Encroachment Permit en 14-03 (Hayward) 07-01-14

July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 195

To:

From:

Submitted by:

Subject:

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Council Report

July 1, 2014

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator

Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Consideration of an Encroachment Permit EN 14-03 (Hayward) for

retention of an existing stone masonry wall and a brick planter in the

ROW, installation of drainpipes, and installation of a 21-ft wide paver

driveway in the City Right-of-Way at the southeast corner of Carmela

Street and Ocean Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District

Recommendation: Consider the request for Encroachment Permit EN 14-03, and direct the

applicant on any appropriate revisions to the proposed scope of work in

the Right-of-Way (ROW)

Executive Summary: The project site includes both the Carmela Street and Ocean Avenue

frontages (City ROW) of an 8,000-square foot property on which a single

family residence is being constructed. On February 13, 2013, the

Planning Commission approved a Design Study (DS 12-111) for the new

3,418-sq ft residence, which replaced a previous residence on the site.

The applicant subsequently applied for multiple plan revisions for design

revisions, the last of which was approved by the Planning Commission on

January 23, 2014. During the Planning process, it was noted that the

project involved components in the City ROW and that there were some

existing encroachments in the ROW that did not have an Encroachment

Permit. The existing improvements in the ROW include a 12-in high, 3-ft

wide, and 25-ft long brick planter on the eastern portion of the Ocean

Avenue frontage and a 3-ft high stone masonry wall along the northern

portion of the Carmela Street frontage. Proposed additional

encroachments include drainage pipes and a 21-ft wide permeable paver

driveway.

The project applicants (the adjoining property owners), Bill and Adriana

Hayward, have applied for an Encroachment Permit. In discussions with

the applicants' architect, Chris Boqua of Stocker and Allaire, staff noted 1


concerns with the proposed driveway width and indicated that the

request would need to be referred to the City Council for a determination

on this component of the request.

Analysis/Discussion: The site is located at SE Corner of Ocean Ave and Carmela Street (APN:

010-266-013). The applicants are requesting an Encroachment Permit to:

1) retain an existing 25-ft long, 3-ft wide, and 12-inch high brick

planter,

2) retain an existing an approximately 45-ft long, 3-ft high stone

masonry retaining wall along the front of the property to the

north of the driveway

3) authorize the construction of a 21-ft wide paver driveway, and

4) authorize installation of five 3-inch diameter drainpipes in the City

ROW.

The brick planter is along the Ocean Avenue frontage and adjacent to an

existing City paved pathway. The other components are along the

Carmela Street frontage. Given the fact that there is a pre-existing

walkway along Ocean Avenue that is not impeded by the planter, staff

does not have a major concern with the planter. The existing 3-ft high

stone masonry wall, however, does encroach slightly (approximately 1-2

feet) into the City ROW and could be reconstructed on the property.

Staff notes no concerns with the proposed drain pipes, as these will be

buried and are fairly typical components for conveying drainage. The

location and design of the drain pipes have also been reviewed and

approved by the City's Public Works Supervisor.

Staff's primary concern with this Encroachment Permit is the proposed

extra-wide driveway. The City's Municipal Code restricts the maximum

width of the driveway within the City ROW to no more that 14-feet (CMC

Section 12.24.020.A), and the City's Residential Design Guidelines

recommend a maximum width of 9 feet for driveways (Guideline 6.3).

The site is a prominent, heavily-traveled location along Ocean Avenue.

The allowance of a driveway in excess of the 14-foot maximum would

create a highly-visible exception to this standard and would present an

undesirable precedent.

As noted above, staff has no concerns with the proposed drainpipes. As

such, the focus of the analysis of this request will be on the planter, stone

masonry wall, and the extra-wide driveway.

2


It is feasible to remove or relocate the planter, and it is feasible to

relocate the stone masonry wall out of the ROW. This would involve

demolition of these features and, potentially, their reconstruction in a

slightly different location. Staff routinely requires relocation of fences

that encroach into the ROW. Relocation of walls and other structures is

less frequent, but would be considered more consistent with the City's

ROW Vision Statement. If either structure is allow to remain in the ROW,

the recordation of a hold harmless agreement and the City's requirement

for adequate liability insurance would address the potential liability

presented by the structure(s).

The driveway could be redesigned such that the portion of the driveway

in the ROW meets the City's 14-foot maximum width. This portion is

approximately 15 feet long. The remaining portion of the driveway (that

which is on private property) could remain wider than 14 feet. As

currently designed, cars could be parked side-by-side in the driveway,

and potentially also in a tandem arrangement where a total of four cars

would be parked in the driveway. This would be expected to have an

adverse effect on the community character, and as previously noted,

present an undesirable precedent on this highly-visible site.

Staff strongly encouraged the applicant team to submit a revised design

for the driveway that would be more consistent with the City's Municipal

Code and Design Guidelines, but the applicant team opted to stay with

the current design for the driveway.

General Approach to Reviewing ROW Improvements

While unpermitted ROW encroachments may be addressed whenever

they are noted by staff, the City Municipal Code specifically requires that

ROW encroachments are examined as part of any Building Permit

request. This enables City staff to work with applicants on removing

encroachments that are unpermitted and/or inconsistent with City

regulations and the City's ROW Vision Statement. Since many Building

Permits also require a Planning Permit, an examination of any existing or

proposed improvements in the ROW is also conducted as part of the

Planning Permit review. For Planning items that go to the Planning

Commission for consideration, the Commission's review of improvements

in the ROW is in an advisory capacity, as a follow-up Encroachment

Permit is under the jurisdiction of the City Administrator or City Council.

3


In reviewing existing or proposed improvements in the ROW, Community

Planning and Building staff refer to the City's ROW Vision statement, as

well as pertinent sections of the Municipal Code. Staff encourage the

removal of excess paving, gravel, and boulders, as well as unnecessary

retaining walls and inconsistent landscaping. Structures including

retaining walls and planters are generally to be avoided in the ROW;

however, retaining walls are sometimes necessary when there are slopes

present and pre-existing conditions or improvements that constrain

alternative designs.

Specific Review of this Encroachment Permit Request

Staff has reviewed the request and notes that components of the request

may be seen as inconsistent with the guidance regarding ROW

improvements under the Mun icipal Code and the City's ROW Vision

Statement. This is particularly the case for the proposed extra-wide

driveway.

The request to retain the planter may be inconsistent with CMC Section

17.34.070.6.2, which notes:

Plants should be natural in character and informally arranged to

reflect the surrounding forest atmosphere. Landscaping shall not

include bedding plants, highly colorful flowering plants and

']ormal plant arrangements."

The planter, along with the adjacent wall, is planted with English ivy and

presents a hedge-like appearance. Ivy is also an invasive species and may

not be appropriate for a residential setting. That said, this area is only a

few blocks f rom downtown, and Ocean Avenue is largely built out to the

full ROW including an asphalt concrete path adjacent to this planter, so

the setting here is different than the setting other residential areas on

less busy streets and in areas further from the City's downtown.

The request for the planter and stone masonry wall in the ROW also

appears to be inconsistent w ith CMC Section 17.34.070.6.4, which notes,

in part :

Paving, gravel, boulders, logs, timbers, planters or other above

ground encroachments are prohibited, except paving for

driveways.

4


As previously noted, Section 12.24.020.A of the City's Municipal Code

sets a maximum driveway width of 14 feet, and the Guideline 6.3 of the

City's Residential Design Guidelines recommend driveways no more than

9 feet in width . Another component of Residential Design Guideline 6.3

states:

Avoid large expanses of paving for vehicles visible from the street.

These regulations and guidelines are set forth to preserve the community

character. The proposal for a straight, short driveway that is 21 feet in

width is inconsistent with City regulations and guidelines. Furthermore, a

narrower lower portion of the driveway would provide additional space

for on-street parking in the City ROW along Carmela Street.

Residential Design Guidelines 1.5 and 1.6 state:

1.5 Maintain and enhance the informal, vegetated, open space

character of the right-of-way.

1.6 Maintain trees and naturalized vegetation in the public right

of-way and around the periphery of the site.

Although the retaining wall and planter could be determined to be

consistent with Residential Design Guidelines 1.5 and 1.6, the extra-wide

driveway would not be consistent with these guidelines.

ROW Standards Analysis

CMC Section 12.08.060 establishes the encroachment application review standards. Several of the applicable standards are outlined below followed by a brief response from staff.

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.

Analysis: Keeping the planter and stone wall along the street frontages driveway to maintain the existing character of the site may be justifiable. However, whether the existing character is consistent with the City's Residential Design Guidel ines for this specific setting is an important consideration of this request. For the extra-wide driveway, there is not a clear and justifiable need. With the additional driveway width on the upper portion of the driveway {the portion outside of the City ROW) there is ample space to have one or more cars turn around, such that backing out onto Carmela Street would not be necessary. In addition, the

5


allowance of a 21-foot wide driveway would be contrary to the public interest, as it is inconsistent with both the City Municipal Code and the City's Residential Design Guidelines. Furthermore, the 21-foot w ide driveway would reduce the ability to utilize the ROW for on-street parking along the Carmelo frontage. The extra-wide driveway presents a formalization of the ROW and conveys a private use to a public space.

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

Analysis: None of the proposed improvements in the ROW are necessary to address a health or safety hazard, nor do they result in a significant hazard. The possible exception to this is the 21-ft wide driveway, which could facilitate tandem, side-by-side parking which would require one or more cars to back out onto Carmelo Street.

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.

Analysis : None of the requested encroachments would result in a significant impact on site drainage.

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.

Analysis : The planter and the stone wall are relatively low and do not result in pedestrian or vehicular safety hazards. As discussed above, the 21-ft wide driveway could present parking impacts including the potential for constraining on-street parking along Carmelo Street. As noted above, the Ocean Avenue ROW is fully developed. For the potential establishment of future pathway or other street improvement along Carmelo Street, none of the requested encroachments would result in a significant impediment to any such future improvements.

6


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.

Analysis: The planter and the stone wall encroach a sl ight amount (up to approximately 1-2 feet along the Carmelo Street frontage and up to approximately 4 feet along the Ocean Avenue frontage) into the ROW. As such, these do not significantly diminish the public use of the ROW, but they do reduce the public use slightly, which could be addressed through relocation of either structure and/or removal of the planter. It is acknowledged that these structures were constructed several years ago, but as noted in Standard E.3., this need not affect the decision of the City Council on the requested encroachment permit. The 21-foot wide driveway does diminish the public's use of the Carmelo Street ROW and would not be considered to be in the public interest.

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.

Analysis: The planter and stone wall would have a slight impact on the appearance and use of the right-of-way, as discussed above. The proposed extra-wide driveway would have a more substantial impact. Goal G1-2 of the General Plan encourages preserving the village character. Consistency of these proposed encroachments is to a large degree a subjective decision and part of the City Council's determination on the request. An objective and quantitative standard, however, is expressed for the maximum driveway width. The proposed 21-foot wide driveway exceeds the 14-foot maximum driveway width set forth in the City's Municipal Code by 50%. This width exceeds the width recommended in the Residential Design Guidelines by 133%. A redesign of the driveway that would meet City requirements is feasible and would be in the public's interest.

7


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

Analysis: The approval of the planter and the stone wall would not be considered a substantial land use precedent, but this should be considered by the City Council. However, as noted above, staff is of the opinion that the granting of the request for a 21-foot wide driveway would present an undesirable precedent, one that could be avoided with a minor redesign of the driveway.

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

Analysis : The proposed improvements would not be anticipated to adversely affect the usability of adjoining parcels.

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

Analysis: As noted above, the proposed planter presents a slight visual impact on the right-of-way. However, it also serves to soften the appearance of adjacent walls, and its removal would result in new aesthetic impacts through the exposure of more of the walls on the adjoining private property. The stone wall does not result in an aesthetic incompatibility. However, the relocation of this wall is feasible and would also not present a significant impact on the community character. The extra-wide driveway can, and in staff's opinion should, be addressed with a redesign that conforms to the City's maximum driveway width of 14-feet.

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.

Analysis: Other than the extra-wide driveway, the proposed improvements do not present any significant impacts on aesthetics and community character. Neither the planter nor the stone wall significantly reduces the greenbelt area or interferes with tree planting plans. Nor does either present any significant impacts to existing trees. The extra-

8


wide driveway would result in a perceptible reduction in area available for other uses of the ROW, including for on-street parking and potentially, the planting of a new street tree. In addition, granting the 21-foot wide driveway request would set a precedent for allowing driveways that exceed the stated maximum width of 14 feet. The potential impact of such a precedent could be significant, as if other similar requests were granted, there would be a substantial loss of space for both on-street parking and planting of new street trees.

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.

Analysis: No mitigation for this project's visual impacts is apparent.

The City's ROW Guidelines and a summary of the City's ROW standards

are included as Attachment A. Site photographs are included as

Attachment B. Correspondence with the applicant team regarding the

Encroachment Permit application is included as Attachment C. The site

plans are included as Attachment D.

Environmental Determination:

Alternatives:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA

applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant

effect on the environment. Neither the retention of the planter and

stone wall nor their removal or relocation and/or the associated

restoration of the ROW area would result in any potentially significant

environmental impacts. Similarly, the physical impact of installing a

driveway on a previously developed site would not be anticipated to

result in any significant environmental impacts.

Staff recommends that the driveway be limited to no more than 14 feet

in width (excluding the standard 30-inch flare where the driveway meets

the paved roadway) for the portion of the driveway in the ROW. The City

Council could determine that some of the other components of the

requested Encroachment Permit should be eliminated or modified. In

either of these alternatives, the Council should direct staff accordingly,

and staff will have the applicant revise their request or have them

redesign the project, prior to authorizing the City Administrator to sign

the Hold Harmless Agreement, which would document approval of the

9


Fiscal Impact:

Attachments:

Encroachment Permit. Should the City Council determine that requested

21-foot driveway be a component of the approved Encroachment Permit,

staff should be directed to return with revisions to the analysis of the

ROW application review standards pursuant to CMC Section 12.08.060.

For that alternative, it would be advisable for the Council to continue the

item to allow staff to prepare the revised analysis.

Under the City's adopted FY 2013-2014 fee schedule, the City charged

$250.00 for an encroachment permit. This fee is to defray the cost of

staff review of the application, preparation of the staff report,

presentation to the decision making body, and follow-up

correspondence. The application fee provides funding for some of the

staff time required . Staff costs beyond the amount of the application fee

are general fund expenditures and part of the department's adopted

budget.

• Attachment A- City's ROW Vision Statement and ROW Standards

• Attachment B- Site Photographs

• Attachment C- Correspondence regarding the Encroachment Permit application

• Attachment D- Site Plans

Reviewed by:

City Administrator 4---- City Attorney ~ Admin istrative Services D

Asst. City Admin. D Dir of CPB ~ Dir of Public Svcs D

Public Safety Dir D Library Dir D Other D

10


ATTACHMENT A

Right-of-Way Vision Statement

In most neighborhoods, the edges of the public right-of-way (between the road edge and adjacent private property lines) are unpaved. The right-of-way is often left unplanted resulting in an informal character of volunteer plantings, packed earth and pine needles. The right-of-way is also often planted with indigenous species consistent with a forest appearance. Both approaches contribute to a linear green belt appearance that helps to create the "village in a forest" character that defines the City.

The City has adopted clear standards that guide the treatment of the right-of-way in the residential district. These standards can be found at www.ci.carmel.ca.gov or at the Department of Community Planning and Building located at City Hall. Some of these standards include:

• Drought-tolerant, native plants, informally arranged may be permitted. • Formal plant arrangements with highly colorful flowering plants are prohibited . • When possible, plantings should not extend to the street edge to allow for off

street parking. • Paving, gravel, boulders, logs, timbers, planters or other above-ground

encroachments are prohibited, except paving for driveways, unless an encroachment permit has been obtained from the City.

• A narrow crushed Decomposed Granite pathway from the street to the property entrance may be allowed without an encroachment permit.

The City is requesting your assistance to ensure that the right-of-way adjacent to your property complies with City standards. If you would like assistance in determining whether the right-of-way adjacent to your property is out of compliance, please contact the Department of Community Planning and Build ing at (831) 620-2010.


ATIACHMENTA

Summary of ROW Standards

Policy Pl-43 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan states:

"Maintain and enhance the informal, vegetated, open space character of the City 's rights-of-way. Trees in the rights-of-way shall not be removed to provide parking. With the exception of driveways, installation of new paving in the rightsof-way by private property owners is prohibited."

CMC Section 17.34.070.B states the following regarding the public right-of-way in the R-1 District:

1. Landscaping in public rights-of-way in the R-1 district is limited to droughttolerant plants that are native and are consistent with the character of the Monterey Peninsula environment.

2. Plants should be natural in character and informally arranged to reflect the surrounding forest atmosphere. Landscaping shall not include bedding plants, highly colorful flowering plants and 'formal plant arrangements. "

3. Landscaping should consist of leafY ground covers, low shrubs and/or trees of the urbanized forest. Natural dirt rights-of-way with pine needles is also permitted. Parking spaces may be defined in the unpaved right-of-way with landscaping.

4. Paving, gravel, boulders, logs, timbers, planters or other above-ground encroachments are prohibited, except paving for driveways. Pathways paved only with decomposed paved only with decomposed granite or other soil materials made of soil materials are permitted.

The Residential Design Guidelines have the following guidance on the right-of-way:

1. 5 Maintain and enhance the informal, vegetated, open space character of the right-of-way. • Use simple planting plans when right-of-way landscaping is proposed. • Emphasize native plants. • Do not add paving or boulders to the right-of-way.

1.6 Maintain trees and naturalized vegetation in the public right-of-way and around the periphery of the site. • Exceptions may be necessary to provide safe access to the site. • Preserving existing belts of vegetation around a site can contribute

1


ROW Guidelines

to the forest character of the street and help screen buildings. • Trees with canopies that arch over the street are particularly important to community character.

ATTACHMENT A

I. 7 Where a parking area in the right-of-way is to be defined, use a design that will reinforce the forest image. • Natural soil, shredded bark and wood chips are preferred surface materials. Gravel is prohibited. • Separate an existing parking space in the right-of-way from any driveway with plantings. • Only the city is authorized to add paving or boulders in the public right-of-way, except in the cases of driveways and authorized encroachments.

Encroachments: CMC Section 12.08.010 states the following:

"While it is recognized that special and unusual conditions may justify the erection, installation, or placement of encroachments on, over, or under public property of this City, it is the policy of this City to discourage encroachments onto public lands and that such encroachments shall be kept to a minimum and shall be permitted only when consistent with the General Plan, are for the preservation of public health, safety or welfare, contribute to the furtherance of the general planning and zoning objectives of this City and are characteristic with the appearance of the neighborhood and City. "

Encroachments are defined as "any excavation, structure or object, temporary or permanent, upon, over, or under any City property or public right-of-way, except driveways. " The City Administrator and the City Council are tasked with the issuance of encroachment permits.

The standards used to evaluate encroachment permits are outlined m CMC Section 12.08.060 below:

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.

2


ATTACHMENT A

ROW Guidelines

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. I. 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 rightsof-way nor preclude or make difficult the establishment or improvement of existing or potential streets or p edestrian 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 P 1-48 of the General Plan, which prohibits the construction of sidewalks and concrete curbs in the R-1 district, unless necessary for drainage and/or p edestrian safety. 2. The encroachment shall not create, extend, or be reasonably likely to lead to an undesirable land use precedent. 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.

3


ROW Guidelines

ATTACHMENT A

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.

The Municipal Code also addresses how to handle existing nonconforming encroachments. CMC Section 12.08.125 states:

A. At the transfer of property ownership or the issuance of a building permit, the Building Official shall inspect the public right-of-way adjacent to the affected private property. He/she shall require the abatement of any nonconforming encroachments or the property owner may submit an application for an encroachment permit that will be processed in accordance with CMC 12. 08.050.

B. City staff may cooperate with the property owner to help remove and dispose of asphalt that has not been authorized by the City.

C. The City may plant trees and native vegetation, if appropriate, in areas where asphalt has been removed.

4


Attachment B- Site Photographs

Hayward Project Site- Facing northeast on Carmelo Street (pre-construction)

Hayward Project Site (retaining wall)- Facing south at southeast corner of Ocean and Carmelo


Hayward Project Site (planter along Ocean Avenue)- Facing east on Ocean Ave


Rob Mullane

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Good Morning Rob,

Chris Boqua ([email protected]] Monday, March 17, 2014 9:51AM Rob Mullane Re: Hayward Driveway

ATTACHMENT C

The Haywards really want to pursue the wider driveway approach, so it would be great to find out how we can proceed with this request.

I'm a bit concern about delaying our cistern submittal, and associated encroachments, since we want to get this system installed as soon as possible. Can we separate the driveway approach from the rest of the application so that we move forward with the cistern, and then deal with the driveway as time permits?

We have the plans for the cistern submittal updated per the Public Works comments and can resubmit those at any time.

Thank You,

Chris Boqua, Assoc. AlA

Stocker & Allaire General Contractors Inc. Lie# 504797 21 Mandeville Court Monterey, CA 93940 t 831.375.1890 f 831 .375.1480

On Mar 14, 2014, at 11 :38 AM, Rob Mullane <[email protected]> wrote:

Chris,

The Planning Commission is purely advisory to the Council (or City Administrator) on right of way encroachments.

The rationale for the request you note in your email are all things that can be presented to the City Council if they review the encroachment permit. The issue for staff is that a driveway wider than 14 feet is not allowed in our municipal code, and there is a concern that this would set a precedent for similar double-wide driveways.

Please let me know what the decision is on the driveway design, and then I can advise you on who the decision-maker will be.

Robert A. Mullane, AICP Community Planning and Building Director City of Carmel-by-the-Sea


P.O. Drawer G Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921 main (831) 620-2010 direct (831) 620-2057 [email protected]

From: Chris Boqua [mailto :[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 10:40 AM To: Rob Mullane Subject: Hayward Driveway

Hi Rob,

ATTACHMENT C

I really could use your help in regards to the Hayward Driveway and the reduction of the approach in the right of way. The Haywards are really disheartened about the idea ofreducing the width ofthe approach since it will really look odd and render one half of the driveway useless.

I went back and reviewed the video of the Feb. 13th Planning Commission hearing where there was actually quite a bit of discussion regarding the driveway width. Marc did express his concerns about the width of the approach, but in the end said that we could work with the Building Director on this. There was quite a bit of concern from everyone including the commissioners that since this is a busy comer and popular place for people to park on the street, that parking for the Haywards will be limited. It seemed like the consensus was that it would be appropriate in this case to allow for a driveway big enough for two cars to park off the street. Limiting the size of the approach in the right of way was also discussed and discouraged by the Commission.

Is there anyone that we can appeal to in regards to the width of the driveway approach? Maybe since the Planning Commission has such a strong feeling about the driveway and off street parking this will give us justification for an exception to the rule.

Your consideration on this will be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,

Chris Boqua, Assoc. AIA

Stocker & Allaire General Contractors Inc. Lie# 504797 21 Mandeville Court Monterey, CA 93940 t 831 .375.1890 f 831 .375.1480

2


s t 0 c k e General Contractors, Inc.

218 Mandeville Court Monterey, CA 93940 http://www .stockerallaire.com

Date: April14, 2014

Rob Muiane, AICP Community Planning & Building Ojrector City of Cannel-by-the-Sea Monte Verde St. Carmel, Ca. 93923

Dear Rob:

r & A I I • a 1 r e license 'I 504 797

Ph. 831.375.1890 Fx. 831.375.1480

[email protected]

REC('''7D

City ':' •· · , 1e-Seo Plot ~> .. •. , . , .• •·; f>ept.

Please find attached the revised Cistern and Encroachment plans for the Hayward Residence. We have

addressed the comments from Stu at the PubCic Works department Here are our responses to his

comments:

1.) "The concrete-set cobble aprons in the ROW are not ok as designed. The concern is that storm·water

leaving the apron will lead to erosion of the area between the apron and the edge of pavement. A

different design for the drainage Is needed."

Response: The concrete-set cobbles in the apron have been removed. The sugested rolled curb design

has been added to the plan. Drtalnplpes will dtaylisht to the curb face.

2.) "A rolled asphalt curb is needed along the property'sCirmeloStreetfrontage/'

Response: Rolled asphalt curb added to the plans.

3.tThe retaining wall along Carmelo and the planter along the eastern portion of Ocean currently encroach

slightly into the City's Right-of-Way. The Encroachment permit request needs to be augmented to include

these components, uniP.ss the5e have previously received an Encroachment permit from the City . ..

Response: Existing retaining wall and planter \WII is added to the encroachment permit and noted on the

plans.

Also, Please find attached the insurance certificate from the Hayward's where the City has been added as

additional insured. I believe that the hold harmless agreement has already been provided. Please let me know

otherwise.

Sincerely.

~ Chris Boqua, Associate AlA Stocker & Allaire Construction


GRADING NOlES: 1. NJ. CIWIIC. fUIICWOI, lie sm: IMIWl. 1HCU1111C sm: l'lll'NWQt, I'UIDOI lie

aJIIW:1Jlll (6 - Ill IIWO.A1IJII (6 II£WK INJ. ~ lie twlCIU. - lie MSDIOCI: - IOWit SUIIHIII4WI: MfJ IISUI1AIDI (6 lit: SUJIIC( - - SlSI8IS 5HJW) II£ POif1Ml) " ~ lllllllt: ClD!II:HIICII.IIJ'OR!.

CIDI!DIItOI. ean ~ rr SOL liJIMlS. IIC. N)IJ:T MO. eolt. DIJID DE£11101 28. !011 Cll1ltaiDl llQUll SH:Wl ll PIIMl1l II L£ISI 48 flUS /lllllltl. NOIJDJOI Mfl SIQ.U) I[ 111£500 10 - MlliSl, 16 I(WS!I!\', lit: om-. - Ml - INSOOAl'OI I'I\IISlS a 1lf N)IJ:T. -. SIWI. - 10 ECIIIfiii!IXlll SI'B»U 1111£ - lll'On

1 NJ. GMliiC liiiU COiftllll 10 1lf lWL .talC1"S CR.OIC GUIINCI Ml EliDSDI OliiiiO. OIIDIWitt.

l. H <XII1IIICQ C1R Mf SUIICilN!liiC1I S1W1. Jl3lfY ~ SOM:l .lUll! • 00 PtmWt 48 tCUS "/I1INa a- DIDIIUOI- rr C~~JJ~: 11t: llll...flii IUall 1100-227-28110. DlrMIDf IS III1MD 16 80«: IS CIR 11)11[ lOIS II D£Pllt lllDillf lliiSTiiC -•• o1C1U11. QWK S1W1. 1G1C - .lO WS a 'oU:llAIOI liDIOoiiL Cll H NV. SIWI. II£ f'lNf!ll) 10 C001Il IJIOSik SUJIIC( I'UIII GIIJI!lt OIU Ml ltOIIICIS MDIIXIID • lOIS II llPIH.

5. c:af1lii(Q SIWI. llllJ'I lit: - 48 - I'IIIJII 10 1lf 111101101 10 CXIIIIlU -

.. • OJ'! (6 Ill. aJIIW:1Jlll 1£SlS liMO ,..... - - SIWI. ll Sleii1ID 10 1lf ARSII:IDII'IIIJII10 !Q£IlU«; Mf ~

1. M • ru lllfl3 SIW.J. 11: MO STliPDI nw1 llll lllii!ZDIIUi. 10 Olf: \IJ!11CjL

&. - 'Ill II( A ~ rl 51 /fiAT fllllll 1lf IIOOll: Ill! A ~ a 10 ft[l.

t. ~~l'ftSIWI.CillfUIIIIntASTIIOJOlt, SIIIJ&CIIIDHtflll.

10. lit: ~ N:liiiS lilt.! II ~ liTII COIOINJ.T ICaJ'ml CONS1IU:'Inl PMCIQS. aiiiSIIU:II)N CONilKitlll 'Ill 11: ll(lQI(I) 10 ASSUII sur lie aJifUI[ ~ Ill! 1lf a SIT[ IXlii)IIDi5 EMK 1lf COI.IIS{ a ~ r1 1lf N)IJ:T, IHCUIIIIC SNtrr r1 Ill. Pllt50IS MJ PUO!T't, 1IIIJ 1115 l1llll.ollll SIWI. ll Ill(( 10 lffl.T COiflllllSl' lie lfJlll(lJIIIDIO-IIJIII(K;IIliRS.

ORAINt« NOlES; I. NJ. l'fiS SIW.J. 1£ Slll-36 Ttl'£.

1 .11.1. - SIWI. Hllot •• , Slll- 35 1'\t I'Of' -

l. NJ. SUJIIC( - PI'£S SIWJ. 1£ ... liU) PI'£.

4, CllNIMCIOII SIWJ. 11!it1U ClfNiliiS II DI)S Ml 11105. 110£ llflb8L

5. rts SIWI. II£ IIIIUICIUG tr DII5TT a! ~ 1DJNIIDII liMO IIWn: IWIIl.

l llfA - 10 II£ !I'£CRl) tr NOflttf.

7. 11110( fUll PlliOIOOM Or.tiX 10 fiE ~ CN - Ill! - lllllDt I'IIIJII 10 010' IUT II 110« r1 .a'. IJIIIIIIO II£ - flN'I'I7I W){ Cll - fi.WQII 1110( WJll! wot. •

II. IHr lli5CIIO'N«llS a! ~ fiUI) 1111( CXIIIIRiiiCT OOClllliiS SIWI. fiE ll!l'alllD 10 1lf -'<;;~~:?::J~;:::,;~I,.;;,;O,. 111SD1 llQUll IIIIOIIWl'. lit: 101011 llQUll 'Ill QJIIIY lli5CIIO'N«llS Cll OIISilONS. II WIIC.-AII(.IISOMIIll!IL

11 SOL COII'liCIDI SIWI. fiE A -* rlllll ~flAM ~

ll. ': ~ SIWI. II£ aJIIftD 10 0.1 ft[l, I'IIIJII10 I*XK Mf fOOI)I';S a! SCIIIXlJI:

1•. 11t: lOtAlDI. 1lf tml, lie H PI.Q[ tO:IftS a H 10 S!1lJCIII1[ IllS! ll aJIIftD sr A SIIM'II)It 10 ll .. ~ '"" II( N'fiiOIU) PI.IH$.

LfGOO 4; ABIH.WTIONS;

---- lllli'UIIY U« IC NV. CliMe

------- I'Of'l'l'[ Blll8011011

~COJ.EC1DI (X) o.£W:IUJ

Cl -IUJ 1M.[ DS ~

IOIIEWK'IIIU. ([) lliiSTiiC

It fJISMIICMI(

10/t.MilOII tfl 11101 IUllQDI

r~:-rr:-,-~ fill IIIIIUllQDI l,v ... :~ .,o ·

IOP!IIIoOIIl£MOIS <)' c;c r 0 .:.. II v a 'IIIII. :.:..r-~- , .. i1.1

TIP TII'I:'.IL p; -:-, .'~) ~1 10PIIIIoOIII£Prlro )•; -,_, ) ,l ~ \ ;-...

~ 9'01 CMI(

• llfA CliMe

2.011 CMI(

SllfX[ fUll

PI'[ 1\01 11m;

t:i ~ ...... .,..,..,.,..,.....:!Hii:.liil tn ... __..... ...... ..,...._,.-~ g ~ ...,..,.......,.,.,no:~i.?'".

~ a:: C5

It' CXIftCI[I) 110. 57

Slflt«l. IDCI¥'liOII 11£1' ClOD -·-.... 0

aoo - IIIHS1IIC S'ISIIll. IIOit:S l ll£lollS 0

0

OCEAN AVENUE • •

\ ' • .!',;:.__!_

1 ' ~---([) snu:!\1[ ~--....

• I

I

ED

PRruECT !NfQRMADON: N)IJ:T-= 11(-IICiiOIC(

N)IJ:T AOOII(SS: st: IXMll a troll ~ ~ CNIIl. e.<lfiMI Q2J

lilt Ollh211· llll

PllfOS£ (6- 10 SIQ1 fiiii.T JCaiC(

llfiXJHI/IIIJflfi:I/ sroc~Pa~ INC. OOIJW.- ZIB 1illl:£olU lXXIII

WMJOO. e.<lfiMI tJ840 ali.J75.1880

lllJIII:Iti('A.OQUR: SOI.S~INC. 103 QUIOt SIIIIJ SlliiiS, CA IJIOI 831.1S7Jtn

CM.oamt IIJIWM~IIIC. 720'11R(mfiT. jll4 SIH FIWICISD), C'l.fUIIII MilO 41!>.5S0.211D

S!NIIK Dt.lt; 00 lOU

CtWI!IDI Dt.lt; Slllllll2014

IllS rl <RJWIOII: ]'.JQIII 10 l<lCifll Ollllllllllll'S M)SAI\.IIOII'IS

llUSI CCNIRCl: CCNIIIIlUil 81' liii[JI

~: SINORD-fll!c:IWK ASIQl fNA.TII£SliOIC(

---- - ---- ____ 3 ~ r1•11t h•

- - ------------lliYhAt llC, (

fllltT tiU

ECEIVED

JUN 2 3 2014 City of Carrnei-by-the-Seo Planning & Building Dept.


I iJ I~ II i1

il !~ t.li

RAINWAJER twMSJJNG r&Clll),JJONS: lmgotroo -- 1M 9/19/13

l..on<~ocope Ev-~ (Ell.) • KL ' ET e..-~- [ET) fo< Mooto.-.y 27 KL • landocopo cootr~ IE (fat dnp lrrigo~on) 0 . 9 Tctal WM.01 ,t,ppioed (lWA) • ETl/IE

Larodou~ T-Wotor Af>plled (-.,_,)

TWA -(oq TWA("'! A,.. o.-;,- KL Ell. ·-) Mtdd Ground Covw-,

Font Yard CO<astlvm 0 .50

East Side Yard Rosom<ory 0 .30

-SodoYOrd ConvoiV\Jh..l$, Rh61"1'Wl1J$ 0.30 MIJCOd Ground Cover;

Rur Yarti c.r..uum, Con\'OIV\JIU$ 0.50

TOT~$

-.111 rot 'ltlll Rlll CIMI.-11-11£-S[A • II III • 1.J3 rT IO:A' /W:J1. IliA - 2,J70 Sf

Sl.l'l'lY: I.J3 fl/tfllll 2,J70 st X 7.41! Cll/Cf • %J.57$ Gil. -7,144 Clt/tflll

13.50 15.00

a .1o 9.00

1 .10 9.00

13.50 15.00

1lO!I1lRE. A ~ ~ llaJDW«) 1N« ~ III! JOl r1 lNClSCN'E IIIICATIJII IOIIICl

RAINWATER tWMSJ1NG NOTES: I. .Ill PI'IS SIIIU. a' SDR- lS 1'lfE.

1 .Ill SllfiC( - PI'IS SIWJ. 8[ 6'• 3)1.1) fll( U1lm 5MOIN 01101&.

J. ~ Jtm S1WJ. a' 01!1S1Y ¥24 DR II'I'II1!Ul ~ Nil 1IWn: M1fD.

4. CCIITWa1JI SH!U INSOO. QfNIOUTS IJ D«<S lllll IIOilS, - II'I'UCIIaL

5. ltiF !l:liiii6 SIWJ. a' INSWl£D OH .Ill IXJINSI'CUIS.

I. 11!0( RDI fiii)OOOI 11M:[ 10 liE INSWl£D OH o.tRfiDI Rlll -llJf SltiiWX 1N« l'fo::ll 10 lfQ' ll.El Ill Jl;lfJ r1 •r. Ol1fll 10 liE 1RIIITlM f1.II'I'IJI WOE DR M*X fiW'IlRI 11!0( .U WIE.

RAINWATER twMSJJHG MAINJEN.W:E NOTES: 1. rr IS 11£ IO'OII5IIlJlY r~ 11£ PIQ'Il!IY 0110 10 I'OIRlllll 11£ llfD.WI) ~ Nil

MSI'lC1IJII5 tF II( - IIIIM:SlX SY5Tlll.

1 ll£ OI1Mll SIW1 ICilP A ~ lOll Nil SCIEilU tF ~ .IS R£laRD Rlll Mr 11M:[$ lfN!I (;( 11£ - IMIMS1liG SY5Tlll.

l Nl CFDWDI/IIIl ~ IWI.IIt SIWJ. IE Sflllll) 10 11£ OI1Mll. l'fo::lllO fltll. I1ISI'£CIQ(. llW.JII; H llfD.WI) IIIIN1[)IIjl:[ Rlll 11£ SY5Tlll.

tfGENP & ABI3Rf»'JJONS:

ft) ft)

240 300

110 135

160 no

no .j()Q

1100

TWA (tlllloM)

2244

1010

au

2992

7lot4

'·

lllllSS - COi!R P!lt NOm1 24'f f\IC llliU llllt fliP lJ)

Nil - l.l), lllO nwn: IWIJ)

RII50.4111X. ~====='::%;~=i===J:== P!liiiUl.E PNoOt sa:1QI P!lt ... /OIDfJl:ClUW. PI.NIS

IDHl DR CIIUSIII) SlCI( rot • -.f1C1Uill'S- I; :-SIIa!n -,r/

t: IUI,/!MmOI 11148.1

• CD

[!:-1 1---96'---+--t,,tr. i'H TIP

11 ·J

l i::-,

i'

RAINWATER INiK SECDON IllS.

OCEAN AVENUE

(Q STIU:1UlE

IIJ1[; IOIIISI'OOT ~ P!lt NICifTitlURAL 1'\.oHS. 1( " 10 6' ~ tnlfC1IJII 1.11£ ED RAINWATER tWM:SJlNG PLAN

- SCAL£: 1'-8'

i • ', -- --._

II ·I

ED RAINWATER TANK SECJJQN lll.S.

RAINWATER TANK SYS1D! NfD APf\,IRTEtWiCES: PRf!"M! II¥* t[ SDB! til& 'tiW' IJ'TII!X EX1DM. RtMW! Fl.lD !tliJaWI,{ - 11151' \anD( 11€ Fl.lD 1fT 100

ms~ -r Ill'. SIQ[ lljJ, fliP - 111!1111£ fWDIIIIC: 24' a>OI 111' ll1:1!.S Of'!)tl(; •• 1f'l !WI CXIU'IJC 5lfl.l MI. f1I1IIC 2 - ••• f1.IIQ]) & liiJSSilO) NOlllf. ll.El/lMmOI 24"X24'X4'fllol'- 1'!.111111111 ID!lll3 - SYS1lll, O£AIIIIJI. SIIW'$ Nil 1-aiCICS

!IQLif1! WI l!!ll$: eun.l( Fl.lD • 4' Ill'., sot 40, 1/11' FllWOI Rlll a.ollJ)It f\IC ll1:1!.S IIISIR. 24' Ill'., IO:ItT 5'-J't IJ'OIC\', 1 fliT, AIJI'IO llliU - IOI5M. ,II)HI()O (l04001) 5(A(fl) f1IUIQAS'S lJ) (TlWfY: IWIJ)), 24' ./l(a'lllliE GISCI:T; 4 IJQ.15, 24' Ill'. nwn: IWIJ) ~ lliiHU. CCWOIIl[ IJ). lllllSS !WoY COi!R P!Jt AIDII[CT 11lf'l£ '0' OlM I:OillAlQl

flllf...mlDt IIMliSil RD1 lllOCO. 4' -.£ SI'!IJ) - l'llol' IDITTru£R. 8IINa FICM', l1f' Pill' 1ll'lal: llf', ••• l-MS£. VJN I)(W)S Pill' 1IIJIR 01); 3.lC1'U. l1f' IllS( JHl WilE ASSt; 2', IWJ. WI(. ClfiiC WI(. Clil lCCK COI.I'lJil. 11)1 PliESS. fl£ll 105£. SOl eo fll( & I1TTIQ

2'1RM£T,IOOS[ f\IC SIU( ... 1/2 eta CI':FS 1' CIICIIC, IOOS£ 111iU Ailll'lllt 1015M. .ot100 (l04001) I' CXJilUI SEAl Ill II!WIIIE fiiRI<I.I$ IIJOO!R WI(, 111.7 C.IU.OII. 1-1/4' liN'T CXHmll)l

11JB.\1Ill fi!QI !0 Blii!Ot 17):) QIIDI ClilliJH BOX 1/IJJ t mst-«UDD 140 1ESH (t7111D) Fl.lD f\IC 1101. soel. 2", l X l f\ICIWJ.IIIli(.2"SXS f'II[SSU( - )f' lf'l. IIMIJt 11300

1Mll tnlfC1IJII WI(

Pill' lit'

lleofll .lO fiD lf)O

arr 1IIJIR - ------J--ro 10JSE

ED RAINWATER twMSJlNG PLUMBING PL'&RAN IllS.

J.• :'.t

;; L----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'~ __ ·_5_,_,_-_: ____ ~ _____

1

'·~~(;_2 __ 0_0~

Documents

Encroachment Permit en 14-03 (Hayward) 07-01-14