special meeting agenda packet 06-29-15
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
1/57
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JASON BURNETT, MAYOR
VICTORIA BEACH
KEN TALMAGE
CARRIE THEIS
STEVE DALLAS
SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, June 29, 2015
4:30 P.M.
Council Chambers, City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street
Between Ocean and Seventh
Avenues1. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
Mayor: Burnett
Mayor Pro Tem: Talmage
Council Members: Dallas, Beach, Theis
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Burnett will announce the Closed Session and ask for Public Comments on
matters described in the following Closed Session Meeting Notice (Government Code Section
54957.6(a); 54957.7(a)).
3.A CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government
Code Section 54956.9: 4 cases
3.B CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)
Name of Case: Rosalina Chavez, Plaintiff v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and does 1
through 20, inclusive, respondents Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M128244
3.C CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of Case: Hildalgo, Plantiff v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, No.DFEH196038-82594/EEOC#37A-2014-02277-C
At approximately 5:30 p.m., the City Council will adjourn from Closed Session
and resume in Open Session.
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
2/57
General Information: The City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea meets in RegularSession on the First Tuesday of each month at 4:30 p.m.,unless otherwise noticed. The City Council may also meeton the First Monday of each month in a Special Meetingand/or a Workstudy Session at 4:30 p.m., unless otherwise
noticed.Council Agendas: City Council agenda packets are available for public reviewon the City website at www.ci.carmel.ca.us and in the Clerk’sOffice on the Friday prior to the scheduled meeting. Anywritings or documents provided to a majority of the CityCouncil regarding any item on the agenda will be madeavailable for public inspection. Interested members of thepublic may subscribe to the Council Agenda by submitting arequest to the City Clerk.
Public Participation: Meetings are open to the public and the City Councilwelcomes your participation. Any member of the public may
comment on any item on the agenda. Testimony is limited tothree (3) minutes per speaker, or as otherwise establishedby the City Council.
Broadcastings: Meetings are streamed live on-line and archived for easyaccess anytime day or night. Visit the City’s website atwww.ci.carmel.ca.us to view the meetings or watch atelevision rebroadcast on the first Sunday after the CityCouncil meeting at 8:00 a.m. on MCAET Channel 26.
ADA Notice: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if youneed special assistance to participate in this meeting, pleasecontact the City Clerk’s Office at 831-620-2007 at least 48hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonablearrangements can be made to provide accessibility to themeeting (28CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title
http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
3/57
4. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on theCity Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referredto staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or
as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to givetheir names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that theCity Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into themicrophone as the meeting is recorded.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of theCity Council unless otherwise requested by an individual Council Member or thepublic for special consideration. Otherwise the recommendation of staff will beaccepted and acted upon by majority voice vote.
5. A
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Study (DS 14-107) and the associated Coastal Development Permit for theconstruction of a new single-family residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1), Park Overlay (P), and Beach and RiparianOverlay (BR) Zoning Districts. Appellants: Heather Ryan and DavidDube (HBE Holdings, Inc).Recommendation:
1. Acknowledge the agreement between the Hoffmans and theappellants;
2. Approve the Revised Plans; and3. Approve the Revised Findings and Conditions of
Approval.5.B Resolutions Authorizing Amendments to Various Professional Services
Agreements
Recommendation: Adopt resolutions authorizing the City
Administrator to:
1. Execute Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement ASD-
PCS-BRweb-06-13-14 for website support services in an amount not to
exceed $46,000.
2. Execute Amendment No. 4 to Professional Services Agreement ASD-PSA-MAR-003-13/14 for information technology services in an amount not
to exceed $255,000.
3. Execute Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement ADM-
PCS-LEWIS-003-13-14 for public information services in an amount not to
exceed $38,980.
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
4/57
4. Execute a Professional Services Agreement with ProServ Facilities
Service for janitorial services in an amount not to exceed $79,962.
6. ADJOURN
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
5/57
F CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Council Report
June 29, 2015
To:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilDouglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator
From: Rob Mullane, AICP, Planning and Building Director
Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Study (DS 14-107) and the associated Coastal Development Permit for the constructionof a new single-family residence located in the Single-Family Residential(R-1), Park Overlay (P), and Beach and Riparian Overlay (BR) ZoningDistricts. Appellants: Heather Ryan and David Dube (HBE Holdings, Inc).
RECOMMENDATIONS:1. Acknowledge the agreement between the Hoffmans and the appellants;2. Approve the Revised Plans; and3. Approve the Revised Findings and Conditions of Approval.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This appeal was heard by the City Council on June 2, 2015, and
continued to allow the applicant to prepare revised plans for further discussion. The item was
continued to June 15, 2015 and continued a second time to June 29, 2015. The applicant
team and the appellant team have met and have reached an agreement on an acceptable
design.
Findings for Approval and Conditions of Approval are included as Attachments 1 and 2,
respectively. For reference, the staff report from the June 2, 2015 discussion of the appeal is
provided (Attachment 3). Recent correspondence on the appeal and associated Design
Study is included as Attachment 4. The revised project plans are included as Attachment 5.
__________________________________________________________________________
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: In upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Study (DS 14-107),
the Council may direct additional revisions to the design and/or include additional or revisedconditions of approval.
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.
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 1
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
6/57
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 (OS 14-107) was
considered by the Planning Commission on 12/10/14 and 4/8/15, and approved on the latter
date. The City Council considered an appeal of this Design Study approval on 6/2/15, and
continued the item for further discussion to 6/15/15, t which time the item was continued to
6/29/15.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment 1 - Findings for Approval
Attachment 2 - Conditions
of
Approval
Attachment Staff Report from June 2, 2015 City Council
Attachment
4
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement
Attachment 5 - Revised Project Plans
APPROVED:
o u g l
City Administrator
Date:
2 / /u
s-
/
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015
Agenda Item:
S A
Page 2
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
7/57
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 City Council considered the appeal and the project at a duly-noticed public hearing
on June 2, 2015, at which meeting the Council considered the staff report, attachments,
and all public testimony. The Council considered the appeal to June 15, 2015, and at the
June 15, 2015 meeting continued the item to June 29, 2015.
ATTACHMENT - 1
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 3
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
8/57
6. On June 25, 2015, the applicant team provided revised plans for the Design Study for
the City’s consideration.
7. Also on June 25, 2015, the appellant team indicated that they were in support of the
revised plans.
8. The City Council reviewed the project’s potential environmental impacts and
determined that the 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 Council
determined that the proposed new residence does not present any unusual
circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact.
9. The City Council, on June 29, 2015, accepted the agreement between the parties,
accepted the revised plans, and approved the project subject to the project’s findings
and conditions of approval.
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 zoning
ordinance.
✔
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 ✔
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 4
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
9/57
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. 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 toresidential 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.
✔
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 materialsand the overall design will as to the variety and diversity along the streetscape.
✔
10. Design elements such as stonework, skylights, windows, doors, chimneys and
garages are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines and will complement the
character of the structure and the neighborhood.
✔
11. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefully
designed to complement the urbanized forest, the approved site design, adjacent
sites, and the public right of way. The design will reinforce a sense of visual
continuity along the street.
✔
12. Any deviations from the Design Guidelines are considered minor and reasonablyrelate 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. ✔
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 5
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
10/57
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 of
the 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
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. ✔
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 6
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
11/57
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 4-ply build up tar and gravel roof with a ½-inch
Cal-Gold aggregate. The residence shall be consistent with the plan set datedJune 24, 2015 and stamped “Received” June 25, 2015 (the June 29, 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 theproposed 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; and 2) landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a
drip/sprinkler system set on a timer
✔
5. Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the City Forester orForest 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
✔
ATTACHMENT - 2
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 7
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
12/57
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 beevenly 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 Buildingstaff 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. There shall be no skylights in this project. ✔
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 havebeen 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.
N/A
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
✔
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 8
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
13/57
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 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 sitethrough 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
Planning Commission.
N/A
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
✔
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 9
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
14/57
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 areunearthed 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, theCity 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. Consistent with the approved (stamped “Received” June 25, 2015) drawings, the
approved construction plan set shall include notes stating the following
maximum height limits for the main residence: (a) the high point of the upper
roof shall not exceed elevation 56’-9.5” at the peak and 56’-7” at the building
edge, including all roof material; (b) the high point of the lower roof shall not
exceed elevation 54’-9” at the peak and 54’-7” at the building edge, including all
roof material; (c) the finished height of the main floor shall not exceed 44’-6”;
(d) the finished height of the lower floor shall not exceed 35’-4”; (e) the glass in
the 5 tall windows along the north side of the house shall not exceed 6’-2”
above the finished floor elevation of 44’-6”. The applicant shall provide the City
with a surveyor’s certificate confirming that the finished height of the main floor
does not exceed elevation 44’-6”.
✔
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 10
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
15/57
26. The construction plan set shall include a window schedule that conforms to the
number of windows, location of windows, and sizes of glazed areas of the
windows shown on the approved (stamped “Received” June 25, 2015) North
Elevation drawing.27. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, the applicant shall donate two
Monterey Cypress trees to the City up to 5 gallons in container size to be
planted along the Scenic Road corridor in a location to be determined by the
City Administrator.
✔
*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.
______________________ __________________ __________
Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date
Once signed, please return to the Community Planning and Building Department.
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 11
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
16/57
ATTACHMENT - 3
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 12
To:
From :
Subject
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Council Report
June
2
2015
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Douglas J Schmitz, City Administrator
Rob Mullane, AICP, Planning and Building Director
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission s approval of
Design Study (DS 14-1 07) and the associated Coastal Development
Permit for the construction of a new single-family residence located in the
Single-Family Residential (R-1 ), Park Overlay (P), and Beach and
Riparian Overlay (BR) Zoning Districts. The application is being appealed
by neighboring property owners: Heather Ryan and David Dube (HBE
Holdings, Inc).
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning 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 appeal
application is included as Attachment 1. Findings for Approval of the project are included as
Attachment 2, and the project s Conditions ofApproval are included as Attachment 3.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:
Project escription
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
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
17/57
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 14
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 o not require the preparation of more detailed environmental
documents.
The appellant asserts that the Hoffman project is not exempt from CEQA due to the proposed
demolition of the 1927 log cabin. On May 20, 2013 , the Historic Resources Board (HRB)
reviewed the historicity of the existing residence and determined that the existing log cabin
does not constitute a significant City historic resource. Historic determinations are valid for a
period of 5 years, and therefore, the 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 should
qualify as historically significant under Criterion 3 (architecture) , as it represents a significant
architectural type (log cabin), period (1927), and method of construction (engineered log
building).
Staff reviewed Mr. 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
ha
ve
a strong relationship to the Historic Context Statement. Additionally, there is no record of
the architect or builder, and the house has undergone numerous alterations
of
the years. The
HRB concurred with this staff analysis and made the determination that the existing log cabin
was not a significant historic resource. Given this determination, which was appealable
to
the
City Council, the Hoffman project does not require further CEQA review under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 Nor does the proposed demolition
of
the cabin result in a
significant historic impact. The 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
of
Scenic Road and approximately 60 feet set back from the top
of
the coastal bluff. It is not on
the seaward side of Scenic Road or in an area prone to bluff retreat. There is no evidence that
the proposed development will require shoreline protective structures, and the grading
associated with the Hoffman project does not present a special circumstance nor create any
unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact.
Regarding grading, the Hoffman project is an infill project located on a lot zoned for single
family residential use. Scenic Road is developed with single-family residences. Given the
Coun
ci
l Meeting Da te: 6/2/15
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 3
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
18/57
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 15
more-restrictive height limits that apply to this area, several of these residences along Scenic
Road include subgrade spaces that involve a moderate level of grading. Standard shoring
requirements, erosion control measures, and truck haul route requirements avoid significant
environmental impacts related to grading.
In the P Overlay District , the only regulation that applies to bluff protection includes the
requirement that a drainage plan be prepared to prevent erosion and excess runoff as
determined by the Building Official. A preliminary drainage plan is included on the Site Plan
(Attachment 11, Sheet A1.1 ), and a standard requirement of Building Permit issuance is a
final drainage plan included with the construction plan set for review and approval by the
Building Official. The design of discharge structures is reviewed to ensure that the design
does not result in the creation of undue erosion.
Finally, CMC Section 17.20.170 Application Content - Additional Requirements is not
applicable to this project. This section states that permit applications for development on
ocean-fronting parcels are required to provide (where applicable) an erosion control plan and
geology report. As stated above, the project site is on the landward side of Scenic Road; it is
not an ocean-front parcel.
2
The Project violates the City Design Guidelines and City Zoning Code
A Roof Elevations and Plate Heights
Regard ing 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 m y be used to a limited extent on smaller, one-story structures. They
should not be used on large buildings or two-story elements.
Plate nd 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 t accommodate
sloping building sites. In
c ses
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
Counci l Meeting Da te: 6/2/15
Ag
enda Item: 9.A
Page 4
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
19/57
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 16
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 proposed
residence is reduced by locating the lower level partially below existing grade; and the
proposed residence is substantially smaller in both mass and height compared to the adjacent
residences.
Preservation of Views, Open Space, nd Solar Access:
View protection requirements within the BR Overlay District stipulate that development be
sited and designed to protect public views of the ocean and scenic coastal areas, be visually
compatible with the character of the surrounding areas, and (where feasible) restore and
enhance the visual quality in visually-degraded areas, while ensuring the private property
owner reasonable development of
land. he 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
nd glass roofs are inappropriate in ll 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 revi se
the roofing material to one that is more consistent with the City s Design Guidelines.
Council Meeting
Da
te: 6/2/15
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 5
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
20/57
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 17
3. Failure to Provide Adequate Safeguards for the Ryan/Dube Property Including
Lack of Volume Calculation Grading/Lack
o
Geology and Geotechnical Reports
and Elevation and Setback Confirmation
A Lack o Volume Calculation:
The appellant asserts that the project fails to provide adequate safeguards regarding volume
requirements, grading, and elevation and setback confirmation.
Response It is standard City procedure to require the volume study
to
be conducted after the
Final Design is approved by the Planning Commission . After the Design Study was approved
on April 8, 2015, staff contracted with City volumetrics consultant , Bill Vasilovich, to calculate
volume and prepare the analysis. The Hoffman project was found
to
meet the City's volume
requirements .
B. Grading/Lack
o
Geology or Geotech Reports
Response The City requires a Grad ing Plan to be submitted with the Plan set for a Design
Study application. The grading plan should note areas o proposed cut and fill yardage
amounts. The Grading Plan identifies less than 15 cubic yards
o
cut and 15 cubic yards
o
fill
on-site in areas outside
o
the footings. In addition, less than 2 cubic yards
o
cut and 2 cubic
yards o fill are identified for off-site grading o the new driveway in the San Antonio ROW.
The applicant has provided information on the grading required for the excavation o the lower
level: 296 cubic yards. For grading that involves export
or
import
o
soil , the City has a
standard requirement for util ization o a City-approved truck haul route.
Technical engineering studies, such as geotechnical reports and shoring plans, are generally
not required
or
Design Review applications. During the review
o
the Building Permit, the
Building Official reviews the plans
or 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 o Survey to verify roof heights and building setbacks.
Response: Staff does not support the addition o such a condition . The applicant may,
however, agree to provide this accommodation to the appellant, and i so, such a condition
could be applied.
4 Discrepancies in the Plans.
The appellant is concerned about possible discrepancies in roof elevations, the design o 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.
Council Meeting Da te: 6/2/ 5
Agenda It
em
: 9.A
Page 6
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
21/57
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 18
A
Roof Elevations
Response
Staff accepted the depiction of the maximum roof height elevations to
be
identified as the top of each roof eave or to eave . Each flat-roof element will be
approximately 2-inches higher at the center of the element to allow for proper storm-water
drainage. The applicant indicated to staff that this 2-inch deviation, which is limited to the
center of each roof element, would not be seen from ground level. Special Condition #25 has
been added to clarify the roof elevations and ensure that the peak roof heights do not exceed
the to eave heights.
B North Facing Windows
Response The appellant stated that the window schedule (See Attachment 11 , Sheet A4.1)
does not reflect the revision in the number and location of windows as shown on the North
Elevation drawings (Attachment 11, Sheet A3.1 ). Staff notes that the applicant does need
to
update the window schedule, which staff will ensure is corrected when the construction
drawings are submitted
for
review by planning staff. Staff did not require the north facing
windows to be a specific distance from the main level finished floor; however the location of
these windows will need to be consistent with the elevation drawings approved by the
Planning Commission. Special Condition #26 has been added to ensure that the construction
plan set is revised to include the correct window schedule.
C Site
overage
F R
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. he 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 Comm ission 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 Commissi
on
's approval. Draft Findings for
Approval and Conditions of Approval are included as Attachments 2 and 3 respectively.
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 7
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
22/57
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 19
Alternative
: 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 14-1 07).
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 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 - 12/1 0/14 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 - Project Plans and Three-Dimensional Rendering
Attachment 2 Recent Correspondence from the Appellant Team
Council Meeting
Da
te: 6/2/15
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 8
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
23/57
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 20
APPROVED
· istrator
Date
s
Council Meeting Date:
6 2 5
Agenda Item: 9 A
Page 9
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
24/57
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 13
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 lev
el
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 nd Staff nalysis
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 height
compared to the adjacent residences to the north and south. With regard to views and solar
access, the proposed building set-back from Scenic Road was determined to be adequate
to
help maintain the ocean views and solar access enjoyed by the adjacent residences.
Prior
to
the Planning 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, sol
ar
access issues, and
privacy impacts. t the ensuing public hearing, the appellant, Ms. Ryan, and her attorney, Ms.
Kemp, provided testimony reitera ting their concerns with the project. The Planning
Commission expressed general support for the proposed building design, but asked the
applicant to work with the neighbors to the north to address their concerns. The applicant met
with the representatives
of
the appellant prior to the April 8, 2015 Final Review hearing in an
attempt to address these concerns.
This project received Final Review approval by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2015. t
that meeting s Tour of Inspection, the Planning Commission aga in reviewed the concerns of
Ms. Ryan regarding the revised design. t 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 attorney
provided additional testimony, including two letters, regarding ongoing concerns with the
project (letters included in Attachment 4). The Planning Commission, however, concluded that
the revised design was satisfactory and approved the project on a 5-0 vote.
Basis for ppeal
The appeal application notes several grounds for appeal. Below is a summary of these
concerns along with staff responses.
Council Meeting Date:
612115
Agenda Item:
9.A
Page 2
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
25/57
ATTACHMENT - 4
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 21
AGREEMENT OF
COMPROMISE
AND SETTLEMENT
This Agreement of Compromise and Settlement is made this
25th
day
of
June, 2015 by
and among Carl Hoffman and Mary Hoffman (collectively, the Hoffmans ), and Heather Ryan,
David Dube and HBE Holdings, Inc. (collectively,
Ryan/Dube ).
1. The Hoffmans have made application to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for
approval of a Design Study (DS 14 1 07) and associated CoasUil Development Permit ( CDP )
for the construction of a new residence (the Project ) and associated improvements on
Monterey County Assessor's Parcel Number 010-292-006 (the
Hoffman Property ).
2 Ryan/Dube own or control the property immediately to the north of the Subject
Property.
3. On April8, 2015, the Carmel Planning Commission approved DS 14-107 and
associated CDP for the Project, subject to conditions.
4.
On
April22,
2015, Ryan/Dube acting through their attorney, Christine Kemp,
filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's conditional approval of DS 14-107 and associated
CDP to the Carmel City Council.
5. On June 2, 2015, the City Council heard the appeal and continued the matter to a
date uncertain.
6. Following the June 2, 2015 hearing, the Boffmans agree to modify and re-submit
the plans for their Project as shown on the drawings for the Hoffman Residence prepared by
Holdren+ Lietzke Architecture dated June 24,2015, a copy of which are attached hereto as
Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein (the June 24, 2015 Revised Plans ).
7.
The Hoffmans also agree to modifications to the conditions for approval of DS
14-107 and the associated CDP as set forth on Exhibit
B
attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein (the
Amended Conditions ).
8. Conditioned, upon the City Council approving the June 24,2015 Revised Plans,
as shown on Exhibit
A ,
and the Amended Conditions as shown on Exhibit B , without
alteration, Ryan and Dube
on
behalf of themselves and HBE Holdings, Inc. agree not to:
A. Make, or cause to be made, any objection to approval of the Project as
depicted on the June 24, 2015 Revised Plans;
B. Make or participate either directly or indirectly in any Coastal
Commission appeal of the City's approval ofDS 14-107 as depicted on the June 24, 2015
Revised Plans; or
C. File or participate, either directly or indirectly in any judicial action which
in any way challenges the approval
of
DS 14-107 or the associated CDP as depicted on the June
1
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
26/57
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 22
24, 2015 Revised Plans.
9. This Agreement applies only to the form
o
the plans designated as the June 24,
2015 Reviewed Plans as shown on Exhibit attached hereto, and the Amended Conditions as
shown on Exhibit B attached hereto.
10. In the event any suit is brought contrary to the provisions o this Agreement, this
Agreement may be pleaded as a defense and/or as a cross-complaint, counterclaim, and cross
claim or third-party complaint.
11. In the event that suit is brought to enforce any o the provisions o this
Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the reasonable value o his or its
attorneys fees, expenses and costs o suit actually incurred.
12
This Agreement shall inure to the benefit o each party hereto and shall be binding
upon each party hereto, their heirs, administrators, representatives, executives, successors and
assigns.
13
Any claim or dispute arising out
o
this Agreement, its interpretation,
construction, avoidance or enforcement shall be governed by the law o California.
14 The undersigned attorneys for the Hoffmans and Ryan/Dube hereby warrant and
represent that their respective clients have reviewed and approved the foregoing and that their
respective clients have authorized their attorneys to execute the foregoing agreement on behalf
o
said clients
2015.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each undersigned has executed this Agreement as June 25,
James
G
Heisinger, Jr., att
Hoffman and Mary Hoffm
Ryan/Dube:
Christ e Kemp, attorney for eather Ryan,
David Dube and HBE Holdings, Inc.
2
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
27/57
ATTACHMENT - 5
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 23
Exhibit A
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
28/57
C o un c i l M
e e t i n gD a t e: 0 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5
(
(
c
l
'
1
t
\
j
.
,
~
_
;
4
~
3
~
N
3
0
1
S
3
t
l
N
J
:
:
O
H
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
29/57
C o un c i l M
e e t i n gD a t e: 0 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5
I
;
i
/
/
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
30/57
C o un c i l M
e e t i n gD a t e: 0 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5
·
"'-.,
\
5 L O C K ' 5
LO T -4
/ · ? :
l la ml
E
~ 1 - f t : M O V ~ I
T.A (E
t ' . ' ~
.AND
SITe
IN
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
31/57
C o un c i l M
e e t i n gD a t e: 0 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
32/57
C o un c i l M
e e t i n gD a t e: 0 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5
:
:
.
I
I
i
:
•
I
~
J
L
9
I
L
I
I
E
B
I
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
33/57
C o un c i l M
e e t i n gD a t e: 0 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5
0
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
34/57
C o un c i l M
e e t i n gD a t e: 0 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5
r·
·
---- · -
---
·-
~ ~
' ·T•i•
~
__ r - - -
M a ~ . - s o \ : f i t ~ ~ ~ - - - - -------.,-
I
41 =ffi
c --------- -----:- - - -
: i t ~ \
~ ~ - ~ _ . . . . - : . . ~ - ~ - - - : -
• l t 0 0 ~ - - f " · ~ -
~
.. ._. . ... __ j ~ -
- - -
- - -
- . . -------
.....
-__._
_ ~ · : · ~ ; = - . . · = = .__...
- - - - -
- -
- ~ -
_0_0J I 0 I
e;, ------ ......-
-
_·_
_j__
fl .t= =1 --- ~ ~ .--
e
Y e5T ELEVATION
f Gold..l : 1/4 • 1'.0"
EAST ELEVATION
~ V4 • T'-
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
35/57
C o un c i l M
e e t i n gD a t e: 0 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5
l
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
l
:
I
I
i
I
I
I
J
I
z
z
,
s
Q
i
·
~
\
I
.
~
i
.
.
~
b
.
~:
:
l
U
~
_
J
:
J
l
U
I
.
.
·
'
I
t
•
.
,
.
,
I
.
2
~
~
f
O
~
-
·
z
§
I
I
I
l
I
j
1
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
1
I
I
I
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
36/57
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
37/57
C o un c i l M
e e t i n gD a t e: 0 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5
z
c:
1
:
'
~
@
~
'
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
-
i
~
M
n~
-
-
-
4
~
~
j
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
38/57
C o un c i l M
e e t i n gD a t e: 0 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5
l
t
1
1
0
l
I
U
~
m
d
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
39/57
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 35
Exhibit B
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
40/57
Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015 Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 36
Special Conditions:
No.1:
Amend last
two
sentences
of
Special Condition No. 1
as
follows:
Finish materials include a combination of plaster, limestone veneer,
and
a single ply Duro Last
f6ef 4 ply build up tar
and
gravel roof with a
Y2
Cal-Gold aggregate. The residence shall
be
consistent with the June 2, 2015 approved plans setdated June 24, 2015.
No.25:
Revise Special Condition no. 25
to
read in its entirety:
25. Consistent with the approved drawings dated June 24, 2015, the approved construction plan
set shall include notes stating the following maximum height limits for the main residence: (a)
the high point
of
the upper roof shall not exceed elevation
56'-9.5
at the peak and
56'-7
at the
building edge, including all roof material;
(b)
the
high
point of the lower roof shall not exceed
elevation 54' -9 at the peak and 54'-7 at the building edge, including
all
roof material;
c)
the
finished height of the main floor shall not exceed
44'-
6 ;
d) the finished height of the lower
floor shall not exceed
35'-4 ;
(e) the glass in the 5 tall windows along the north side of the house
shall not exceed 6'
2
above the fmished floor elevation of
44'- 6 .
The Applicant shall provide
the City with a surveyor's certificate confirming the finished height of the main floor does not
exceed elevation 44 -6 .
No.26:
Revise Special Condition
No.
26
to
read in its entirety
as
follows:
26.
The
construction plan set include a window schedule that conforms to the number of
windows, location
of
windows, and sizes of glazed areas
of
the windows shown on the approved
North Elevation drawing dated June 24, 2015.
No.27:
Add a new Special Condition No.
27 to
read:
Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant shall donate two Monterey Cypress trees
to the
City
up
to 5 gallons in size to be planted along the Scenic Road corridor in a location to be
determined by the City Administrator.
EXBIBIT
L
21426\000\596807.2:62515
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
41/57
F CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Council Report
June 29, 2015
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Douglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator
From: Sharon Friedrichsen
Subject: Resolutions Authorizing Amendments to Various Professional Services
Agreements
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolutions authorizing the City Administrator to:
1. Execute Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement ASD-PCS-BRweb-06-13-
14 for website support services in an amount not to exceed $46,000.
2. Execute Amendment No. 4 to Professional Services Agreement ASD-PSA-MAR-003-13/14
for information technology services in an amount not to exceed $255,000.
3. Execute Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement ADM-PCS-LEWIS-003-13-
14 for public information services in an amount not to exceed $38,980.
4. Execute a Professional Services Agreement with ProServ Facilities Service for janitorial
services in an amount not to exceed $79,962.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City staff are currently reviewing existing contracts and expenditures
and bringing forth contracts for Council authorization on a regular basis. Three professional
services agreements will expire at the end of the current fiscal year and one agreement is for a
new service. It is recommended that Council authorize three amendments to existing
agreements and authorize the execution of one new agreement for fiscal year 2015-16.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:
IT and website support services: The City entered into an agreement with Boots Road Group,
LLC in September 2013 for website support services for an amount not to exceed $24,999.
The agreement was amendment in March 2015 to extend the contract term to June 30, 2015
and the total contract amount to $34,000.The amount spent to date since the beginning of the
contract is $31,240. It is recommended that the agreement be extended up to six months and
the contract amount be increased by $12,000 for a new not to exceed amount of $46,000,
which will allow time for the newly hired IT Manager to assess the level of outside consultingsupport needed as well as determine potential upgrades to the City’s website. Similarly, it is
recommended that the contract with MarTech, which expires on June 30, 2105, be extended
until August 31, 2015 and increased by $15,000. This additional funding will be for any
interim IT support to City staff and for requested technical assistance needed by the IT
Manager. Council approved an amendment to the existing agreement in April 2015 for a not
to exceed amount of $240,000.
Public Information Services: The City entered into an agreement with Lewis Leader in August
2013 for Mr. Leader to serve as the City’s public information officer, including serving as the
Council Meeting Date: June 29, 2015 Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 1
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
42/57
City’s media contact, preparing and disseminating press releases and other literature and
generating news coverage for City events and projects. This agreement was amended in
February 2015 to extend the contract term and compensation. The current agreement is for
an amount not to exceed $24,999 and expires on June 30, 2015. The amount spent to date
(October 2013- May 31, 2015) is $23,839. It is recommended that the agreement be
amended to extend the contract term to June 30, 2016. The amount of the amendment is
$13,980, or $1,165 a month, which reflect a $40 a month increase over the current monthly
retainer to reflect an increase in public information activity related to parking, beach fires, the
municipal election and other community projects and initiatives. The total new contract
amount shall not exceed $38,980, which is cumulative of the costs incurred to date and the
proposed amendment.
Janitorial Services: The City recently terminated its contract for janitorial services as a result
of unsatisfactory service rendered by the company. City staff will be developing a request for
proposal and undertaking a competitive negotiation process in accordance with Carmel
Municipal Code Section 3.12.160 for the cleaning of the public restrooms and City facilities,
with a recommendation forthcoming to Council for approval. In the interim, it is recommended
that Council authorize the City Administrator to enter into agreement with ProServ FacilityService, based in Salinas, for a time period not to exceed six months and for a contract
amount not to exceed $79,962. While the authorization allows for a six month period, staff
anticipates that a new permanent provider would be retained within three months and that the
proposed contract with ProServ would be cancelled prior to the agreement’s expiration.
FISCAL IMPACT: These services have been included in the fiscal year 2015-16 budget.
Consul tant/Vendor FY 15-16Budget
Contract Amendment
Account
Lewis Leader $14,000 $13,980 Admin- Professional Services -64051
Boots Roads $18,600 $12,000 Admin Services- Contractual Services-67053
MarTech $25,000 $15,000 Admin Services-Professional Services-67051
ProServ $138,000 $79,992 Public Works-Facilities Maintenance-Contractual; Services -70053
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION/DECISION HISTORY:
• Boots Road Group Amendment No .1- Resolution 2015-015 on 3 March 2015• MarTech- 1st amendment on 12/3/13; 2nd amendment on 1/5/15 and 3rd amendment on
4/6/15• Leader- N/A as contract previously under $25,000• ProServ- N/A as this is a new contract
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Resolution- ASD-PSA-MAR-003-13/14 Attachment 2 – Resolution- ASD-PCS-BRweb-06-13-14 Attachment 3 – Resolution- ADM-PCS-LEWIS-003-13-14 Attachment 4a- Resolution- ProServ Attachment 4b- Agreement- ProServ
Council Meeting Date: June 29, 2015 Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 2
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
43/57
APPROVED
ate ~ ~
t ~
.
Council Meeting Date: June 29, 2015
Agenda Item:
5 8
Page 3
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
44/57
RESOLUTION 2015-_____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 4 TOPROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSULTING AGREEMENT ASD-PSA-MAR-003-13/14
WITH MARTECH INC FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FOR AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $255,000
WHEREAS, the City is in need of ongoing information technology services; and,
WHEREAS, MarTech, Inc. currently provides these services to the City; and,
WHEREAS, the contract with MarTech was originally entered into in fiscal year 2012-13 and has been amended by Resolution 2013-17, Resolution 2015-06 and Resolution 2015-024 to extend the term of the contract and dollar amount; and,
WHEREAS, the City wishes to continue these services for a limited duration into fiscal
year 2015-16 and has budgeted funds for these services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA does hereby:
Authorize the City Administrator to Amend the Professional Services Consulting Agreement with MarTech Inc. by $15,000 for a new Not to Exceed Amount of$255,000 for a Contract Term Ending on August 31, 2015 as shown in Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA on this 29th day of June 2015 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED: ATTEST:
Jason Burnett, MAYOR Lee Price, MMCInterim City Clerk
Council Meeting Date: June 29, 2015 Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 4
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
45/57
Exhibit A
Amendment No. 4 to Contract ASD-PSA-MAR-003-13/14
1. This amendment (the "Amendment") is made by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Martech, Inc. parties to agreement ASD-PSA-MAR-))#-13/14 (the "Agreement") dated 12 June 2013 and modifiedby Amendments Number 1, 2 and 3.
2. The Agreement is amended as follows:
a. The Term of the Agreement is modified as follows:
The Term of the Agreement is modified to be extended to terminate on 31 August 2015.
b. The Compensation of the Agreement is modified as follows:
The contract is amendment to increase by $15,000. The total amount of the contract fromJune 12, 2013 to August 31, 2015 shall not exceed $255,000.
3. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement is unaffected and shall continue in full forceand effect in accordance with its terms. If there is conflict between this amendment and the
Agreement or any earlier amendment, the terms of this amendment will prevail.
CONSULTANT:
By: _____________________________ Date: ______________________Jeff Marshall
CITY:
By: _____________________________ Date: ___________________Doug Schmitz
Its: CITY Administrator
ATTEST:
By: _____________________________ Date: ______________________Lee Price
Its: Interim CITY Clerk
ATTEST:
By: _____________________________ Date: ______________________Don Freeman
Its: CITY Attorney
Council Meeting Date: June 29, 2015 Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 5
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
46/57
RESOLUTION 2015-_____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSULTING AGREEMENT ASD-PCS-BRWeb-06-13-14WITH BOOTS ROAD GROUP LLC FOR WEBSITE SUPPORT SERVICES FOR AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $46,000
WHEREAS, Boots Road Group LLC provides website support services; and,
WHEREAS, the contract with Boots Road Group LLC was originally entered into on
September 3, 2013 for a not to exceed amount of $25,000 and amended on March 3, 2015
by Resolution 2015-015 to extend the contract terms and contract dollar amount; and,
WHEREAS, the City wishes to continue these services into fiscal year 2015-16 and
has budgeted funds for these services; and
WHEREAS, contract expenditures of $25,000 or more require Council approval.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA does hereby:
Authorize the City Administrator to Amend the Professional Services Consulting
Agreement with Boots Road Group LLC by $12,000 for a new Not to Exceed Amount
of $46,000 for a Contract Term Ending on December 31, 2015 as shown in Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-
THE-SEA on this 29th day of June 2015 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED: ATTEST:
Jason Burnett, MAYOR Lee Price, MMCInterim City Clerk
Council Meeting Date: June 29, 2015 Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 6
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
47/57
Exhibit A
Amendment No. 2 to Contract ASD-PCS-BRWeb-06-13-14
1. This amendment (the "Amendment") is made by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Boots RoadGroup, LLC parties to agreement ASD-PCS-BRWeb-06-13-14 (the "Agreement") dated September3, 2013 and modified by Amendment Number 1 executed by the City on March 23, 2015.
2. The Agreement is amended as follows:
a. The Term of the Agreement is modified as follows:
The Term of the Agreement is modified to be extended to include the period of July 1,2015- December 31, 2015.
b. The Compensation of the Agreement is modified as follows:
The contract is amendment to increase to an amount not to exceed $12,000 for the periodof July 1, 2015- December 31, 2015. The total amount of the contract from September 3,2013 to December 31, 2015 shall not exceed $46,000.
3. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement is unaffected and shall continue in full forceand effect in accordance with its terms. If there is conflict between this amendment and the
Agreement or any earlier amendment, the terms of this amendment will prevail.
CONSULTANT:
By: _____________________________ Date: ______________________Lewis Leader
CITY:
By: _____________________________ Date: ___________________Doug Schmitz
Its: CITY Administrator
ATTEST:
By: _____________________________ Date: ______________________Lee Price
Its: Interim CITY Clerk
ATTEST:
By: _____________________________ Date: ______________________Don Freeman
Its: CITY Attorney
Council Meeting Date: June 29, 2015 Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 7
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
48/57
RESOLUTION 2015-_____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSULTING AGREEMENT ADM-PCS-LEWIS-003-13-14 WITH LEWIS LEADER FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION SERVICES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $38,980
WHEREAS, Lewis Leader currently serves as public information officer for the City
through a contractual agreement; and,
WHEREAS, the contract with Lewis Leader was originally entered into on August 13,
2013 for a not to exceed amount of $25,000 and the City wishes to continue these services
for fiscal year 2015-16 and has budgeted funds for these services; and
WHEREAS, extending the contract will increase the total contract amount to $38,980
and contract expenditures of $25,000 or more require Council approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA does hereby:
Authorize the City Administrator to Amend the Professional Services Consulting
Agreement with Lewis Leader by $13,980 for a new Not to Exceed Amount of $38,980
for a Contract Term Ending on June 30, 2016 as shown in Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-
THE-SEA on this 29th day of June 2015 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED: ATTEST:
Jason Burnett, MAYOR Lee Price, MMCInterim City Clerk
Council Meeting Date: June 29, 2015 Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 8
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
49/57
Exhibit A
Amendment No. 2 to Contract ADM-PCS-LEWIS-003-14/15
1. This amendment (the "Amendment") is made by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Lewis Leader, parties to agreement ADM-PCS-LEWIS-003-13-14 (the "Agreement") dated 13 August 2013 andmodified by Amendment Number 1 executed by the City on 4 February 2015.
2. The Agreement is amended as follows:
a. The Term of the Agreement is modified as follows:
The Term of the Agreement is modified to be extended to include the period of July 1,2015- June 30, 2016.
b. The Compensation of the Agreement is modified as follows:
The retainer paid as Compensation is $1,165 per month. The contract is amendment toincrease by $13,980 for the period of July 1, 2015- June 30, 2106. The total amount of thecontract from 13 August 2013 to June 30, 2106 shall not exceed $38,980.
3. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement is unaffected and shall continue in full forceand effect in accordance with its terms. If there is conflict between this amendment and the
Agreement or any earlier amendment, the terms of this amendment will prevail.
CONSULTANT:
By: _____________________________ Date: ______________________Lewis Leader
CITY:
By: _____________________________ Date: ___________________Doug Schmitz
Its: CITY Administrator
ATTEST:
By: _____________________________ Date: ______________________Lee Price
Its: Interim CITY Clerk
ATTEST:
By: _____________________________ Date: ______________________Don Freeman
Its: CITY Attorney
Council Meeting Date: June 29, 2015 Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 9
-
8/21/2019 Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15
50/57
RESOLUTION 2015-_____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A PROF