July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 144

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 14-02 (Tsern) for
construction of a stairway and masonry retaining wall in a portion of the
City Right-of-Way and retention of an existing stacked stone retaining
wall in the City Right-of-Way along Camino Real 4 properties northeast of
4th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District
Recommendation: Consider the request for Encroachment Permit EN 14-02, 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 is the Camino Real frontage (City ROW) of a 4,000-square
foot property that is developed with a single-family residence. On
September 4, 2013, Community Planning and Building staff approved a
Design Study (DS 13-87) for a 35-sq ft addition and remodel to the
existing residence. Subsequent to that approval and during the Building
Plan Check 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 improvements in
the ROW included a portion of a stairway structure and associated 4-ft
high concrete masonry wall at the front of the property, an existing 19-ft
long, 24-inch high stacked-stone retaining wall along the northern edge
of the driveway, and a row of cobbles along the street edge south of the
driveway.
The project applicants (the adjoining property ownersL Ely and Gigi
Tsern, agreed to remove the row of stone cobbles in the ROW, but wish
to retain the stacked stone retaining wall along the driveway and
authorize the 4-foot wall and stairwell structure that encroaches up to 5
feet into the ROW. The appl icants have applied for an Encroachment
Permit. In discussions with the applicants' representative, Matt Hanner
1
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 145
of Carmel Building and Design, staff noted concerns with the retention of
the stacked stone retaining wall and indicated that the request would
need to be referred to the City Council for a determination on both the
stacked stone wall and the larger concrete masonry wall in the City ROW.
Analysis/Discussion: The site is located on Camino Real 4 properties northeast of 4th Avenue
(APN: 010-232-014). The applicants are requesting an Encroachment
Permit to retain an existing 19-ft long, 24-inch high stacked-stone
retaining wall that extends along the north side of the driveway. The
applicants are also requesting approval of use of the City ROW for a
portion of the entry staircase and associated 4-ft high concrete masonry
retaining wall. The masonry wall and staircase encroach up to 5 feet into
the ROW.
The front (western) western portion of the driveway retaining wall helps
support a tree, and removal of the wall in this area may have an adverse
effect on the tree's long-term health. It may be feasible, however, to
remove the eastern portion of the stacked stone retaining wall and re-
contour the land to avoid the need for the entire 19-foot length of the
wall. Staff notes that if the western portion of the wall is retained, there
will not be much benefit in removing the eastern portion in terms of
reducing visual impacts. Staff does not support the removal of this
retaining wall but notes that it is a potential hazard, and therefore,
obtaining an encroachment permit and execution of the hold harmless
agreement would be beneficial for the City.
The staircase and associated 4-foot high concrete masonry wall could be
removed; however, this would require a redesign of the entry way and
would likely result in removal of some of the landscaped area between
the driveway and the staircase. The authorization of this component's
encroachment is a policy decision, and staff is looking for direction from
the City Council on this component. A more detailed analysis of the
request is below.
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
2
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 146
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 do not go to the
Planning Commission for consideration, staffs 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.
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 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 Municipal Code and ROW Vision Statement.
This is more the case for the staircase and 4-foot high concrete masonry
wall than it is for the 24-inch high stacked stone wall along the driveway.
The request for retaining walls in the ROW is inconsistent with CMC
Section 17.34.070.8.4, which notes, in part:
Paving, gravel, boulders, logs, timbers, planters or other above-
ground encroachments are prohibited, except paving for
driveways.
The retaining wall along the driveway could be determined to be
consistent with Residential Design Guidelines 1.5 and 1.6, which 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.
On the other hand, the request for the staircase and associated concrete
masonry wall appears to be inconsistent with Residential Design
3
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 147
Guidelines 1.5 and 1.6, although one benefit of the current design is that
a small area of landscaping between the staircase and the driveway is
maintained.
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 retention wall along the driveway and especially in
the vicinity of the existing street tree may be justifiable. However, there
is not a clear and justifiable need for the staircase and associated
masonry wall. These components present a formalization of the ROW
and convey a private use to a public space. The potential benefit to the
public for the staircase and masonry wall is limited to minor aesthetic
improvements to the front of the property. That said, neither of these
features would present a detrimental impact on the public interest.
B. Safety. The granting of an encroachment permit shall not create a
hazard to public health or safety.
Analysis: The 24-inch high stacked-stone retaining wall extends to the
end of the driveway and as such, presents a slight hazard to traffic along
Camino Real. However, it is also preventing soil erosion, which could
create a different roadway hazard and could also undermine the stability
of the street tree. The staircase and masonry wall are approximately 15
feet in from the roadway, and hence would not present a hazard to the
public. In addition, as part of the encroachment application, the property
owners are required to obtain insurance and sign a notarized hold
harmless agreement indemnifying the City.
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: The proposed retaining walls would help control drai nage and
reduce soil erosion.
4
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 148
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: As discussed above, while the stacked-stone retaining wall
extends to the roadway and presents a slight hazard to traffic along
Camino Real, it also would serve to reduce erosion. The staircase and
masonry wall are approximately 15 feet in from the roadway and would
not present a hazard to the public. Neither wall would interfere with on-
street parking. It is unlikely that a pathway along Camino Real would be
developed, and therefore, the stacked-stone wall is not seen as an
impediment to establishing any such future pathway or other street
improvement.
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 proposed retaining walls would not diminish the public use
of the ROW, although they would present a slight formalization of the
ROW.
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 proposed walls would have a slight impact on the
appearance and use of the right-of-way. Goal Gl-2 of the General Plan
encourages preserving the village character. Small retaining walls are
found elsewhere in the City, particularly where there are sloped
5
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 149
properties such as this one. The staircase and associate masonry wall
encroach up to 5 feet into the City ROW. A redesign of the staircase to
relocate it and the associated masonry wall out of the ROW would be
more consistent with the City's ROW Vision Statement, but would not
result in a significantly different street view than what is currently
proposed.
2. The encroachment shall not create, extend, or be reasonably likely to
lead to an undesirable land use precedent.
Analysis: The City typically discourages retaining walls in the ROW, unless
needed for safety reasons. The proposed stacked stone wall would help
support an adjacent tree, and would not be seen as an undesirable
precedent. The staircase and the associated masonry wall, however, is
more of an issue in terms of setting an undesirable precedent.
3. Granting of a permit shall not adversely affect the usability or
enjoyment of one or more adjoining parcels.
Analysis: The proposed retaining walls would not adversely affect the
usability of adjoining parcels. On the contrary, the stacked-stone
retaining wall abuts the ROW fronting the adjacent property to the north
and helps stabilize the slope on either side of the wall.
4. The proposed encroachment and its mitigation shall be compatible
with the surrounding area and adjoining properties.
Analysis: As noted above, the proposed retaining walls would have a
slight visual impact on the right-of-way. While landscaping can soften the
appearance of walls, the exposed side of the stacked-stone wall is the
driveway and hence, not an area that could be landscaped.
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: The proposed retaining walls present a perceptible but minor
impact on the aesthetics and community character. Neither significantly
reduces the greenbelt area or interferes with tree planting plans. Nor
6
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 150
does either present any significant impacts to existing trees, and the
stacked-stone wall would prevent erosion at the foot of an existing street
tree.
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: As noted above, 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. The Encroachment Permit application is included as
Attachment C. The site plan is included as Attachment D.
Environmental Determination:
Alternatives:
Fiscal Impact:
CEQA Guidel ines Section 15061 includes the general rule that CEQA
applies only to activities which have the potential for causing a significant
effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant
effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Neither
the retention these walls nor their removal and restoration of the ROW
area would result in any potentially significant environmental impacts.
The City Council could determine that the request to authorize either or
both the retention of the existing stacked stone retaining wall or the new
staircase and associated retaining concrete wall should be denied, in
which case, the Council can direct staff accordingly, and staff will have
the applicant revise their request or have them redesign the project . At
any rate, staff anticipates getting sufficient direction from the City
Council to either proceed with any necessary adjustments to the project .
Should the City Council determine that either or both requested
encroachments should be approved, the City Administrator should be
authorized to sign the Hold Harmless Agreement, which would document
approval ofthe Encroachment Permit.
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
7
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 151
Attachments:
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- Encroachment Permit Application
• Attachment D -Site Plan
Reviewed by:
City Administrator
 
City Attorney
00
Administrative Services D
Asst. City Admin. D Dir of CPB
D1
Dir of Public Svcs D
Public Safety Dir D Library Dir D Other D
8
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 152
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 compl ies 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 Building at (831) 620-2010.
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 153
ATTACHMENT A
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 rights-
of-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 drought-
tolerant 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-ofway.
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
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 154
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
1. 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 ofthe 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
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 155
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.
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 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 pedestrian 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
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 156
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
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 157
Attachment B - Site Photographs
Tsern Project Site- Facing east on Camino Real
Tsern Project Site (stairs)- Facing southeast on Camino Real
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 158
~   .
------ -
Tsern Project Site (retaining wall)- Facing northeast on Camino Real
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 159
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Deportment of Community Planning & Building;
P.O. Drawer G
Carmel. CA 93921
(831)620-2010 OFFICE/ (831J 620-2014 FAX
Encroachment Permit Application
CJty Use OnJy Thl! Seetion
ATTACHMENT C
Date  

By:_ {l. t Permit# £ }J -04
APPLICANT SECDOf(
Complete items 1-6 In this section, and provide additional Jnformatfon and/or plans as
required to describe the work proposed. SEQJN[) PAGE Of THIS FORM MUS[ BE
5/GNED
1. Exact Location: G-t )t?J r. ;.;p ).J f 4 L 4 /'J If 4 0
Block: LL Lot(s): J '
Parcel#: 010 ·· Z i: l - D I <f
2. Legal Property Owner: E./,/( rl..,.; ' .;' ,; i,'C 1 $c_ r"' tJ
Mailing Address: 7 !;!{ u lc'r9l( Oty: Lo: /}t.,rot State: (... H Zip: 'i If > 2 2
Telephone I {.(2Q_) .·, '1 h - c· v J::; E·MaH: ----------
3. Contractor/Agent: /}7J n tl1tV.->r ·r.... ) c...tk:.mut G u.r, ut" !2 t( li 6.-J
Malting Address: ?-o. •.. i t:.co r
Telephone# c(;J.; j ) l U - fir C-<=
Oty: C..fl"- .. •lf"L. State: wL Zip: 2 J
E·Mall: /'r),f//d f-C.811Aet.
1
)\1[q) j;.v., . <..'-H"
4. Date Work Is Scheduled to Begin: I I 1 tl Projected Completion Date:
s. Check the w!'09riat.: QE:pa11.1JWlt actton prgposed:
0 PUBUC WORKS DEPT.: Enaoachment/Sidewalk/CUrb-Gutter/Drlveway/Utllttles
0 FORES"iRY /BEACH: Tree removai/Prunlng{Landsc8plng
0 P!.ANNING/DUli.D!NG: Enaoachment
FULLY DESCIUBE ALL WORK PROPOSED: ·2ce .. y ,-r r 6tn) r;oJCJ Tft
R.e\lleod: Nov. 2013
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 160
ATTACHMENT C
6. Applicant Acknowledgement
I understand and agree to comply with all pertinent conditions, standards and
requirements as specified by the carmel Munldpal COde, State, CQunty and Federal
regulations pertaining to this permit application. I agree to properly maintain the subject
work at no expense to the Oty and to indemnify the Gty from any liability arising from
the permit Issued. Acceptance by the City of the work described hereon Is not a waiver
of my obligations as stated herein.
Applicant Name (Print Clearty):.-'- t?.u
1
1 ...... .   ________ _
/' ,-, '
1/
1 / ' I
Signature : a ..... ,&t-v"'-'
Cf(Y UiE ONLY HLOW
Action:
Public Works: Approve/Disapprove Forestry/Beach: Approve/Disapprove
By: ______ Date:. __
By: ______ Oete:. __
Planning: Approve/Disapprove Other( ) : Approve/Disapprove
sy: ____ oate:. __ ay: ______ .oate: __
Additional Requirements: (Orcle each) Labor-Performance Bond/Worket's Comp./UabUtty/
onveway Grade and Drainage Agreement/Hold Harmless Agreement
Comments/Conditions: __________ --------
City Clerk Approval:----------- Date: __ _
Hold Harmless/Insurance Flied: Yes 1 No Polley No.: Date: __ _
·-----------
field Inspection Record
Inltllll Inspection By:----- Signature: ------- Date; _
Flnallospectlon By: Signature: ------ Date:
----------·------- ---------
AJVUoc!: Nov. 2013
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 161
ATIACHMENTC
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE A?PLJCANT
PERMIT FOR ENCROACHMENT IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WJ.Y
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
An application for an encroach1nent in the public right-of-way includes ull of the
following steps.
1. Encroachment and Work Pennit Applications
This is the first step in tho process of requesting th-: City's approval for an
encroachment in the public The fonns arc to completed and
returned, along with the encroachment application tee of $250, to the:
Department of Community Plannintt & Building.
2. !iold Hannless Encroachment AgrccPJCEn.\
This document must be executed by the legal ownet'(s) of the property
adj:1ceut to the public right-of-way upon which the "-ncmachmcnt io; planned
to be installed. The names must be written dlld as they appear in the
records of City, i.e., "William r .. and Eli1.abcth W. Jones, not
''Bill and Liz Jones ... The applicant{R)' signatuN(s) must be notari?.ed.
Special attention should be paid to paragraph 3 of this Agreement and the
insurance requirements set furth tht.>rein. lf the applicatiOJJ is upprovcd,
WORK MAY NOT BEGIN until the Certificate.: of Insurance i!l on file with
the City Clerk's Office.
TO THE AGENT PROVIDING INSUR..\NCfl COVERAGE ON THE ADDJTTONAI
POI .ICY FORM
When required to supply Liability Insurance, either in the amount of $1,000,000
(commercial propertie8) OR $500,000 (residential properties), it is imp<..'rativc that tho
additional coverage be in the form of an .. cndorsentcnt" using the following
Janguag":
3. Notice Pursu.ant to Municipal Code § 12.08.11 0
"The City of its e!cctfd offieeli·s, agents and
employees are additionally insurP.d under the  
RECEIVED
FEB 0 7 2014
Nov. l013
City of carme1-t>y-the-Seo
Planning & Building Dept.
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 162
ATIACHMENT C
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
INFORMATION REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS .TN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY
NAME: I; I ·: ; (. f t ,; 1 k f_N ___________ ----
MAILING ADDRESS: __ 7 '- .;.... !{ '/_ _ D .... ,
TELBPHONE: (Duaineas): . __ . __ _ (Home or Cdl): 1 ':l .!...1,; Ou_l..
(E-Mail Addn:as):. __ _
EXACT PHYSICAl LOCATION OF PROPOSED ENCROACHMI:NT(S):
--_._,.'J..!r'. v4J-J. ..1-!lJ.--.!!_J.f.{ .J..:' 'I :-J.. - -- - ----
BLOCX: _ £- /,_ . .. __ Lot(e):_ J) __ _ APN: r'j '? C: \ _ c I ',
TYPE OF f.NCROACHMEN1'(S): If lh<n is more: than one rcquin:d (t.g. fence and Mlcps). please list
sop.ntdy. Auach additional abcct(a)
3., _ , __ _ _ _ --
---.. - - ·- -
DIMENSION(S) OF ENCROAC:HMENT(S): (Attxh an !fi' x l In t itll plan showior aU existing and
propoec.d improvemcnla in the
2. _   ..:... . h ' . ____ .. -· --·
3.
TYPl:i OJ- MATJiRIAL TO B.E USBD FOR J::ACH BNCR.UACHMEN'l' RhQUESTFJJ:
2. f, L_ )"l's.· .J P ' .I f
- ..__.,..___ - ·- - - · -- - - --· -
3. ____ - ----
Rniac.d: Nov. 2013
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 163
WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO:
ClTY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
BOXCC
CARMEL--BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
ATTACHMENT C
THISSPACEFORRECORDER'S USt-: ONLY

.&OLD HARMLESS ENCRGACHMENT AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this ___ . day of __ . __ -J 20 __ , between the
CITY OF CARMEI.,BY-TIIE-SEA, hereinafter called CITY, and
, hereinafter called OWNER, with rcft:rence
to the following facts:
OWNER is in possession of and owns certain re-al property in CJ1Y known as
Block _ L .b..__, Lot(s) _ I..L _, Assess11r's Pure,)! No. '-::. ! v _j.S :· 1 ___ ... _
Zoning District____, street location_ C,?     '.£ ._! _ !..• .t ___ _
OWNER has requested from CITY pem1 ission to construct and maintain a
!ltructural encroachment on CITY or :iidcwalk area ndjace>nl !u or ncar the prupt.:rty,
doscribt=d as tollows: _ j .:., n ;,. ,   _ •·• . :: .' L!:.J-. . :_.,·.:! ..... -H.. • t __
------ --·-· ---·-- -
------ -·- - ···--- -- ·-· -- ·- - --- ·- --- .·
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, in considerntion of the mutual covenants
contained herein, agree as follows:
l. CITY grants pamission to OWNER to construct and maintain a structural
c.ncroacbmeot on CITY street or sid"-walk area adjacent to or near
OWNER'S property, as described above. Said permission js subject 1.0 thli.
following conditions:
a. hxecution of the Hold HannJe:s,; Agreement and compliance with
the provisions of paragraph 3 below.
b.
·--------- ______ .. ______ ---·
------ - ·---
2. OWNER, his successors and nssigns, agt·ees to name CITY an addition3.1
insured and co hold CITY hannloss from any and all claims, actions and
demands of third parties of any kind, character and description arising out
of or due to any accident or mishap in, on , or about said structural
encroachment so constructed or so maintained or any error or omission
resulting in personal injury or property damage.
Revis..d: Nov. 2013
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 164
ATTACHMENT C
3. OWNER, agrees to CITY and maintain a certificate ofinsuruncc
from an insurance carrier acceptable to CITY ceJ1jfying that OWNER has
public liability and property damage   with limits of not less thon
$500,000 combined single limit for personal injury and/or property
damage for located in the R-lzorung district and limits of not
less than $1 ,000,000 for property located in all other zoning districts. The
certificate must indicate this insurance is primary ovt:r any other valid or
collectible insurance CITY may insures owner's performance ofthis
Hold Harmless Agreement and that the L'arrier 'hill notify CITY in the
event of any material change in the policy, including the nonrenewal
thereof. Said Certificate of Jnsurance must name ClTY, its elected
officials, officers, agents and as additional insured insofaJ as
the insurance pertains to this encroachment. Owner further agrees to
maintain said insurance as long as said remain!> on en Y
propeJty.
ln the event of cancellation or nonr<."llcwnl, the company will
give thirty (30) days' written notice to CJTY. The Certificate must be
signed by an authori7.ed t:mploycc of the insurance carrier und mailed to:
City Clc.:rk, Cannel- by-the-Sea, P.O. Box CC,     CA
93921.
4. CITY may (cnninate and revoke this Agreement at any time that It is
detennined by the City Council to be in the bc,qt intcrL-sts of ( 'ity und
necessary to promote the public safl·ty or welfare. Any
caused to OWNER, his successors or aso;igns, by tcnnination ofthis
Agreement shall be borne by OWN.F.R, h.is suc(X.o.ssor& or assigns.
5. The parties agree that this contract tor the direct benefit of the land iu
that it makes the property more usable and value, as such,
a_b1fee that the covenants herein shall run with the land, and the parties
agree that the covenants shall bind the and assigns of OWNER.
CITY OF
By: Jason Stilwell, Cjty Administrator
ATTEST:
Heidi Bul'ch, City Clerk
Revi.cd: Nov. 2013
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 165
ATIACHMENTC
CALIFORNJA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENl
State of California
CoWlty of _
On _o1{2-lt   __ _ beforemc,rp..t\:NJ4tJ:f C
Ontt. ,• hm'"1 Namt nod '11!1( of the OOit:eJ
Personally appeared£ L 'j__ T Se(J..N 1.   T f:.!'} _ . _
Namcts) v/ Swuezts)
-··----- ----------· -- -- -----------·--·--·-
Plaee NOUily Sal 1\bovc
wJw proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence ll> he the pcrson(s) whose nnmc(s)
r l<m;   to the within instrumcntllnu
ncknowledged to me th11t executed
the lllltnc in authori:ted
cnpncity(ics), and thai hy
si!o\llalurc(s) on the in!ltnunent the person{s), m
the entity \tpon hdl:llf of which the pcrsonts)
uciUd. lhc in'!trumcnt.
I cr.:riify under PhNALTY ( W PFRJUHY under
tllll Jaws \)I State of CaliJorniu thai the
f'omgoiug purngraphs is true and correct.
Witness my h;md nnd o!licial seal.
Signature. _ _ {J
Slf)nnure utNQI<Jry 1'11blit·
RnisCII· NQII 20 13
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 166
..,.,.,..
._.

"'''""Ill

"'
          \---..
LAN08CAPING
(_..,..AU)
(E) TWO-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE
(1400 SQ. FT.)
(E)PAVER6
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT C
RECEIVED
FEB 0 7 2014
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Plonnlng I Building Dept.
July 1, 2014 Council Meeting Packet Page 167
REMAIN
(E)2.'PINE 1
TREE-TO
{N)WOOO
CHIP PATIO
(N) 35 SO. FT.
ADDITION
(E) TWO-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE
(1400 SQ. FT.)
(E) PAVERS
0
0
0
(E)SIMLL
STONES-TO
(N) 8' CONC. OR
CMU RETAINING
SPECW..
tNSPECTJON
REQ'O FOR All
STEEl
REINFORCEMENT,
BYEHGtNEER
PRtORTOCONC.
2'..()"
MIN.
POUR
SETBACK

RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2014
of Carmel-by-the-$
0
_ _ ___     ning & Building Dep .
0
J:

tt
u..


uw
QzN
'<t 0> '<t

"0 -"' ..-- •.,. ..JO>O
fl.) L5<CN
(")
o::O"!
·o

E ouj.-

fl.) a::z
<(a.
rJ)
f-4 00<(
A1.1
eN 14-oz
;;

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful