H~ t4PPRDPRfA~ U71UTY COi.IPANIES. PUBLiC
----55---- - x - - x - - x -~
1::::::::::::::::::::]
AGNaES. OVJNCRs AS-BUn.T DRAPNGS. TC., ANO SHOULJ) BE 7HOROrJGHl.. Y COJ.tP/L0

~~DE::J:/CR~s%:c~. THE: PRO.ECT ARA PRIOR TO ANY SIT Dna.OPA:CNT
MAJOI? Wo/1VUR UN (5' INrEJ!VAL)

MINOR CONTOUR UN (11 INTEr.VAL)
lt'DOO AND IWt ~ FDIC .
".SPW L.T CCNCRU 5/JRFACE
4) :J::~..~-.:~~"tY~A~ ~~SVR~Ctz::"!J~~~
OR REGUU.7D'lY INF'OIW.1TIOH DR ANY OTHR f'TMS NOT SPCIFJCALLY REOUESTl:D BY 1HE

PROP<RTY OltNDl AND/OR 1liE1R R~TAnVCS:.
~) 111/S MAP OOES NOT REPRSNT A BOUNDARY SURI,.f"Y. PRQPf:FfrY tlNgs SJ;rJ'ftJII HE:R01'1
~E COIJPILfD FROM RECOR!J iNFORMA110N AND FROM FFEl.D TIES TO EXJS'f!NC BOIJNDARY
~Jat~UMNTA 710N. THE LOC.4. TlON OF.~ LINES IS SUB.ECT 7tl CHANG, PENDING THE
RSlJT.TS OF A COOII't1 BOUIIT)ARY st/R;t;;Y-
CONCRETE" SURFACE
w~
X/STING" HOUS
Itil HI UtlJI
EJIJSTING 0{;1(
1:-:.:-:-:l
lAHDSCA,_ AI:
~~
IB:Hm
181
~~ ~\'\/./(-
~~
--,.-..-.-,
f.'.;-;;< ,::. ~.j
SN/ITARY $1111
;.: 8
APPRQX iEDG/ LANDSCAPED ARf'A {SCHBUt J1C ONLY)
,/
EXJS'f/NG WAU( AND PATIO
stiR~ H61V CGWTROI. PDIIIT
..
PROPERTY BDUNDARY LINE

14DJA.CCJ.rT PROPERTY. fJOUNDitRY lJNE
HOSE C!B/
C:I.<~N
OUT
~
"'
W:: l!'R METER
CAS LINE/ GAS MmR
I
+
;
8
16
r.:S {SiU AND TYP liS NOTE'D) CANOPY SCHEMA 71C ONLY
~
"~m
Z
SPOT EIVATTOII
~ ~
. ~::~ II
0 ~~ -
z ~8 i
~---~~~
J~ R4
~g ~ ~~!
~ c~ ~
0:
1~
Ill
'
""'
''
<S>.(
.......
.,.,.
C'-t
....
W,///////,0//4/~m
~~
:.:o~~~
I.
I
"1.s-
w Q~ ~
~
:I
"
...
........
'
v/?Y/~
~ <~~
~ ~~.
......
i\]~"
!L""'AO'
,)
~ ~~~
Plef\aZQ'tr.l. ~
( 7660.67 50. f(.)
0
.-<
0 (ll
dd ~- ~
....1
:z;
l? ~~~ i
ll,
<l!i
o ~ i
~a
0>
!l.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 87
&. ~=MJ~
. I.
\
......
.......,.
'\
AUG ZO 1014
I
.......... ..
Cl!YotC<IC1!191-byll1
Pronnlbg 1: IUidfng De
SCAU:: I"= 8'
DAIE: lo!AY 2014

JOB ~a. 132g-ot
Cl
SHEET
QJf'
.-r.-N\D~-\r ....
-o,
RECEIVED
fS/1~ ~AWiREl.U!IED TD CUENr

NoJ DATI: ~ BY ;
REVI..ON
.C.VUt'7~\J"U''~~fN-Of ~
:::;~.
. . .IN
A_.,.,
.c.
;
~"gil
0
0
~ ...
......
~~
u 0~<(_g
10
!L-ff..N'
OF
~HEElS
.aA.I'.-ulll~_.l..... .I'ILI-,r
5A !4-/f!
HOLDREN+UETZKE
ARCHITECTURE
''
Z2S C'AMER'r RC1N- SUil'E A

Jo10NTERE'I', CA !>39"10
. h:
""'
''
B3l.6451.61l~1
Fax: SJl.H51.6003
~.'VIN.hl-a~
'li!D~St"l-ltolf
S/11/15
DATE:
\
BLOCK
A5
v/7:7/
LOT
~<Lo
,.rr
I
I
I
I
~
I"CIIJNCIIUJ-.-~OF
Z'~"~tw
I'
iI
A''I
'>
r-,
GU'AN""'
-- I
----~-"----~~{/
-.-~'t;
?~c
.... ,
\~~~~~. :x,~_'-.}~-.........
"'"'"'
r
\}
:_:-\
S"1/1
\
I
I
-,-----~
I
I
/ .J
-r.::=::---------~1
'-
i_
4I
---
- - - - - L_--l _ l _ - - -
11
\111
,f
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
t'!J&Ntl>t6E
1/.li' / / y / / / / / / /l'-1'-'-"""~"!/
"--.
I
I
~_.t\
.J_ _ _ _I _ _
r
.J
t:,t I
S 89'58'00" E
: ... I
~~~\_..I_./
.~
/.j~-f--- '!
CJF
,~
_J__,_ __:::k/
~IQ'fu
II-
. ' I ' .
. I ..
,.,....,.,.,..
10:
<'xz ...... . .
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II ___ ,
IL
,'p
->'
128.5T
. r
'~:
J
J
I
I
I
l
,_
.. .
. .. .......lib
fl)
....
Ll.
DRAWN:
14.09
XlB NUMSER:
REVISION
I!
~~!ao'IH!fM'f~
AIR- ~ cot<Tit01. POtlfT

/!!'!,.l15"'1~,.
,,'~>""
1/e" = 1'-<::>"
SCALE:
.;.-t!-0
I
I~
>
I
uj
~~-~
~~\
()~I
~,,
z~
f.;1..
I
/,/
Q_
I!)
:::t.i:~.
I!)
<ot
N~TH

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 88
E9
~1..1.. ~eMOVAl...
I TA!<e DOV"\N
AND SITe G~ADING Pl..AN
"CAW::' 1/1>"
II
r-.--:--0
II
':!1.
(/)~
w
...
~ IX
:5
111
_J
NGTl5'
I..E6END
I:XISTIN6 STRUCTURE TO BE R.EMOVJ:D
EXISTING- PAVING-~ TO aE R.EMO\/ED
EXISTIN<.7 FENCe/STEPS TO aE R.EMO\/ED
LOCATION OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE
V/7/ZI
AREA OF 6RADIN6 0\JTSIDE FOOTINGS

(l.ESS THAN 15 C.Y. CI.IT, 15 C.'(. FIL.W
~~
AREA OF OFF SrT'E 6RADIN6

(L.E;SS THAN 2 C.Y. CUT, 2 C.'(. FILL.)
-:I:
0
ILl
=1'-Q"
4
w
u
zw
;:--AlLADDL.. 6RADIN6 CUT 4 Fll.l. OCCUFG IN L-OCATION OF N~ FOOTING-S.

;:2, NO ADDmoNAL. 6RADIN6 OFF SrT'E OR. IN PUSLIC RI6HT OF 1"4AY.
l:
EXISTIN<.7 EXTE:RIOR S11'1.UCTURAL. ~5 PROPOSED FOR DEMOLITION,

R.EMO\/Al. OR R.ECONSTRVCTION = 100%
_J
MAIN fLOOR,
EXISTIN6/DEMO - 224 L.INEAR. FEET
\0
0
0
!i:,...o
z"' .-1
<( "'~0
~ 8"'
u.. ~6 .
U.. !zu:fZ
0
I
z<(~a:
a:
i1i l5 <t:
A1.0
R IDGE LIN:E
~'-5,,10'
HOLDREN+LI ETZKE
ARCHITECTURE
B L OCK
A5
LOT
v/'/"7 /1'1
I<IDI>E L ..E
'\~
.
. .
,..,.,
\.::P<$>
3/11/15
1/1}" = 1'-G"
SCALE:
LL
DR.t,WN:
olZ5 I
14.0Cf
JOBNUMBER:
llEVISION
~:III~
E
3
~~I
z~
~----
\
<\
ww ..hkrc.all'!'l
~-I
{:.t
...
Fall;; 831.619.6003
w I
:0 .. -~-:-.-.
.~
Ph: 831.649.6001
~ .
225 CANNERY Rt:JN - SUITE A

MONTEREY, CA CJl!MO
-~
(~
&REAr
ROOM
.;!'
~ -~
~I
J..
\,~>
I
...
~~~
\_\~~~
--~~,~
.. :-:I:... '\~IN_ . I . .
:~
.. ~....
.... :.
:-
rI,.."';,
,......
j .:.
:~_).) ...: ....

.....,,.
. .
:-:l~~t~::
.
L,
~6-ELINe
:-: \\:<:-:-.::-:-
~.14'
RI06EUNE
a...=se.~1'
'.
:: : ::: :~:~~~
'\
LEGEND;
NORTl-f
E9
SITE I DRAINAGE Pl-AN

SCALE: 1/1}" 1'-G"
II
0
4
II
Q
fD
111
PL
P.....TH UGKT- 5eJ: !-ANOSCJo.PJ: PLA.N
HB
H051'BII>
IC.Ye
-X--
IRR~TION. CO+CTROL V/t.J...VE BOX
UJ
u
z
OENOTES AN (f)~ FENC.::::

DENOTES~ ~C7VfMEHTS
----
DENOTES~Lit-if

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 89
Oc.o
c..L..EA1'ol-oJ'f
[] CB
C-1\TGH BASI,.. I"'V'Dr:t:G~RA,-,....,: IFtON GAATI:

~H ~
I"V'PEGGRA"!"WE lROH 6RA"Jl:
) - - - - DAYU5tll OPS-I.IN 6
- - - FGII..K'A.llOND~ - ~Ee.'ft:!N.~eDerAIL
-----
SH.o'oU.Oi"'tAAINIIII \~RL..'NOFr~ .-'WH
""'ra< METa<
Nores:
1. El..EVATIOK DA"TVM t5 A56UMC!:'.
:Z. D~ll-NGES AHO E..EV,.,TIONS Nfl! ~ tl
Peef AND ~IMALS TH~
3. ~ l".~T.... 1$ Sf.IOffi H PARan'HE515 (...... )
4. GHEac: FOR. DIREGTIOI"'I Of"' ~ &RONT'ri IN Fla..P
~ PB"rrtN.ENT TO l.OGATlOt.l Of 1~6-leNT&.
5. D ...Y'U6Hi 4~ VIA. MIN. BEl...OV'{ 6RJ!It'E PERIMETER
C. ~Of'f ~- 'fROIIII::>E SILT 'TRAP FOR Al..l.
DRJrr.IN OliT1..eTS IN PIJBLIC f(151Hi..OF--t"l'Y ,
6. CON.TOLJR. INTERVAL"' 1-o
UJ
\0
!L
U')
Ul
0::: 0
$:
I
Z z;::8
:s
\!}
-.{
~D
'~
ii'i
J:
1--
UJ :::1
<(
0
0I
N
0'1
N
M~O
:E
8"'
:c
:Ji5<(
lL iiS
lL ~u:fZ
0 z<( .:Ea: 0.
A1.1
------l
HOLDREN+LIETZKE
ARCHITECTURE
225 CAHNER"t' Rf1N ~ SUIT E A
MCWTEREV, CA 93940
Ph: 131.649.6001
Fax:6l1.54U003
'HWW.hl-.n::.com
LEGEND
vz;m
NORTH
~OFMAINJ,..EVEI-
DArn
(NOTE: 100'10. OF l.Ot"i!:R. L.eVEL IS
EB
JOB NLI4BER:
FLOOR AREA TABLE
SGAL.E: 111&" = 1'-o

0
P""1
LL
DRAWN:
OVERI..APPED BY' FRST L.eVaJ
FL.OOR L.eVeL. MAP
!3111/15
~~~n;~
~:
Bl'M.A.I"l.EVB...
1~.0'l
RMSICH
~ ~
1,466 sr.
L...C:lt"'eet P\..CIOR: &01 S..F.
11
I
MeAOFL...Cit"ER~'TNAT6~BY
Ht5T ~ C01 &.F. (100WJ
I
'
I I
~-~-n
RIDGE=6&.&b',
I-+-------+
........ I.
....
-~---
' 1;;-----n-----r-r------,-'
. -- ---- -. ;,
~
-~
'I
.r===lf===l i .
bdl -- -IT
I ........ J ib
+ - -
1-'---------'-i
.....
J n
'i
! !! ' '"''
I r'-'-------'-+-..
I
I
I
------------ X.
SGALJ!,
"=1'-0"
-- - - --- "-- --- -
I.
I.
lfl
C>
~
(ij
I'
_J
UJ

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 90
I
-------------I'
'
----- 1-
ill zw
~
0
lfl
U)..,
-~
~- w ...
L ocl:l
ROOF
=54'-1"
_J
UJ
It
C>
g
lL
SAN ANTONIO AVe. SmeeT PROFIL.e- eAST el-eVATION

sc..'\LE: J& '"=1'--G'
<(
\0
0
0
I
0'1
~ ... 6
z "'
T""l
"'~ O
:E Oa>
u.. ~ 6 .
u.. ~d Z:
0
0:
:r: <n~~ <(
A1.2
&01 5<:2. PT. - L.Ot'ER. f LOOR

24~
%~
stet'UGHT
100 SQ. pr:r, - SO'NU!o n.OrOflt H'tJ!
~-------,
-,,
~~- s.
2'5~P'OFt
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.._~
II
r-------------,
~~---~
. ,-.
lot"t ~HT.
I
I
I
''":~
I
I
I
I
HIO't-t~HT.
!tL.O~
2ZS C\NND.Y ftCW SUM A

MON'TE'\EYf CA t39ot0
I
I
e-.~ 56'-T
:.:tlllllo
HOLDREN+LIETZKE
ARCHITECTURE
_r------ ----- ---------~---~
PlaR
OAAINAGI!
Ph: 83UIIIU001
L...
f iX: ll1.6111::.&ooJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o---11----- LOl"< ROOP' HT.

It
D~i.Ge'
L-----------
EAV! 54',.,
2'i6 st...OPe
,.,..
........
www.h11rc..c:>m
""'SQ. .. STAIR
6AR..4.GE l'tOOf'
HT. EAVE 5'1'-1'
;;!~ SLOP.E FOR.
fEOft
3/11 / 15
DATE'
1/f)"
SCAL!;
1'..0"
LL
DRAWN:
NORTl1
EB
~OOF
PJ...AN
EB
SCALE: 1/6" 1'..0"
'
14 .oq
JO&HVHBEa.:
NORTl1
J...OY'IE~ FJ...OO~
5CAl..E: 1/e>"
<
PJ...AN
~IC>N
1'..0"
I<I!>GfUNI!
~$#//#&/#a
~5EC~E
~
~
. ()
a..,&.e6"
6 1- 0C.K
A5
L OT
~#/AJ
v/7'7/
fW6EUNE
l~-~
11.1
>
4:~,
0~
~~I
1-<:
Z :il
<~ ~
\_/7'"
'"""'
~I
/,
I
I
I ,,if'

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 91
('"
I
RD6e LI:'ole:
"'""""14'
~~
f'ID6f 1-t<e
B..-s&.~'T
""""'
EB
... _
t~<J>
PROJECT DATA
or
...........
zw
Hf~~=!~r~~.":..~~.~a.~.,.
~c;c;u<TY
......... ii:
(/) M
'TRe foC~TlGlN: NO ~rtf!$ ~ "fOBE ~

OGGlP,tr.,HG.Y
6RGJU',
fl~,.ROKT~ I5'~
l""ltONT ~ 5N'4 IJfTOMO -. '$'-()" sa'N!G .a 15'-1'"

Iii\~ !II;Je 5el!l'.QCS TOT,.._ ~ 25"' OF SITE rtiOTW '10'~
~SlOe ~E:GIJ.',L 10'.-o- IH. I l.L L.OC.o\'flQNS
~OStP
~SQ. fT.
1,46D' sa. FT.

601 5G. Fi.
~-
AD..VSTMEN1"5
!'L.OO!Il A!$"
:z10 5Gt. FT.
TOTAL P'L~ "~
2 .4 11': SGt. FT.
ao sa. PT. 1'5TAII"J

1~
SGt FT.
t'eoNI;s I"'LDD'r< ARfA)
I 2...2&1 sa. trr.

(""ERGH.Ma
Bl)ll.OING- GODE)
TOTAl..~ 31.
,.;
~
lfl
H?!'t!!< ~L9f'
w .u...
~~
6~ U
~ OP GOte~TlON: Y~
~5.65'C1 5.f.
sc.AJ..E, ve" 1-o"
111
II
S<(QM!
r+91!'S' D!t-tOi..ITIOtl Or" (f) 5CI'ttSol-e 'F_'MIL-Y ~
N-Il' PZ:T~l!D "''Y'' GAR tiNt/Vi!. GONSTf(UC..TIOfool Of Nf'1't &ING>l..e
~Nr-t1L'T"1te~U NTH 9t'6eMfN1' NolO DETJ'GM'ED 54N6LE ~
~~~eo
SITe I MAIN FJ...OO~ PL..AN
FL-OOR MEA
2,461" ~.~. (- 1ct0 ~.F. eot4J$ A~ " ,2,::2111 5G. FT.
~ z
n.. <(
0
0
l"'o.l
0'1
l"'o.l
~ NM
.. 6
..,~0
::E g"'
LL. ~5 .
LL. t;Jz
<w
3 ~ ~~ ~
A2.0
se
- ,...-... -
~_,- _ - --
~~
:
ij ~---::-r
rei~
,...,.........
_ --- _ -
- ~
- - _____ _
-T1.; ,.,
I
_G~E PL..
f2! = 58'-3"
_ _
""""~"" ~ "'- ~~-
- - - - __M!:- ~ ~l... HT." s3_::e

1
- --- - ---"'~-~ , so-~

--1'&ff'ERB)
22.5 CAI4N&Y U1N sum A

li'.oHTERfY, CA 9JMO
6 t..A!6 ~
Ph: ! 11.549.5001
rex: 131.619.6003
- - - - - - --
MAIN
www,l\t"iii'C,D)m
F.F. = 44'-o"
Pl..OOR PL. HT. = '4;,-o
Fl..OO~
- - - - - ---i...Of'R
---- - - - - - --- - -------
3/11/15
- - - ,-,--- - - .I
I
P.6,
____ _
r,
I
I
--- -
-- -
I
I
~_j
_ _.1
:I
_..,...,.,
V4"1'-o"
i>
1.1.
1..----r----- - --jJ
..-------L-- - _ J _ _ -
I
~
14.0<1
I
-
--- -
- - - .. - - - _ - - - _ - - - _ ___ - - - - - -- - _ - - - _ - - -- - - _ - - - ____ ____I-~ FLOO~ F .F. = 35~
---- ---
Y\IEST ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-D"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-D"
7
~;
ana=======-==~~~-*~-
------~~~~B~~ ~5----f-ii=7~;J~=~~- ~ ~===~~~z~~::~- ===~~=~m-~~--~F
56'-To EAVE
f1CJoO TltM
1-~
~ -- -"
1
1JF>PER ROOF PL-. HT. = 55'-8"
!
I
----1,
1111
Ei&
- -- --- -
: ,v
-==. =-==: :
II~
- -- --- r.&.
---
== _:- -== -: ==
MAIN PI..OOR F .F. = 44'-o"

L.EI"ER
FL.~ PL HT. ~3'-o
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4"
= 1'-D"
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - _ - - - _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - --- - - - _ _ _ _ _
--- ~~ F.F. ""s~
5~6~INIJM
niNCJICli"'Eo AAO POOfiS, 2:25H

5!IOIE5
~F5'l'-1"
(:2) !SIC:Y'L/6HTs. !J'X2'

.AIPP~X.
- lI I
r
aIl l:II
Ill
f'J.A"f' ON ,. G4JRB
I...Oc. .TION 01"

~~r-....
reJ 6'-c- H. rooo
R<XOF >4'-TO"-VO/
I
1
------'
.
t - ---- I I
- - --,
-- - - - l
. 'f' t . '
.
'
" :: __=
'-....._ s
- - - r7 -
--- ~ -:--.- -: . --. ~ ;. . n~ m_~_-_~.... ' J t LJ .

.
-==- __
~F

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 92
- - - - --- - - ---
- - - - - - - - -- - -
.
,
~
-\I
--------,
J..OGA'IlON Of'
I
I
""""TIOHor
II
II
..,.,..,...,...,
,..._
PL. HT. 55'-8"
I ROOF 54'~E- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
1-
II
16
I
----------------------------------------- - ------ - --------------------
----
()
~ w
6iJ uz
I
1
I1J
]
--:-~ --:-~_-:-"-~----,-~--- -#b --+-.
~
"I
~M~
8
0
~~--
UPPER
.......
II
1
_
~F
--- l -- ---~~-PL..HT.=S~-8"
"5&'- To EAVE
()
ii
I1J
----- - -- - --~
---~IN
I1J
-~~
- ~- -~-::::
- --_h=4..trr= =-- - --~~OO__R PL..HT.~3'-o ()~
I'
li
. .
. .
___
FL.OOR_F.F., 44'-o_:
:I:
f .oS.
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4 "
1'-D"
I
- -- - - - - -
___
l.._ :'l'lf.R
FL.~
F.F. =
35~"
UJ
1-f
t/)
!;;
w ...
1.0
0
0
I
1"\1
0'1
N
0:: ~
l
Z :s:,...o
Z: N .-I
<( ""~0
8"'
LL 6\3 .
::E
u.. 1-__.-z
0 ~~a;
<
l: :r:
A3.1
<(
-,-_
-:-;::-~
- 1nJ ?
......
~llII
. ..
'
'
ROOF
---- - - - - - --
- I'
= !7~'-1'
Il l
------ --- - --- ----- - --
~OF
s;;-
'i
II
-1 - -
h
=-cacr
--
~-
S~'-1'
:r
- - - - -- - - -
I I
"""'...,..
.,
I'-
II
<S
----
--- -
-- -
- --
6' H.ST...,..t:P
rr
"---
GeDAA. GAle
v-
HOLDREN+LIETZKE
ARCHITECTURE
T l
I I I I I I -, l
-1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1
III II
1 1 1 J 1 1
1 ~~cr..
4'1-1. ST.\1N!D
'\.._
~"rOH!!
9
~
22$C-'*O.YRDW-SI.flfA
f'll)frr(('EIU:Y1 CA 93940
Ph: tll-'19 6001

~831.6<}.6003
"
www.hl-tln;.com
GARAG-1' F.s. = so'-3"
CEDAR c.SA'!"!!
1l!XJ'<>
0.\TE:
L.."MESl'ot-tl!
VfNEER -1\'J".
I I
HT. 5~'~
1'-
rr
If
lr r:-
-.-.--..,. -.--
6-ARA<So~ PL.
fLr
~
3/1~/1!5
V4..1'-0"
SCAW
LJ
~:.YN:
LL
,.........,
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 114"
SCA.L.l::: 114"
1'-0"
RMSill<
1'-0"
~~DOO~
ANJ:)T'UNOOf"ea
1\'J".
~OF
----- ------------ - ----
S'f-1'
1 I
tr
'
r-r
- - --------------- - - - - -------------- ------------- - _ .

---------------- --
-- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
--- - ---- - - - - - - ---- -------- ----- ---- -- - - -
lJ:
11: .
"'k - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -
~~Pl-. HT. = ~~.
11
..
. . . . ~,
. . U"
I'- ' .
redrr---- ----- -------- - - -
_____ _
].
- ----------- ---- - ----
---- -- ~----------- -
14.~
__
. _ -.
//
'>
Ju" -- ____ ~~E F.S. 5_q'~
~ ---- -- - - ----_ - - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ - -- - - _
""=,.,,.,
MAII-I F~ F.F. ~~
GOIO-'T!!H _ , . -
NORTH ELEVATION
Y'!EST ELEVATION
5C.ALE: 1/4'
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1'-0'
16
I
~~~~.
~ffi
~~ ~

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 93
~-~
z;~~
~. '5
t!J%
9>1)
it
-SHAI"'!t' 2X& RWnD
:b<-4 ~~.
::..===:F
---
4.1<4 ReOr<D. POST 4 '-o"' O.G.
eMBeD .. GONG. FT5 Mil<. f-o'b< l<fi:>Y'V. TC5
I I f I I I I I I
Ii
I I I I
H
II I I
i'!l!::
l: -l:
P.t!.-.
~CN:[L}z
ljj'f'
~ L I Lt' i
~
I .i
,_,_]
.1..1Ll..
1'11N. 41
E!l.EV....T10N
SECTION
CD SITE __
Fe.~c.e: DETAIL.
II)
~ w
1\
r-
U1
u
z
1.0
0
0
J:
(/)
f-
,.J
"-
I
:s:_o
z...., ...-4
L.L
<(
0'1
N
"'~O
::E 8
en
lL ~5 .
lL !z u:f z
:::c
~~a;
~
l5
A3.2
DOOR SCHEDULE
.....
.,..,..,
[..
~~
~@
L@
s
e
~~
e
.cl.
'L:7
~ @
E>CTER.a:::RI B
4'-o"
6 '-e
..,...
1-!V4 "
I l-314
tl~"
I HV4
H/..
HI'A
1-!lt4
2-e
&-e~
6'--6"
I HV""'"
2' 4"
eo' &"
%-()'
SO<Ol'l!lll.
,._~.._,
~~
2'-6
'T<Y"
l-a/4 "
::r-e
T..U
l"""ft"
~~
GReATRDol"'l
tmRIOR.
D~
~
~..fN
1~
T-o"
rs-~6,
a...oset'
t -4
"':,
1'-o"'
l -at4
1~
T-o"
1-!'14"
w....
"Z &-
T~
1-5/111,"
NFA
COAT
:t~~
l\!!!f ~
~HmtV
tc
2'.......
H V .."
T-o"
Pi'\INTED
ST~
tvA
1~4'"
T-o
NI'A
P..-e
1"fW/OGY
!I.G.
,.r4NI<G"('
!>.G.
P..ee..6~
.-.&.L.DrrM .& "'!!"!J!tfO..uTAOt.1\ll'tl.Delf!!f"\.CrrC::I'\JtrHSratl"'fffQ"'"""""~
...
-~az.,~~~
~.~. OI"'WtA~InG.
~IC)I(;..tr.1"1C).
~~T~~~YIIGN!!Ie
~l&.AM141Ma.EA~Of"&Qrfe.
lei6"'TM7..0"~.a.~~~ILL.._.:rr
C:.i:..r~n.t!llolf'~
10.
Tt!Mp:ER.fp 6L.AzaN&.
NOll! 3 .
..
13
10
S.G,
P"FWN:,Y
'1/BC.rY ~ OP"e'Ntil55 " n"H ~~ MFIIl..
~St..AZINIS-. 5e::l'OOPt
Hare !J.
f"'ltl011t TOII~..6~QII"eNHGS.
9E.EOOOR.
~~~~.:~~TIH6-~e
c ~IGfQ.If!oj Of" 11-L.H:6. ~~"(&I!
10
'T"''11"e
~~=~~~~D'f
n.e.
,.~e
OUL.Dt-16 orr'IQiooL TO C'-L.N I~&~
$ .G.
,.~e
T-o"
..
6~!000R
....._~
exTERIORI G
~'-()"
MAHOOOR
-r.<;r
6'~-
P"NlW
1-aJ-4
""""
,.~!.
~~00~=
~~H ' J,'Ioi'WO!J!I.L.OC.Io.nc::Jtf6

--N~~~,
G&.i5TOJwt G-ARAGE DOO~ t'V
EM~~H~~~~
l!l..EGTRIGC...~
TEM~
l!lm<Y
c ~H41EUi> tl
. ..
._f
.:.,~
. ,n_
__
U ..-"-1
' '
;I
_ _
INTB<J01'!. _ _ _
WINDOW TYPES
...--.""'
Of'
'. ::Rrl"r.t1HISI't~Of"ot'""''JrlZ~.
~1'1.5.1 CM.2.f.Xl"!!ltaaOt~AT10te.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 94
-- o
AA
BB
CC.
EE
~~I'OA~ot'~a~
~ "T"Wer 5H.'.U.. AAYeA &!LL. ~ f Olf t':1T
~~HVD/~~Sic:;:IN!oTO
MATGH
FtXeO
s-o,e'.c" GeMT.
""""'-
I>BJI.At=
L.Ot'tC
'1'--4'
...ulMINIJM
I>BJI.A1'l!!<
'-""'
""-l!MINUM
1""""'--"TW
'-""'
'-"".
'-""'.
'-"".
a-a
GOOftCitolol>.""reHJ~S+~MEJ><Trv PGOfl.
.o1 -~ a_e.(~1'tate.,
,.,._6l..o'oDO&
81~ 'TZM~ 6V.ZIN6.
:~.:. -:::.~.:t
D'-&"
""-l!MINUM
a-e"
""-l)MINIJM
DOIJBJ..E
INSIJIJII.'T'EJ::)'
......
AIJJMINUM
IH5t.Jl...-':Teo
"t-4"
......,..,INUM
IN5UI.ATW
'-""'.
DOIJBL!! I
I.Ol'le
~nALI6NM~ P"VDOOR~ -~
~6LAZlHISo
OOIJI!U
..........
=
'-"""
TeM~ 6~5 REGI.IIRED UTE
!Xl1I!!LE
l.Ot'lc
~
~
~
'-"""
""""'-
"""-'-At=
I.Q'Io
O<:l<JBI.Z
fr<
O'-<Yxa-a PIXI!D 01
,.fit,
G5)'ofT.
DtlL.~I!NT
,.~ ~!)'.0'
!3'--o" 1( 2'-.2.
AA I FIXED
J"i<. ,....
~
---~
DSL.~
s-o"'-o G6MT.
PR. 3"-0"K!S'<r GeMT.
'1-4"
~INUM
'1'-4'
N.JJMIHUM
'1'-4'
AUJMII<UM
'1'--4"
~IN'-"'!
Z.O" X3'-<>"
AU.IMNJM
!;I<Yl.IGI<T
z-o-x~.q
ALUMI'<U1'<
wouau:
""""'""
IHSLJI...A~I
... . . .=
U S O.NERV ROW' SLIT!! A

MCIH'I'!REY,CAm40
~6-L.AZJI'I&o ~Jit.eDLn'E
0/~TI 5~~ -:,:;_1;::,1
00 I"""I>Cel:>O/
HOLDREN+LIETZKE
ARCHITECTURE
SEE liil.Jrr.Zt.l6 NOTES
""""'-"
JN5UL.ATW
fR rt-<h;;t ::t: I'U'E> Oil
AA
M
I ~ENT
flh: &31,61"'.ei001
Fob: 83U49.6003
www.hl-trt.com
~~ 5-L.Az:llrr(G
REGIJIRED LITE
~Te..-.uGt+!~ l"'iiOC>o~.-lo;:z-Sf!!a.J!'o/A1'10N.!i
TM!"BtE1'6LA.a:Jt1G
a..e.'ATIOte
M.TI!:
~/11/1~
SCAl.E:
U...
DRAWH:
""'"""'""'
14.0<1
RmSIOO
'-""""
l.Ot'IC
J:E
...u.JMWM
eo-e
~Hit-1
lt<SIJL.iiEO
'-""'
01
2'- 6")c4'-o" ceMT.
~>-e
...uJMINUM
,,........rev
'-""'
I FIXED 0/c.ASEMENTI :r;~~~~:;.o;:,:.1
e-a
AUJMIHUM
DOIJBL!!
IN5IJI.ATEI>
'-""'
1..01'<.
2'--6'")(1'-e~.
I CASe><ENT
EE
a-a
2'-6")c 1'- tt'" GSMT.
Ft><ED 0/~I!NT
2'..6'X1'~e ~~
"""BL
EE I !'IXED 0/C.O.SEMENTI 2~-z~:;.=./
e-a
AUJMINUM
OCl1JaU'
.........TEl>
O~~TI x::;:.;;::.~.:t_~
e-e
A.UJMINLJM
DOUBL
..sut''''~ '-"""
&'-t>"
ALUMINUM
INSUlAt=
"""""'-"
'-""
e.-a
!IUII<INUM
DOUBLE
INSUlA..-a:>
'-""
Ee I FIXED
I~)
00
~ ~='!NT
I~
DO
JPR. fC.;:D 0/
I'BL.. GAeoeMr:HT
~--6"x1'.. &",..l.l..:!DOI
,.~..2'-b "J<SI-o"
G5MT.
I"'-.2'-Q-,c1'--&0 ji'!Kt!D 0/
~.:2.'..0 'JC ~.q
c:.&M'f.
Ill
TEMf'l"ERm &L...IIIZJH&
~~cJI.AZJH6
~r'Q"t-GON11t..o'GTOR cl"''ar1Hf'R. TOVE'tJ,..,..THAT
~COMI"1...ervCU'IJ'CHTc:.ac:~.-!iSI!NoTE"
~<' x4'~
~-o x 4'-o"
~ ~~~-~-----------~----------~~----+-----~~~~+-----
lb
6ENeRAI... NOTE'>'
1. ~HJ,.Slii'U'K.e'TO~ ..........,..~NfaQ.&Itloj,. 't) OI'C'r.
:a.
~16UMTIOt<
rt!NOOt't~TO~~.
:I ,f( ,
DOOR NOTES
AL..L. DOOR!) 9H~ GOMf"\..Y t'111'TH 1'H!!
I"''LLLi"''INS, u.o .N. ,
1.
AL.1. ~ftiO~ D('.)Ofl.S TO 5E
i"EAoTH~5m~.
2. 5t-IJ\1...1. H. we:~ MOliN'l1!0 90

TO <44' NJOV"e. f ..eH I'IL..Oc:>R.
!J. ~LD 5tWJ. ...,..,VI! M&o.X1~
HEIGHT Of' V2" ~ rr-INeH fl...C:)OR.
4. ~ID!' 4 " X 4 .. euT'I"& ON ALL OOOR5.
45. AU. HNU?~ TO H.\~~~
orMI't.
&. ~
AA"TeP ~ 9HHJ.. li-'VZ:
I"'!H<<"""" COl< !!GIJ".U- stA1.5.
,..,..e
f",--------,71
:"'.
/ :
I ' , I
I
:/ "'i
Me------'~
HAADV'IARE NOTI:S:
- - ---------
NSuitf~ ISI"e.J,.~"TWW~ fti(I'IIIUOilV/I#'Cflt~~~,..,.,.J ..

~ t'.Nli!:!IO~ 'I'C~ f'I'QIICLa tl ~IIDH&I-..,.e,
f",- -------,7J
:I "'.,
,/ I
J"YtLI.TH~~
GOfmiUoG.'""'- ~ ~ ~ U.S.HT
4 J-C?"J\./.VAIU 01UTY I"Q(. ~
&
r, II ----------
FF
ne uee Of' ,., ICet 011t T OOL. l"tfE'''tE t'tHOOt'Eo
"I
---------------- ------- ---------------------00
.-.LUMNJ><
l--f-,...-11--l-------l-------+---f----+==cl----it-- +--+--l-----------------i
~'ni:oN4o4~~ncfL.QI:)ff..
~~~----- - - - -- -- -~
'1'--4'
ulru
6
evi!R"f~IUX;;JM~H veAT
1.11,5T OHll Ofii!KI.3U! J"''{{Q'oo ~ ~
(T) Tl!M~ CO!AZR<&
IH5IA.A1E
OOOft, , ',_1*f"fftCt!D f"OI't ~ E6t't!SS""'

~ne ~ ~r ee~~~
f--L---JL-~L-------~L----------~--~-----~---~--~L--~--L-~L------------------i
lH!! if'oiSI'e TO A f"UU.~~ rffltGVT
.J
' N ~ L.'I"'...... S"ZL'.'tf.J'.'1'l-Wt"'~fl.~
~~Torne ~.
. ...,
l.Ot'IO
"'-LJMNJM
I!!P6e l!t Lee TW+ci!O" ~ n :!
~~~~:~~
. : (TJ
---
THe~ OU'T\J!T.
6LI\ZJN4 1H t N INPN'I"t//IL. P"f ~ 0~
~.
nce-nTOM !!t'rdel..a56'TW'ooM t&"J. ~THe:
:::?.'
'
MERIOR
l...eM "n-W'4 10'" .A80VI'!
1!011'~
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
. '.
'\
l.Ot'lo
r::>OI.I!!l
~OI'.~IN6 toultr"ota:.
~ L..N!JN61-iAMIC'f"(CCIJ. ' I. P"OC!!P~
on!'it ' l!l~f* ' JoC.TH.',T H.. &AK~HfV>
c.
e.>emtiOfl
"""""'
ll<5UI.ATfl:
lt.'fC/:.OP"~DOOflf.INA~POMlONI'T}(f
...
. '
/ ~.
5!.AZIN6 IN /lHf fi'AAT Of!' A BUILDIN& i'W..J..

f)IC.L.O!!.IJ>.IIt A l!lti~ 01'. ll'3 CCMP I.I't.'J'Io'ir.I'IT
rioH:!It.! 1"'He 15o'N'OM !P&ot o,- n :I! 6LA.ZJNG e
'THI'! M~T VI'!Jt,"l'11::Jo.... rDde 1!i rt'THIN \ :.M"
~ -
.'
. :.
. ~- ~
6l.AZ:JN6-INPOC'IItSC'f\l&~.
Ofi~ ..NG,.,tO~ TO-'DOGl,_,~
rn m-o.."""' 61AZ.N<>
, -: ~ _::~.. ,.
~~
rv-
sa;~
NOlES.
. [[,_. .
l1
m D
m
~~ J,...
~~L~-INreRIDR
fL_
IN"i'Vt~
- -
m 1J
DOOR TYPES
6LAZJN6.
""'--"-'6~
DD IPR. FJ.)(!l;O/
I~
I~
I~
6L.N:I'I51NJIIi>CIS:J I~G.,..~(;Iti
D.
2'b"x T~2" I"'L"ZZ
'><2'-Z ~I><W 01
~- :J'-b'le5'...o'" GeMT.
...... S-o'x2'-X FI>CB> 0,
I~)'
G. 9 LAZJ""" IN ALL.~~ ~1'161..."ii'

t>OO....
. ....
2'a6")( ~-:r ~ 0/
J"li ''-<>"><1 '-t>" fiXI!I> 0/
PR.flt. !001
FIXED O/GJ6EMENTI
J:E
x z-:r
DOl...._~"'
I~
~~~:=.u.~
,.~I!!
S.C.
~-o
~ =~'--"~
I~
~~~~/~~
f'ftHI<GY
5.<:-
M.,..
AA !FIXED
6'-e'
l.Ot'lc
(NOT useD!
~' L6t.A.:..J!I)~'.SIN MA.Z.~
fll"\\ti&INIJo~
e><Ta<IORI P
Z...o"X4'-o'"
I~
L.OCATr l&tJ''..U. ,.'.MTHe leT ~
$.CitNG OOOtll~
j;
00 I CASEMENT
10
=~~~~~&veocee
S'f'N-46f(p 5 i AI-I6RD
T"'IO'P
~
PER.
~NJM
0'-Q" X 2 '2"
I~
~'T"'IHCW~~Itl'.U...f~E
~~~DOoR~.
B.
S.CTlOIW..
A:.Ut-r-
6'-t>'
AA I FI><ED
10
~~.!!.:,:-:=~.
=.:-=:=:~,..
~~~~teA.AffP
S.C..
6'-a
:t.c>" )( 4'~"
I e
f<r9r
' ~.-.u.i"'I"'"WI "'"YVNt;'( VIRif"'frw..L.:ciH~P'ICJORTQ~I"H;~f'lf'oiDOt"''!j,
12.
!HTR.Y'
Z-<>" >< 4 '.0'
651~
DO
12
N'ID~.._, ,~P'OIIt.OI"IJICA1'lCJIN.
see OOC~IIt
S.G
'
5G
BSI~T
GG I FI><EP OII'IXeO
11
"~
~AUIJC)j(..o\TI!f'IOCI!tlt.teN. -SGHII!I:IUI..Ii
11.
r-ttrl/lGY
cr.~& S,'f~ S,j~~
..
~T.M-~I"';;llt~
~~HfOfK,I!'JtiQIIt.....,.AT!mi&I"OR.
~....., ux.Anot.; Of'
JroU., ~ HCJIUIN K:O(ID.UIJ'
5.G.
rt::)GlD
~~0
Qal!l.1 IJ'~ A NtfClf"IMrriolo rc-rM Of,......, A
~~6-l.AZJNG.
5TAINSRD ST.,;.__H SJ(D
"""" i.Joo~M~>i ....
ltr4-L~'""'-L"""VI!ATL..&to&TONI!
"l
!!N"TltY
S.G.
nnr
r<eMA!<!<S
-"i.&.OII"''IU!,"T'Mt~f'OMo'IN'RK~
..
GLAZING NOTES
ST~ ST~JtO
I 6L.AZIN5 I L.Of"tel t'ef~ ~ *

W
M..2U.O.M.
..W.WAG1\.IIIIl!l)fT~~
.......
........
5.G.
Al.JAt.otiHUM: rtNDOr'6 UD.N.
,,V)o1E/fl'lJSH
~SIZD""""1"J:;)~~1Z
~f'II'G'(
S.G.
veAD
H1'. 1
~ F~.)
N<> MAY~! ""-Tl:Jit..:) tf,..,ICflof1'\Y TO ..ef
V'MPI:.A'I"'IN Of'
S.G.
.------:-----.
cS1...AZJrol6
NOT USED
JroU.~T0-1NI~
'1.
ST="
1'fOGI[:I
1-!.14"
S.G.
S.C..
'-
..
Ia.
1"fW/OGY
S.G.
NWN:.Y
f'=
N...l.lt-fiNUM
C!PI..AZ:IN6. SEE DOOR.
NOTE"'
..........
$ .G.
...............
MA-ra!
f....,.,.
~~
1
~ ~
lM-TDft"JIUD~
'TfJoll~
DLOMD~G sate&~
HC...tlN.A.L Pl-'f5
T'r?E
""""""'
AfPQ~EJi ..Jrr.t.e~rft4~
........ ~~Got.H-Gl..2AIIt
.,......,...ntnte~ IIDI&
.2.
SEEDOOR
NOTES.
&rrltY
,_-A!6Nioe
HIA
tfT'ER.IOR
S.C..
~JGUTAttt~ner:.~ P'IItDM
.2.
~JC Hel6t(f)
.-.&..L~~~'"""MiO
NOTe: 1. (T)
WINDOW SCHEDULE
---
1.
~6LAZH6.
S.G.
S.G.
1.Y~'"
1'1::>00
1"'0D
T ...o"
'"f'..O"
,...,......,
-...1.-..I!Wti!OO
S.C..
Nl"
2'-4"
2...&'"
""""'
........
1"1000
1'1::>00
c::c~~t!:: l ~ ~ (IGIMI!Irf......_,LI.D.HJ
~ ST~~ ST~RO
Nl<'reR~
~
PAINTEO
""'"......
ST~ ST~
S1'~6Fa7 SiAfoiGf'D
HIA
'F
1'1::>00
""""'
P.....m:>
STHi GrD STAIN&-RO

1"000
J"ttOD
NTERJOR
""""' """"""'
'li'TW
p.....,-a,
"l'e-IP.
AUJMlNLIM
GIJ\Ztl6
191'4'"
~:"
P....m:>
H/A
.2V4"
PI>.HTEI>
1'1::>00
l!><P.
5'--o"
T-o"
P.......a::>
Sl.AZJN6
r-;-"..otlfDOOR
""""'
HI'A
:5/&'
,..~
1"N<re>
""""'
..""""' P""""-"
"""'"' """"'
. _,.,., """"'
NIA
1-&14.
~-o
p.....,-a,
KIA
6-'-e-
1"10..
%-<Y
....TI< 2
6tAZJok7 AJ...IA-1'~
I 1514.
~4
5tlot"'ER. I 6
z.,.
T-o"
.=
,...,.,e
~,~_.,
\-!V4
"""""""2
~RIF
.,;
'C:/
%-<Y
T..o~
'''''" 1
INTER.IOR I fl
....
CI.OSI!T"
~ ~
HRRJOR
e
e
e
~1
N'TERJOIR I ~
.....
%-6'
......
%-6'
,....,.
STC>1<1'61!
t<Te<>GR I F
tmi<10I< I
76"
~2
..-.,. I t
OlMI!H510NS
I """" 1-T 1 -.THK. I &~ I ~......

,.,.._
~1
~I s
J:::l. tlTfJUOR
~
HOM~
WINDOW NOTES
f <=
""""
STEP 1
I ,/~, I
= /
"~
I
s.
D!Sutf~ecT!N05TO
t . .TA&.LITW#~Htft.F-,Io.~~~
~.-.r~ r.u...
1
l'lU.NIIII.L.
: '~' :
-~ :
-~ : ~
I
'
~~ :.
LH'MJ- ~0'4"EEt C ~I""A~.
"- ~~fXf8c;l6~~
.. ..,.. ~~,....~.
rc:rT'NGIH!!XIl!RlOR PACL
P .&. _.""""'6ftAC~
Wft.~~.;'1'U~
s. ~6L..- A~~
G8G ~'TlON. ~.2 5tW.l.. ~
,.!tt
r:AGH U'T'!! ex- s,t.J"~ 6L.AZJ"KG
.... VI!Ftl'f"r"
fltCIU6t( or-&t!HG5 "'fH tJOOPt

M~ ~~TO FfltAMrt-6& DOO,._ OPEHIN~.
5. ~IDI! HJ!AD/..,w.m.IT'HR1:5HOL.P
!..l<"r!tel~ TO ~ATCI-I ~ ~IGIQCES5
CD
stRP A"f~~
"- I"'L.D WEI't....W..~TOfMU!te TMAT

HI!!M!!IIUIIN!! ~1'QI'\IU.rNJ..I'C)'n4.
r'OI..DOVI!'Jtau..~tllPTO~tw.f
~~ TO N.L.....U..rwP'llt.
FLASHING REQUIREMENTS
SCALE: 1"
1'-o"
~"f
I "'' ' I
:I ,X, :
:
/ :
"'
~--------dfu
: /
STEPs
t ~~....... e~N:IfiEl.J"~~
11-H" ~~C"I!It~~
DOORNOTS:
1. !lfi I!XT'!fliiOii !S..eVAT'IOHS FOR ~

Of'e<A"OOH
.2. ALLOOOft ~6 TO Be~
S.IS, &T,._,.. 6ftitDf
~ ~~=~=~~ . I
~PATCWI!!!!!o.
rot.D~t4M.JoloMB&,.
STEP 2
'1. t6T....U...U"S4~....,... .4'4
~~
k,--------M
I"'
/1" '
'" \
STCP4
\. MrT'AU.I"'11ClCit't ~ t-4H'VoiG'1"l.Zft~
I"II'Un1rMtiS!lii&Gf'IOI'6.
MT...U.,.OL~:!AD~
,
~
r"rCJCCJJ''. CIP'!HN& TO fDOe 01'
"'NSr
.-..-
t .M'f""'-L tr .... sa.F~~

~~~.EXTBOV
,.AST~ :. ~
ffi
...D
~ zu
~ 0w
~...
~
li
8D
U)
\0
:I:
0
0
'"'
M
~
z;;; S
<( "'~ 0
::E
u..
Q"'
glS .
U.. ~u:fZ
0 ~~ ~
J:
VI
l5 <(
SO<ort<.
A4.1
POI-"1'1501NSlJ:,..i.AIP~
Ef'Pt--f R:::>OF SURfACe: 01

LINDE'Rl..AT'MENT.- APPL'f
PER MFR. SPEC.
OC.~.H~.
5EE 5~T.
EPDM ~~ACE 0/
UNDBU.AYMEN'T.- /I.PPLY
P~ MFR. 5PEG.
\
--~-- Mr--rcp
~
OFFBENc::;t;~t
CONT. :20
o4X r"C'J. 1-tPR..

SEE STRLJC.T.
oz c:;.GPPat FU.SHIN6
r=:::t11!t:;::::=*
A5 &HOffi
2X1D GWAA, SflC.T-cu'AA.. 5IW'E
xscwAA,SE.EGT~tEiR
-~-~-~-
\
~
~-
--
_ ___
~HT..:.
___
-r===-&U
LAPPED EPJ?M YV l'ERMINI\TION

8.\R 01 P\...AS'fle:; SPAC-ER
~ (112" RAPIUS)&
20 oz ~ M...Ao&HIN6
C.USTQ'Irtl! 9\A'PED GCPPE'R 51.J'T7ER
CONT. :200Z.
COP~Fl....A&H IN6
OFF Bei~MI *'-
2X10 GEO-'R, SELECTC.~. SHAPE A5 Sl-tOr+l.
VONT. 24 OZ.. C.OF'f'"ER. FL.aeHING
!:'/~
~
~~~~T~~ - r----
J"\\NDOi"ti1E-"'D
l'iiNDOI"'t ~:-:AD
Cl'-o"'l"oFF
q'-O"'N'P
sn:
BLKG.
22.5 CANNERY ROW- SUITE A

MOtm:REY, CA 9391~
\ \ Ill II
SC:.ALJ":, 1-1/2" = 1'-0"
Fall: 831.649.600)
COKi. 1~ VEN'r ~-.""'05:ED
Bll :"&.
1-; 6 C::.EPAR T46- STh'N
5EE5"-'<EP.
1------;:;,~~RY'L
SIDE EAVE @ SOUTH
I
Ph: 831.619.6001
SEL.EGT.-Gl..EAR
PA!NT
I<BV.
~ ca::>-f"""""
AUJMNJM JI'IIIN.DOI"'I-
1"X5" GE::'AFi:.,
www.hl-ilrc.am
lX C.WAA icG, STK
t """""" ~"'"""
AUJMINLIM raNDOI1 SEESGHED.
5"1<4' !>G. GOf"Pe'. !<Y< .

JroiHEREOCGURS
SIDE EAVE@ NORTH

SCALE' 1-1/2" = 1'-0"
r~
HOLDREN +LIETZKE
ARCHITECTURE
?,
TOP PL.
1XGt:PM i46,
114./r'T.
ft:76f6l.I<'G.
DATE:
3(11/15
""""'"'
VARIES
DRAWN:
CD
EAVE @ OVERHANG
SCALE'
1-1/.2" = 1'-0"
~~
JOB NUMBEr
14.G'l
REVI.'l!ON
UJ
zUJ
\0

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 95
1--1
(./} !;;
w ...
0::: l3
<(
Ill
..1
~n
::E
LL
LL
0
0
N
0'1
N
~ ... 6
Z N ...-1
{"')~0
9"'
i515
t- _,' Z
0 ~~a:
~ <f.
A8.2
PLANT LIST & SYMBOL KEY
_......,.,.,.$
V'~ C'A'TLM
~~o
...,.,_,_
""""""'""""""
JUDGE UN!!
.......
""""""""'"
E:l.od7.10'
GDOMIONITT.U.O
'
BLOCK
AS
LOT
v/ '77/
RJDGE I1NE
~,_...._
~, ,..
"""'-"~~'~
uj
R?'F
IS!<I!AT
.---........:
ARCHITECTURE
m~ROW-sumA
MONTEREY. 0. 91940
Ph: 831.649.6001
r.: 831.619.6003
W1'W.!1Hirc:.con.
DA"''!:
,r')
SCALE:
PC~ V.
HOLDREN+LIETZKE
3 ( 1"'1115
1/1>" 1'-o '
LL
OW.wr<:
XlO.......,
14.~
REVISION
@?)
LA.V~ ....
l'tOOM
Q:\.
~
~
~
_..,...,.,._.,
~.,.~,.,..
~
~
""'0
()
~ :Q!l
E
9 ~
~"""""'""'""
"""""" ~
L.E<i7END
-$-
(& ) f'A Tli LI6HT!t
:5 f\\ATT/:200 UAr-1EN J....ID

tAU!! MISHROOM L.Of'\ VO L.T A6E MON~
l....oo'NPSG. '.J'*!! ~ eoL.t..ARD.
v~ 'PL.J.~S !tiY'....:e: 2G4"M
A SURVEY CONTROL POlHT

MS7f1.,;;36.60'
t!l
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
....... . ' . . ,.,0
'
RIOOBUNE
EUdS.8T
\.
...I _
-:1:
rn
(4) IW.I. !!CON<~'. et< et.Pet>

4~'TT / 5.2!5 L.lJ1roo\ENlED
e PWNZf t"V ~-eo 15'l..JI65
Pft06P-ee6 )o!'ODE.; P!5644-;20
~ DO~ -l.D
LJ6HT OV'1'POOPt ~
MO.t<1' f'IXT\JOU!
NORTH
\ EB
\
SITE L..IC:S.HTINC:S. / l..ANDSC.APE PL..AN

SC.AI..E.: 111>" 1'-Q"
00
ll..
UJ
fJ
( 1) ..........., ~""""' UGHT.
~.q i'Yrr.TT I 6& ~ LfP

I"'AG t.160<n<6 Mo:>B... ,.._-l.ED100 ....
,..,..., !'lNel+

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 96
END
NOll$
...........
1. ~ Ol1TDGIOR LI6HTIH5
~
'51Jn"i ~ FoR. P. ~OR.
'!SUIT.trBLE 'FORri
.L...OGJI.110te".
~ . ALL CIVTtlOOP.
L.lif :rf'llt,tG.
51-W.,L.H, II.-_ ,! ~
~-
i!i
,.~l.llioloml<l&,l.t'T.. ~
~
'z
I!)
i=
::t
I!)
::J
iil
UJ
UJ
..........
Ul
""
UJ .-.
0::: ~
1.0
0
N
CTI
~
...,.
;!: .... 0
:E
g"'
' - z ..... .-I

<( "'~ 0
u.. ~5 .
U.. ~J Z
~ w
0 ?;~c..
li'l 5 c:(
:r:
L-1
:./
"' -..
......
......
,\
. ~.
+,
Ci
>
w
0
w
a:

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 97
ATTACHMENT #12
VIA E-MAIL
Carmel by the Sea City Council
c/o City Hall
Carmel by the Sea
Re: June 2, 2015 Hearing on Hoffman Project.
Dear Mayor Burnett and Members of City Council:

We are writing to appeal to you to require some reasonable changes to the Hoffman Final Design Study
(DS-107) to mitigate the severely negative impact it would have, as proposed, on our property. There
have been a series of failures, oversights, misrepresentations and mistakes from the very beginning of
this project, but we believe that with the reduction in roof heights that we are requesting, and adding
the protective Conditions of Approval, the Hoffmans would be able to realize their vision while not
having such a terrible impact on our property.
We are asking that the maximum roof heights be lowered: the main roof by 8 inches (to elevation 53
11) and the higher roof by 14 inches (to elevation 55 5). These are small changes that would have no
impact on the Hoffmans project, but would allow us to be able to see a sliver of sky from our kitchen
and from the Stone Cottage bedroom. It would also preserve some of our ocean view from the eastern
portion of our property, and the public ocean and point view from San Antonio. It would also mitigate
somewhat the cold, dark shadowing of our garden, patio and kitchen created by their flat roofed, high
walled design.
These reductions would allow the Hoffman project to maintain extra high plate heights of 9 and 10 6,
and still allow some of the southern sunlight and sky to reach our kitchen, guest room and patio, and the
bedroom of the Stone Cottage.
The Additional Conditions of Approval that we are requesting are just protective and proactive to avoid
any damage or complications. A Geological Report, Geotechnical Report and Shoring Plan will prevent
their excavation and construction from damaging our homes, which were built in the 1920s and 1930s
and which we want to protect. We request that the Shoring Plan be reviewed and approved by a
licensed structural engineer at our expense.
We also request that a Certificate of Survey be required to confirm the maximum (no additional slope,
as was added to the 3/17/2015 plans) main and higher roof elevations we are requesting of 53 11 and
55 5 respectively, and also of the side setbacks shown on the 3/17/2015 plans. We request that the
44 main finished floor maximum elevation be confirmed by Certificate of Survey at our expense.
The north facing windows shown on the 3/17/2015 plans are not correctly represented on the window
detail sheet, so we request confirmation that they match the depiction: singular window with glazing
height not to exceed 6 8 from the 44 finished floor elevation. This is critical to mitigating both the loss

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 98
of privacy, and night time glare; balancing the Hoffmans desire for large north facing windows with our
privacy and dark sky.
To briefly summarize some of the challenges we have unfortunately had to deal with in this matter:
contrary to recommended Policy there was zero communication with us by the Hoffmans or their
architect prior to submittal of the initial plans to the City. Also, by waiting until the afternoon of
Monday December 1, 2014 to drop a Public Notice at our house, and only staking the project at 5:00 PM
that day, we received less than the required 10 days notice, and a lot of unnecessary hardship. I brought
up the lack of required notice at the Planning Commission meeting, hoping that the matter would be
deferred, but it was not.
At the December 10 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission expressly directed Mr. Holdren, the
applicants architect, to work with us to mitigate the privacy and height impacts. I met Mr. Holdren on
the steps of City Hall following the meeting and gave him our contact information. He said that he
would need to discuss possible changes with his clients, and with the holidays approaching, was not sure
when he would know anything, but that he would let us know.
Without any attempt to contact us or any input from us, Mr. Holdren resubmitted plans to the City the
afternoon of December 23. At that point it became clear we would need representation and help in this
matter and we engaged attorney Christine Kemp and architect Jun Sillano to assist with plan review, and
contacted Mr. Holdren for a meeting in January to discuss changes. We made several attempts to reach
an agreement, but were unsuccessful, with Mr. Holdren resubmitting plans to the City without the
agreed upon prior review and not in adherence to agreements. Although exact accuracy is of course not
expected in the staking/netting, it was extremely unhelpful to find that the applicants staking was both
lower (up to 6 inches) and farther away (2 to 7 inches) from our property than the plans called for.
It was quite surprising at the April 8 Planning Commission meeting for Mr. Holdren to provide the
Commissioners with just a very small swatch of proposed vinyl roofing material, as it is so out of keeping
with normal roofing materials. The proposed roof will be visible both from San Antonio and from all of
the neighboring properties, and aside from the artificiality there could also be serious concerns about
glare and reflectivity.
Also, it appears that the Planning Commissioners were given incorrect information by staff at the April 8
meeting in response to their question whether 8 feet was a maximum interior wall height. Staff
responded that 8 feet was the MINIMUM interior wall height, which is incorrect, and which of course
would have had a significant impact on the Commissioners decisions. The Planning Guidelines state
that ... interior wall heights (plate heights) should generally not exceed 8 feet.
We hope that you will grant our requested changes. They would enable a balance to be struck between
the Hoffmans desire for a design with elements that are specifically disfavored due to their negative
impact on neighboring properties (flat roofed design and extra high plate heights), with the need to
preserve some vital solar access, sky and tree views, and ocean and point views for our property and the
public.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 99
In conclusion, all we are really asking for are reasonable and easily achieved 8 and 14 height
reductions, and modest protections to ensure the project is built as planned to avoid complications or
damage. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Heather Ryan & David Dube

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 100
NOLAND
HAMERLY
ETIENNE
HOSS
Attorneys at Law
WWW.NHEH.COM
E-MAIL CKEMP@NHEH.COM
831-373-3622 EXT. 271
A PR O FE SSIONA L COR P O R A TIO N
OUR FILE No.
21426.000
May 27, 2015
Stephen W Pearson
Lloyd W Lowrey, Jr.
Anne K. Seeker
Randy Meyenberg
Michael Masuda
Christine G. Kemp
* Jo Marie Ometer
Terrence R. 0 'Connor
VIA-EMAIL DELIVERY
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
P.O. BoxCC
Timothy J. Baldwin
* Leslie E.
Re:
Finnegan
* Charles Des Roches
Appeal of Hoffman Final Design Study DS 14-107

June 2, 2015 City Council Meeting
Ana C. Toledo
Robert D. Simpson
Retired
Myron E. Etienne, Jr.
Dear Mayor Burnett and Members of the City Council:

I am writing on behalf of appellants Heather Ryan and David Dube (HBE
Holdings, Inc.), owners of the property directly north of the Hoffman project.
Peter T Hoss
James D. Schwefel, Jr
Harry L. Noland
(1904-1991)
While there have been a myriad of issues and problems with this project, to
address Ms. Ryan and Mr. Dube's greatest concerns, we request that your Council take
the following actions:
Paul M Hamerly
(1920-2000)
* CERT7FIED SPECIAliST IN
PROBATE, ESTATE PLANNING,
AND TRUST LAW BY
THE CAliFORNIA BOARD OF
LEGAL SPECIAUZA T70N
STATE BAR OF CAliFORNIA
1.
1.
Most importantly, reduce the main roof elevation by 8 inches and reduce
the upper roof elevation by 14 inches, as more fully discussed below;
2.
Deny the proposed vinyl roof and require a more traditional roof,
as more fully discussed below; and
3.
Require five (5) additional conditions of approval for the project,

as more fully discussed below.
Most Importantly, Reduce the Main and Upper Flat Roof Elevations
Problem
The proposed height of both the main roof and upper roof substantially impair
the Ryan/Dube property by blocking light, creating a boxed-in feeling and blocking
ocean views from San Antonio. (See attached photographs of impact to views, light and
boxed-in feeling).
FROM MONTEREY 831-372-7525
FAX 831-424-1975
PHONE 831-424-1414
333 SALINAS STREET POST OFFICE BOX 2510 SALINAS, CA 93902-2510
21426\000\593469.1 :52715

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 101

May 27, 2015
Page 2
This effect is exacerbated by the fact the Hoffman project has a flat roof which
brings the entire roof elevation to the edge of the project, as opposed to a peaked roof
which lets light filter in as the roof angle declines.
In addition, the Hoffman project has very high interior plate heights of 9' 8" and
11 '8", well above the City's recommended 8' plate heights.
The City's Residential Design Guidelines specifically disfavor the use of flat
roofs, as well as, the use of high interior plate heights, encouraging the use of low plate
heights no higher than 8' to reduce the height of exposed walls. (See Guidelines 7. 7;
8.3; 8.4 and 8.5).
The Hoffman project violates all of these Guidelines, not only with its flat roof,
but also with its very high interior plate heights.
When specifically questioned by the Planning Commission whether an 8' plate
height was a minimum or maximum plate height, staff incorrectly responded that an 8'
interior plate height was a minimum, rather than a recommended maximum as stated in
the City's Guidelines.
The City Design Guidelines disfavor a large expansive building mass and
require the preservation of open space and access to light between properties (See
Guidelines 7.1 and 7.3) and require maintaining the mass of buildings low to maintain
views over the structure (See Guideline 5.3).
City Code Section 17.1 0. 01 0 (D) requires that buildings not present excess
visual mass or bulk to adjoining properties and that plate heights be kept as close to
grade as possible. In this case, the flat roof and solid mass of wall creates a large solid
mass of unbroken wall when viewed from the Ryan/Dube property.
City Code Section 17.10.010 (F) requires that designs preserve reasonable
access to light, air, and open space for surrounding properties, as well as avoid taller
bulky buildings near an adjoining site that is already partially boxed in by previous
development. In this case, the flat roof and solid mass of wall creates a large solid mass
blocking sun and light and views of the sky and trees from the Ryan/Dube property.
City Code Section 17.10.010 (H) requires that the design of structures be
coordinated with open space to enhance the City's park-like environment and that open
space is a shared community resource. In this case, the flat roof and solid mass of wall
creates a large solid mass blocking views of the sky and trees from the Ryan/Dube
property.
City Code Section 17.10.010 (K) requires that private views be protected and
that buildings which substantially eliminate an existing view enjoyed by another owner
should be avoided. In this case, the flat roof and solid mass of wall creates a large solid
mass, blocking the Ryan/Dube's existing view of the sky and trees from their property,
21426\000\593469.1:52715

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 102

May 27, 2015
Page 3
as well as blocking the Ryan/Dube existing ocean view from. the eastern portion of their
garden and the public view from San Antonio over the existing Hoffman house.
The property is in the Beach Overlay which, pursuant to City Code Section
17.20.160(A), requires enhanced public view protection, yet this project violates this
code section by cutting off the public view of the ocean and point from San Antonio, as
well as the eastern side of the Ryan/Dube property.
Solution
The Hoffman flat roof elevations are the result of very high interior wall heights.
Rather than the 8 foot interior wall heights recommended under the City's Design
Guidelines, the Hoffman project has interior wall heights of 9' -8" and 11 '-8".
If the Hoffman interior wall heights were reduced from 9'-8" to 9'-0' (8" main
roof reduction) and from 11 '-8" to 10'-6" (14" upper roof reduction), the exterior roof
elevations can commensurately be reduced from elevation 54'-7' to 53'-11" for the
main roof, and from 56' -7" to 55' -5" for the upper roof. These reductions are also
described on Attachment A and the revised elevation plan attached.
These height reductions will have little impact on the Hoffman house design, but
will make a substantial difference in reducing the boxed-in, loss of light and loss of
view impact on the Ryan/Dube property.
2.
Deny Vinyl Roof

Problem
The proposed vinyl roof on the Hoffman project is not a sanctioned building
material for Carmel. On-line reviews of this vinyl roofing material, a copy of which is
attached, state this roofing material creates a highly reflective surface, which glare and
heat reflectivity is damaging to neighbors.
Contrary to staffs representation to the Planning Commission, the proposed
vinyl roof will be seen from San Antonio, as well as all neighboring properties.
This highly reflective surface will not only create glare for people walking or
driving on San Antonio, but will also create a glare problem for the Ryan/Dubes,
particularly from their second story looking down on the roof.
Solution
Deny the vinyl roof and require a more traditional flat roof roofing material.
21426\000\593469.1:52715

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 103

May 27, 2015
Page4
3.
Add Five (5) Conditions of Approval

Problem
There are many important safeguards missing from the Hoffman project which
need to be added to protect the Ryan/Dube property.
a.
Lack of Geology and Geotechnical Reports
City Code Section 17.20.170(B) requires a geologic report be submitted with

this application, yet, in violation of this requirement, there is no geological on file for
the project, nor any requirement as to how soil stability or shoring will be done to
protect the Ryan/Dube property as a result of significant excavation occurring on the
Hoffman property in close proximity to the Ryan/Dube property.
b.
Lack of Elevation and Setback Confirmation
This project is height and set back sensitive, yet there is no condition requiring
confirmation of heights and setbacks as the project is being constructed.
c.
Roof Elevation Plan Discrepancies
The roof elevations shown on the plans state to "eaves", yet the elevations are
represented to be the maximum roof elevations. To address this issue confirmation is
needed that the roof elevations are the maximum roof elevations, including the 2%
slope, not just eave elevations.
d.
Lack of Confirmation of North Facing Window Heights
City Code Section 17.10.010 (G) requires that designs respect the privacy of
neighbors, including the placement of windows. In this case, the north facing windows
face into the Ryan/Dube property. The window specification sheet does not match the
windows shown on the plans. To address this issue, a condition should be added to
require the north facing windows be singular windows with a glazing height of no
higher than 6' -8" from the 44' -0" main level finished floor elevation.
Solution
Add the following five (5) conditions of approval to the revised project to
address these issues:
1.
21426\000\593469.1:52715
Require Preparation of a Geological Report, Geotechnical

Report, and Shoring Plan prior to issuance of a Building Permit.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 104

May 27, 2015
Page 5
4.
2.

engineer on behalf of Ms. Ryan and Mr. Dube to protect the
Ryan/Dube property.
3.
Provide a Certificate of Survey to confirm the upper roof and

lower roof elevations match the elevations stated herein, and that
property setbacks along the north side, match the setbacks shown
on the 3117/2015 plans. In addition, the 44' -0" main finished
floor elevation shall be confirmed by a Certificate of Survey for
which Ms. Ryan will pay.
4.
Require confirmation that the exterior roof elevations are

maximum roof elevations, including the 2% slope, and eaves.
5.
Require the north facing windows be singular windows with a

glazing height of no higher than 6' -8" from the 44' -0" main level
finished floor elevation.
Improper CEQA Review
Lastly, the existing log cabin on the Hoffman project was deemed to be historic
by the City historian, Kent Seavey. For purposes of analysis under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Mr. Seavey's report, a copy of which is attached
hereto, provides substantial evidence that the proposed demolition of this structure
creates a potential significant impact to an historic structure, requiring an Initial Study
and more in-depth CEQA analysis, not use of a CEQA exemption.
5.
Summary
The Hoffman project is a flat roofed home, which, combined with very high
interior plate heights, creates a substantial impact on the Ryan/Dube property.
Reducing the plate heights and exterior roof elevations, as herein requested, will
alleviate this impact.
Secondarily, Ms. Ryan and Mr. Dube request the vinyl roof be denied and five
additional conditions be added to the project for their protection.
Ms. Ryan and Mr. Dube appreciate your attention to these matters of great
importance to them. Once the Hoffman project is built, the damage to the Ryan/Dube
property will be irreversible. This is the opportunity to correct this situation by
requiring relatively minor revisions to the Hoffman project which substantially reduce
the impact on the Ryan/Dube property.
21426\000\593469.1:52715

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 105

May 27,2015
Page 6
We thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris
CGK:aac
cc: Clients
Encls:
Attachment s A & B
Site Photos
Roofing Material
Site Plan Elevation w/revised Roof Elevations
Seavey Report
21426\000\593469.1:52715

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 106

May 27, 2015
Page 7
ATTACHMENT A
Requested Interior Plate Heights and Exterior Roof Elevations*
Main Roof
Reduce interior plate height and exterior roof elevation by 8"
Reduce interior plate height from 9' -8" to 9'-0"
Reduce exterior roof elevation from 54'-7" to 53' -11"
Upper Roof
Reduce interior plate height and exterior roof elevation by 14"
Reduce interior plate height from 11 '-8" to 10'-6"
Reduce exterior roof elevation from 56' -7" to 55' -5"
*Assuming an 11" space between interior plate height and exterior roof elevation.
21426\000\593469.1 :52715

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 107

May 27,2015
Page 8
ATTACHMENT B
Additional Conditions to Safeguard the Ryan/Dube Property
1.
Require Preparation of a Geological Report, Geotechnical Report, and Shoring

Plan prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
2.

engineer on behalf of Ms. Ryan and Mr. Dube to protect the Ryan/Dube
property.
3.
Provide a Certificate of Survey to confirm the upper roof and lower roof
elevations match the elevations stated herein, and that property setbacks along
the north side, match the setbacks shown on the 3/17/2015 plans. In addition,
the 44' -0" main finished floor elevation shall be confirmed by a Certificate of
Survey for which Ms. Ryan will pay.
4.
Require confirmation that the exterior roof elevations are maximum roof
elevations, including the 2% slope, and eaves.
5.
Require the north facing windows to be singular windows with a glazing height
of no higher than 6'-8" from the 44'-0" main level finished floor elevation.
21426\000\593469.1:52715

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 108

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 109
...

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 110
'I
I
I h"l::!llii11'I
! II
II
I !11 '
'If
,.
lI
'!
11 1 l
.!!
II
'!f "1!- ''!"''-!'

''I1 t lI' u
t:.
lt. : :, .,~,
t~. u tt.. .:
. "ln
' ~ t: "~
lh
"!,..t..,
!
.... .
t
..
--
..
. I .,
- . .
...
H'
....
'-""'"!-.!.
..
......
.....
..
..
o.._.
.. ,r
I
I
'.
'
''rttf';t!
I
-.. .
. --.
... . .
-.
--
;
........
,
....
...
..
:llt!.t.~
:;;._
.. .. t
I ! , 1
'
t"'
.- -' .......
----..
- :: . .-
. .
.:l ~ ::
1 -
ol
:_.:i-
ol
J-
..!
..
,1
'
..
I.
'
-. .
:My -neflbbOr
additiori h
'
- -.
-
-.
I
I
l
'
' I
' '
'
ea
' Ih
II
I I
Sea te
I'
00

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 111
l;
DUACLAST.
THE WORLD'S BEST ROOF';)
he Look .f Roofi-n g I II: . ; With

The Watertight Integrity Of Single-Ply
The Duro-Last Rock-Ply System is ideal for commercial
and residential roofing applications where appearance is
important, but traditional rock or stone ballast is not
practical because of weight considerations or difficulty
transporting the ballast to where it's needed on the roof.
The Rock-Ply membrane provides a ballast look and the
watertight performance and long-term durability of a
thermoplastic, single-ply roofmg system.
Our Rock-Ply product is made from the same durable
membrane as the Duro-Last roofing system, a proven
performer since 1978. The design is printed onto the
membrane, then a special polymer coating is applied
to help protect the finish from marring, fading, and
dirt accumulation.
Like the Duro-Last roofing system, the Rock-Ply system
is prefabricated to fit the dimensions of the roof space,
ready to be installed by an authorized Duro-last contractor.
Deck sections are mechanically-attached or adhered to the
roof deck and adjacent edges are heat-welded together,
forming a watertight monolithic covering.
The Duro-Last Rock-Ply system is complete, with all
fasteners, flashings, edge details, and other materials
delivered to the job site. Flashings for critical rooftop
transition areas are precision-fabricated in a Duro-Last
facility to fit those areas; there is minimal on-site assembly
of these components. Rectangular curb flashings for a
Rock-Ply installation typically will have both horizontal
and vertical surfaces made from dark gray material.
Other flashings, such as for stacks, vents, and parapets,
typically will have the horizontal surface (whlch is welded
to the deck membrane) made from Rock-Ply material
and the vertical surface made from dark gray material.

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 112
The Duro-Last Rock-Ply roofing membrane

is available in 50-mil thiclmess only.
The Rock-Ply roofing system is backed by the
best warranty in the roofing industry. Our
standard, comprehensive 15-year No Dollar
Limit ( ND L) warranty is transferable, has no
exclusions for ponding water, and proVIdes

coverage against consequential damages that
result from defects in the Duro-Last material
and/or installation workmanship. Duro-Last
also has 20-year warranties available.
ASTM 0751
1948 x1734 N
ASTM 0 751 Grab Method
31%
4STM 3045, 56 days @ 17o'F
90% ~f control- no aacklnq, chipping or craz1r.g
Factory Seam Strength
ASTM 0 751 - Grab Method
1854N
4171bf.
Teanng Strength
ASTM D 75i - Pr'lcedure 8
587 'r: 725 N
132 X 1631bf
Low Temperature Bend
ASTM 02136
Accelerated Weathenng
ASTM G 154 (Formerly G53)
Ltnear Dimensiona! Change
ASTM D 1204- 6 hrs. @ 176"F
-o .4%
ASTM 0 570- 1AR hn.. @ i58F
17%
Pass
No crackmg, checking, crazing or eros1e:..n
at 5,000 hours of exposure
Static Pun~ure
ASTM D 5602
25 kg.
56 lb.
D)'namic Puncture
ASTM D 5635
20 J
474 pdf-ft.
Rated 1-60, 1-75, 1-90. 1-105. 1-120, 1-135. i-150, 1-165,

1-195, 1-210. 1-240, 1-270, 1-345) i-435 & 1-495
DURD~LAST.
~' THE'
1.\~
WORLD''$ BEST ROOf,
800-248-0280
www.duro-last.com
~~;f- <1
~ . . . GluEiilb 'lel!ii
==

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 113
I
6Af~U\6E
,_,_ _ _ _ _ _ _.___......._.=
- FIN.
- SLAS
-- -= 50'-S"
- --
rn
MAIN FL..OO~ F.F. =44'..0"

---L..OY'~ FL..OOR PL... HT. =-4S'..O'
9iO
SOUTH EL-EVATION
SCALE: 1/4''
= 1'-0"
r ""~
" " "'.
(2)5K'I"I-Ni6.,".T~X2'
.
FIAT 0
~
1
53
~" ~':"
~N
tlJ
....,
1,:,
PL HT. 55'-&"
0 1P
... '
1-
o- "-
L-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ....:..
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 114
------------
NORTH ELEVATION
=1'-0"
~~ :F
I
I
I
I
_ _ _....J_ - - -
MAIN FL..OOR F.F. =44'-o"

- - - - i..OYER FL..OOR PL... HT. =4s-o
1-
P.6
\D
z.
~ w
u
~Ul w
z
._
SCALE: 114"
UPPEFt ROOF ':_L.

' 0--"'"' b
FL,OO!t._ . HT. =55'-&"-=-
,;"
,.._,
"
22SN
9
G
Ul
\D
::)
()
J:
\0
0
lf) ....
0
I
N
0!:~
......
:I:
w~
~
I
~~s
<( M~O
~ ~0\
u.. o5 ~
JZ
z 0 !z<~a:
z
.
-(
~
U..
:I:
~5<(
A3.1
310 LIGHTHOUSE A VENUE

PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA 93950
(831)375 ... 8739
February
18~
2013
Mr. Mark Weiner /Senior Planner

Carmel Planning &;Building Department
City of Carmel by-the-Sea
P.O. Drawer G
Carmel~ CA 93921
Dear Mr. Weiner:
Thank you for the opportunity to prepare a preliminary historic
analysis of the residential propert,y located 4 NE of 13th (Bik A.5 Lot
4) on the east side of Scenic Dr. (APN# 010-292-006) in Carmel,
Monterey County, as required by the CaltfomJa Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Carmel.
Carmel building records indicate that the subject property was

constructed in 1927 for Mr. WalterS. Weeks. a mining engineer and
U .C. professor, whose primary residence was in. Berkeley, California.
The local buildJng records show demolition of a detached garage on
the San Antonio side (east) of the proJ?CJ:ty in 1964 (CBP# 4083) and
construction of a new garage in the same general location. In 1981 a
dining room addition was constructed otf the NW comer of the Weeks
cabin (CBP# 81-207} employing engineered logs similar to those
found on the originall927 building exterior.
Based on available Sanborn. fire insura..YJce maps of Carmel, it is
suggested that an enclosed deck., off the SW corner of the cabin, may
have been constructed at this time {1981. or possibly as part of the
1964 garage rebulld, as the deck does not appear on the 1962
Sanborn map.
The subject property is a one-story, wood-framed log cabin,
irregular in plan, resting on a cinder block foundation. The exterior
wall cladding is an engineered horizontal log siding. The individual
log members are elliptical in section, having a board spine
sandwiched between two curved log members. The board spine may
project from the base of the fabricated log, nesting into a slot along
the top the next lower log.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION l\1[USEUIV11: JI:.N"TBRPRETATION

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 115
Howevert narrow horizontal wood fillets cover the spaces between the
logs where one would usually find a lime mortar noggmg. concealing
the method of attachment.
The low-pitched gable roof has wide, overhanging eaves with

exposed rafter-tails faced by simple wood facias. The gable ends of
the cabin have log brackets 1n their apexes. A short, shed-roofed
extension of the building envelope, on the NW corner of the main
building block was added in 1981 (CBP# 81-207) to enlarge the
dining area . The log members for this addition may have come from
the demolition of an origi:nal detached garage off the east end of the
cabin in 1964. A raised~ and enclosed flat-roofed porch, extending off
the SW corner of the cabin may date from either 1981 or 1964, as
this feature does not appear on an 1962 Sanborn insurance map of
Carmel. Two flat metal skylights were added on the east end of the
roof in 1982 (CBP# 82-117). An interior metal chimney stack projects
from the SW corner of the roof plane of the main buJlding block. The
roof covering for the cabin is composition shingles. The enclosed
porch appears to be covered with a fiberglass roofing material.
Fenestration is irregular, with a combination of single and
paired.6/6 double-hung wood sash and a band of three 2/4fixed
wood windows on the main bullding block, wJth a large, multi-paned
fixed focal window in the west elevation of the 1982 dining room
addition and smaller pair of multi-paned wood casement type
windows on the south elevation of this feature . The undated enclosed
porch has large multi-paned fixed wood windows, similar to those
found on the dining room addition, with glazed wood doors on the
east and west elevations.
The subject property is sited back from Scenic Road behind a
wood grape stake fence in an informal landscape setting of low
shrubbery and one or two mature cypress trees. A wood-framed
detached garage,. on the east side of the parcel, facing San Antou..io St .
was constructed in 1964. The property is located in a wooded
residential neighborhood, above carmel beach_, of one and two-story
homes of varying ages,. sizes and styles. Character-defining features of
the subject property include:
Engineered logs as the exterior wall cladding,

Multi-paned wood w.indows ofvaryL.1g sizes and types

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 116
A low-pitched gabled roof with log brackets in the gable

apexes.
An enclosed, flat-roofed deck, constructed after 1962.
1be property may be significant~ within the theme of
architectural development identified in the .2008 Carmel-by-the-Sea
Historic Context Statement. This would be at the local level of
significance under California Register criterion 3, in the area of
architecture, as an example of the early use of engineered log

construction in Carmel.
Walter Scott Weeks (1882-1946) as noted above, was a m.lnlng
engineer. He published VentUation of Mines. in 1926, and as an
academic at U.C. Berkeley and was the first chairman of the
Department of Mining and Metallurgy, when UC's College of Mining
and College of Engineering merged in 1942. Based on U.S. Census
records, Prof. weeks log cabin in Carmel was a vacation home. Prof.
Weeks a&roe:ia.tion with Carmel falls within that ''Professors Row"
group of academics that made up part of the v:lllages cultural tenet
miX 1n the teens and twenties of the twentieth century. His name does
not show up in the 2008 HistoriC Context Statement as a significant
figure in the communicy-, nor does it appear in any of the standard
Cannel historic reference books.
Percy H .. Wilson and his wife Elizabeth may have been the
second owners of the subject property. Mr. Wilson was an
Aeronautical Engineer, also from Berkeley- Wilson first appears in
local business directories for the Monterey Peninsula m 1965, as
retired. 1be California Death Index, 1940-1997 shows he died in
Monterey in 1977. His wtfe Elizabeth continued occupancy of the
subject property and was responsible for the physical changes to the
residence tn 1981-1982 (CBP #82-117).
There is no record in the Carmel bullding rues of an architect or
builder for the log cabin, nor does the Carmel Pine Cone or Monterey
Dally Herald shed light on the subject in their respective issues from
May 1, 1927. through June 31, 1927. it is possible that WalterS.
Weeks was an owner /builder and the cabin was a prefabricated kit
house, but this is only speculation, not supported by specttlc
documentation. The property ciearly represents a significant
architectural tj,;pe (log cabin), a period (1927), and method of
construction ( engineered log building).
3

Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 117
Review of the thematic criteria for architectural significance

outlined in the 2008 Cannel Historic Context Statement includes the
following guidelines:
"Carmel is essentially a residential community With single family
homes as the most prevalent propercy type .."
"A taste for simpltcity, often articulated by the use of shingles or
board-and-batten siding, transcends the divisions of time and
architectural fashion . "
''Significant single family residences are those that are related to
Carmel's architectural chronology.....that reflect carmel's pronounced
taste for individualism, or that refiect the work of a master builder or
architect."
Architectural integrity should be substantially intact, and
should be considered for architectural merit."
66
The subject property is clearly a single family dwelling house.

Its log construction expresses a taste for simplicity that transcends
the divisions of time and architectural fashion. The residence certainly
reflects Carmel's pronounced taste for individualism, and its
architectural integrity appears to be substantially intact, as
constructed in 1927.
As early as 1846 pioneer Carmel settler Matthew Murphy
constructed a single-pen,_ hewn V-notched log barn in the sand
dunes above Carmel beach. By 1905 artist Jane Gallatin Powers
transformed the log barn into an early Carmel artists studio, which is
still standing. In 1903 Alameda attomey George H. Richardson bunt
a log cabin on Monte Verde St.~ between 4th and 5th, which became
the first Carmel home of noted poet Robinson Jeffers in 1914. It is
also still standing. Stanford medical doctors Levi Lane and Virginia
Smiley had "Log Haven" constructed on the north side of 8th near
Cannelo in 1907. For many years this log cabin was part of the La
Playa Hotel. It too is still standing. As is 'the bark House", at the NW
corner of Monte Verde and 13Llt9 designed by an independent and
creative woman, J.S. Cone h1 1922 ..
The 1927 Walter S. Weeks log cabin~ with its early engineered
log method of construction, would appear to make a significant
contribution to the eclectic collection of log homes in Carmel that
clearly reflect the thematic criteria for architectural significance
outlJned in the 2008 Carmel Historic Context Statement.
Respec-tfully Submitted,
-~~~
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 118
ter S.,
Cab
:el
{Blk A.5, Lot 4} 4 NE of 13th on the east side. of Scenic Dr~
photo # 1. l,ookitl! NE at the west side-elevation.

-~. ~~-~- 2013.
Photo #2. Looking west at L'le east side-elevation,

Januruy, 2013.
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 119

9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Rob Mullane, AICP, Planning and Building Director

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commissions approval of

Failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

A. Roof Elevations and Plate Heights

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

Failure to Provide Adequate Safeguards for the Ryan/Dube Property Including

A. Lack of Volume Calculation:

Discrepancies in the Plans.

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

Funding Source( general fund, grant,

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION/DECISION HISTORY:

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

APPEAL OF PLANNING CO:M1v1ISSION DECISION

(FILING FEE: ~) ~otf.82-

Heather Ryan & David Dube (HBE Holdings, Inc.)

Phones: Day:( 831) _3'-.:.7-'-3-_3_62_2_

Date Board heard the matter: _A_,_p_ri_l 8....:.,_2_0_15_ _ _ __ _ __ _

Lot(s): '-Po=r-'-.4 - ' - - - - - Block: - 'A5

April 8, 2015 Planning Commission Approval

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE

DATEDAT:j?~ ,THIS ~ DAYOF

N/A Coastal Zone

$295.00 fee* received: (Staff Initial)

*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city to

IMPORTANT: If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and

working days after the decision of the

Commission. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on

dotaC/m 'OwndVAPPI!AL PLANMNG FORM.doe

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

Appellant Heather Ryan/David Dube

Failure to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Roof Elevations and Plate Heights

above the recommended 8' plate heights.

Plastic Roofing Material

Conventional non-reflective roofing material should be required for the project

Failure to Provide Adequate Safeguards for the Ryan!Dube Property

Lack of Volume Calculation

Grading/Lack of Geology and Geotechnical Reports

Elevation and Setback Confirmation

Discrepancies in the Plans

North Facing Windows

Site Coverage - FAR

An Appeal of Planning Commissions decision was filed by a neighboring residents,

The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, pursuant to

FINDINGS FOR DECISION

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

Beach and Overlay District Findings

Park Overlay District Findings

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

Coastal Development Findings (CMC 17.64.B.1):

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

Authorization: This approval of Design Study (DS 14-107) authorizes the

The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the

All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. If

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

The Carmel stone faade shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15