CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Planning Commission Report

July 12, 2017

To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners

From: Marc Wiener, Community Planning and Building Director

Subject: Preliminary concept review (DR 16-477) of a proposal to construct a

second-story addition above an existing one-story building currently
occupied by Cantinetta Luca and review of an associated Encroachment
Permit (EN 17-067) application proposing to construct access stairs on
the south side of Picadilly Park.

Recommendation:
1. Review the preliminary concept and provide direction to the applicant on the design.
2. Provide input to the City Council on the Encroachment Permit application.

Application: DR 16-477/EN 17-067 APN: 010-147-003

Location: th
Dolores Street, 4 NW of 7 Ave
Block: 75 Lot: 13
Applicant: David Fink Property Owner: Neil Goodhue

Background and Project Description:

The project site is a 4,000-square foot lot located on Dolores Street, 4 northwest of 7th Avenue,
adjacent to City-owned Picadilly Park. The lot is developed with a 3,824-square foot one-story
building that contains Cantinetta Luca restaurant and Salumeria Luca deli. The applicant is
proposing to add a 1,570-square foot second-story condominium addition that has a height of
approximately 28.5-feet. The proposed second-story addition is clad with concrete panel siding
and includes a rooftop deck and wood trellis on the front elevation and rooftop deck on the
rear elevation. Access to the second story would be provided via an elevator at the front of the
space and stairs on the north elevation that would encroach onto Picadilly Park.

With regard to commercial development, CMC 17.14.110 encourages applicants to present

preliminary concept plans to the Commission for feedback and direction prior to formally
submitting an application for design review. Staff has provided a cursory review of the project

125
DR 16-477(Goodhue-Fink)
July 12, 2017
Staff Report
Page 2

in order to provide a general analysis and address potential issues. Staff notes that this
conceptual review by the Planning Commission is intended to provide feedback to the applicant
on the proposal and does not constitute a guarantee of future approval.

PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,000-SQUARE FOOT SITE (Central Commercial District):

Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed

Floor Area 5,400 sf (135%) 3,824 sf (133%) 5,394 sf (135%)

Building Coverage 3,200 sf (80%) 3,824 sf (95%) No Change

Building Height i 30 186 286
Parking Requirement 1 spaces 0 spaces 0 spaces*
Setbacks Minimum Existing Proposed
Required
Front 0 0(ground level) 0 (ground level)/87 (2nd
story addition)
Rear 0 0 (ground level) 4 (ground level)/51 (2nd
story addition)
Side Yard 0 0 0

*Parking requirement may be satisfied by payment of in-lieu fee (CMC 17.38.030.C)

Staff Analysis:

Zoning District: This site is zoned Central Commercial (CC). CMC Section 17.14.010.B states
that the following purpose of the CC Zoning District: Central Commercial District (CC). To
provide an appropriate location for a broad range of retail, residential and service uses. Uses
which generate high pedestrian traffic and which do not have large space requirements are
appropriate in this district. Residential uses are appropriate on the second floor of structures.
The proposal for a residential use on the second story complies with the purpose of the CC
Zoning District.

Zoning Compliance:
Floor Area: The allowed floor area for a two-story building in the CC Zoning District is 135% of
the site area or 5,400 square feet. With the proposed addition the building would be 5,394
square feet in size and complies with the floor area allowance.

126
DR 16-477(Goodhue-Fink)
July 12, 2017
Staff Report
Page 3

Height: With regard to building height, CMC 17.14.150.B states that: The allowable maximum
building height shall be determined primarily by the design context established by the prevailing
heights of nearby structures facing the same street or intersection and within the same
pedestrian field of view (i.e., generally, within 100 feet to either side of, or across the street from
the proposed structure). In the CC and SC districts the main building and roof form of all
structures shall be limited to a maximum of 30 feet.

The neighboring buildings along Dolores Street between Ocean and 7th Avenues vary in height,
with some being one-story and small in scale, while other are two-story with estimated heights
ranging from 26-30 feet. The proposed building would be 28.5 feet high and complies with the
maximum 30-foot height requirement. Prior to final approval staff will provide an analysis of
neighboring building heights.

Setbacks: The ground level has a 0-foot setback around the entire building, which is permitted
in the CC Zoning District. The proposed second-story addition has an 8.5-foot setback from the
front property line, which will help reduce the appearance of building mass to the street. The
second-story addition has a 51-foot setback from the rear property line.

Parking: The proposed condominium requires one off-street parking space (CMC 17.38.020.C).
However, pursuant to CMC 17.14.200: On-site parking within 200 feet of Ocean Avenue shall
be prohibited and no site alteration shall be allowed that includes additional driveways, surface
parking spaces or underground spaces within this area. Parking requirements on sites where
parking is prohibited shall be satisfied through the payment of fees in-lieu of on-site parking.
The applicant will be required to pay the in-lieu fee in order to satisfy the parking requirements.

Design Standards and Guidelines: The basic standard of review in the Commercial District is
whether the project constitutes an improvement over existing conditions not whether the
project just meets minimum standards (CMC 17.14.100). In addition to this code section, the
Commercial Design Guidelines include the following recommendations: Modifications to
buildings should respect the history and traditions of the architecture of the commercial
districts. Basic elements of design integrity and consistency throughout each building should be
preserved or restored and New Buildings should not imitate styles of the past but strive to
achieve compatibility with the old. Guidelines Section E states that building materials and
colors should respect traditions already established in the commercial district. The use of richly
detailed wood, tile, molding, corbels, brick and stone are encouraged and building walls
facing public streets and walkways should provide visual interest to pedestrian.

127
DR 16-477(Goodhue-Fink)
July 12, 2017
Staff Report
Page 4

Staff supports the proposal for a second-story addition, so long as it is consistent with the
existing architectural style of the building and is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. Staff has identified the following design components that should be considered
by the Planning Commission:

Finish Materials - The applicant is proposing that the second story be clad with concrete panel
siding, and has agreed to bring photographs or samples to the meeting. In staffs opinion, the
concrete siding should be compatible with the stucco siding on the lower level and there should
not be a strong contrast between the upper and lower level finish materials.

Building Height - The proposed height appears to be compatible with the height of neighboring
buildings, however, a full height analysis of the neighboring buildings should be completed for
comparison prior to final approval.

Front Deck - The second-story addition will be set back 8.5 feet from the front property line. At
the front of the second story is a rooftop deck and wood trellis. The front deck also includes
the elevator shaft, which is clad with stone and designed to look like a chimney. Several of the
neighboring buildings have front elevation balconies and two have full decks on the front
elevation. In staffs opinion, the proposal for a rooftop deck on the front elevation is
compatible with the design of the neighboring buildings.

Picadilly Park - The proposed second-story addition presents additional building mass and will
have some impact on Picadilly Park. The Commission should consider the extent of the impact
and whether any mitigations are necessary. In addition to the building mass, the applicant is
also proposing emergency egress stairs that would encroach into the park, as described in the
following section.

Staircase Encroachment: Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 12.08.050.A states that
applications for encroachments involving properties in the CC, SC, RC and R-4 districts which
accompany applications for design review shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for its
consideration and recommendation.

The applicant is proposing an elevator at the front of the building for primary access, but is also
required by the fire code to have a second means of emergency egress by stairs or ladder. In
order to satisfy this fire code requirement the applicant is proposing an emergency access
staircase on the north side of the building that would encroach into Picadilly Park and requires

128
DR 16-477(Goodhue-Fink)
July 12, 2017
Staff Report
Page 5

approval of an Encroachment Permit (EN 17-067) application. The proposed staircase would be
attached to the public restroom and has a footprint of approximately 10 x 9. As an alternative
to placing the stairs in the park the applicant could have stairs that exit out the front of the
building, but this would impact the floor layout of the lower level floor.

The Citys Municipal Code (CMC 12.08) provides a list of criteria for evaluating encroachments
(Attachment C). In summary, the criteria require that the encroachment be in the public
interest. In staffs opinion, the proposed staircase would be a formalization of the City property
that conveys private use of public land, and is contrary to the public interest. The Municipal
Code allows for mitigation measures when necessary to compensate the City for the loss of the
use of City property or the public right-of-way, or to repair damage thereto.

The applicant, David Fink, is requesting that the City retroactively accept the public restroom
that he constructed in 2006 as the necessary mitigation to approve the encroachment permit.
Of important note is that the previous restaurant at this site, Toots Lagoon, applied to expand
their restaurant in 1987. The expansion required the installation of a second exit door into
Picadilly Park, and in order to allow this, the City Council required that there be some public
benefit provided by the applicant. The applicant satisfied this agreement by making the
restaurant restrooms available to the public. In 2006, Mr. Fink remodeled the building and at
that time was approved to construct the public restroom in Picadilly Park in order to alleviate
the restaurant of its obligation for providing a public restroom. In staffs opinion, the restroom
was constructed in order to satisfy a previous condition, and should not be considered a second
time as a mitigation for this new proposed encroachment into Picadilly Park.

Staff notes that the applicant is also requesting that the Encroachment Permit include the
existing restaurant trash enclosure located in Picadilly Park. This structure appears to have
been approved by the City as part of the 2006 remodel, but never received an encroachment
permit.

Downtown Conservation District: This project is located within the Downtown Conservation
District and will require review by the Historic Resources Board prior to a final Planning
Commission decision. According to CMC 17.20.280.B, the purpose of the review by the Historic
Resources Board is to ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the established
design context of the Conservation District and that the development does not have any
adverse effects on any historic resources in the area.

129
DR 16-477(Goodhue-Fink)
July 12, 2017
Staff Report
Page 6

Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements,
pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) Existing Facilities. The project includes a 1,570-square
foot addition to an existing 3,824-square foot commercial building, and therefore qualifies for a
Class 1 exemption. The proposed alterations to the residence do not present any unusual
circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A Site Photographs

Attachment B Project Plans
Attachment C Municipal Code Encroachment

130
DR 16-477(Goodhue-Fink)
July 12, 2017
Staff Report
Page 7

131
Attachment A - Site Photographs

Project Site Facing Southwest

Picadilly Park Facing West

132
 NW Dolores/7th - Looking North

NE Dolores/7th Looking Northeast

133
 R~V1S:IONS

AQCHIIECT

jeffrey fink
architecture

jeffrey fink

l-121 B'uir L:.uu~

Tost<n, CA 92780
71".J29.1G82 r~
/l.tl.~U:/.Ql&~ FnK
i"'rtfkc :_c.,..,

~ -........
El<JSllNCREtii.SPI<E
"""""'EUVAlllR
~
~ -
. ::5

....=: g::
.....

..
...J =
'==
::

@ , , E. F/ 1 Ft l'lA M
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"

,. JUL 0 5 2017
Cny ofr -- -
r---F-IN_K_R_E_S_I_D_E_N_C_E------- - - - -.+1
. ;Op,l);,;~:;C!JC ~j~~;:~~;~C"
ENCHROACHMENT AREA

(E) PUBLIC BATHROOM 66SF 4,000 SF

(E) TRASH ENCLOSURE 111 SF 135% ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA 5,400 SF

(E) CITY OF CARMEL ELECTRIC BOX 16SF EXISTING BUILDING: 3,1:124 SF

(located inside column)

(N) PROPOSED STAIR TOWER 100 SF (N) PROPOSED SECOND STORY ADDITION 1,570 SF

ENCROACHMENT APPROVAL BY SEPARATE PERMIT TOTAL PROPOSED (E)+ (N) = 6. 394 SF JULY 5,2017

(!) EX/.1/M A.EMEMT Ft l'lAM

SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
A-1
134
 ~
llEVIS!ONS

10'-o" 8'-4" 3'-a 3/8" 40'-0" 8'-7"

8'-6" I

11" 3'-o"l I

1
,, ,,;,.,:,

N ly
"-q.CH ITECT

{_ I

I
I
22

20
I

5
~-rr ,
tx1'!
._., "
t'

i011
(E) PUBLIC
RESTROO~
(E) CllY OF CARMEL ~
ELECTRIC BOXI r=1
jeffrey fink
I " ' " I
I
I t architecture

0 0 0 i Z 18 /
/1
2 ,
WIONC I
c 0 01 0 jeffrey fink
, ____________. ~----------------------------------------~~----~f.f I
6 15
II I
1421 B:uir L:.mt.~
Tust:n, CA 92780
71t..329.1C82 fhooe
/IL~1i.91r:'ifm:
i.. r 1-lkc -.ern

.----- ~---r~------------------J
I

--

~~
- - - -+-+=lr=t==l ~11
LL_ _ _ _L __ _~
-- -- ------ - ~
~ I I

TWO GAS SIDED ----1--~

o:: : _j I
D I
;..,
I

I
D
.........~ ..
RREPlACE ~ I

~ ~ IIt:=:=JI===:JII
(") R51 ECUIPJJEN'T I
I
;..,

.
I
I

::5

~-
lr I
a-o "' I
B't-3" 4'-4" 5'-2" 4'-6"

CLOSET

ooi
I
=n1~~~--~
T><
I

X
I

~
..
:!: ....
i.
~
....

=
I

"' Il CLOS.

WISTER BEDROO~
r-- --- -- i~~~~
.. ... ~;
::
(N) ROOF CECK ~
I

I::
I

'I
4'-7" I

~---------9'--'-"-8"_______ J;.'J,-------,1

I
I

...J - - - 't. OF WALL I S PROPERTY LINE

96'-10 1/8' _________________________,

ENCHROACHMENTAREA FINK RESIDENCE

(E) PUBLIC BATHROOM S6 SF 4,000 SF

(E) TRASH ENCLOSURE 111 SF 135% ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA 5,400SF

(E) CITY OF CARMEL ELECTRIC BOX 16 SF EXISTING BUILDING 3,824 SF

(locatedinsidecolimn)

(N) PROPOSED STAIR TOWER 100SF (N) PROPOSED SECOND STORY ADDITION 1,570 SF

'ENCROACHMENT APPROVAL BY SEPARATE PERMIT TOTAL PROPOSED (E)+ (N) = 5,3S4 SF

JULY 5, 2017
([) , , E EijJ/1. FL I'LA/1 SCALE: AS NOTED

SCALE: 1/4" = 1'..()"

A-2
135
 flEWONS

.aRCHTECT

r
jeffrey fink
an:hitecture

jeffrey fink

14:!1 ~~air Lcne

Tustin, CA 92780
71L..32G, 1062 ?1cne
71i. 81? 91 BS: ~.:u::
i~rt~cn :r \:OT
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooc

II II I 1111 Ill
~ IU~
[1][] m ~~
I E] [ n Vi
b:JI
-

~
-
.
-- --

~
~-
~

EXI61111. 61.E'E1 ElEIIA 1111

SCALE: l/4" = l'-0"

.. .
=: ::
~
....

=
Ill
::
:::::

~~
~~
~~

~ ~~
1""-'-~

n
II
;==;
r~ II . . II II II
;==;
r~

I n ;==; ;==; n
..=
I::
'--------! ......~.
rt~
I~ I l Jl I
I I I
I II II II II I II II II II II I II

:::.....
~-.1

tfD' ...i::
II'>' '' ''
=.= :i
!
~

......
P!':~ Ill i
I
h=b
~
r-.- --
-~- :Ill ~
r ~
.......
~
~
)<., ' -,1
-~

JULY 5,201.,

0 EXIITI/1. ,A.J' ElEJIA 1111

SCALE: l/4"= l'-0"
SCALE : AS NOTED

1-1
136
 REVlSIONS

~----~1
1
~~~--~---

jeffrey fink
architeclure

jeffrey fink

1-4:.:!1 lfoir l.tlnJJ

T..st;n, C~ 92760
n.:.JlV 1061-''let'lQ
71< 832 9155 =o,
th~-co c~ t:Q...

@ , , E. 61.EET ElEIIA 1111

SCALE: l/4" ~ l'-0"

D D D

!r

I )

(!) , , E. ,A.6 ElEIIA 1111

JULY 5,2017
SCAlE : AS NOTED

SCALE: l/4" ~ l'-0"

1-l
137
 $ TOP OF PARAPET ----, ~ T - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - ,
REVISIONS
I
-~-~============================================~

ARCHITECT

,(N) SECOND FLOOR

'I
- - jeffrey fink
I r r- architecture
~

jeffrey fink
t
;:: 14:!1 8 air ~me
1

T"'t;n, CA 92780
li'- .31V 10C21cn~
1
":!? ; :~ 7 1..i!32 9 185 =ax
j ~le!'t(l) CT(:0-

..'
(
~:.

}
::

@ , , E. ~ E~TIM
SCALE: 1/4" 1'-0"

I
lXI lXI I lXI lXI lXI lXI [X] lXI lXI lXI lXI lXI [X] D<l [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [X]

<;=====;
'\ '
, I
D<J IXl D<J D<J ~ D<J D<J lXl D<J lXI D<J lXI lXI I lXI lXI D<J lXI lXI D<J lXI lXI lXI lXI lXI lXI lXI lXI D<J [X] fXI.-, [X] "\i
n
I I
ii
I I
~I I
/I I

I I
I I
I I
ICJ ICJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-:_ /
-== F==~~=n"'==<7==t'i==~=n=~=n"'==<7==t'T=~drl===r==rr~
J
f--_._.___ D<l_,_IX+--D<l'-'--_._.D<l___._D<l,___D<l..,__..._.D<l___._D<l..__...__D<l.....____.Ji<J-"---r'-1~
D<l_,_D<J,___[X]'-'--..LL..-
I
I I I I ;;:;
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
II I I ====:::
I I I I ----- ,
I I I I t_--11,+-------1
r'-:--
I II
I I I
I I
I
I
I
I
_
-

JULY 5, 20 17

SCALE : AS NOTED

(]) , , E. tM~ E~TI.M A-f

SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

138
139

LEGEND:

FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE, PLS B36B

(UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)
~~~~-- WOOD FENCE

- - - - WIRE fENCE
SET 3/4" IRON PIPE, PIS 8368
(UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) - - - - CHAJN UNK fENCE
PROJECT llENCHMNlt<
II.OGNAJLirOCSC
lliV=SO.O . .
,.,
FOUND 2x2 REDWOOD HUB
(UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)
-u- STREET SIGN
o5" SIGN POST
fOUND CENTERLINE MONUMENT
(UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) EUECTRICAL CONOUrT

fOUND 2x2 REDWOOD HU

REPlACED WrTH 1" IRON PIPE, PIS 836B
ocr CYUNDRICAL PILlAR

- - ----RECORD BOUNDARY R CARMEL STONE PILLAR

!iOWM

- - - - - - RECORD RIGHT OF WAY

lllocu>J.J.
I!CC>.W>Il
BLOCK RETAINING WALL
Tr:JfOf~
.. ~ill""

1- ....
- - - - - - RECORD LOT LINE
OOOOClODCCOOOGUOD ROCK RETAINING WALL C:Vo\110N-GI).3
~r w
====== STACKED BLOCK WAUL "~ w a:
....
--- - - - - RECORD CENTERUNE ~ ex:
c._~-'---'-~~ CARMEL STONE 1- ....>-
~
- -- - RECORD EASENENT LINE 1.1')
LOT 13, BLOCK 75 u
[@ uoo
Ill
DISABLED PARKING 5CALf: 1"=10'
- - - - - - - - - PROPOSED NEW EASEMENT VOLUME 1, C&T PAGE 2 1.1') ~

~
N'N 01o-147-1103--1XIO I'Gf0
w ;: 0 10 20 30

..
STANDARD PARKING STALL 40
- - - - - OLD RECORD LINE DOCUIIENT: 201604-4546 I'Gf0
ASPHALT CONCRETE
I'Gf0 ex: b
PROJECT BENCHMARK 0 ~
CARMEL STONE .. ...J
~
~
.&.

~~
SURVEY CONTROL POINT
0
- - -50--- CONTOUR (MAJOR)
CURB LINED WMJ<WAY 'il Cl
CONCRETE PAD
- - - - - - CONTOUR (MINOR)
DECOMPOSED GRANITE

-
- - GRADEBREAK

EDGE OF PAVEMENT
EXPOSED AGGREGATE 0 BASIS OF BEARINGS:
_ _ _ _ _ _ UP Of GUTTER HIGH DENSrTY POLY ETHYUENE
THE BEARING OF NORTH AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN

- - - - - - fACE OF CURB
PORTlAND CEMENT CONCRETE EXISTING SITE PLAN VOLUME 21, PAGE 47. OF PARCEL MAPS. AS FOUND MONUMENTED
BUT NOT SHOWN HEREON IS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FORTH IS SURVEY
PAVER STONE
COOl AND OUTm< BACK OF CURB BENCHMARK:
POLY VINYL CHLORIDE ELEVATIONS FOR THlS SURVEY ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMED DATUM.
~-"-' BACK OF SIDEWALK AN ELEVATION OF 50.0 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO A MAG NAIL & DISC
REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE SET IN THE PAVEMENT NEAR THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE
rti'JVfYIAr EDGE OF DRIVEWAY
SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN HEREON.
~--- ""'-"!"'~---- FlOWLINE TRASH ENCLOSURE
NOTES:
~ EDGE OF fOLIAGE I. BOUNDARY LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON WERE DETERMINED WITH THE
...,.._r-'7-r"/7-/ / / BUILDING OUTLINE
BENEFIT OF A FIELD SURVEY SUPPLEMENTED BY RECORD DATA.
0 12'T TREE WrTH SIZE AND TYPE
r::=g:r CHIMNEY ALL BOUNDARY DATA SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM THE RECORDS.
AND IS SHOWN APPROXIMATE ONLY NOT FOR CONS! RUCTION.
ACACIA
'""""""'
!!fVATIOII APPROXIMATE FlOOR ELEVAliON THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY.
CYPRESS 2. ENTITLEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES AFFECTING THIS PROPERTY
- DECK
MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE SHOWN.
OAK
CONe""' CONCRETE PAD
C:OI.Cf-..?

J~~~ :~:::~:
3. DlSTANCES SHOWN ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.
5T1T STEP PALN
\'-".'

-
l'lANT1:R

-w- -
PLANTER

WATER LINE
PINE

REDWOOD
\.c
__.; ;"'~-.:-~== , _____: .. v.v e
V.:i@

~
4. CONTOUR INTERVAL= ONE FOOT.

5. TREE TYPES (IF ANY) ARE INDICATED WHERE KNOWN. DIAMETERS OF TREES ARE
SHOWN IN INCHES AND ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. TO BE VERIFIED BY AN
APPROVED ARBORlST PROVIDED BY OTHERS. PER AGREEMENT WITH THE SURVEYOR.
TREE TOf'OfeJ :;::.:.:. flo.J", WEST 100.00
8wv WATER VALVE r .!: :.no\.- :;:s c: !':tt:."A.;; ~,4~l':
TREES SMALLER THAN 6" IN DIAMETER MAY NOT BE NECESSARILY SHOWN.
.~ SPOT ELEVATION DIRECTION OF GROWTH AND DRIP LINE SHAPE TO BE VERIFIED ~y OTHERS.
Iii""' WATER METER
f-~~A~;,;.;:r~~ ~ 1- .... 6. POSITION AND DIMENSIONS (IF ANY) OF BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES
@"' FIRE HYDRANT ~t w
w ~ ARE SHOWN HEREON APPROXIMATE ONLY DUE TO MEASUREMENT LIMITATIONS,

-~ ;
IRREGULAR SHAPE OF BRICK FACING. POP-QUTS. BULL NOSE CORNERS. ETC.
@"' WATER fOUNTAIN ex: . . SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDINGS IIF ANY) IS SHOWN APPROXIMATE ONLY.
1: 1- ~ ANDSUBJECTTO REVISION AT ANYTIME.
oiCV IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE 8 0
Vl '::::
~ LOT 13, BLOCK 75 u
7. NOT ALL UTILITY BOXES AND/OR UTILITY STRUCTURES ARE SHOWN
- - -ss- - - SANITARY SEWER LINE VOLUME i, C&T PAGE 2 1.1') ~
Tho ~ ,_ pan:o1 nl lncludo lhl root (40>100)
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HOSE BIBS AND IRRIGATION VALVES.
;;
~ ~ UJ ONL YTHE VISIBLE UTILITY BOXES AND/OR UTILITY STRUCTURES THAT WERE
- - ~-- SANrTARY SEWER MANHOUE
cnl buiJdnll of a 11100 oquano faol .......,._
t-~Jpg) ex: . . CONSIDERED TO CONVEY THE GENERAL UTILITY CONDITIONS ARE SHOWN.
- - --<Jro SANrTARY SEWER CUEAN-OUT I 0 8
...J ~
8. THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY PREPARED BY ME AND/OR
- - - -so- - - STORM DRAIN "' ! 0 ~ UNDER MY DIRECTION, FROM FIELD DATA COLLECTED IN MAY 2017.

- - - -(Y'" - - -
PROPOSED EASEMENT AND NEW PARCEL: 8~ 0
STORM DRAIN MANHOUE =~
- - -oAD AREA DRAIN
The proposed new lot will include the roof (40x100)

IEi!C!l

- - - - - < - - - ELECTRIC LINE

STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN
and building of a T600 square foot residence.

The proposed easement will be for ingress and egress purposes,

along with construction, utitlily, view, landscape, maintenace
WEST 100.00
--------- TOPOGRAPHIC 6 SITE PLAN SURVEY
OF
and other incidental purposes.
"' UTIUTY POUE
PROPOSED SITE PLAN LOT 13, BLOCK 75
DUll UTIUTY BOX
in
o"' ELECTRIC VAULT
VOLUME 1 of CITIES & TOWNS at PAGE 2
o"" PGE UTILITY VAULT
Records of Monterey County
Ill"" ELECTRIC METER
PREPARED FOR

*51. STREET LIGHT

David Fink
-'' LAMP POST SHEET INDEX
RECORD DESCRIPTION:
- - - G-- - GAS UNE PER DOCUMENT: 2016044546 BY
C- 1 SURVEY LUCIDO SURVEYORS
llll"" GAS METER LOT 13. BLOCK 75. CARMEL-BY-THESEA. ~ S 500WN 01-l MAP OF 'CARMEl-B V)HE-SEA. MO~TERE\ COU~-!TY. CALifORN IA". A -1 EXISTING BASEMENT & PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN
FILED FOR RECORD MARCH 7, 19021N THE OFfiCE OF !HE COUJlTY RECOI!DER OF IHECOUN!Y OF MOnTEREY STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Boundary and Construction Surveys Topographic and Planimetric Mapping
- - - T - - - TEUEPHONE LINE IN VOLUME I OF MAPS. "CITIES ANDTOW!IS' AfPAGE2 A- 2 PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN ALTA Surveys and GIS Database Management Land Planning and Consulting
A- 3 EXISTING ELEVATIONS
o""' TEUEPHONE BOX APN 010-147ffi~
2 Saucito Avenue
A- 4 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS

*
info@lucidosurveyors.com
DEL REY OAKS. C ALIFORNIA 93940 1831) 6205032
- - - r v- - - CABLE TELEVISION LINE A- 5 PROPOSED SEGIONS
oCTVB CABLE TELEVISION BOX
SCALE: 1"=10' PROJECT No. 1801 MAY 30, 20 17 V2

CITY OF CARMEL COUNTY OF MONTEREY STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ONE SHEET O NLY

Attachment C Encroachment Standards

12.08.060 Encroachment Application Review Standards.

A. Need. The applicant shall be determined to have a justifiable need for the encroachment, and the

encroachment shall not be contrary to the public interest.

B. Safety. The granting of an encroachment permit shall not create a hazard to public health or safety.

C. Drainage. The proposed encroachment shall not adversely affect the normal drainage of surface water,

unless an acceptable mitigation is included that will be advantageous to the general public and meet the

standards herein.

D. Circulation and Parking.

1. The proposed encroachment shall not adversely affect vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic nor the

parking of vehicles.

2. The proposed encroachment shall not adversely impact existing rights-of-way nor preclude or make

difficult the establishment or improvement of existing or potential streets or pedestrian ways.

E. Public Use and Enjoyment.

1. The proposed encroachment shall not diminish public use or enjoyment, either visual or physical, of

the City property or public right-of-way to be encroached upon.

2. The encroachment and enjoyment shall be in the public interest.

3. The length of time an encroachment has existed shall not by itself prejudice a decision.

F. Compatibility.

1. The proposed encroachment and its mitigation shall be consistent with the General Plan and the

adopted ordinances of the City. Particular attention shall be given to Section P1-48 of the General Plan,

which prohibits the construction of sidewalks and concrete curbs in the R-1 district, unless necessary for

drainage and/or pedestrian safety.

2. The encroachment shall not create, extend, or be reasonably likely to lead to an undesirable land use

precedent.

140
 3. Granting of a permit shall not adversely affect the usability or enjoyment of one or more adjoining

parcels.

4. The proposed encroachment and its mitigation shall be compatible with the surrounding area and

adjoining properties.

G. Public Property/Greenbelt.

1. The proposed encroachment shall not adversely affect any public property, including existing

vegetation or its root structure, and shall not significantly reduce greenbelt area that may be used for

tree planting.

2. Significant trees which would be affected by the proposed encroachment shall be identified by the

Director of Forest, Parks and Beach and approval for removal shall follow City policy.

H. Mitigation. When deemed appropriate by the City, the applicant shall include those measures appropriate to

compensate the City for the loss of the use of City property or the public right-of-way, or to repair damage

thereto. (Ord. 89-9 1, 1989).

141