9.a hoffman appeal 06-02-15

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

1/119

F CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Council Report

June 2, 2015

To:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilDouglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator

From: Rob Mullane, AICP, Planning and Building Director

Subject: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval ofDesign Study (DS 14-107) and the associated Coastal DevelopmentPermit for the construction of a new single-family residence located in theSingle-Family Residential (R-1), Park Overlay (P), and Beach andRiparian Overlay (BR) Zoning Districts. The application is being appealedby neighboring property owners: Heather Ryan and David Dube (HBE

Holdings, Inc).

RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s 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 Commission’s 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 appealapplication is included as Attachment 1. Findings for Approval of the project are included as

Attachment 2, and the project’s 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

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

2/119

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 City’s 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 building’s mass from public viewpoints along both Scenic Road and

San Antonio Avenue. In addition, the proposed residence is smaller in both mass and heightcompared 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 Commission’s Concept Review, the appellant raised concerns regarding

the project’s design. On the December 10, 2014 Tour of Inspection, the Planning Commission

visited the appellant’s 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 theapplicant 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 meeting’s 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 Commission’s 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 attorneyprovided 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.


Page 2

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

3/119

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 environmentaldocuments.

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 City’s historic determination for the log cabin remains

valid until May 21, 2018. The HRB’s determination included the review of a preliminary

historic analysis of the subject property. This analysis was completed by the City’s historic

preservation consultant, Kent Seavey. Mr. Seavey’s report noted that the property shouldqualify 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. Seavey’s report and in the staff report for the HRB’s 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 theCity 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 City’s Determination of Ineligibility, which includes the HRB

staff report and the historian’s 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 ofScenic 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 single-

family residential use. Scenic Road is developed with single-family residences. Given the


Page 3

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

4/119

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 asdetermined 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 isnot 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 City’s 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 accommodatesloping 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 site’s 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


Page 4

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

5/119

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 project’s Concept Review, the mass and bulk of the proposedresidence 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 propertyowner 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 City’s Design Guidelines.


Page 5

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

6/119

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 volumerequirements, 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 City’s 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 DesignStudy 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, theBuilding 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.


Page 6

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

7/119

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 hasbeen 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 facingwindows 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 City’s 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 Council’s consideration. Attachments 5 and 7

include the minutes of these respective meetings. Based on the Planning Commission’s

action and an analysis of the components of the appeal, staff recommends that the City

Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval. Draft Findings for

Approval and Conditions of Approval are included as Attachments 2 and 3 respectively.


Page 7

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

8/119

Alternative 1: In upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Study (DS 14-

107), 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 City’s 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 City’s

General Fund.

Budgeted (yes/no) Funding Source( general fund, grant,

state)No 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


Page 8

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

9/119

APPROVED:

____________________________________ Date: ________________

Douglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator


Page 9

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

10/119


Page 10

ATTACHMENT #1

CITY

OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

City of Carmel-by-the-Se

APR

2 2

2015

PPE L

OF PLANNING CO:M1v1ISSION DECISION

Received

FILING FEE:

~

~ o t f 8 2

Appellant: Heather Ryan David Dube (HBE Holdings, Inc.)

Property Owner:

_S_am_e

_

as

_ ab__v_e.

_ _

_ _

_ _

_ __

_______

_ _

Mailing Address:

c

/o

Christine Kemp, Noland, Hamerly, Etienne Hoss 470 Camino El Estero

Monterey, CA 93940

Phones: Day: 831) -.:.

7-'--_3_622

____ Evening:

306)

_2_4_ _ 7_2

0_0

_ _ _ _

Fax :

83 1) 649-3043

Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Date Board heard the matter: _A_ _p

_r_

8 :

_2_0_15_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office

of

he City Clerk within

10 working days

following

the date o action by the

lanning

Commission andpaying

the required il ing 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

- ' - ' - - - - - -

AP

N:

010-292-006

COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED: April 8, 2015 Planning Commission Approval

o f D S

_ 0 7 ~ ~ ~ ~

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 o f f m a n Project. Appellant owns property (010-292-005) immediately north of the

Hoffman project. Appellants' property will be impacted by the Hoffman Project.

CONTINUED ON REVERSE

SIDE)

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

11/119


Page 11

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:

D A T E D A T j ~ T H I S ~ D Y O F Aenr{ l ~

N/A Coastal Zone

295.00 fee* received:

(Staff

Initial)

Receipt :

ATTEST

:

(JXtJJ/)A)

City Clerk

*Article 9, Section 7,

of he

Constitution

of

he 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

n

the

City of a r m e l b t h e 8 ~ s

Council agenda packet,

the

materials

must e

submitted to

the City

Clerk by 2f

working days after

the

decision

of

the

Commission.

This

matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard

on

_

_W

:l

S

dotaC/m

OwndVAPPI A

L

PLANMNG

FORM doe

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

12/119


Page 12

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. oof Elevations and Plate Heights

The interior plate heights of 9' -8 and '-8 and exterior roofelevations

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 requi

re

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 ofwall 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

21

42

6\0

00

\589708.1

42

215

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

13/119


Page 13

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 roofwill 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

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

14/119


Page 14

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 ofGeology 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 t

he

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

behalfof 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.

oof

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.

21426\000\589708.1 2215

3

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

15/119


Page 15

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

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

16/119

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

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 (R-

1), 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 Commission’s 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

City’s 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.


Page 16

ATTACHMENT #2

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

17/119

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 NO

1. The project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site, or has

received appropriate use permits and/or variances consistent with the zoningordinance.

✔

2. The project is consistent with the City’s design objectives for protection and

enhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources and site design. The

project’s 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 City’s objectives for public and private views

and will retain a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites. Throughthe 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.

✔


Page 17

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

18/119

DS 14-107 (Hoffman)

June 2, 2015


Page 3

8. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained incharacter, 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 carefullydesigned 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.

N/A

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.

N/A

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.

N/A

17. The proposed setbacks afford maximum protection for the adjoining parklands

for the benefit of the public while still accommodating reasonable development ofthe property.

N/A

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. ✔

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


Page 18

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

19/119

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. ✔


Page 19

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

20/119

Conditions of Approval No. 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 City’s

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,

✔


Page 20

ATTACHMENT #3

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

21/119

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.

✔

9. 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 façade 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


Page 21

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

22/119

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 anyliability; 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. N/A

17. A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with theMonterey 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 City’s 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.

✔

19a. 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

N/A


Page 22

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

23/119

Planning Commission.

19b. All new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if cultural

resources are discovered on the site, and the applicant shall notified theCommunity 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.

✔

20. 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.

✔

21. All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-

size sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building

Safety Division.

✔

Special Conditions

23. 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.

✔

24. 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.”

✔

25. 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.

✔

26. 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.

✔


Page 23

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

24/119

*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.

______________________ __________________ __________Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date

Once signed, please return to the Community Planning and Building Department.


Page 24

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

25/119

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 25

ATTACHMENT #4

To

From:

Submitted by:

Subject:

Recommendation:

CITY OF

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Planning Commission Report

April 8, 2015

Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners

Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning

and

Building Director

Christy Sabdo, Contract Planner

Consideration of Final Design Study DS 14-107) and associated Coasta l

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

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)

Block: AS

Location: San Antonio 4 NW of 13th

Property Owners: Carl and ary Hoffman

Background and Project Description:

APN: 010-292-006

Lot: S portion of 4

Applicant : Craig Holdren, Architect

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 w

as

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

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

26/119

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 garage2) the removal of all existing site coverage

3) the construction of a new 2,079-square foot one-story residence that includes a 1,378-

square 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 combinationof 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 theapplicant 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 neighbor’s

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.


Page 26

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

27/119

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 tocomply 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. Ryan’s 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 7-

in)

• Dropped the height of the high roof, located over the living room, by 1-in (from 56-ft 8-

in 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 surveyor’s 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


Page 27

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

28/119

address potential staking errors. On Friday, March 20, 2015, the applicant’s 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 City’s

Municipal Code.

Overall, the applicant has revised the proposed project in response to the Planning

Commission’s recommendation to work with the neighbor to the north. Staff supports the

applicant’s 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 City’s recommended tree list

and remove all ivy from the site.


Page 28

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

29/119

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 toprovide 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 City’s 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:

“ plastic…roofs 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


Page 29

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

30/119

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 Commission’s 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 inwidth 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.


Page 30

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

31/119

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 City’s 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 City’s 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


Page 31

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

32/119


Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 32

Christy Sabdo

From:

Sent:

To

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Commissioners:

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

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,

ICP

Community Planning and Building Director

City

of

Carmel-by-the-Sea

P.O.

DrawerG

Carmel-by-the-Sea,

C

93921

main

(831} 620-2010

direct

(831) 620-2057

[email protected]

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

33/119

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

34/119

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

35/119


Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 35

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

36/119


Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 36

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

37/119

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

38/119

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

39/119


Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 39

NOL ND /

HAMERLY

ETIENNE

HOSS

Attorneys at l.aw A PROFESSION L

CO R

P

OR T

ION

WWW.NHEH.COM

E-MAIL [email protected]

831-373-3622

EXT.

271

0URl IU;No.

21426.000

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

•

Charles Des Roches

A ~ t t ~ C Toledo

Roberl D.

SimpsOII

liNt/

Myron E Etie-,

Jr

PeurT.

Hoss

James D.

Sclrweftl,

Jr

Harry

I. Noland

(1904-1991)

PmdM.H rly

(1920-2000)

• CER IIFIUJBPECJAUST 1J/

PIIOBATE. ESTATEP1ANN1JI(1,

AND TRUSf

U

BY

THE

CAUFORNU

BOARD

OF

LEGAL SPECIALIZA170N

STATEIWIOFCAUFORNIA.

April 2

20 15

VIA E-MAIL [email protected]

City

of Carmel-by-the.-Sea Planning Commission

c/o Christi Sabdo

City

Planner

P.O.BoxCC

Carmel-by-the-Sea

CA 93921

Re:

Hoffman

Project- Scenic Road

April 8.

2015

Planning Commission Meeting

Dear

Members of he Commission:

I am writing on behalfof

Heather

Ryan and

David

Dube

owners

of he

property immediately north of

he above.-referenced

project, to request that

you

deny the

Hoffman

project, as proposed.

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 information

2

•

Accordingly

Ms. Ryan

and Mr.

Dube cannot agree to the plans, as submitted.

Ms. Ryan

and

Mr. Dube

request that your Comm ission

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.

2

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 Apr il.

PHONE 831-424-1414 FROM

MONTEREY 831-372-7525

333

SALINAS

STREET POST OFFICE BOX 2SIO

SALINAS CA 93902-2SIO

21426\000\587958.1 :421 s

R E E ~ V E O

FAX

831-424-1975

APR

0

2 2 15

CityofCarm l·bv·ihe.seo

Planning aBuilding Dept.

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

40/119


Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 40

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

of

he

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

he structure. Additionally, the upper roof, as proposed,

blocks existing

views of

he ocean from the eastern side

of

he 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

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

41/119

8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15

42/119


Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 42

City of Cannel-by-the-SeaPlanning Commission

April2, 2015

Page4

b. Requir e the Shoring Plan to be approved by a licensed

structural

engineer on beha lf of Ms. Ryan

and

Mr. Dube to protect the Ryan/Dube property.

Additionally, because the project s so height sensitive, the following condition

should

be

added to assure conformance with the approved plans.

c. Provide a Certifica te

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.

9.a hoffman appeal 06-02-15

Documents