special meeting agenda packet 06-29-15

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.


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/


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.


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


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


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


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


Page 3


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 ✔


Page 4


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. ✔


Page 5


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. ✔


Page 6


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


Page 7


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

✔


Page 8


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

✔


Page 9


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”.

✔


Page 10


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.


Page 11


16/57

ATTACHMENT - 3


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


Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 1


17/57


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


18/57


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


19/57


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


20/57


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


21/57


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.


Agenda Item: 9.A

Page 7


22/57


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


23/57


Page 20

APPROVED

· istrator

Date

s

Council Meeting Date:

6 2 5

Agenda Item: 9 A

Page 9


24/57


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


25/57

ATTACHMENT - 4


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


26/57


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


27/57

ATTACHMENT - 5


Page 23

Exhibit A


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


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

/

/


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


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


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


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


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'-


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


36/57


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


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


39/57


Page 35

Exhibit B


40/57


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


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


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


Page 2


43/57

APPROVED

ate ~ ~

t ~

.

Council Meeting Date: June 29, 2015

Agenda Item:

5 8

Page 3


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


Page 4


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


Page 5


46/57


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:



SIGNED: ATTEST:



Page 6


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.



The Term of the Agreement is modified to be extended to include the period of July 1,2015- December 31, 2015.


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.



CONSULTANT:

By: _____________________________ Date: ______________________Lewis Leader

CITY:



ATTEST:

By: _____________________________ Date: ______________________Lee Price


ATTEST:


Its: CITY Attorney


Page 7


48/57


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:



SIGNED: ATTEST:



Page 8


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.



The Term of the Agreement is modified to be extended to include the period of July 1,2015- June 30, 2016.


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.



CONSULTANT:

By: _____________________________ Date: ______________________Lewis Leader

CITY:



ATTEST:

By: _____________________________ Date: ______________________Lee Price


ATTEST:


Its: CITY Attorney


Page 9


50/57


A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A PROF

special meeting agenda packet 06-29-15

Documents