CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report

February 6, 2018
ORDERS OF BUSINESS

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members

SUBMITTED BY: Marnie R. Waffle, Senior Planner

APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator

Consideration of an Encroachment Permit application (EN 17-67) for an existing

restaurant trash enclosure located in a portion of the City-owned Piccadilly Park. The
SUBJECT: project is located on Dolores Street, 4 northwest of 7thAvenue. The project applicant is
David Fink.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the Encroachment Permit application (EN 17-67) and require the
removal of the trash enclosure within a specified time frame.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:
Background: The project site is located on Dolores Street, 4 northwest of 7th Avenue in the Central
Commercial (CC) and Downtown Conservation Overlay (DC) Zoning Districts. The property is a 4,000-square
foot lot located south of Piccadilly Park. In 2006, a building permit was issued to David Fink for a remodel of the
Cantinetta Luca restaurant. As part of a building permit review process, Mr. Fink submitted a letter (refer to
Attachment 2) requesting the construction of the trash enclosure in a portion of Piccadilly Park along with
construction drawings identifying the location of the proposed 111-square foot trash enclosure. The trash
enclosure appears to have been authorized by the Community Planning and Building Department as part of the
restaurant remodel; however, an encroachment permit was never obtained.

Also as part of the 2006 restaurant remodel, Mr. Fink constructed a public restroom west of the trash enclosure
in Piccadilly Park. This public restroom was constructed to relieve the restaurant of its obligation to make its
restrooms available to the public. This obligation was imposed in 1987 when a earlier restaurant applied to
expand their seating. The expansion required the installation of a second exit door (into Piccadilly Park) to
facilitate emergency egress. In order to mitigate the impact created by the exit door, the City Council required
that there be some public benefit provided by the applicant. The applicant satisfied this requirement by making
the restaurant’s restrooms available to the public.

Of important note is that Carmel Municipal Code Section 17.02.050.B.3 states “No department, official, or
employee of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea vested with the duty or authority to issue permits or licenses for
buildings, structures, or uses subject to the requirements of this title shall issue a permit or license in conflict
with the provisions of this title; any permit or license issued in conflict with any provision of this title shall be
null and void.” Furthermore, it has since been determined that the location trash enclosure violates the
California Building Code exiting requirements and creates a public health and safety issue, as described later in
this report. The Community Planning and Building Department required Mr. Fink to implement a temporary
solution to address the exiting issue.

Project Description: In June 2017, the applicant submitted an Encroachment Permit application (EN 17-67) in
association with a Design Review application (DR 16-477) for a second story residential condominium addition.
Mr. Fink requested retroactive approval of the trash enclosure along with approval of a new staircase
encroachment into Piccadilly Park to provide a second exit from the condominium addition. The Carmel
Municipal Code states that applications for encroachments in the Central Commercial Zoning District, which
accompany applications for Design Review, shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration
and recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended that the proposed staircase encroachment be
removed from Piccadilly Park and the applicant revised the project plans accordingly. The Planning Commission
approved the Design Review application (DR 16-477) with a condition of approval that the applicant obtain an
encroachment permit for the trash enclosure prior to final inspection of the condominium addition.

Encroachment Application Review Standards: The Municipal Code allows the City Administrator to refer
encroachment permit applications to the City Council when the proposed encroachment does not conform to the
standards set forth in Section 12.08.060 (Encroachment Application Review Standards) or the nature of the
encroachment is not in the public interest. A complete list of the Encroachment Application Review Standards is
included as Attachment 1. In staff’s opinion, the proposed trash enclosure encroachment does not conform to
the Standards. Each standard is listed below followed by an analysis by 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: There is a justifiable need for the restaurant to have adequate facilities for the closed storage of
trash and garbage generated by the use. However, the Carmel Municipal Code Section 17.14.040.I.1.b
states that Eating and Drinking Establishments “shall provide adequate facilities on the site” and “the on-
site storage shall be designed so that the area can be cleaned and the refuse removed without creating a
public nuisance and without being placed on the sidewalks or other public ways”. The project site has an
existing basement which is approximately 1,100 square feet which may be used for on-site storage of trash.
In staff’s opinion, the location of the trash enclosure in Piccadilly Park conveys private use of public land and
is contrary to the public interest.

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

Analysis: The existing trash enclosure is located in the approximate center of the north elevation of the
building and blocks a required fire exit from the dining area of the Cantinetta Luca restaurant. The California
Building Code sets forth the exiting requirements for commercial uses. Section 1016.2, Egress Through
Intervening Spaces states, “An exit shall not pass through a room that can be locked to prevent egress”
and “Egress shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms, closets or spaces uses for similar
purposes.” The trash enclosure is considered comparable to a storage room or space used for similar
purposes. As constructed, the trash enclosure violates the Building Code and creates a hazard to the public
health and safety through the creation of an intervening space through which patrons would have to navigate
when exiting in an emergency. Furthermore, the intervening space would contain trash containers which could
obstruct the path of travel. Lastly, the trash enclosure contains a lockable gate which would further impede
exiting from the building in an emergency. Granting of the encroachment permit for the trash enclosure in its
current configuration would create a hazard to the public health and safety.
 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 trash enclosure is constructed of wood lattice with a solid backing to obscure the contents of
the enclosure. Existing landscaping screens portions of the enclosure and the natural materials used to
construct the enclosure cause it to blend into the park setting (refer to Attachment 3). However, when items
being stored are stacked higher than the walls of the enclosure or when the gate of the enclosure is left open,
it is unsightly and detracts from the visual enjoyment of the Park. The trash enclosure encroachment provides
no public interest or enjoyment. Additionally, the mere existence of the enclosure since 2006 does not in and
of itself justify the continuation of the encroachment.

F. Compatibility. 1) The proposed encroachment and its mitigation shall be consistent with the General
Plan and the adopted ordinances of the City. 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.

Analysis: As noted above, the proposed encroachment is not consistent with Municipal Code Section
17.14.040.I.1.b which states that Eating and Drinking Establishments “shall provide adequate facilities on
the site” and “the on-site storage shall be designed so that the area can be cleaned and the refuse
removed without creating a public nuisance and without being placed on the sidewalks or other public
ways”. In staff’s opinion, allowing the trash enclosure to remain in Piccadilly Park would set an undesirable
precedent for allowing Eating and Drinking Establishments to provide off-site storage for trash and garbage
on public land. Lastly, allowing the trash enclosure to remain contributes to adverse effects on the enjoyment
of Piccadilly Park.

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: If the City Council supports a trash enclosure encroachment within Piccadilly Park, appropriate
mitigation measures to compensate the City for the impacts to the Park should be considered. Additionally,
the Council should consider modifications to the design and/or location of the trash enclosure in order to
ensure that the required fire exit is maintained in accordance with the California Building Code.

Recommendations/Alternatives: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the encroachment permit
request and direct the applicant to accommodate the trash storage on private property. However, if the City
Council supports the encroachment request, the Council could continue this item with direction to the applicant
to redesign, and reduce the size of, the enclosure to bring the required exiting into compliance. Under this
alternative, the Council should also identify appropriate mitigations to compensate for the impacts to Piccadilly
Park associated with the trash enclosure.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The application qualifies for a Class 11 Categorical Exemption from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Class 11 exemptions include the construction or placement of minor structures accessory to
(appurtenant to) existing commercial facilities. The proposed trash enclosure is accessory to an existing eating
and drinking establishment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

None.
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Encroachment Permit Standards (CMC 12.08.060)

Attachment 2 - Mr. Fink Trash Enclosure Request from 2006
Attachment 3 - Site Photographs
Attachment 4 - Site Plan
ATTACHMENT 1 – ENCROACHMENT REVIEW STANDARDS Attachment
Page 1 of 2 1

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.

3. Granting of a permit shall not adversely affect the usability or enjoyment of one or more
adjoining parcels.
 Attachment 1

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).
 Attachment 2

\lD

! i I

HOTEL & RESTAUhANT

June 19, 2006

Tim Meroney.. Building Official

Department of Planning and Building
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California 93921

Hand Delivered by Pat Torrey

Dear Tim/

Please find attached the re-submtttal plans for Cantinetta Luca

on Dolores St. between Ocean and 7th.We have made the following
corrections from the plan check letter. We have attached the
architect stamped copies of the corrected plans to the originals.
• Attached please find the Carmel Area Waste Water
grease trap letter authorization.
• Cal-Am will directly fax you the authorization for the back-
flow prevention device.
• I will review with Brian the facade final changes and
coloring upon my return from vacation on 6/30/06.
• Per your instructions and Rich Guillen authorization we will
proceed on construction of the Public Bathroom in
Piccadilly Park.
• Regarding tr1e Trash Bin Area. The Health Department will
not allow trash inside a Restaurant/Food Prep Area. The
Customary place for the Trash Bins has always been at
the side delivery door. We are suggesting building a
concealea bin next to the new bathroom wall, for the
Restaurant Tra.sh, Recycling and Grease Bin. The public
will not see it and it will be rodent proof. Lers discuss this
ASAP.
Monte Veule at Se,·enth P.O. Box J
C armcl-b} -tlu:-S~a, Cahfo1nia 9 39-:! 1
Tel 831 · 624 851.8 Fa~ 831· 6 Zo 1018
"\'1<"\\-W lauJJugec.arruelc,om
 Attachment 2

tk.rBEROE
CAR~:IEL • 1020

HOTBL & Re~T4UAANT

• Rich Guillen should contact John Plastini, the property
manager for the adjacent building to Bouchee for the
water credits for the Bathroom. Brian Roseth has his
number.

CC: Brian Roseth

Rich Guillen

Nonte V £rde. at Sev~nth · P 0 Box J

Carmel-1y-the-Sea, Ca.liiorma 939 21
Tel 831 · o24 · 8518 Fu 831 · 6 2b · 1018
ww'\'\<.lau1er~~(;al. mel com
 Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Page 1 of 4
 Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Page 2 of 4
 Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Page 3 of 4
 Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Page 4 of 4
 REVISIONS

2 ARCHITECT

Attachment 4

SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"

ENCHROACHMENT AREA FINK RESIDENCE

(E) PUBLIC BATHROOM 66 SF LOT SIZE : 4,000 SF

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

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

(located inside column)

(N) PROPOSED SECOND STORY ADDITION : 1,570 SF

*ENCROACHMENT APPROVAL BY SEPARATE PERMIT TOTAL PROPOSED (E) + (N) = 5,394 SF NOVEMBER 1st, 2017

SCALE : AS NOTED

SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"

LEGEND:

C I DO
LU

S
S
R

R
V E Y O

DOL OR E S S T R E E T
( A 5 0 F OOT WI DE CI T Y S T R E E T )
LOT 13, BLOCK 75
VOLUME 1, C&T PAGE 2

BASIS OF BEARINGS:
THE BEARING OF NORTH AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN
EXISTING SITE PLAN VOLUME 21, PAGE 47, OF PARCEL MAPS, AS FOUND MONUMENTED
BUT NOT SHOWN HEREON IS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY.

BENCHMARK:
ELEVATIONS FOR THIS SURVEY ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMED DATUM.
AN ELEVATION OF 50.0 HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO A MAG NAIL & DISC
SET IN THE PAVEMENT NEAR THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN HEREON.

NOTES:
1. BOUNDARY LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON WERE DETERMINED WITH THE
BENEFIT OF A FIELD SURVEY SUPPLEMENTED BY RECORD DATA.
ALL BOUNDARY DATA SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM THE RECORDS,
AND IS SHOWN APPROXIMATE ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY.

2. ENTITLEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES AFFECTING THIS PROPERTY

MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE SHOWN.

3. DISTANCES SHOWN ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.

4. CONTOUR INTERVAL = ONE FOOT.

5. TREE TYPES (IF ANY) ARE INDICATED WHERE KNOWN. DIAMETERS OF TREES ARE
Attachment 4 SHOWN IN INCHES AND ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY, TO BE VERIFIED BY AN
APPROVED ARBORIST PROVIDED BY OTHERS, PER AGREEMENT WITH THE SURVEYOR.
TREES SMALLER THAN 6" IN DIAMETER MAY NOT BE NECESSARILY SHOWN.
DIRECTION OF GROWTH AND DRIP LINE SHAPE TO BE VERIFIED BY OTHERS.

DOL OR E S S T R E E T
6. POSITION AND DIMENSIONS (IF ANY) OF BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES

( A 5 0 F OOT WI DE CI T Y S T R E E T )
ARE SHOWN HEREON APPROXIMATE ONLY DUE TO MEASUREMENT LIMITATIONS,
IRREGULAR SHAPE OF BRICK FACING, POP-OUTS, BULL NOSE CORNERS, ETC.
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDINGS (IF ANY) IS SHOWN APPROXIMATE ONLY,
AND SUBJECT TO REVISION AT ANY TIME.
LOT 13, BLOCK 75 7. NOT ALL UTILITY BOXES AND/OR UTILITY STRUCTURES ARE SHOWN
VOLUME 1, C&T PAGE 2 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HOSE BIBS AND IRRIGATION VALVES.
ONLY THE VISIBLE UTILITY BOXES AND/OR UTILITY STRUCTURES THAT WERE
CONSIDERED TO CONVEY THE GENERAL UTILITY CONDITIONS ARE SHOWN.

8. THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY PREPARED BY ME AND/OR

UNDER MY DIRECTION, FROM FIELD DATA COLLECTED IN MAY 2017.
PROPOSED EASEMENT AND NEW PARCEL:
The proposed new lot will include the roof (40x100)
and building of a 1600 square foot residence.

The proposed easement will be for ingress and egress purposes,

along with construction, utitlity, view, landscape, maintenace OF

LOT 13, BLOCK 75

and other incidental purposes.
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
in
VOLUME 1 of CITIES & TOWNS at PAGE 2
Records of Monterey County
PREPARED FOR

David Fink
RECORD DESCRIPTION: SHEET INDEX
BY
PER DOCUMENT: 2016044546 C-1 SURVEY
LOT 13, BLOCK 75, CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, AS SHOWN ON MAP OF "CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", A-1 EXISTING BASEMENT & PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN LUCIDO SURVEYORS
FILED FOR RECORD MARCH 7, 1902 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A-2 PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN Boundary and Construction Surveys · Topographic and Planimetric Mapping
IN VOLUME 1 OF MAPS, "CITIES AND TOWNS", AT PAGE 2. ALTA Surveys and GIS Database Management · Land Planning and Consulting
A-3 EXISTING ELEVATIONS
APN 010-147-003-000 A-4 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 2 Saucito Avenue info@lucidosurveyors.com
A-5 PROPOSED SECTIONS DEL REY OAKS, CALIFORNIA 93940 (831) 620-5032
A-6 SOLAR PATH DIAGRAMS
SCALE: 1"=10' PROJECT No. 1801 MAY 30, 2017 V2

CITY OF CARMEL COUNTY OF MONTEREY STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ONE SHEET ONLY