CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
SR 2017-051
April 4, 2017
Public Hearing

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members

SUBMITTED BY: Catherine Tarone, Assistant Planner

APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator

SUBJECT: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commissions decision to approve a

Design Study (DS 16-239) application for the construction of a 165-square-foot
bedroom addition to south (rear) of the residence and the enlargement of an existing
deck on a property located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District on the
east side of San Carlos between First and Second Avenue. The applicants are Tom
and Irene McLaughlin. The appellant is Hongxia Liu.

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and approve Design Study (DS 16-239) for the construction of a new 165-square-foot addition
and 160-square-foot deck reconfiguration subject to the attached Findings and Conditions.

BACKGROUND / SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On February 8, 2017, the Planning Commission approved a Design Study (DS 16-239) application for a 165-
square foot addition to the rear of an existing residence. The southern neighbor has appealed this decision,
primarily based on issues related to privacy and building mass. Staff recommends that the City Council uphold
the Planning Commissions decision and deny the appeal.

BACKGROUND:

The project site is a 4,000-square-foot lot located on the east side of San Carlos between First and Second
Avenue. The site is developed with a 1,585-square foot single-story residence consisting of a 1,353-square-foot
main residence and a 232-square-foot attached garage. There is 1,052 square feet of existing site coverage on
site including a 242-square-foot rear deck with a floor level that is 4'-9" above the grade.

On December 14, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicants proposal for a 165-square foot
addition at the rear of the existing residence. At this meeting, the southern neighbor (appellant), voiced concerns
about potential impacts that the addition would have on her property. The Commission continued the application
and directed the architect to meet with the neighboring property owner to the south to resolve the issues. Staff
notes that original plans included an oriel window at the rear of the addition and the expansion of the rear deck
that would have decreased its setback from the south property line from 9 feet to 3 feet.

On February 8, 2017, the Planning Commission approved the project. In order to address the neighbors
concerns, the applicant eliminated the oriel window on the rear elevation, reduced the size of the deck and
its setback from the southern property from 3 feet to 6 feet. Staff notes that the applicant had proposed a window
with a sill height of 4-8 above the floor to address privacy, however, the Planning Commission authorized the
sill height of the window to be lowered to 3 feet above the floor level so that it would match the dimensions of
the existing three-light window on the south elevation of the residence at the dining room. Staff notes that the
Planning Commission visited the appellant's property during the tour of inspection.

The appellant is still concerned about the potential privacy and view impacts to her guest bedroom and rear
patio. She has filed an appeal of the Planning Commissions approval and has submitted a letter to the City
Council included as Attachment 1.

PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE:

Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed

Floor Area 1,800 sf (45%) 1,585 sf (40%) 1,750 sf (44%)

Site Coverage 396 sf / 556 sf 1,052 sf 553 sf
Trees 3 Upper /1 Lower 2/2 1/2
(recommended)
Ridge Height (1st) 18 14 4 14 4
Plate Height (1st) 12 12' 12
Setbacks Minimum Existing Proposed
Required
Front 15 15 11 15 11
Composite Side Yard 126 (25%) 126 126
Minimum Side Yard 3 West Side: Min. 6 - West Side: Min. 6- 4
4 East Side: Min. 3- 4
East Side: Min. 3-
4
Rear 15 (3 if bldg. <15) 9 4 4 6 if a flush window is
installed on new addition
3' if an oriel window is
installed on new addition

STAFF ANALYSIS:

Building Mass: In a letter submitted to staff on March 20, 2017, the appellant has expressed concern that the
addition appears to loom over her rear yard and that the activity on the deck will be visible over the fence due to
the slope of the grade between the properties. Staff notes that the proposed addition meets the Municipal Code
requirements for height, floor area, setback and volume. The finished floor height is approximately 4'-9" above
the grade, which is necessary to match the floor level of the main residence. In order to lower the height of
bedroom addition, the floor level could be stepped down, but in staffs opinion it would be impractical to require
that the floor level be below the main level, which would require stairs.

Privacy Impacts: The appellant has expressed concern that the expanded deck and south-facing window on the
new addition will impact the privacy of her guest bedroom and rear patio (see Attachment 2 for photographs
taken from the neighboring property owners guest bedroom window). Figure C on sheet CC-2 of the plans
depicts the addition as approved by the Planning Commission. Because this is a de novo hearing, the architect
is requesting approval of the original proposed oriel window on the south elevation. The architect has provided
an elevation on sheet 4 of the plans depicting a persons line of sight from the window of the addition toward the
rear yard of the neighboring property.
In staff's opinion, an oriel window has greater potential for privacy impact because it would be located 1.5' closer
to the property line and would provide a better line of sight into the neighbors rear yard. For this reason, staff
supports the design approved by the Planning Commission. Furthermore, if the City Council determines that the
approved window still impacts the neighbor, it could require that the sill height be raised from 3 feet back to 48
from the floor, as originally proposed by the applicant to address the privacy issue.

The appellant has requested that the applicant plant vegetation to create additional privacy. Staff notes that
there is very little room on the McLaughlin residence for vegetation to be planted while there is much greater
space on the appellant's property. The appellant could work with the applicant and plant additional vegetation
on her property to further mitigate perceived privacy impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Categorical Exemption: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, pursuant to
Section 15301 (Class 1) Existing Facilities. The project includes the construction of a 165-square foot bedroom
addition to an existing residence, and therefore qualifies for a Class 1 exemption. The proposed alterations to
the site do not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental
impact.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Approve the request with revisions. If the required revisions are substantial, the City Council may
wish to continue this item to allow the applicant to respond to Council direction.
2. Remand the application to the Planning Commission with specific direction.
3. Grant the appeal and deny the Design Study application. Direct staff to prepare findings for
denial based on deliberation at the April 4, 2017 public hearing

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the neighbors appeal and approve the Design Study (DS 16-239)
application subject to the attached Findings and Conditions.

FISCAL IMPACT

N/A
FISCAL IMP
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION

N/A

ATTACHMENTS

1. Appeal Application/Letter from the appellant, Hongxia Liu

2. Site Photographs
3. Findings for Approval
4. Conditions of Approval
5. Letter from the project's architect, Brian Congleton
6. Letter from neighboring property owner at the SE corner of 1st and San Carlos
7. Project Plans
 RECEl'VEil
'.
FEB 0 8 2017
City of Carmel by-theSea
4

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Planning & Building Dept.

APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION

(FILING FEE: $593 .00*)

Appellant: _ _ _/-_; _l_t{_ _.~_!!t_C_J!l_V~-~_X_//1-__ __

Property Owner: -----vk'---'---'/.c_....;_U_L----r)-F---+!_-/:--I?J_,;../I~J-=-~f.r-~K-"-'/-L-tf-:1----_ __
Mailing Address: rl/1 J1/tJtJ;)//lt'7LI(~ #:J/J )J47?:- -::{-//
8:i-TJi->.??.4~ ;?1 .?J
d-6,;?/s-
Phones: Day:( 5'o J r;/ t/ IJ<..* Evening: ( 3 v.( ,fb ( I? ff~

Fax:( ) Email: ?zuAx!U?tZ?~~t.':.,-z; .,c~n

~~ / 0 ~
Date Board heard the matter: ;/..~.l:J , tL / c)-o I?:
Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office ofthe City Clerk within
10 wmking days following the date of action by the Planning Commission and paying
the requiredfilingfee as established by City Council resolution.

Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal:

1Jf=dv. (;)_ .5~ aj ~f-U~ Cz~rS

Lot(s): 1 J{ o:J 'Y)_ fi. fBlock: ----+--'//'---- APN: u /cJ ..~ !ell-- 6'd SL
COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED:----------~

If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicant's representative, please state the
evidence that you are an aggrieved party:
--------------------------

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as etrors or
omissions you believe were committed by the Cozmnission in reaching its decision, etc.)

/!2~3 ___ t--r /t1JJ .e . .f-1' ....I

.......77 !
/'f ~. a.--i-e-c-f?' C!J? 0 l b ---e-/c.tL-t?l"'-
I l' . ~ .-. / \.../ I l
/2 ./lt;(. 071 CJ Q /'/''It ~s, r <."i-;.1 /A.,tt:_)";c,.-:4 L t.U---lr ._e;..--pe.x.___
. /

--.....,#'-1
~_,".'.~,.._
7
., . __.,C"""'.:; .,4{. ~z?;+.,J.til<-r'J-+-~5..-;;..<'_,_-s-'c-".,(Y=--x-'--'-z_ _.Jf!:;_v.::._-~--""""<:.-d~_...c./~nL-...!-t..L.;s-l-/-P...J..--.!c.:C.:...fl~--J.r--.!'n'-L-_.:.._;1...__;e,_. _.a:=d'~'3--
; ..f:-s d..e .t.A' S/ 'rn .. ,f?/..e tt/> I~A'' fi-e... ad-1&~.--f_e_p~(.__

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE

AND CORRECT:

DATED AT: /(.) j?/n , THIS

I

Receipt#:

ATIEST:

{kq ~u/u'
City Clerk

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

impose fees. Also see Califonria government Code, Section 54344.

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

inclusion in the City of Cannel-by-the-Sea's Council agenda packet, the materials must
be submitted to the City Clerk by working days after the decision of the
Commission. TI1is matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on
Attachment I - Hongxia liu - 0516-239

GROUNDS for APPEAL

This appeal is based on one error and one omission, which I believe, misled
the Commission in deliberating and reaching its decision. On Feb. 13, I have
requested (by email) clarifications from the associated architect who spoke
on Feb. 8 during the public hearing (copy of my email attached), but to date
I have not received a due response. I do hope that truth speaks for itself.

1) ERROR: Nowhere within the rear yard of my house (1600 sq. feet in a
yard of 6000 sq. feet), which is adjacent to the Mclaughlin's, has any
ocean view. The architect's statement during the Feb. 8 public
hearing that (I have) "a huge house, huge yard, and huge ocean view
that (I am) not wanting to share and letting (his) client to enjoy the
same" is both false and misleading. To the contrary, it is the
Mclaughlin's house has existing ocean view from at least their living
room window facing the south and over my rear yard. The core truth
is that the proposed addition of a master bedroom and expansion of
the deck by the Mclaughlin, both well above the current six-feet-high
fence, will enlarge their existing ocean view BUT inevitably at the
cost of privacy for me as their immediate neighbor as seen from NOT
ONLY my rear yard BUT ALSO my guest bedroom.

2) OMISSION: Nobody during the Feb. 8 public hearing, the architect,

the staff, nor the Commissioners, examined about how the
Mclaughlin's proposed addition- especially the amended three-
panel window- will force upon the privacy of my guest bedroom.
Please note the combined effect of three factors concerning the new
master bedroom addition: its elevated level well above the height of
the current fence; its proximity to the fence; and its location on the
east end of the Mclaughlin house. While it is true that the dining
room of the Mclaughlin's house has a three-panel window
overlooking my rear yard, that window however does not peek into
my guest bedroom which has no north-facing window but one and
one-only east-facing. The new addition, as proposed and approved,
will encroach diagonally and directly into my guest bedroom.
Attachment II- Hongxia Liu- 0516-239

On Monday, February 13, 2017 1:19 PM, Hongxia Liu

<liuhx1668@yahoo.com> wrote:

To: Brian Congelton

Copy: Catherine Tarone

Hello Brian:

I would like to follow up with three questions after watching your

presentation on Feb. 8 in front of the City Planning Commission as recorded
by the city in video:

1) You stated about the neighbor with "a huge house, huge lot, and huge
ocean view", not wanting to share and letting your client to enjoy the same.
Were you really talking about me? While there is solid data out there for
the size of my house (1600 Sq feet) and lot (6000 Sq feet), can you send me
the fact that prompted your assertion of the "huge ocean view" from my
rear yard? For all these years, I have walked, read and painted in my rear
yard, adjacent to your client's, and never saw and experienced any ocean
view.

2) You discussed about the window of the new addition in relation to

privacy of my rear yard. Do you recall my concern was actually two-fold:
not only for the rear yard, but also for my guest bedroom? It is true that
your client's house currently has a three-light window overlooking my rear
yard, but it is located in the west side and does not encroach and peek
directly into my guest bedroom as the new addition in the east side will
certainly- with both its proximity to the fence and its elevated height. This
is a key fact that needs to be presented. Can you send me your expertise
projection of viewpoint with a three-light window at 36" window sill as
relating to my guest bedroom?
Attachment II- Hongxia Liu- 0516-239

3) You mentioned that I appeared "all the sudden" in the December public
hearing after "all the noticing" .... Please know that the only notice I received
is the one on my house door when I returned home on December 12. I
wished too that your client, you and I had the chance to consult beforehand
before the public hearing. Can you send me any records of you and/or your
client tried to outreach me prior to that? I would appreciate to have them.

As a neighbor, I would always want to be considerate- Do not do others

what you do not want done to yourself. I do recall that the late Mclaughlins
loved the ocean-view from their living room window which sits on a five-
feet higher ground than my rear yard. For this very reason, when I planted
our lemon tree four years ago, I purposefully chose a location that was far
away from their window to safe-keep their ocean-view. I also recall that
when you suggested hedging plants as a solution when meeting with me in
the presence of Catherine after the December hearing, I was quick to warn
you about this might block the views of your client, but you wanted to run
this by the client anyway.

Regardless, I hope you understand that in this case, I am not the one
building and expanding .... I am merely reacting by protecting my own space
and privacy which are being intruded sadly. I look forward to hearing from
you, and your answers will help me to present to the Planning Commission
when the next opportunity arises with necessary facts and due fairness.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Hongxia
To: The Honorable City Council, Carmel-By-The-Sea
Through: Catherine Tarone, Assistant Planner
From: Hongxia Liu
Ref: DS 16-239, McLaughlin Residence Proposal
Date: March 23, 2017

Dear members of the City Council:

For your kind review, please find below a number of questions I have in mind upon
careful study of the Carmel Residential Design Guidelines as compared with the
McLaughlins addition proposal (DS 16-239). As an immediate neighbor, I find this
proposal in key areas grossly contrary to the principles provided by the Guidelines.

As youll see by site visit, both the new addition (master bedroom) and the expanded
deck will be above the current fence, which is approximately six-feet in height. Together
with the proposed proximity to the fence, they pose a number of grave concerns relating
to privacy, space, view, as well as mass. The McLaughlins obvious desire for more
space and more view opportunities ought to be balanced reasonably and fairly with
consideration of respecting privacy, view, space for others.

1). The Guidelines Section 5.1 provided privacy-related suggestions:

- Locating window and balcony such that they avoid overlooking active indoor &
outdoor use areas of adjacent properties.
Question: Why the proposal would do the exact opposite? Summarized simply and
shown by the enclosed photos: The new bedroom will encroach like a dominating
observation tower to my guest bedroom and my patio (where I often work as an artist),
and the expanded deck will expose like a close-up entertainment stage.

- Preserving significant trees that will help to screen views into adjacent
properties.
Question: Why the proposal would not include and offer any green plans at all?

2). The Guidelines Section 7.4 provided mass-reduction suggestion:

- On slopping lots, if floor levels cannot be stepped, larger under-floor spaces
should be counted and used as part of the allowed floor area. Please note at no
point such under-floor spaces should be above 5-feet (Section 3.3).
Question: How can this suggestion be observed and applied to the Total Floor Area
calculation in this proposal which boasts an elevation level of 49, a plate height of
nearly 12, and a ridge height of nearly 15? Should all these measurements be verified
on-site by an independent third party as they are so close to the city maximum limits?

I sincerely thank you for your kind attention and careful consideration.
Attachment 2 Site Photographs

Front (north) Elevation

Rear (south elevation of the residence and addition staking and flagging
Photograph submitted by the neighbor to the south taken from the inside of the residents
guestroom
Attachment 3 Findings for Approval

APP 17-100 (McLaughlin)

April 4, 2017
Findings for Approval
Page 1

FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR FINAL DESIGN STUDY APPROVAL (CMC 17.64.080 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 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 TBD
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 TBD
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.
APP 17-100 (McLaughlin)
April 4, 2017
Findings for Approval
Page 2

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 add 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.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS (CMC 17.64.010.B.1):

1. Local Coastal Program Consistency: The project conforms with the certified Local
Coastal Program of the City of Carmel-by-the Sea.
2. Public access policy consistency: The project is not located between the first
public road and the sea, and therefore, no review is required for potential public
access.
Attachment 4 Conditions of Approval

APP 17-100 (McLaughlin)

April 4, 2017
Conditions of Approval
Page 1

Conditions of Approval
No. Standard Conditions
1. Authorization: This approval of Design Study (DS 16-239) authorizes the
following components: (1) A 165-square-foot bedroom addition at the south
(rear) of the residence, (2) the enlargement of the existing deck, (3) new wood
windows throughout, (4) a reconfigured entryway with a new door and sidelight
windows, (5) additional brick wainscoting to match existing.
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,
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
APP 17-100 (McLaughlin)
April 4, 2017
Conditions of Approval
Page 2

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 4,000-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 and shall be no closer than 10 feet from each other.

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 NA
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.

12. The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that have
been approved with divided lights shall be constructed with fixed wooden
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,
APP 17-100 (McLaughlin)
April 4, 2017
Conditions of Approval
Page 3

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. NA

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.
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
Planning Commission.
19b. 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
APP 17-100 (McLaughlin)
April 4, 2017
Conditions of Approval
Page 4

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 NA
(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
22. Prior to the Final Planning Inspection, the applicant shall plant 2 new 5-gallon
upper-canopy trees from the approved tree list in fulfillment of the conditions of
tree removal permit #2989 for the removal of the 32 Pine Tree. As per the
conditions of this tree removal permit, the applicant shall plant one tree in the
front yard and one tree in the backyard.
23. Per CMC 17.20.040.A., prior to obtaining construction permits, the applicant
shall submit to the Community Planning and Building Department an
Archaeological Resource Management Report.
24. The maximum ridge height of the addition shall be less than 15 feet in height to
qualify for the 3-foot rear yard setback.

*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.

______________________________ ___________________________ __________

Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date

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

MAR 2 1 2017
March 20, 2017 City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Planning & Building Dept.

Mayor Dallas and Members of Council

City Council of Carmel~by-the-Sea
City Hall
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California 93921

RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval

DS 16-239/Mclaughlin

Dear Mayor Dallas and Members of Council:

I am the architect representing Tom and Irene Mclaughlin, owners of a residence on First Avenue, 2SE
San Carlos Street in Carmel. On February 8, 2017, the Planning Commission heard and approved (with
conditions) our application for a bedroom addition to the home. An appeal of that approval has now
been filed by the neighbor to the south, Ms. Hongxia Liu.

In addition to the documents provided for the Council Hearing, I am submitting with this letter two
sheets of drawings laying out the progression of the project from its initial submittal, through
modifications responding to the neighbor's concerns, to the approved design. The last drawing shows
what we are requesting out of this appeal.

As approved by the Planning Commission, the project design includes the bedroom addition with a three-section
window. We modified the initial design to (a) eliminate an oriel window and (b) reduce the size of the deck. The
first item (elimination of the oriel window) responded to Ms. Liu's concerns about privacy in her rear yard. The
second item (reduction in size of the deck) was proposed by the Mclaughlins because they realize that the larger
deck really would pose a privacy intrusion over Ms. Liu's yard. Apparently, these modifications do not meet Ms.
Liu's expectations, do not go far enough to protect her privacy in her yard and home.

Having offered concessions that compromise (rather than improve) the addition design, and now recognizing
that those concessions are not acceptable to Ms. Liu, the Mclaughlins wish to return to the bedroom design
originally proposed, and request approval of the project including the south-facing oriel window. We feel that
the oriel design is modest, and that it does not overly intrude on anyone's privacy.

Given that the larger deck would have the potential of intrusion, the Mclaughlins think it is only right to remain
with the reduced-size deck shown in the drawings.

Congleton Architect AlA

Post Office Box 41160ffice at Eighth & San CarlosCarmel, California 93921
8316261928 fax 8316261929
Obviously, the purpose of an appeal is to allow a neighbor with a concern to have that concern reviewed by a
higher authority. The goal of the process is to identify the best design that responds to the City's standards and
guidelines. We believe that, with the reduction in the size of the deck from that which was originally proposed,
the design of the bedroom addition with oriel window, meets that goal. The Mclaughlins therefore request
approval of drawing 'D' on Page Two of the attached drawings.

We look forward to addressing any issues about this project at your City Council Hearing on April 4th.

Sincerely,

Encl. 'Progression of Application' Sheets 1 & 2

MAR 2 I ?Ll; I
City ofCar:t!.. -
Plannm.;.: ~{~
 RECEIVED

March 16, 2017 MAR 2 1 2017

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Ms. Catherine Tarone Planning & Ddlding Der.t.
City of Carmel
Planning Department
P. 0. Box CC
Carmel, CA 93921

RE: Mclaughlin Project -1st Street, 2 NE 1st

Dear Mrs. Tarone,

As a long time neighbor of the Mclaughlin family, I would like to express my support for the
family to be able to have a full size window at the back of their home.

In my opinion asking them to have a small upper window is not a reasonable request and will
affect the appearance of the back of their home as well as their enjoyment of same.

If we all had to remove windows so that our neighbors could not be seen we would all be living
in boxes with high windows.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

~ ~'
' ~~~~ s:::< - "'
'~
Mary Bell
P. 0. Box 7533
Carmel, CA 93921
831-624-8871
 PROJECT DATA: ,_..._
~-i:~
.....
~-~w~~~~b:e!CE
EXTERIOR MODACAT10N5o NEW WINDOW& AND DOORS.
S?::=
... ,..,._
.......,.,
~~__..
1SiAL DEeCRif'TICJN, SI.OCX U, ~ OF I.OT5 2~ Af'N el0121euI!IH
=ii."i-16.
IIYIID
LOCATIQN, RR5T AVEME 2 liE OF &.AN ~. CAR'IEI. 3-16.-Tl
101116 Rl lOt S!ZE 16._. SF.
CUNERo TllCMA& I !leE ~N
1'!11 WNilCHII'E CClURr
IUAUJT CR!EK, CAL~IA 90!5
Ta~-Bft
LOT SIZE 4~ ~ FEET ZllNt.6 I'll
SE~
~T
IIE&T SIDE
Al.QIIEI2.
1NORTII}. &'-41'
l'IP'
~
&'D'
'Iff !
EA&T &IDE.
~~'
HEIGHT,
12'-ro'
24'-41'
3'~' )'~E~'&YADDITIONJ
~,'j:'
ll'~ fEI IIIII
I
FI.OOR AN:Ao (EI FESIDE!a
(EJ G.<\RA6E
!,) t\F.
232 5.F.
:a
TOTAI. (EJ FLOOI'! AI'EA<
ElEPI'OOM APPITiaj
TOTAL FLOOI'! OWl<
1,5e!; Sf.
16>3 &F.
L14& 5F. ... I
0
... II
AI.I.CIUoED FLOOI'! AI<EA (4_. 5I' xA&l \Nif/ &J'.
CD
~ VClLLI'1E 'ADDITICIII eM.l' OPTIQI
I'Xf 1&41lF x 21tfl 23'J CF llfll4l
FLOOI'!TD-cEILIN:i Ill,. 5F X 1J) ~ Cl'
~
...0 I'
CiRADE-TO..fi..OOR 112 5F 4."$ 811 CF
TOTAL VOUI'IE l"'iiO"'eetl ~
VOUI'IE AI.I.CIUoEI>. IIWJ-&&42~ ~

IIIII !
~ITE CO'.'ERI6Eo !iEDICIIQI ~
EX~TNi
DFII\IEIUAl ~ PAvE!<&l ~ 5.F. 22115.F. ~ I

\
L.ANDNi RiaiT DOOR.
EN!RliiiALK (l"!iit""EAee.I"A~
*
L.ANDNCi &TAI!il &IDE OF CiARAtC
42 SF.
25 SF.
DECK (SI"AC:ED DECI:Ni f'ER'EAel.El 242 SF.
61 SF.
42 SF.

...
0
I
;, I
I L.ANDNCi EA&T 5!DE OOR'r 2111 &f. CD
L ________ -f_J \ I"AP I'!AR 'fAR), ~Sf.
TOTAL. I,IIS2 &F. 553 &F. :
~Sf.
~~.6111SF. NSF. ~
I TOTAL. AI.J..OIIED, J!l!l6 SF.J 0
I 0
\
\
\
\ I
\ I
\ I
/
I II 1~
IUDENCE
/
/
//
__.,-""

HOUSE CON600CTIQI f'rPE, VEl (EXI&TNCi/ NOT ~

Af'I"Lic:.Ael.E c;wes,

i<l-t--Pt- 3. 4'
~ CALFOI'NIA I!UILPIN:i CODE 2fiU c=c.flli!E
wa c=c-I"LJteeiC.
wa c=c-I"ECCWtiCAL
211B cec-EJ.EClliiCAL
2f)B CA RESIDNTIAL CODE
2f)B GoleN I!IJILDNCi CODE
'
lli?EX TO !?RA!!Hil!
1 PI<O.ECTDATA.~PL.AN
2 EXI&TM:iitli:MOLITICIII PI..AN6 AND ELEVATlctol&
3 CON600CTICIII FLOOI'! PlAN
I I'
I! I
4 I!IJILDNi IUVATICIII&,I!IJILDIN:i 5ECIIG'tol& II II
~ .
iI
HU ......

DESIGN APPROVED BY CO..SSION

3-18-11
1
~
CD
I
 ="f-f-~r.
........
~ ~n-n
I 13'-3' xl3'-f?

I
I
IL _______ JI
li2B'10YE DOOR I &IDELIGHT5
lii:TAN 6TAINED Cll.A56IIINDOIII
~ !<ElliE IN lEW DOOR

~
.... I
I.
; I
NORT!-1 (STREET) ELEVATION CD I
V4' l~-11' :: I
I
i,.. Ia
/

~)
~ ..
I!
TIC 0

I
I~---- ~ c t::J
~~~1\lNOTS&

Ill
1=1 I
...
0
CD
ii
I
I
Ill 1=1
I DIDI IDIDI J Ill 0
c
~
IIIIII
------- -
IIII
- - -- - - - - - -
-------nr - -
==]
!<EI10VE DOOR
i~ OFI.TO
J'
f= I li2B'10YE FORII~ CJ' II
I -- (E) DECX ~ ADDITI(;Ioj II
;:::::---.::::::::::::::~ Ill
~ J
~===..!
EAST ELEVATION
V4' 1'~

EXI~~-~~G/DEMOLITION PLAN f-
a
I
GENERAL NOTES - DEMOLITION WORK
TI-ll& PlAN 15 A GUIDE TO I<S'f~Al CIF EXI5TII6 ll1PROVEI'ENT6 N c;a.ua.cTictl UITJ.l ADDITION& I
I
w

iS ;
I

AllEAATictl& CIF 1lE EXISTII61<ES!Da:E. MI<E EXIS111>6 c;ct~piTICNS AI<!: IN c;ofi.lc;T UITJ.l ~Tictl
lfiOICAlED fl51N,. NOTIFY CliJiaii Af\0 ~llEc;T I'Oii! I<EVIEIIJ AND 1NRJT F!i!IO!it TO F!i!OCEEDII6. It! I
I<S'f~Al CIF ll1PROVEI'ENT&o
!<E1'tM: CA61NE!Rr AND MIU.ILIOI<K. WALL AND F~ FNIS!a M. NOTED.
I !
i~
!<E1'tM: ANY Fl..ll16116 El..EMENTS NOT TO 6E A PART CIF TilE NEW ~ AND CIJI> 5EJ..OW FLOO!it 01it
IN Ul6oLL
!<E1'tM: ANY El..ECTRICAL ELEMENT& NOT TO eE A PART CIF 1lE NEW~ e.4CX TO PPI>.'EL Olit JINCTictl BOX.
I<S'fCM: EXTAA Olit 'WU..O' WI~.I<EVIEIIJ ALL CI~IT6 AND CL05E OPEN J-OOXES.
!<E1'tM: ~-ST'f<IJC'TUAAL PAI<TITictl& 01it PO!itllctl& lli:I<ECIF M. INDICAlED 6'1' DASI0 LINE ON
Pl. AN.
PI<E&R\I AND PROTECT EL.a'IENTS 1'101' TO eE I<EMOYED, Olit ITEMS ST M.IDE FOR I<ELOCATICN AND
I<EIJ5E.
~ NEW ~ADJOINS EXISTINCS, F'IVIIDE ATT.4CinNT CIF TIE El..EMENTS I'Oii! TICiHT RT, 5CIJI<E
Cct~ST'f<IJCTI~ F!i!OF'ER ALICIH1ENT
AND F!i!OF'ER VleuAI. ~ WITHOUT PATCilE&. CIW(I,E6 IN
""" .....
SOUT!-1 ELEVATION PAINT 01it WAU.c:o\1:~ 01it euTT JOIN'Ilt-.G CIF T11m ELEte/10. IF NECE6&ARY FOR INTEGRATION CIF
V4' l'-41'
ELEI"ENT&.I<S'fCM: SUFfACE CIF EXI5TNS ELEI"ENT Af\0 INSTALL NEW.
NOTE: F!i!OVIDE ~ 5llOiitlloti I ~ M. I<EGIJI!<ED TO PROTECT EXISTII6 EL.a'ENT6
DIIRING REI'10VAL I Cct~ST'f<IJCTI~ ~ I eRAC:IGN DE&IGN IS NOT A PART CIF TilES DOC:l.I'1BIT5.
2
 ,------
1
I
I
:;,: I
18'-e'
I
,.0 IL ___ _
~0
"'Z
(J)
--;

c.
0--;
0
z
.. 1 ~~~rc=J

~~
~~
3
14'-e' !i! I'.!'D' lfl'l' B'!!'

r-:-:-71 McLAU~ RESIJENCE Congleton Arohiteot AlA

~~~~A--~1~--~~a~---~~-~-----------------~~-~-~-~-~--~-~-~~~-~-~~-------~-
 ,------
1
I
I
:;,: I
18'-e'
I
,.0 IL ___ _
~0
"'Z
(J)
--;

c.
0--;
0
z
.. 1 ~~~rc=J

~~
~~
3
14'-e' !i! I'.!'D' lfl'l' B'!!'

r-:-:-71 McLAU~ RESIJENCE Congleton Arohiteot AlA

~~~~A--~1~--~~a~---~~-~-----------------~~-~-~-~-~--~-~-~~~-~-~~-------~-
 II
II
II
~
~ II
II
411
I
II if

,,,, ~ I
-r 3
~-J1--1'1'DECK HO::>VEDeACK~
3'~~N.AL Pr--r-v~~ ',..r:Jt __//
~- ..---iY.:t;'_____ I II'C3' I
~ II
.2Jf
~I! I i!
\ ~J!
i0
I
~
It I
!
...I I
~AW I
~IDKE

I
RECEJ ED

MAR 2 1 017
City of Cannel-i - ,_
Planning & Build gt~=;~ea

II
l ~ ADDITictl l I 6EJ2R0Ct1 APPmctJ 1
A OfSIY,!NAL SUBMITTAL 12/1'2
B fSEy!SED SUBMlTTAL 2/11

I!
PROGRESSION OF APPLICATION
SHEET ONE
 p1Mi82Q1 l~\l~ \
-c:;=J
I - I lk~
'. I
i
;
t)
,\ ~ \ !

II ! !! I 6 o: II

I .
fi.~
I
i[j [] tMSI& ..,.., D
Q

::t
II
II
II
II
IJ
I
:J411 I'
1 r~ I I I. ' II
I
. ~ i : ! . ;: ~ < " l;,.

,,II
I
:.! 'J

,,,,
'\ -- r--
..,.
,,
'\
.Q
::!. ,___
~ / ~- ,,II 1;
~
-'""
l. ,~
\\
\L
~
i 13'-11 t 1 w-e I
.Q
- ....
J! J I
\L =--- L- l .... I
A~ 11.fn.13PAE. ll.NXlW A
' Cf(IB.WK>OUJ
&ILL 36' Aff. o I
~
51ll 36' Aff.
w
<o. I
1:1 I
.S I
! I

~ I
RECEIVE

MAR 21 2017
City o~ Carmel-by-th
Pla..'Ullng & Buildt.ng D ea
CRIEL IJJINOOUJ . .. c
SILL 36' Aff.

c AFFfiSOvED
1BEOROCt1 AOPITION 1
BX pLANNING COMMISSION 2/11 D DES!GFN LUE BEQUEST FOFS AFFfiSOVAL
l eEPROCt1 ADOmON l
II
II
--
PROGRESSION OF APPUCATION
SHEET TWO
c
2