Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15

SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, June 29, 2015

4:30 P.M.
1.
Council Chambers, City Hall

East side of Monte Verde Street
Between Ocean and Seventh
Avenues
CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
Mayor:
Burnett
Mayor Pro Tem:
Talmage
Council Members:
Dallas, Beach, Theis
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

JASON BURNETT, MAYOR
VICTORIA BEACH
KEN TALMAGE
CARRIE THEIS
STEVE DALLAS
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.
General Information:
Council Agendas:
Public Participation:
The City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea meets in Regular

Session on the First Tuesday of each month at 4:30 p.m.,
unless otherwise noticed. The City Council may also meet
on the First Monday of each month in a Special Meeting
and/or a Workstudy Session at 4:30 p.m., unless otherwise
noticed.
City Council agenda packets are available for public review
on the City website at www.ci.carmel.ca.us and in the Clerks
Office on the Friday prior to the scheduled meeting. Any
writings or documents provided to a majority of the City
Council regarding any item on the agenda will be made
available for public inspection. Interested members of the
public may subscribe to the Council Agenda by submitting a
request to the City Clerk.
Meetings are open to the public and the City Council
welcomes your participation. Any member of the public may
comment on any item on the agenda. Testimony is limited to
three (3) minutes per speaker, or as otherwise established
by the City Council.
Broadcastings:
Meetings are streamed live on-line and archived for easy

access anytime day or night. Visit the Citys website at
www.ci.carmel.ca.us to view the meetings or watch a
television rebroadcast on the first Sunday after the City
Council meeting at 8:00 a.m. on MCAET Channel 26.
ADA Notice:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you

need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the City Clerks Office at 831-620-2007 at least 48
hours prior to the meeting to ensure that reasonable
arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the
meeting (28CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title
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 the
City Councils agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred
to 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 give
their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the
City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the
microphone as the meeting is recorded.
5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the
City Council unless otherwise requested by an individual Council Member or the
public for special consideration. Otherwise the recommendation of staff will be
accepted and acted upon by majority voice vote.
5.A
5.B
Appeal of the Planning Commissions approval of Design Study (DS 14107) and the associated Coastal Development Permit for the
construction of a new single-family residence located in the SingleFamily Residential (R-1), Park Overlay (P), and Beach and Riparian
Overlay (BR) Zoning Districts. Appellants: Heather Ryan and David
Dube (HBE Holdings, Inc).
Recommendation:
1. Acknowledge the agreement between the Hoffmans and the
appellants;
2. Approve the Revised Plans; and
3. Approve the Revised Findings and Conditions of
Approval.
Resolutions Authorizing Amendments to Various Professional Services
Agreements
Recommendation: Adopt resolutions authorizing the City

to:
Administrator
1. Execute Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement ASDPCS-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 ASDPSA-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 ADMPCS-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.
6.
ADJOURN
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:
Rob Mullane, AICP, Planning and Building Director
Subject:
Appeal of the Planning Commissions approval of Design Study (DS 14107) 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. 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; and
3.
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 Commissions approval of Design Study (DS 14-107),
the Council may direct additional revisions to the design and/or include additional or revised
conditions 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
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)
General Fund
No
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, at which time the item was continued to
6/29/15.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment 1 - Findings for Approval

Attachment 2 - Conditions of Approval
Attachment 3- Staff Report from June 2, 2015 City Council
Attachment 4- Agreement of Compromise and Settlement
Attachment 5 - Revised Project Plans
APPROVED:
Dougla~z,
Date:
City Administrator
2'/
/u.- ';s-

Agenda Item: S.A
Page 2
ATTACHMENT - 1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
DS 14-107
Carl and Mary Hoffman
San Antonio 4 NW of 13th
Block: A5, Lots: S portion of 4
APN: 010-292-006
CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of Final Design Study (DS 14-107) and associated Coastal Development Permit
application for the construction of a new residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R1), Park Overlay (P), and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay Zoning Districts
RECITALS:
1.
The project site is located on San Antonio 4 parcels northwest of San Antonio Avenue.
The property is a double-frontage lot, fronting on both San Antonio Avenue and Scenic
Road. The site is developed with a 1,322-square foot single-family residence. The project
site is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1), Park Overlay (P), and Beach and
Riparian (BR) Overlay Zoning Districts.
2.
The applicant applied for a Design Study (DS 14-107) application on September 29,
2014, to demolish the existing one-story residence and detached garage and construct a
new one-story residence and detached garage (attached only by a partial roof).
3.
The Planning Commission accepted the design concept on December 10, 2014. The
Planning Commission approved the Design Study and associated Coastal Development
Permit application on April 8, 2015 subject to findings and conditions.
4.
An Appeal of Planning Commissions decision was filed by a neighboring residents,

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

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 3
6.
On June 25, 2015, the applicant team provided revised plans for the Design Study for
the Citys 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 projects 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 projects 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
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.
NO
2. The project is consistent with the Citys design objectives for protection and
enhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources and site design. The
projects use of open space, topography, access, trees and vegetation will maintain
or establish a continuity of design both on the site and in the public right of way that
is characteristic of the neighborhood.
3. The project avoids complexity using simple/modest building forms, a simple roof
plan with a limited number of roof planes and a restrained employment of offsets
and appendages that are consistent with neighborhood character, yet will not be
viewed as repetitive or monotonous within the neighborhood context.
4. The project is adapted to human scale in the height of its roof, plate lines, eave

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 4
lines, building forms, and in the size of windows doors and entryways. The
development is similar in size, scale, and form to buildings on the immediate block
and neighborhood. Its height is compatible with its site and surrounding
development and will not present excess mass or bulk to the public or to adjoining
properties. Mass of the building relates to the context of other homes in the
vicinity.
5. The project is consistent with the Citys objectives for public and private views
and will retain a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites. Through
the placement, location and size of windows, doors and balconies the design
respects the rights to reasonable privacy on adjoining sites.
6. The design concept is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies related to
residential design in the general plan.
7. The development does not require removal of any significant trees unless
necessary to provide a viable economic use of the property or protect public health
and safety. All buildings are setback a minimum of 6 feet from significant trees.
8. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained in
character, consistent and well integrated throughout the building and
complementary to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or repetitive
in context with designs on nearby sites.
9. The proposed exterior materials and their application rely on natural materials
and the overall design will as to the variety and diversity along the streetscape.
10. Design elements such as stonework, skylights, windows, doors, chimneys and
garages are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines and will complement the
character of the structure and the neighborhood.
11. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefully
designed to complement the urbanized forest, the approved site design, adjacent
sites, and the public right of way. The design will reinforce a sense of visual
continuity along the street.
12. Any deviations from the Design Guidelines are considered minor and reasonably
relate to good design principles and specific site conditions.
Beach and Overlay District Findings
13. The combined area contained within all setbacks is at least equal to the area of
the lot that would be included within setbacks if the special beach setback
established in subsection (B)(9) of this section were applied (i.e., achieving no net
loss of setback area.
14. A minimum width of at least three feet will be maintained for the full length of
all setbacks.
N/A

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 5
15. By reducing any setbacks the proposed structure will not interfere with safe
access to other properties in the neighborhood or otherwise result in damage or
injury to the use of other adjoining properties.
16. Structures proposed for construction within reduced setback areas will be
compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood and will exhibit a
human scale without excessive building bulk or visual mass.
17. The proposed setbacks afford maximum protection for the adjoining parklands
for the benefit of the public while still accommodating reasonable development of
the property.
18. The proposed setbacks are designated on an approved plan attached to the
permit or on a scenic easement for purposes of documentation and recordation.
N/A
N/A
N/A
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.

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 6
ATTACHMENT - 2
No.
Conditions of Approval
Standard Conditions
1.
Authorization: This approval of Design Study (DS 14-107) authorizes the

demolition of an existing 1,322-square foot residence and garage, and the
construction of a new 2,269-square foot residence, which includes 1,468 square
feet on the main level and 801 square feet on the lower level (bonus floor area
includes 90 square feet for stairs and a 100-square foot basement bonus floor
area), the construction of a 210-square foot garage, and the installation of 731
square feet of new site coverage. Finish materials include a combination of
plaster, limestone veneer, and 4-ply build up tar and gravel roof with a -inch
Cal-Gold aggregate. The residence shall be consistent with the plan set dated
June 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 the
proposed construction.
4.
All new landscaping, if proposed, shall be shown on a landscape plan and shall
be submitted to the Department of Community Planning and Building and to the
City Forester prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan will
be reviewed for compliance with the landscaping standards contained in the
Zoning Code, including the following requirements: 1) all new landscaping shall
be 75% drought-tolerant; 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 or
Forest and Beach Commission as appropriate; and all remaining trees shall be
protected during construction by methods approved by the City Forester.
6.
All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. If

any tree roots larger than two inches (2) are encountered during construction,
the City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots. The City Forester
may require the roots to be bridged or may authorize the roots to be cut. If

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 7
roots larger than two inches (2) in diameter are cut without prior City Forester
approval or any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity,
the building permit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation
by the City Forester has been completed. Twelve inches (12) of mulch shall be
evenly spread inside the dripline of all trees prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
7.
Approval of this application does not permit an increase in water use on the
project site. Should the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
determine that the use would result in an increase in water beyond the
maximum units allowed on a 5,302-square foot parcel, this permit will be
scheduled for reconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared for
review and adoption by the Planning Commission.
8.
The applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building
staff any proposed changes to the approved project plans prior to incorporating
changes on the site. If the applicant changes the project without first obtaining
City approval, the applicant will be required to either: a) submit the change in
writing and cease all work on the project until either the Planning Commission
or staff has approved the change; or b) eliminate the change and submit the
proposed change in writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its
compliance to the approved plans prior to final inspection.
Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less (incandescent equivalent,
i.e., 375 lumens) per fixture and shall be no higher than 10 feet above the
ground. Landscape lighting shall be limited to 15 watts (incandescent
equivalent, i.e., 225 lumens) or less per fixture and shall not exceed 18 inches
above the ground.
10.
There shall be no skylights in this project.
11.
The Carmel stone faade shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar

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

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 8
in connection with any project approvals. This includes any appeal, claim, suit,
or other legal proceeding, to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project
approval. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any legal proceeding,
and shall cooperate fully in the defense. The City may, at its sole discretion,
participate in any such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the
applicant of any obligation under this condition. Should any party bring any
legal action in connection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of
Monterey, California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for the resolution of
all such actions by the parties hereto.
14.
The driveway material shall extend beyond the property line into the public right
of way as needed to connect to the paved street edge. A minimal asphalt
connection at the street edge may be required by the Superintendent of Streets
or the Building Official, depending on site conditions, to accommodate the
drainage flow line of the street.
15.
This project is subject to a volume study.
16.
Approval of this Design Study shall be valid only with approval of a Variance.
17.
A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with the

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

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 9
20.
21.
23.
24.
25.
significance by a qualified archaeologist. If the resources are determined to be

significant, prior to resumption of work, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall
be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and reviewed and approved by the
Community Planning and Building Director. In addition, if human remains are
unearthed during excavation, no further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and distribution pursuant
to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.
Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall provide for City
(Community Planning and Building Director in consultation with the Public
Services and Public Safety Departments) review and approval, a truck-haul route
and any necessary temporary traffic control measures for the grading activities.
The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to the truck-haul
route and implementation of any required traffic control measures.
All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a fullsize sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building
Safety Division.
Special Conditions
On the construction plan set, the applicant shall revise the landscape plan,
replacing one of the Japanese Maple trees with a 15 gallon (minimum size) Coast
live oak and add a note stating that all ivy shall be removed from the site.
On the Grading Plan submitted with the construction plan set, the applicant
shall identify the southernmost perimeter of the on-site grading area to be
excavated for the south-end of the terrace, and shall add a note regarding the
requirement for hand-excavation that states, Prior to initiating excavation, the
City Forester shall be notified prior to commencement of excavation. This area,
along the southernmost perimeter, shall be carefully hand-excavated. The
applicant shall notify the City Forester if any roots, 2-inches or greater, are
discovered. At the time hand-excavation is completed, contact the City Forester
for an inspection prior to commencing construction.
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 surveyors certificate confirming that the finished height of the main floor
does not exceed elevation 44-6.

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 10
26.
27.
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.
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.

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 11
ATTACHMENT - 3
Council Report
June 2, 2015
To:

Douglas J . Schmitz, City Administrator
From:
Rob Mullane, AICP , Planning and Building Director
Subject:
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 of Approval are included as Attachment 3.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:
Project Description
The subject property is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1) and subject to two overlay
districts: the Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay District and the Park (P) Overlay District. The
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 1
Agenda Item: 5.A

Page 12
1.
Failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Response: As identified in the Planning Commission staff reports, the Hoffman Design Study,
a discretionary project, was found to be categorically exempt under CEQA pursuant to
Section 15302 - Replacement or Reconstruction and Section 15303 - Construction or
modification of a limited number of new or existing structures. Projects determined to be
categorically exempt do not require the preparation of more detailed environmental
documents.
The appellant asserts that the Hoffman project is not exempt from CEQA due to the proposed
demolition of the 1927 log cabin. On May 20, 2013, the Historic Resources Board (HRB)
reviewed the historicity of the existing residence and determined that the existing log cabin
does not constitute a significant City historic resource. Historic determinations are valid for a
period of 5 years, and therefore, the 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
have a strong relationship to the Historic Context Statement. Additionally, there is no record of
the architect or builder, and the house has undergone numerous alterations of the years." The
HRB concurred with this staff analysis and made the determination that the existing log cabin
was not a significant historic resource. Given this determination , which was appealable to the
City Council, the Hoffman project does not require further CEQA review under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. Nor does the proposed demolition of the cabin result in a
significant historic impact. The 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 singlefamily residential use. Scenic Road is developed with single-family residences. Given the
9.A
Agenda
Council Meeting
Date: Item:
06/29/2015
Agenda Page
Item: 35.A
Page 14
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 A 1.1 ), 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 may be used to a limited extent on smaller, one-story structures. They
should not be used on large buildings or two-story elements."
Plate and Ridge Heights: Residential Design Guideline 7.7 states: "Using a low building plate
height is encouraged. The maximum plate height for the first floor of a building is 12 feet. (See
the Land Use Code for details.) However, this maximum is established to accommodate
sloping building sites. In cases where a building site is relatively flat, a lower plate height is
appropriate. Interior wall heights should generally not exceed 8 feet. " The subject property
(within the proposed building envelope) slopes from east to west approximately 10 feet. In
approving the project, the Commission did not require a reduction in plate heights in part
because of the project site's slope. CMC Section 17.10.030 B. Height Limits establishes a
maximum of 12-foot plate heights for the first story. Regard ing ridge height standards, the BR
Overlay District establishes a maximum of 18 feet for ridge height above the existing or

Agenda
9 .A
Council Meeting
Date: Item:
06/29/2015
Agenda Page
Item: 45.A
Page 15
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, and Solar Access:
View protection requirements within the BR Overlay District stipulate that development be
sited and designed to protect public views of the ocean and scenic coastal areas, be visually
compatible with the character of the surrounding areas, and (where feasible) restore and
enhance the visual quality in visually-degraded areas, while ensuring the private property
owner reasonable development of land. The proposed residence is set back 38 feet from
Scenic Road on the north side of the property in order to maintain ocean views and light
currently provided to the northern neighbor. Between the conceptual and final reviews, the
project was revised in an attempt to address the appellants' concerns. A list of the design
revisions incorporated into the final design is provided in the Final Review staff report (See
Page 3 of Attachment 4 ).
B. Plastic Roofing Material.
The appellant objects to the proposed Duro-Last stone-pattern roofing material and its
visibility from neighboring properties.
Response: In review of the project, staff noted that the proposed roofing material was
potentially inconsistent with the Residential Design Guideline 9.8, which states: "Metal, plastic
and glass roofs are inappropriate in all neighborhoods." While natural roofing materials are
recommended by the Guidelines, the Planning Commission has reviewed, and at times
approved , alternative synthetic-roofing materials if the materials are consistent with the
architectural style of the building and fit within the context of the neighborhood. In this
instance, the Commission was supportive of the proposed material. However, as the appellant
asserts, the visibility of the proposed roofing material may be greater than what was
presented to the Commission. As such, the City Council may require the applicant to revise
the roofing material to one that is more consistent with the City's Design Guidelines.

9.A
Agenda
Council Meeting
Date: Item:
06/29/2015
Agenda Page
Item: 55.A
Page 16
3.
Failure to Provide Adequate Safeguards for the Ryan/Dube Property Including

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

The appellant asserts that the project fails to provide adequate safeguards regarding volume
requirements, grading , and elevation and setback confirmation.
Response: It is standard City procedure to require the volume study to be conducted after the
Final Design is approved by the Planning Commission. After the Design Study was approved
on April 8, 2015, staff contracted with City volumetrics consultant, Bill Vasilovich, to calculate
volum e and prepare the analysis. The Hoffman project was found to meet the City's volume
requirements.
B. Grading/Lack of Geology or Geotech Reports

Response: The City requires a Grading Plan to be submitted with the Plan set for a Design
Study application . The grading plan should note areas of proposed cut and fill yardage
amounts. The Grading Plan identifies less than 15 cubic yards of cut and 15 cubic yards of fill
on-site in areas outside of the footings. In addition , less than 2 cubic yards of cut and 2 cubic
yards of fill are identified for off-site grading of the new driveway in the San Antonio ROW.
The applicant has provided information on the grading required for the excavation of the lower
level : 296 cubic yards. For grading that involves export or import of soil , the City has a
standard requirement for utilization of a City-approved truck haul route.
Technical engineering studies, such as geotechnical reports and shoring plans, are generally
not required for Design Review applications. During the review of the Building Permit, the
Building Official reviews the plans for any necessary technical engineering studies.
C. Elevation and Setback Configuration
The applicant requests that the City condition the project to require the applicant to provide a
Certificate of Survey to verify roof heights and building setbacks.
Response: Staff does not support the addition of such a condition . The applicant may,
however, agree to provide this accommodation to the appellant, and if so, such a condition
could be applied.
4.
Discrepancies in the Plans.
The appellant is concerned about possible discrepancies in roof elevations, the design of the
north facing windows, and site coverage and FAR issues. The appellant states that the roof
elevations shown on the plans state "to eaves" and are inaccurately represented as the
maximum roof elevations.

9.A
Council MeetingAgenda
Date: Item:
06/29/2015
Page 5.A
6
Agenda Item:
Page 17
A. Roof Elevations
Response: Staff accepted the depiction of the maximum roof height elevations to be
identified as the top of each roof eave or "to eave." Each flat-roof element will be
approximately 2-inches higher at the center of the element to allow for proper storm-water
drainage. The applicant indicated to staff that this 2-inch deviation, which is limited to the
center of each roof element, would not be seen from ground level. Special Condition #25 has
been added to clarify the roof elevations and ensure that the peak roof heights do not exceed
the "to eave" heights.
B. North Facing Windows
Response: The appellant stated that the window schedule (See Attachment 11 , Sheet A4 .1)
does not reflect the revision in the number and location of windows as shown on the North
Elevation drawings (Attachment 11, Sheet A3.1 ). Staff notes that the applicant does need to
update the window schedule, which staff will ensure is corrected when the construction
drawings are submitted for review by planning staff. Staff did not require the north facing
windows to be a specific distance from the main level finished floor; however the location of
these windows will need to be consistent with the elevation drawings approved by the
Planning Commission. Special Condition #26 has been added to ensure that the construction
plan set is revised to include the correct window schedule.
C. Site Coverage- FAR
The appellant asserts that a 190-square foot bonus area (See Attachment 11 , Sheet A2 .0)
extends into an open space or yard area outside the building foot print and therefore does
qualify as bonus floor area. The bonus floor area is actually 100 square feet. CMC
17.10.030.D.4.c. does require bonus floor area to be located within the perimeter established
by the exterior, above-ground walls of the primary dwelling site. As shown on the plans, the
applicant has identified the 100-square foot area, and this area is located directly under the
main level within the building footprint. Therefore, the 100-square foot bonus area identified
on the Lower Level Floor Plan does qualify as bonus floor area, and the remaining 90-square
foot adjustment is for stairs, which also is consistent with the City's requirements.
Alternative Options
Thi s hearing is a de novo hearing. The Council is responsible for reviewing the entire project
and is not bound by the decision of the Planning Commission. The December 10, 2014
(Concept Review) and April 8, 2015 (Final Review) Planning Commission staff reports are
included as Attachments 4 and 6 for the City Council's consideration. Attachments 5 and 7
include the minutes of these respective meetings. Based on the Planning Commission's
action and an analysis of the components of the appeal, staff recommends that the City
Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval. Draft Findings for
Approval and Conditions of Approval are included as Attachments 2 and 3 respectively.
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/1 5

: 9.A
Agenda
Council Meeting
Date: Item
06/29/2015
Agenda Page
Item: 75.A
Page 18
Alternative 1: In upholding the Planning Commission's approval of Design Study (DS 14107), the Council may include additional or revised conditions of approval. As discussed
above, the Council may consider conditioning the project to require different roofing material.
Alternative 2: The Council could grant the appeal and deny Design Study (DS 14-1 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)
No
Funding Source( general fund, grant,

state)
General Fund
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION/DECISION HISTORY:
Design Study (DS 14-107) was considered by the Planning Commission on 12/10/14 and
4/8/15. The Commission approved the Design Study on 4/8/15 by a vote of 5-0.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Appeal Application

Attachment 2 - Findings for Approval (Denial of Appeal)
Attachment 3- Conditions of Approval
Attachment 4-4/8/15 PC Final Staff Report and Appellant Team Correspondence
Attachment 5 - 4/8/15 PC Minutes
Attachment 6 - 12/10/14 PC Concept Staff Report
Attachment 7 - 12/1 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 11 - Project Plans and Three-Dimensional Rendering
Attachment 12- Recent Correspondence from the Appellant Team

9.A
Agenda
Council Meeting
Date: Item:
06/29/2015
Agenda Page
Item: 85.A
Page 19
APPROVED:
Date:
istrator
M~ /s
Council Meeting Date: 612115

Agenda
9 .A
Council Meeting
Date: Item:
06/29/2015
Agenda Page
Item: 95.A
Page 20
proposed residence would be 2,269 square feet in size, which includes 1,468 square feet on
the main level and 801 square feet on the lower level. Staff notes that the residence is
classified as one-story because the lower level is primarily below grade. The new garage
would be partially attached to the residence by an adjoining roof element and would be 201
square feet in size. The proposed residence is designed with Modern-style architecture and
includes a combination of stucco (plaster), stone, and a single-ply Duro-Last roof. A full-color,
three-dimensional rendering of the proposed residence is included with the plan set
(Attachment 11 ).
Planning Commission Review and Staff Analysis
This project received Concept Review acceptance by the Planning Commission on December
10, 2014. The Commission concluded that the design of the proposed residence was
consistent with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. The Commission also supported the
proposed flat-roof design as consistent with the Contemporary style of the residence and
important in reducing the building's mass from public viewpoints along both Scenic Road and
San Antonio Avenue. In addition, the proposed residence is smaller in both mass and 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, solar access issues, and
privacy impacts. At the ensuing public hearing, the appellant, Ms. Ryan, and her attorney, Ms.
Kemp, provided testimony reiterating their concerns with the project. The Planning
Commission expressed general support for the proposed building design, but asked the
applicant to work with the neighbors to the north to address their concerns. The applicant met
with the representatives of the appellant prior to the April 8, 2015 Final Review hearing in an
attempt to address these concerns.
This project received Final Review approval by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2015. At
that meeting's Tour of Inspection, the Planning Commission again reviewed the concerns of
Ms. Ryan regarding the revised design. At the April 8, 2015 Planning Commission meeting,
the applicant went over the revisions prompted by the Planning Commission's direction at the
Concept Review meeting. The design revisions were also noted in the Final Review staff
report (See Attachment 4). At the Final Review meeting , the appellant and her attorney
provided additional testimony, including two letters, regarding ongoing concerns with the
project (letters included in Attachment 4). The Planning Commission, however, concluded that
the revised design was satisfactory and approved the project on a 5-0 vote.
Basis for Appeal
The appeal application notes several grounds for appeal. Below is a summary of these
concerns along with staff responses.
Council Meeting Date: 612115
Agenda
9.A
Council Meeting
Date: Item:
06/29/2015
AgendaPage
Item: 25.A
Page 13
ATTACHMENT - 4
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
Property.
Ryan/Dube own or control the property immediately to the north of the Subject
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

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 21
24, 2015 Revised Plans.

9.
This Agreement applies only to the form of the plans designated as the June 24,
2015 Reviewed Plans as shown on Exhibit A 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 of this Agreement, this
Agreement may be pleaded as a defense and/or as a cross-complaint, counterclaim, and crossclaim or third-party complaint.
11.
In the event that suit is brought to enforce any of the provisions of this
Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the reasonable value of his or its
attorneys' fees, expenses and costs of suit actually incurred.
12.
This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of 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 of this Agreement, its interpretation,
construction, avoidance or enforcement shall be governed by the law of 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 of
said clients
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each undersigned has executed this Agreement as June 25,
2015.
Hoffm~
I
James G. Heisinger, Jr., att

Hoffman and Mary Hoffm
Ryan/Dube:
Christ e Kemp, attorney for eather Ryan,

David Dube and HBE Holdings, Inc.

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 22
ATTACHMENT - 5
Exhibit A
3
Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 23
\.
\
(}
0'(
cl.
'"1
~
\0
\1--
t
..\j,
..
VLz
3~N301S3tl
900-Z6Z-Ql0
"N'd'\f
~..e/\0?
HUJJO~~~
3:>N30IS3lJ NVW::I:IOH
()
~
4.
_;--
NVII\J.::I.::IOH
<
t-
s:
~

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 24
u.:
0
C!J
..... ..,..
_,.1118
.__
_tO _ _ _ _ _ _
ON11"1n8WO~ "NNIC31.,ifo.NG - ~
~OHW"'-~
H~s;,;;7
';
'
ln'IWIIONA'WVJC.!,~f)'111W .....
SV X)O"'JB N1. .... ;J.O'J dO NOI.Lllo.l
VJKilo.ll'l\'.).I.IJIIlCUAIIDJJttlii'Y!If'IIIUAw-"IBJIIIV.'#.lJ.u:>
.:z Dod ;J.V ~o.L 4' SSUL.> ~ 10/\
dVW :>IHcf.niOOdO~
...
uI
I
am
't-

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 25
-0
d
UJ
~
a:
[]
. j
'
~NUF!ZI<
~------ - -
ARCH~CTURE
....
---
m::,~,:r
"'-.,
"'
'\
..,.
~,
5LOCK
"'5
LOT
-4
11V1'.C
~:"/?:!. ,/~_J
1.1.
,.......
l''
I
I
~ !...
Qn
~l
"'I'
~~'
i J~'
'
1.~
~
~

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 26
lla'ml
EB
i~
~1- ft!:MOV~ I T.A!(E t'.'~

.AND SITe <SoAAX:>IN<Sr PLAN
~~ ~~ !>~ ~~
~vr-r..:~
1a
~
II!J'.,.,._.,........c:,...Tollll!~
1!><1!1- ..-~TDI!Ielll!M~
e<G~I'ItQ.I5.~TDI!Ie~
..o<:AT\CI<Of'~~
PR&. QF ~ CVI'ell:ll! ,.001'1<6~

fl.l5lt '1Wo1115 t:..Y.Oit.11iG.' f. "'LW
-Of'DI"r't.i'Te--6
IU!S61W-JI 2 C..T. QIT, 2 t;,Y, f'IUJ
~ADDL.--cvr,.,
. . ~"'L.Oc:Anot<Of'~~.
4.
.. I'\BIJ(.It.6Mt'at'I'INI'.
NO~-OPF&rrl!Oit
-TIHI5o~sn<.-.....~~~~.
~.ALOI(IIt~""""
,.._I'I.DQA,
-T1'16~-224LJ-I'I!l!l"
i i ~!~
~ ~~r~
A1.0
PAGE
OF.
\\
3::>N301S3H NVW:I:IOH

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 27
--
1
I
1
I
I
r-------.r:
:
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-'
:
I
I :
..
!I
~ ~ ~ ~
~
I BI
.J
~
IL
I
IEB
Ill
<
ll.
\)
()
.J
J)
"...
()
..J
900-Z6Z-oJO
'N'd'V
Kltl.IO,!~:!w:;
j!
~~
di~
~~
X~
'~
<(
IL
a..
3::>N30IS3'd NVW:J:JOH
~~
I!
IEB

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 28
u.:
~I
0
"!
'N'd'V
Hl1<10,;~1:=
9DO--Z6l-Ql0
3JN30153lf NVWIOH
SNOU/\CIT.I ~S 'd't'H "'EVJ'' ~

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 29
, _.
r-- ------ ---- -----
""""'"""Tic ~~,---__
Ma~.-so\:fit~~
=ffi
--------------:. . . . :it~\ ~~-~_....-:..~-~ - ---:-
#41
~~
r---------.,-
,:
e;,
------......-
fl----.t=-=1-- ---
~~
.----
-------=-=---.__...__
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y"e5T ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
f!Gold..l!: 1/4 1'.0"
~' V4" T'-<T
,~;;sT_
!Jl l; ~! S!I;&il;!E5 !5Sl!~r'f. ... _TV
~
b;;J
1;
. J.
b::J
-~- --~~-r.r_
._~5'=''
xfc~-=~=~-====--~f~---&!!!!-i-r::s==---;_-----:=~=-~=~r~
~
~;:1a--o,_
ft ..
]'
__________
~:11
. -
_L_o~.!"~~S:1-"'
~--------- --- ---~-~~~~~~
pn ;p _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j
1----~
- --------------------------...__- --- --- --~~~-A.!t-4_~
SOUTH ELEVAnON
~,,. , ..,..
I
_I
--~ ~~~.:-=~!ri: ~~~
,-:-
--------~"""==~I~:~
- _-_._:_~:~;=-..
-..------- .....
_0_0J I 0
I
---- __ ~ _j__
[. ]
..
__ _j~ -
~...,,._.,.,...
------~~'!:-~-- ,.~ ;
lt00~--f"~----~~"l.WT.!!5'~------~~~:::~-- r~--~ _ : . :;. - ~:
T
I
- - - - - - - - - - --- .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
- - ---
-- ~~~.:'+
ID
......,.. !'AY'!

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 30
..
-'=
ff-
~~
"'
"'
~lL-~:-:+-
....
....
-Jt~--- -~~,
.. -
- ~ffl;:--
.-
-'
iii3iW;'56~vi' - - - --~~':~"!"- ~
. .... -L-------~r:- I
--T
7---:--:.....:...:.
_._________
--.. --.-,u
. L- __
---
---"?'~-~!!'!:&'
~
(j)
0::: ~
...
E
------~~~- I'T..-~...
= z<
-6
- - - -__
---~-.
\D
c N~
UJ!:)
~.:s
"'~O
:t; 9 ...
~ u. ~i5
u. u:fZ
0 xo:
J: ~0
<
-- _a_~
_- --- -~-- _4_ __ f__.-_ ,_,s_--~---_- --- - - - -- - ------ _j_ ___~_~_:;_4~_._,:._L_EV
___A_1l_o_N_______ _j ------- -~-'""""""--..!'.!.:.~!5~l~--l...._A_3_.-1--1
-R
EXHIBIT
PAGE
OF
\\
"1~I
~I
i
I
r-
J'.
,.
~
<II
'
i
~
~,
1-~
.I
I .
, I
f. :
. !
-~
, .
It . .
b.~::
i:
'i
I
l
I
I
z:
lU~
~.
:J:."
..._~
2~
, I
I I
'
Ill
Ill
Il l
:Ii I
I! I
' l
jl
.' I
II I
I
I I
II
II
z
Q
~
~
_J,
lU2
'I"
\--~
~:
fO
-
10
-.t
0
10
IUl :10
'N 'd'V
MN~~~....~~
900-lCXOtO
3JN30IS3lf N'IW:f:IOH
~U.'f'~ ~Oil=r"-.I.>Gl il~~
<"!
~
1-
iil
:I:
X
w

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 31
__,
u.;
0
~
C'J
DOOR SCHEDULE
f.-
~~ ~......,.,
.,.,.,...
":"'
~ > ....,....... .. - ~
~e..,.....,..
.0.
'C:f
~ ~
NT'eQ:IIt
..
f@ ~
JS ~"
19
~
~
~
r
p
~e ~
~ z~
~
~,
~
~,.,.,
~
:z~
;,~
~
7
_.
--~
T<T
OVc"
ol\.0"
,....,..
.......
-:;:: _ _ . .
....
,..,...
"""'
.....,..
,..,,..
"',.
.,::;:
HV<r'
MIA
II=
v-a
...,.....
"'A
::;;:
.._,.
,...._..
MIA
::;::
...-cr
._,., ...
~
PI"'"AU
...,.... .....,.._,._
0<.
........
_..
......
WINDOW NOTES
""""""
...,....,.
ac...
_,.. - : - : ., ~
,._
r.:to0
~ c. -~
111-..e"'
:r-v
c:,c:lll!~
. :
....,._....-....""""
IIMrtT!!D
I'Atrn'I!D
.e Mar..
~a, Z-
AD:~e"J ~
8ofl'n4~
.,.... .
~-
T<T
llllltM4
::
"'
~L
::;;..
....,
.._
~..!'-=:---
_.._ _ _ _ , _ _
_...,.._...,.,....,.. .. _ . . . _ .
~~..,..... ...,.,t'r'c.
WINDOW
f~
'
.~~
u.
>S
.,.,...,..
"
'
ss
!a
@
61
2-\.M"'
~ ;.::
T<l'
,,.,...
T<T
......
. . . . . """"'
~II'
~~u:.:~~~~-
~~=;g:wM.L-.., ~
:=:x;.~~ 1
===:MI'~
==~~_;:-.
....
=
=
~
t'.....
~ ~
t.y.-
T-<1"
1.y.&
tNtr
:'!-
IG
Mf...
~; ~
IK
IIWJ5olobe
MAt-
W.
loG-
fUA
':"=~
~ =~:
I'
M"f'81l~
7..&'
,.
.,.-v
f'ICit"Ceet
;r-r
T-a'
~T
Z .."'
T-6'
~~
~4' '-~ ~ "';::= ~
,.
~,.,..,..
~BI.IJ"
....~.
wa.
loa~~~'
MoMro
~.4
,::
,:,::
~~~-~tertet
~ ~ c. ~
~
~c;..
SC..
~=.r~~
I~
~
~
ToC"
"14
.:::.,
~ ~
~
IC..
,-.v . 1'.V
P'tlc!!p
.,.,.,.
"" ::..~
AA
fCG;P
"" ;:;: . "'.:"

fiDG!!D
IX> - . ..... .,.
M~
AA
...............
,;:;:.::!':.
~ ,atwl!P'o~ r;~~
~~:~.::;,
ri~-=~-:r~
7-r~7
~~
~If'
.............
11:10" -
==-~=.::::""~._, ...,.
11-ttT
--.::::,~;.:::-.1.
""a.....
::.:=
...,.....
,_.,._
.._...,""'
==~=:::::::~
~~
,_.....,... __ ...,.
,...,..
"'"'
~r-= ~
r4'
...,....
lATa
61;2~
1-......
=---~
LL
--
~ ~ ~
7'
~ ~
AACHTEC~
~~--U..tll(l"'b~
~._.....~Uftl
1.:% ,_,
~- I
,~- - ~ .:
HO\.ORE~UElZKE
.::% ..,....
~ ~
ff'tfT
-:>
--~---
A&.IJoNM
l:q)l''-11
, .... X,-.7
f"'ft)
f/-4'
. ; -...., ] :
r~ f'.''
~ '~ ;
:
\.dllll
r:..~~~~.., ...I"~,.,. ..........., 1.=

:.= ._,
~S>O".,....
~ ~ ~.
r:!!. ...,.,._...,_,..,
~~,~
t''_ .\:'7;. 1f~,:.'
L<M
P'lXI!!t)~
~--._t'4'~1' 8'~ ............... ~ \a'te
,... ~
0
t..r
~ ~ ~
~~~~~IN _.. ~
utW
~ ~-~
!--=---__....,
tol&l(.~Cf'~l'-o"W.-~IJflt.
MAJC..~~~t"-o"M. ll~-6~~t
i-....+.,..4._...,.=-=.:_---11--....-. ..,-'C'-+.....--~-----h~=;.;;,;-;1-:-:....,=1.1--+-t--t;;;r:_~,..:w"'...
r...,.;;r;."ii:Ji:...,....,&;;.;-;
..,;r.y-a,JeV'~."J:.r--t
.. ~
~~~&.A,.,..
f!IB
1!!11!1
Vo
..,
~4
PDe:J~ .r~r-r~~'
~tv
~ ....
D!ll.COA~
!I!
:1 ... ..-6
, . , ...'-II'
:J4.fl.44
2..-... ..ar
~=-=~
,..~,......,.
!11!1 Ud!foeC1'
~~=~""
~~ =::"".:C:..~
fM!IIt2ncNrn::JWm~ltC.,.....,.
@I~ e : ; : . _ ..-a.. ..... ..St .:!:. ~ ra:o ac. ~

MCP'I!I
~~=~.1
~--~-~+---~-+--+--t--1~-t--+~--+-+-f-t---------;~~~"
. IDI
lL f!l
.AU.MN.N
IZ
-b-l--+--h==-+--~-:-h;;;;;:-1h,;;~;;;;;;;-;;;:J;m;-;;;;;f-:~""";;;o;--f-+-f---j~~~~;or.v--1 c:a::-" ~ .. ~ ..,..~
rl
V41'
get
~~,.,l/ft6Cit"'"U,CJ,
~~~
7-D"II...t'J"
~~-=~~
:-:.==::::.:t-.u.l"'
D
~S~
=~::=::)C. ~
two
'
-+=====~~
1-+--+-+---+-+---1--1--1--t---+-+--+--+-+-t--------1 =::-=~-=::..
IC
..,.._...
AA
=~~~
...... ,...._....
-
CC.
~~~-==
OT=" "=" "" ---
....
.-<r ...,.
,...,. . . ...,_
"" .._,.
1i
M::'1!'!t.
...,..,.
'...,.,.,
""~
\.0'111::,.,~~ ~
o=
..,....
~
10
.-
.......... -.... _
tt&toP:;. ........,.....~
u.~~-,_-""'_.........,..
1!'lmt
'&C
-r.qo
'T4'
'T-6
~ ~...::=.
=~)
1""""'E
118
~
L~li=ji===t==t=:t~t~t~t.~;t~~;~~~~t;~~~~;{tG~LAZI~~N~GSN~O~TE~S=-9
~.
~
~M.ADe 'W!P.~ ~~-==="~ ....
~
I~ ... ~EICIO't.
.u.zNI~
A~OCJ!:Ifll ~~~~-'nl-~
:.,
~
~~~
~e.
I~""""
-... - . ..-~-
..oCT
SCHEDULE . .,. .
INO'I'CI!SI
~ ~
~ :~?=~:-:"'
~ ~ ~T
~ '4 ~
"::::
~4 ~'I'
,.w 1.::-::;;.....,.....
~~-=~
..__
.. ,.,.,
~ ,...,_,~ Jt:"..::.r::a.~
. .....
f'
4'
~-=
.lliUMt4
.:::.:
-.=
~..,.-. ..~~~H!IM. P'. F,

~ti'T'.:..~........ ..,.JN!N. P".F,
!':!.ttru~~r-Af-2"~.jr.lll
:=...~~- -~-~
LO"'I
\.Cirt
I.M
~ ~ ~
..
~~
!t:::'i:: """
~ ~
~ ~
JWMtu4
..
~ ..,.~wr.wuo.,. ..,
.ettCDJoP.biJVQIItlll!lrfgc.~.MI:-'!W4
............
~ ~ ~
1-l-L--=~~--j_-~-L_~L__J__L___~~---~~-L-~----------i~~:-~~~
DOOR lYPES
"'~"""""'
===-.=:...'io..~~
~~
__
=:,.;;;,.~~':""' 'I@
~~~~~!
~~!)
__
(tl
----------------
e"';"'
m 101 EL m_W~ lJ.

.

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 32
ft
s~~=s::-i"
~=-=.=:.::.:.
_,.__,..._._,.
. ...,.....,
DOOR NOTES
~i'!!?'mS!
~~~-7---- 7 -- 7 -- 7 --- 7 -- 7----------- ~;.,._,.,..
HL~~~.,....,.~
1-...,..,.,....,.,.-=-...,...,::-::-==-::------------------------------j~~.-u..-wN~~.,.
WINDOWTYPES ,.., ...........,.....,._
:'=':..'=:-
~--
~~-~f"""'="'r--o--rrmTI
~
t
.....
!roC"iC-4'<0'
,..,.
--to=
~ ~ .......
LAM
___ ____
HF1
~
..
-"~
liD
~ -
6MIW.N<m3;
:="'..:'"--=--=:..~~- ; =:.=c":':'.':':,==.,:;::.:::......,.
. . . . . ,_
"
"-<>'U'C'
~~~~y---~~L_J__L_ _ _~-------~--~--~~~~~--~-L--~---------------;
I!J& . . _ , .
N
:..,..~~~~~=
II
N.,.,Gflof~l.l!lilt,..._t.~nc" J--h.+-+----1f----+-+--f;;;;;:;;;;-f-:-:~f-+-t-t----------1
// . .
7~~~-~---~------~
: '\.
/ :
: '\.
/ :
I
:
I
'
':..tf
,/"...,
I
l
I
~~----:."~
~~
...
"';T'!Pt
~:::.:r~ ~::::-::-.=--
............. _ ......... __
liii&M.DM~P~82.IIU....I~t.aAU.
"""""NC>Ja,
~...... -""""'
9f:~.....-
!1~-:_-'~LMII..
=-..-=":'::"""'~-
I
:
I
'
~
,7','
I
:
I
=:-----2-..J-.,
~:t
II
::::.=--=---=~--=-o:.-....
~~cr.&t..,.JlL.,...~,....
_ _..._.,.___
~----y
'\.
/'
[',
.
I '\.
'
' I
'::../: I
/f\. 1I
I
:
'
'::.J:
'!I
I
:
I
I /"\..
"l
<
5l;i
mw
~~--=~b ~ rlrt(____:..J~h
'
~~
...
--;r;;;--
li
;=-=-~=
=--=~..:=.-=:
'
~F
:t u
~g:-JIJ
5Te,.,.
~.
iij
\}
tn
W
:=:::::::;;.
=--=-==-=
GJ~rooW~..,...~.ue....., _ , _ _
tJ\
CD !:~::~~~!~G RI!QUIRI!MI!NTs
;z:
fi
!Is
8
N
! ~ e~B
~~----~----66-- GG ----or,-----EE---F;-----~;------- ~~~~~
8l5
~ ~ ~i;
'~""""'~
~~Mfln>......-u.~
LL
.... ~v ....
~t"'A4 1
EXHIBIT
PAGE
OF_
t \ ___,
i,
::1 ~
3JN30153'd NVW::tiOH co
F=~==========~==~ ~
900-Z6Z-OTO 'N'd"V
H.Uiol0,..1~~~~
.-----------~~~~~------~----~------------------~~
.,z
:1:
"'
~9
@:
~'"--+--+---i II ~
~Mn~---4~~
8
_j

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 33
I i
I
I!
I
It
... 110.
l;i~ It
I U ll
~ml :d

Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 34
Exhibit B
4
Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 35
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."
21426\000\596807.2:62515
EXBIBITL
Agenda Item: 5.A
Page 36
Council Report
June 29, 2015
To:

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-06-1314 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-003-1314 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 consulting
support needed as well as determine potential upgrades to the Citys 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 Citys public information officer, including serving as the
Council Meeting Date: June 29, 2015
Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 1
Citys 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 Facility
Service, 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 agreements expiration.
FISCAL IMPACT: These services have been included in the fiscal year 2015-16 budget.
Consultant/Vendor FY 15-16
Budget
Lewis Leader
$14,000
Boots Roads
$18,600
Contract
Amendment
$13,980
$12,000
MarTech
$25,000
$15,000
ProServ
$138,000
$79,992
Account
Admin- Professional Services -64051
Admin Services- Contractual Services67053
Admin Services-Professional Services67051
Public Works-Facilities MaintenanceContractual; 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

Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 2
APPROVED:
Date:
~~ t/~ f' f
Council Meeting Date: June 29 , 2015

Agenda Item: 5.8
Page 3
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 TO
PROFESSIONAL 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 201213 and has been amended by Resolution 2013-17, Resolution 2015-06 and Resolution 2015024 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 CITY
OF 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-BYTHE-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, MMC

Interim City Clerk

Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 4
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 modified
by 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 from
June 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 force
and 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:
_____________________________
Jeff Marshall
Date: ______________________
_____________________________
Doug Schmitz
CITY Administrator
Date: ___________________
CITY:
By:
Its:
ATTEST:
By:
Its:
_____________________________
Lee Price
Interim CITY Clerk
Date: ______________________
ATTEST:
By:
Its:
_____________________________
Don Freeman
CITY Attorney
Date: ______________________

Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 5
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSULTING AGREEMENT ASD-PCS-BRWeb-06-13-14
WITH 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.
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.
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
Lee Price, MMC

Interim City Clerk

Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 6
Exhibit A
ASD-PCS-BRWeb-06-13-14
1. This amendment (the "Amendment") is made by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Boots Road
Group, LLC parties to agreement ASD-PCS-BRWeb-06-13-14 (the "Agreement") dated September
3, 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 period
of 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:
_____________________________
Lewis Leader
Date: ______________________
_____________________________
Doug Schmitz
CITY Administrator
Date: ___________________
CITY:
By:
Its:
ATTEST:
By:
Its:
_____________________________
Lee Price
Interim CITY Clerk
Date: ______________________
ATTEST:
By:
Its:
_____________________________
Don Freeman
CITY Attorney
Date: ______________________

Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 7
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.
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.
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
Lee Price, MMC

Interim City Clerk

Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 8
Exhibit A
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 and
modified 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 to
increase by $13,980 for the period of July 1, 2015- June 30, 2106. The total amount of the
contract from 13 August 2013 to June 30, 2106 shall not exceed $38,980.
CONSULTANT:
By:
_____________________________
Lewis Leader
Date: ______________________
_____________________________
Doug Schmitz
CITY Administrator
Date: ___________________
CITY:
By:
Its:
ATTEST:
By:
Its:
_____________________________
Lee Price
Interim CITY Clerk
Date: ______________________
ATTEST:
By:
Its:
_____________________________
Don Freeman
CITY Attorney
Date: ______________________

Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 9
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PROSERV FACILITY SERVICES FOR CIYTWIDE
JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $79,962
WHEREAS, the City is responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of various City
facilities and public restrooms; and,
WHEREAS, the City wishes to contract with ProServ Facility Services to provide
janitorial services while the City conducts a competitive negotiation process for permanent
janitorial services; and
WHEREAS, contract expenditures of $25,000 or more require Council approval.
Authorize the City Administrator to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with
ProServ Facility Services for a maximum term of six months for a Not to Exceed Cost
of $79,962.
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
Lee Price, MMC

Interim City Clerk

Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 10
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES

Contractor: Proserve Facility Service
Description: City-wide Janitorial Services (6 month term)
Contract No._______________________
THIS CONTRACT is executed this _________ day of ___________, 2015, by and
between the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter CITY),
and Proserve Facility Service, (hereinafter "CONTRACTOR").
IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1.
Scope. CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to provide to CITY, as the scope of
services under this Contract the services set forth in the proposal for services dated June
16, 2015 (Exhibit A), for City-wide Janitorial Services, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
CONTRACTOR is bound by the contents of CITY'S Request for Proposal,
attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference, and the contents of the
proposal submitted by CONTRACTOR (Exhibit "A").
In the event of conflict the
requirements of CITY'S Request for Proposal and this Agreement shall take precedence
over those contained in CONTRACTOR'S proposal.
2.
Timely Work.
CONTRACTOR shall perform all duties incidental or
necessary in a timely fashion; and shall be performed diligently, competently, and in
accordance with professional standards of performance. Failure to so perform is hereby
deemed a material breach of this Contract, and CITY may terminate this Contract with no
further liability hereunder. City may agree in writing with CONTRACTOR to an extension of
time. It is expressly agreed and understood that CONTRACTOR shall not be held
responsible for delays occasioned by factors beyond their control, nor by factors that could
not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of execution of this CONTRACT.
3.
Term. The work under this Contract shall commence upon issuance of
Notice to Proceed and terminate 6 months after Notice to Proceed issuance. The parties
may agree to extend or amend this Contract prior to its expiration.
4.
Compensation. CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR in an amount not to exceed
$13,327.00 per month, or a prorated portion thereof, with a grand total for all services NOT
TO EXCEED $79,962.00, which said sum shall include all costs, as presented in the
proposal dated June 16, 2015 (Exhibit A), except the City will furnish all toilet paper, paper
hand towels, hand soap for restroom dispensers, and trash can liners, and in accordance
with this Contract.
Compensation under this Contract shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after CITYs approval of CONTRACTORS submission of monthly written invoices.
Written invoices shall clearly itemize each charge. The payment of any compensation to
CONTRACTOR hereunder shall be contingent upon performance of the terms and
conditions of this Contract to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Administrator.
If the City Administrator determines that the work set forth in the written
invoice has not been performed in accordance with the terms of this Contract, CITY shall
not be responsible for payment until such time as the work has been performed to the
reasonable satisfaction of the City Administrator.
5.
Additional Services. In the event that CITY should request additional
services not covered by the terms of this Contract, said additional services and
compensation shall be agreed upon in advance and in writing by CONTRACTOR and the
City Administrator. CONTRACTOR shall not be compensated for any additional
Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 11
services unless such additional services and compensation are approved by the City
Council to be valid.
6.
Meet and Confer. CONTRACTOR agrees to meet and confer with CITY or
its agents or employees with regard to services as set forth herein as may be required by
City Administrator to insure timely and adequate performance of this Contract.
7.
Suspension or Termination of Contract Without Cause. CITY may at any
time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Contract, or any
portion hereof, by serving upon the CONTRACTOR at least thirty (30) calendar days prior
written notice. Upon receipt of said notice CONTRACTOR shall immediately cease all work
under this Contract unless the notice provides otherwise. If CITY suspends or terminates a
portion of this Contract such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the
remainder of this Contract.
In the event this Contract is terminated pursuant to this section CITY shall
pay CONTRACTOR the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination
provided that the work performed is of value and approved by CITY. Upon termination of
this Contract pursuant to this section CONTRACTOR will submit an invoice to CITY
pursuant to section 4 of this Contract.
8.
Default of CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR'S failure to comply with the
provisions of this Contract shall constitute a default. In the event that CONTRACTOR is in
default for cause under the terms of this Contract, CITY shall have no obligation or duty to
continue compensating CONTRACTOR for any work performed after the date of default and
can terminate this Contract immediately by written notice to CONTRACTOR. If such failure
by CONTRACTOR to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of
causes beyond CONTRACTOR'S control, and without fault or negligence of
CONTRACTOR, it shall not be considered a default.
9.
Indemnification.
indemnification clause:
CONTRACTOR
hereby
agrees
to
the
following
To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, without limitation, California

Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.6, if applicable), CONTRACTOR shall defend (with legal
counsel reasonably acceptable to designated agents, departments, officials, representatives,
and employees, collectively Indemnitees) from and against claims, loss, cost, damage,
injury expense and liability (including incidental and consequential damages, court costs,
reasonable attorneys fees, litigation expenses and fees of expert consultants or expert
witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation) to the extent they arise
out of, pertain to, or relate to, the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of
CONTRACTOR, any sub-CONTRACTOR, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, or
anyone that they control (collectively Liabilities). Such obligations to defend, hold harmless
and Indemnify any Indemnitee shall not apply to the extent that such Liabilities are caused in
part by the negligence, or willful misconduct of such Indemnitee.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the above paragraph, CONTRACTOR
agrees to indemnify and hold harmless CITY from and against any and all claims, demands,
defense costs, liability, expense, or damages arising out of or in connection with damage to
or loss of any property belonging to CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTORS employees,
contractors, representatives, patrons, guests or invitees.
-2Council Meeting Date: June 29, 2015
Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 12
CONTRACTOR further agrees to indemnify CITY for damage to or loss of

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA property to the proportionate extent they arise out of
CONTRACTORS negligent performance of the work associated with this Contract or to the
proportionate extent they arise out of any negligent act or omission of CONTRACTOR or any
of CONTRACTORS employees, agents, contractors, representatives, patrons, guests or
invitees; excepting such damage or loss arising out of the negligence of CITY.
10.
Insurance. CONTRACTOR shall submit and maintain in full force insurance
as described herein. Without altering or limiting CONTRACTORS duty to indemnify,
CONTRACTOR shall maintain in effect throughout the term of this Contract, a policy or
policies of insurance with the following minimum limits of liability:
Commercial general liability insurance including but not limited to
premises, personal injuries, bodily injuries, products, and completed operations, with a
combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the
aggregate.
Workers Compensation Insurance If CONTRACTOR employs others in
the performance of this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall maintain workers compensation
insurance in accordance with California Labor Code section 3700 and with a minimum of
$100,000 per occurrence for employers liability.
Commercial automobile liability insurance covering all automobiles,
including owned, leased, non-owned, and hired automobiles, used in providing services
under this Contract, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Other Insurance Requirements
A.
All insurance required under this Contract must be written by an

insurance company either:
1)
Admitted to do business in California with a current A.M. Best
rating of no less that A:VI;
Or
2)
An insurance company with a current A.M. Best rating of no
less that A: VII
Exception may be made for the State Compensation Insurance Fund
when not specifically rated.
B.
Each insurance policy required by this Contract shall be endorsed to

state that CITY shall be given notice in writing at least thirty (30) days
in advance of any cancellation thereof, except CITY shall be given
TEN (10) days notice for nonpayment of the premium.
C.
The general liability and auto policies shall:
1)
Provide an endorsement naming CITY, its officers, officials,

and employees as additional insureds under an ISO CG 20 10 07 04
and ISO 20 37 07 04 or their equivalent.
Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 13
2)
Provide that such insurance is primary and non-contributing

insurance to any insurance or self-insurance maintained by CITY.
3)
Contain a Separation of Insureds provision substantially

equivalent to that used in the ISO form CG 00 01 10 01 or their
equivalent.
4)
Provide for a waiver of any subrogation rights against CITY via

an ISO CG 24 01 10 93 or its equivalent.
D.
Prior to the start of work under this Contract CONTRACTOR shall file
certificates of insurance and endorsements evidencing the coverage
required by this Contract with the City Administrator. CONTRACTOR
shall file a new or amended certificate of insurance promptly after any
change is made in any insurance policy which would alter the
information on the certificate then on file.
E.
Neither the insurance requirements hereunder, nor acceptance or

approval of CONTRACTORS insurance, nor whether any claims are
covered under any insurance, shall in any way modify or change
CONTRACTORS obligations under the indemnification clause in this
Contract, which shall continue in full force and effect. Notwithstanding
the insurance requirements contained herein, CONTRACTOR is
financially liable for its indemnity obligations under this Contract.
F.
Any deductible or self-insured retentions must be declared to and

approved by CITY. At the option of CITY either: the insured shall
reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as
respects CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or
CONTRACTOR shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to
CITY guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration, and defense expenses.
11.
Licensing. CONTRACTOR represents that it is properly licensed to perform
the work specified under this Contract, including but not limited to, possession of a current
city business license.
13.
Termination. This Contract may be terminated by either party upon thirty
(30) calendar days written notice to the other party. In the event of such termination, CITY
shall pay CONTRACTOR for all services performed in accordance with this Contract to the
date of receipt of notice of termination. An itemized statement of the work performed to the
date of termination shall be submitted to CITY. In ascertaining the services actually rendered
hereunder up to the date of termination of this Contract, consideration shall be given to both
completed work and work in process of completion, and to complete and incomplete
drawings and other documents whether delivered to CITY or in the possession of the
CONTRACTOR.
14.
Agency. In performing the services specified under this Contract,
CONTRACTOR is hereby deemed to be an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent
or employee of CITY.

Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 14
15.
Authority of the City Administrator. CONTRACTOR shall perform all
necessary services provided under this Contract and outlined in the proposal and shall do,
perform, and carry out said work in accordance with this Contract as determined by and to
the reasonable satisfaction of the City Administrator. The City Administrator reserves the
right to make changes, additions or deletions, to the scope of work as deemed necessary or
advisable to implement and carry out the purposes of this Contract. The City Administrator is
authorized to execute change orders.
16.
Responsibility of CONTRACTOR.
By executing this CONTRACTOR
represents and state to CITY that he/she possesses, or will arrange to secure from others,
all necessary professional capabilities, experience, resources and facilities necessary to
provide to city the services contemplated under this Contract. CONTRACTOR further
represents that he/she will follow the current generally accepted practices of the profession
for which services are rendered under this Contract.
17.
Materials and Equipment. CONTRACTOR shall furnish at his/her own
expense, all materials and equipment necessary to carry out the terms of this Contract,
except the City will furnish all toilet paper, paper hand towels, hand soap for restroom
dispensers, and trash can liners.
18.
Audit Authority. CONTRACTOR shall keep full and detailed accounts and
exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this
Contract; the accounting and control systems shall be satisfactory to CITY. CITY and CITYs
auditor shall be afforded access to CONTRACTORs records, books, correspondence and
other data relating to this Contract. CONTRACTOR shall preserve these records, books,
correspondence and other data relating to this Contract for a period of four (4) years after
final payment or for such longer period as may be required by law. In addition,
CONTRACTOR agrees to make said records, books, correspondence and other data
relating to this Contract available to CITY at CITYs principle place of business upon
seventy-two (72) hours advance written notice. The City Administrator, or his or her
designee, shall at all times have the right to inspect the work, services, or materials.
CONTRACTOR shall furnish all reasonable aid and assistance required by CITY for the
proper examination of the work or services and all parts thereof. Such inspection shall not
relieve CONTRACTOR form any obligation to perform said work or services strictly in
accordance with the specifications of any modifications thereof and in compliance with the
law.
20.
Notices. All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given by
either party to the other, shall be considered fully received when made in writing and
deposited in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid, and addressed to the
respective parties as follows:
CITY:
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Public Works Department
Attention: Andy Vanderford
P.O. Box CC, Carmel-by-the-Sea
California 93921
CONTRACTOR:
Preserve Facility Services

Attention: Hector Marquez, General Manager
557 Brunken Ave. Suite G, Salinas, CA
93901
Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 15
21.
Entire Contract. This Contract constitutes the entire contract between the
parties hereto and supersedes any and all prior contracts, whether oral or written, relating to
the subject matter thereof. Any modification of this Contract will be effective only if it is in
writing signed by both parties hereto.
22.
Validity. If any provision in this Contract is held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will continue in full
force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
23.
Assignment of Interest. The duties under this Contract shall not be
assignable, delegable, or transferable without the prior written consent of CITY. Any such
purported assignment, delegation, or transfer shall constitute a material breach of this
Contract upon which CITY may terminate this Contract and be entitled to damages.
24.
Conflict of Interest/Political Reform Act. CONTRACTOR shall at all times
avoid conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of interest, in the performance of
this Contract.
During the term of this Contract CONTRACTOR shall not directly or indirectly,
either as a partner, employer, employee, consultant, principal, and agent or in any individual
or representative capacity, engage or participate in any business or voluntary activity on
behalf of any other party on any property located within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
without notification to City Administrator.
If CITY determines CONTRACTOR comes within the definition of
CONTRACTOR under the Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 87100 et seq.)
CONTRACTOR shall complete and file, and shall require any other person doing work
under this Contract, to complete and file a "Statement of Economic Interest" with CITY
disclosing CONTRACTOR'S and/or such other person's financial interests.
25.
Non-discrimination/Affirmative Action.
CONTRACTOR will not
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed,
color, sex, age, national origin, marital status, physical or other motor handicap, unless
based upon bonafide occupational disqualification.
CONTRACTOR will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are
employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race,
creed, color, sex, age, national origin, marital status, physical or other motor handicap.
26.
Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in multiple originals, each of
which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts.
27.
Laws. CONTRACTOR agrees that in the performance of this Contract it will
reasonably comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws and regulations. This
Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
California and the City of Carmel-By-The-Sea.

Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 16
28.
Attorneys Fees and Court Venue. Should either party to this Contract bring
legal action against the other, (formal judicial proceeding, mediation or arbitration), the case
shall be handled in Monterey County, California, and the party prevailing in such action shall
be entitled to a reasonable attorneys fee which shall be fixed by the judge, mediator or
arbitrator hearing the case and such fee shall be included in the judgment, together with all
costs.
29.
Severability. If any term of this Contract is held invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Contract shall remain in effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Contract is entered into by the parties hereto in
Carmel, California, on the day and year first written above.
CONTRACTOR
By:
By:
______________________
Its:
_______________________
_____________________
Doug Schmitz,
City Administrator
Date: _______________________
Date: ___________________
By:
______________________
Recommended
Its:
_______________________
By: ________________________
Date: _______________________
Andy Vanderford,
Project Manager
Date: ______________________
ATTEST:
By:
Its:
_____________________________
Lee Price,
City Clerk
Date: ______________________

Agenda Item: 5.B
Page 17

Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Meeting Agenda Packet 06-29-15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPECIAL MEETING

MONDAY, June 29, 2015

Council Chambers, City Hall

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION

Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION

Name of Case: Hildalgo, Plantiff v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, No.

The City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea meets in Regular

Meetings are streamed live on-line and archived for easy

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you

Recommendation: Adopt resolutions authorizing the City

4. Execute a Professional Services Agreement with ProServ Facilities

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Rob Mullane, AICP, Planning and Building Director

Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015

Funding Source( general fund, grant,

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION/DECISION HISTORY: Design Study (OS 14-107) was

Attachment 1 - Findings for Approval

Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015

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

Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015

FINDINGS FOR DECISION

Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015

Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015

Park Overlay District Findings

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

Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015

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

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

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

Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015

There shall be no skylights in this project.

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

Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015

This project is subject to a volume study.

A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with the

Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015

significance by a qualified archaeologist. If the resources are determined to be

Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015

*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.

Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Rob Mullane, AICP , Planning and Building Director

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission 's approval of

Agenda Item: 5.A

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

A. Roof Elevations and Plate Heights

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

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

A. Lack of Volume Calculation:

B. Grading/Lack of Geology or Geotech Reports

Discrepancies in the Plans.

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/1 5

Funding Source( general fund, grant,

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION/DECISION HISTORY:

Attachment 1 - Appeal Application

Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15

Council Meeting Date: 612115

Council Meeting Date: 06/29/2015