AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Live video streaming available at:
www.ci.carmel.ca.us
Broadcast date
Sunday, September 19, 2010
8:00 a.m., KMST Channel 26
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
Hearing assistance units are available to the public for meetings held in the Council Chambers
The City Council welcomes your interest and participation. If you want to speak on an agenda item during its review, you may do so when the Mayor opens the item for public comment. Persons are not required to give their names but it is helpful in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Please keep remarks to a maximum of three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded on tape.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Pledge of Allegiance
IV. Extraordinary Business
A. Introduction of Office Assistant Anna Aubuchon.
B. Introduction of Police Reserve Officer Chayenne Octavio Garcia.
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator
A. Announcements from Closed Session
B. Announcements from the Mayor and City Council members (Council members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or report on his or her activities).
C. Announcements from City Administrator
1. Receive report on the new CRFA Ambulance.
2. Receive report on emergency preparedness.
3. Receive report on Monterey County General Plan Update Five (GPU5).
VI. Public Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City that are not on today’s agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded. The City Council Chamber is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. If you need assistance, please advise City Clerk Heidi Burch as to which item you wish to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
A. Ratify the minutes for the Special Meeting of July 27, 2010.
B. Ratify the minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 3, 2010.
C. Ratify the bills paid for the month of August 2010.
D. Consideration of a Resolution approving a Fire Department Ford F-150 utility truck as surplus and authorizing its sale.
E. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the closure of Sixth Avenue between San Carlos and Mission Streets from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 9, 2010, for a Carmel Fire Department open house.
F. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing co-sponsorship between the Forest and Beach Commission and the Friends of Carmel Forest (FOCF) of an “Arbor Day” event on Sunday, October 17, 2010.
G. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing City co-sponsorship with the Library Board of Trustees and Carmel Public Library Foundation of a Former Board Director Brunch on Sunday, November 7, 2010.
H. Consideration of a Resolution establishing authorization for summary criminal history information for employment, licensing or certification of emergency medical technicians.
I. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign and file a financial assistance application in the amount of $715,000 with the State Water Resources Control Board for storm drain improvements under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).
J. Consideration of a Resolution approving the application for grant funds from the State of California’s Habitat Conservation Fund to complete the Del Mar Master Plan.
K. Consideration of a Resolution approving revised Terms of Reference for the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force to enable reorganization of membership and business practices to improve representation and responsiveness.
L. Consideration of a Resolution awarding a bid to Granite Construction Company in the amount of $58,886 for the Street Improvements to Dolores Street between 4th and 5th Avenues, approve a project contingency of $5,886, and approve engineering and inspection during construction of $11,773 for a total project cost of $76,524.
M. Consideration of a Resolution in Support of H.R. 4040, the Big Sur Forest Service Management Unit Act, which will enhance the protection of the public lands and waterways of the Big Sur area.
N. Consideration of a Resolution approving an amendment to the Carmel Youth Center Articles of Incorporation deleting Article IV related to corporate memberships.
VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to require a property owner to remove a stone veneer that was applied to a residence without approval. The property location is the southeast corner of Third & Torres. The appellant and property owner is James Ardaiz.
B. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Carmel Sands Lodge is located on the northeast corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue. The appellant is Barbara Livingston.
IX. Ordinances
A. Consideration of an Ordinance amending Title 8 and Title 15 of the Municipal Code and Adopting the 2010 California Fire, Building, Residential, Energy, Mechanical and Plumbing Codes with amendments. (Second reading).
X. Resolutions
A. Consideration of a Resolution approving documents and actions relating to the refinancing of Sunset Center Lease Revenue Certificates of Participation, Series 2001.
XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive report and provide policy direction on options for the 2012 Municipal Election.
B. Ratify appointments to Boards and Commissions.
C. Scheduling Future City Council meetings – Please Bring Your Calendar.
XII. Adjournment
The next meeting of the City Council will be:
Regular Council Meeting – 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall is an accessible facility. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea telecommunications device for the Deaf/Speech Impaired (T.D.D.) number is 1-800-735-2929.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall, on the east side of Monte Verde Street, between Ocean and 7th Avenues, during normal business.
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
September 14, 2010
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, was held on the above date at the stated hour of 4:33 p.m. Mayor McCloud called the meeting to order.
II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Burnett, Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage & McCloud
STAFF PRESENT: Rich Guillen, City Administrator
Don Freeman, City Attorney
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
George Rawson, Public Safety Director
Mike Calhoun, Police Commander
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Members of the audience joined the Mayor and Council Members in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Mayor McCloud announced that Items VII-M and VIII-B would be continued to a future
meeting.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to continue Item VIII-B to the October Council meeting, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
Mayor McCloud asked for a moment of silence for longtime community leader Lou Ungaretti.
IV. EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
A. Introduction of Office Assistant Anna Aubuchon.
Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch introduced Anna Aubuchon.
B. Introduction of Police Reserve Officer Chayenne Octavio Garcia.
Public Safety Director George Rawson introduced Officer Garcia.
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION, FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
A. Announcements from Closed Session.
City Attorney Don Freeman said there had been no Closed Session.
B. Announcements from City Council members.
Council Member Sharp gave a recap of the trolley use figures for the summer season.
Council Member Talmage announced that he may not be in attendance at the October meeting.
Council Member Burnett asked for clarification of the process for submitting agenda items.
C. Announcements from City Administrator
1. Receive report on the new CRFA Ambulance.
Dave Jedinak presented the report on the new ambulance.
2. Receive report on emergency preparedness.
Commander Calhoun presented the emergency preparedness update.
3. Receive report on Monterey County General Plan Update Five (GPU5).
Planning and Building Services Manager Sean Conroy presented the report.
VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 5:00 p.m.
Carl Iverson noted the Carmel Heritage Society’s Antique Appraisal event on October 2nd.
Skip Lloyd addressed Council regarding an independent review of claims against the City noted in the Miller case.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 5:07 p.m.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Ratify the minutes for the Special Meeting of July 27, 2010.
B. Ratify the minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 3, 2010.
C. Ratify the bills paid for the month of August 2010.
D. Consideration of a Resolution approving a Fire Department Ford F-150 utility truck as surplus and authorizing its sale.
E. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the closure of Sixth Avenue between San Carlos and Mission Streets from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 9, 2010, for a Carmel Fire Department open house.
F. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing co-sponsorship between the Forest and Beach Commission and the Friends of Carmel Forest (FOCF) of an “Arbor Day” event on Sunday, October 17, 2010.
G. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing City co-sponsorship with the Library Board of Trustees and Carmel Public Library Foundation of a Former Board Director Brunch on Sunday, November 7, 2010.
H. Consideration of a Resolution establishing authorization for summary criminal history information for employment, licensing or certification of emergency medical technicians.
I. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign and file a financial assistance application in the amount of $715,000 with the State Water Resources Control Board for storm drain improvements under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).
J. Consideration of a Resolution approving the application for grant funds from the State of California’s Habitat Conservation Fund to complete the Del Mar Master Plan.
K. Consideration of a Resolution approving revised Terms of Reference for the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force to enable reorganization of membership and business practices to improve representation and responsiveness.
L. Consideration of a Resolution awarding a bid to Granite Construction Company in the amount of $58,886 for the Street Improvements to Dolores Street between 4th and 5th Avenues, approve a project contingency of $5,886, and approve engineering and inspection during construction of $11,773 for a total project cost of $76,524.
M. Consideration of a Resolution in Support of H.R. 4040, the Big Sur Forest Service Management Unit Act, which will enhance the protection of the public lands and waterways of the Big Sur area.
N. Consideration of a Resolution approving an amendment to the Carmel Youth Center Articles of Incorporation deleting Article IV related to corporate memberships.
Mayor McCloud noted an amendment to Consent Item A (clarifying that the Motion was to adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the settlement agreement for the Regional Water Project for Monterey County) and reiterated that Consent Item M would be continued.
City Administrator Guillen noted a correction to Item L.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment at 5:25 p.m.
Council Member Hazdovac commented on Consent Item F.
Mayor McCloud commented on Consent Item K.
Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve the Consent Agenda Items A-L and N, as amended, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
Item X.A. was heard out of order in consideration of the schedules of the consultants from Bartle Wells Associates. Council Member Burnett recused himself as he is renting property within proximity of the Sunset Center.
X. RESOLUTIONS
A. Consideration of a Resolution approving documents and actions relating to the refinancing of Sunset Center Lease Revenue Certificates of Participation, Series 2001.
Tom Gaffney of Bartle Wells Associates and Charles Adam of Jones Hall presented the report.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 5:33 p.m.
Marguerite Primrose addressed Council.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 5:35 p.m.
Council Member TALMAGE moved to adopt of a Resolution approving documents (with nonsubstantive changes) and actions relating to the refinancing of Sunset Center Lease Revenue Certificates of Participation, Series 2001, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to require a property owner to remove a stone veneer that was applied to a residence without approval. The property location is the southeast corner of Third & Torres. The appellant and property owner is James Ardaiz.
Sean Conroy presented the staff report.
James Ardaiz, the appellant, addressed Council.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 5:39 p.m.
Roberta Miller, Barbara Livingston, Vicki Lynch addressed Council.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 5:44 p.m.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to uphold the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s decision, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
B. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Carmel Sands Lodge is located on the northeast corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue. The appellant is Barbara Livingston.
This item was continued to the October 5th Council meeting.
IX. ORDINANCES
A. Consideration of an Ordinance amending Title 8 and Title 15 of the Municipal Code and Adopting the 2010 California Fire, Building, Residential, Energy, Mechanical and Plumbing Codes with amendments. (Second reading).
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment at 6:12 p.m.
Council Member TALMAGE moved to adopt, upon second reading, an Ordinance amending Title 8 and Title 15 of the Municipal Code and Adopting the 2010 California Fire, Building, Residential, Energy, Mechanical and Plumbing Codes with amendments, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
X. RESOLUTIONS
A. Consideration of a Resolution approving documents and actions relating to the refinancing of Sunset Center Lease Revenue Certificates of Participation, Series 2001.
This item was heard earlier in the meeting.
XI. ORDERS OF COUNCIL
A. Receive report and provide policy direction on options for the 2012 Municipal Election.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 6:17 p.m.
Speaking to the issue were: Dick Stiles; Monte Miller; and Carolyn Hardy.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 6:21 p.m.
Mayor McCloud re-opened the meeting to public comment at 6:33 p.m.
Speaking were: Monte Miller; Michael LePage; and Carolyn Hardy
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 6:36 p.m.
Council Member TALMAGE moved to table discussion of this item to a future meeting, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
B. Ratify appointments to Boards and Commissions.
The Mayor and Vice Mayor reappointed the following board/commission members to another term: Nancy Collins and Michael Lynch (Library); Dixie Dixon and Clyde Klaumann (Community Activities and Cultural); and Victoria Beach (Planning).
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment at 6:45 p.m.
Council Member BURNETT moved to accept the re-appointment of these five board/commission members, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE, and carried by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC, SHARP TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
C. Scheduling Future City Council meetings – Please Bring Your
Calendar
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor McCloud declared the meeting adjourned at 6:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk MAYOR SUE McCLOUD
Thursday, September 9, 2010
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Approving Fire Department Ford F-150 Utility Truck as Surplus & Authorizing Sale
Meeting Date: September 14, 2010
Prepared by: George Rawson,Public Safety Director
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving a Fire Department Ford F-150 utility truck as surplus and authorizing its sale.
Description: Utility Truck 7191, a 1994 Ford F-150 utility/pickup truck, has primarily been used for coastal incident responses, medical responses on the beach out of the surf line, and for transporting personnel and equipment during training. Age, normal wear and tear, and several recent mechanical problems have made this truck unreliable as a fire vehicle. The Fire Department recently purchased a new 2011 Ford F350 crew cab truck to replace Truck 7191, so it can now be declared surplus and sold. Proceeds from any sale will be deposited to General Fund Account 01-46801-0003.
Overall Cost: City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The Fire Department’s aging 1994 Ford F-150 utility truck has had several recent mechanical failures that undermine its safety. It also lacks some of the most modern safety features. City Council approval is required to dispose or sell surplus equipment with a value of $1,000 or more.
Decision Record: None
Reviewed by:
___________________________ __________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING A FIRE DEPARTMENT FORD F-150
UTILITY TRUCK TO BE SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SALE
WHEREAS, Fire Utility Truck 7191, a 1994 Ford F-150, located at the Carmel
Fire Department, is no longer useful to the City by virtue of its age and condition; and
WHEREAS, Utility Truck 7191 has experienced numerous mechanical failures,
which seriously undermines its level of safety level; and
WHEREAS, the Fire Department recently purchased a new Ford F-350 truck to
replace this vehicle; and
WHEREAS, City Council approval is required for sale of vehicle valued at more
than $1,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Declare the 1994 Ford F-150 Utility Truck surplus.
2. Authorize the sale of the truck.
3. Authorize any sale proceeds to be deposited to General Fund Account
01-46801-0003.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-
THE-SEA this 14th day of September 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: George Rawson,Public Safety Director
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving a Fire Department Ford F-150 utility truck as surplus and authorizing its sale.
Description: Utility Truck 7191, a 1994 Ford F-150 utility/pickup truck, has primarily been used for coastal incident responses, medical responses on the beach out of the surf line, and for transporting personnel and equipment during training. Age, normal wear and tear, and several recent mechanical problems have made this truck unreliable as a fire vehicle. The Fire Department recently purchased a new 2011 Ford F350 crew cab truck to replace Truck 7191, so it can now be declared surplus and sold. Proceeds from any sale will be deposited to General Fund Account 01-46801-0003.
Overall Cost: City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The Fire Department’s aging 1994 Ford F-150 utility truck has had several recent mechanical failures that undermine its safety. It also lacks some of the most modern safety features. City Council approval is required to dispose or sell surplus equipment with a value of $1,000 or more.
Decision Record: None
Reviewed by:
___________________________ __________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING A FIRE DEPARTMENT FORD F-150
UTILITY TRUCK TO BE SURPLUS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SALE
WHEREAS, Fire Utility Truck 7191, a 1994 Ford F-150, located at the Carmel
Fire Department, is no longer useful to the City by virtue of its age and condition; and
WHEREAS, Utility Truck 7191 has experienced numerous mechanical failures,
which seriously undermines its level of safety level; and
WHEREAS, the Fire Department recently purchased a new Ford F-350 truck to
replace this vehicle; and
WHEREAS, City Council approval is required for sale of vehicle valued at more
than $1,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Declare the 1994 Ford F-150 Utility Truck surplus.
2. Authorize the sale of the truck.
3. Authorize any sale proceeds to be deposited to General Fund Account
01-46801-0003.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-
THE-SEA this 14th day of September 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Authorizing Closure of Sixth Avenue between San Carlos & Mission Streets for Carmel Fire Department Open House
Meeting Date: September 14 , 2010
Prepared by: Heidi Burch
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the closure of Sixth Avenue between San Carlos and Mission Streets between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 9, 2010, for a Carmel Fire Department open house.
Description: The Carmel Fire Department has requested that Sixth Avenue between San Carlos and Mission Streets be closed between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 9, 2010, for an open house event.
Overall Cost: City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve this Resolution.
Important Considerations: The Carmel Fire Department is hosting this one-day open house as a fun, family event to highlight fire awareness and safety. Other area fire agencies also will be holding similar events that day in their respective communities. Besides enjoying informational booths and a BBQ hot dog lunch, members of the public may tour the fire station and view the fire apparatus.
Carmel Municipal Code Section 12.32.060 requires that City Council approve the closure of streets and the placement of tables in the public right-of-way for events.
Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:
____________ __________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF SIXTH AVENUE BETWEEN SAN CARLOS AND MISSION STREETS FROM 11:00 A.M. THROUGH 2:00 P.M. ON OCTOBER 9, 2010 FOR A CARMEL FIRE DEPARTMENT OPEN HOUSE
WHEREAS, the Carmel Fire Department has applied for a Special Event Permit to host a
one-day, open house event on Saturday, October 9, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Carmel Fire Department requests the closure of Sixth Avenue between
San Carlos and Mission Streets from 11:00 a.m. through 2:00 p.m. on October 9, 2010 for the
purpose of having informational booths, children’s activities and a hot dog BBQ lunch; and
WHEREAS, this event is held in conjunction with other area fire departments for the
purpose of providing a fun, family event that highlights fire awareness and safety for the public;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Authorize the closure of Sixth Avenue between San Carlos and Mission Streets from
11:00 a.m. through 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 9, 2010.
2. Authorize the placement of tables on Sixth Avenue between San Carlos and Mission
Streets during this period of time for the purpose of distributing fire safety
information and other materials during the event.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-
THE-SEA this 14th day of September, 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Heidi Burch
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the closure of Sixth Avenue between San Carlos and Mission Streets between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 9, 2010, for a Carmel Fire Department open house.
Description: The Carmel Fire Department has requested that Sixth Avenue between San Carlos and Mission Streets be closed between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 9, 2010, for an open house event.
Overall Cost: City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve this Resolution.
Important Considerations: The Carmel Fire Department is hosting this one-day open house as a fun, family event to highlight fire awareness and safety. Other area fire agencies also will be holding similar events that day in their respective communities. Besides enjoying informational booths and a BBQ hot dog lunch, members of the public may tour the fire station and view the fire apparatus.
Carmel Municipal Code Section 12.32.060 requires that City Council approve the closure of streets and the placement of tables in the public right-of-way for events.
Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:
____________ __________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF SIXTH AVENUE BETWEEN SAN CARLOS AND MISSION STREETS FROM 11:00 A.M. THROUGH 2:00 P.M. ON OCTOBER 9, 2010 FOR A CARMEL FIRE DEPARTMENT OPEN HOUSE
WHEREAS, the Carmel Fire Department has applied for a Special Event Permit to host a
one-day, open house event on Saturday, October 9, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Carmel Fire Department requests the closure of Sixth Avenue between
San Carlos and Mission Streets from 11:00 a.m. through 2:00 p.m. on October 9, 2010 for the
purpose of having informational booths, children’s activities and a hot dog BBQ lunch; and
WHEREAS, this event is held in conjunction with other area fire departments for the
purpose of providing a fun, family event that highlights fire awareness and safety for the public;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Authorize the closure of Sixth Avenue between San Carlos and Mission Streets from
11:00 a.m. through 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 9, 2010.
2. Authorize the placement of tables on Sixth Avenue between San Carlos and Mission
Streets during this period of time for the purpose of distributing fire safety
information and other materials during the event.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-
THE-SEA this 14th day of September, 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Authorizing Co-Sponsorship between the Forest & Beach Commission & the Friends of Carmel Forest of a Tree and Art Event
Meeting Date: September 14, 2010
Prepared by: Mike Branson
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing co-sponsorship between the Forest and Beach Commission and the Friends of Carmel Forest (FOCF) of a Tree and Art event on Sunday, October 17, 2010, and authorize the expenditure of City funds in an amount not to exceed $1,000.
Description: The Forest and Beach Commission requests co-sponsorship with the FOCF, an official city support group, of a Tree and Art event from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sunday, October 17, 2010, at the Sunset Center. The program outline is attached. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Support Group Policy C89-47 requires a City Council Resolution to authorize co-sponsorship of any event with an official support group.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: Not to exceed $1,000 - from Council Discretionary Fund #01-60207 for event costs. Event costs will be shared with the FOCF.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: At its August meeting, the Forest and Beach Commission unanimously approved a recommendation that the City Council approve co-sponsorship of this event with the FOCF. City sponsorship of this event supports recognition as a Tree City USA and allows the Forest and Beach Commission to perform one of its identified duties under
Municipal Code Chapter 2.32.060(D): To provide publicity in regard to the problems of the urban forest, including a public information program concerning care of forest resources, and including cooperation with school programs on conservation and the like.
Decision Record: Council has approved similar Resolutions for co-sponsored events with the FOCF.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO AUTHORIZE CO-SPONSORSHIP BETWEEN THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION AND THE FRIENDS OF CARMEL FOREST OF A TREE AND ART EVENT FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 4:00 P.M. ON OCTOBER 17, 2010 AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,000.
________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, one of the duties of the Forest and Beach Commission is to to
provide publicity in regard to the urban forest, including a public information program; and
WHEREAS, a Tree and Art event is planned from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on
October 17, 2010 at the Sunset Center; and
WHERAS, the Friends of Carmel Forest is an official support group of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea; and
WHEREAS, City co-sponsorship with an official support group requires approval of the City Council per Support Group Policy C89-47.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Authorize co-sponsorship between the Forest and Beach Commission and
the Friends of Carmel Forest for a Tree and Art event from 9:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. on October 17, 2010 at the Sunset Center.
2. Authorize the expenditure of City funds from Council Discretionary
Account #01-60207 in an amount not to exceed $1,000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE SEA this 14th day of September 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
_________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
A Tree and Art Event Presented by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the Friends of Carmel Forest
“The Iconic Trees of Carmel - Monterey Pine, Monterey Cypress”
Sunday, October 17
2:00 - 4:30 p.m. Event program (12 noon art and photo viewing begins)
Carpenter Hall, Sunset Center
Schedule for the day:
9:00 – 10:00 a.m. Artists drop off paintings and photographs
10:30 - 11:30 a.m. Judging of paintings (Carmel Art Association)
Judging of photographs (Center for Photographic Art). Each category will be
limited to 15. Every attempt will be made to display all of the art. Each artist to
provide own easel.
12:00 noon. Display of winning art (Sunset to provide two easels)
Display of books on cypress, pine and artists (Pilgrim’s Way)
Refreshments in place (Carmel Coffee House and Carmel Bakery)
Display of Forest Facts information by Friends of Carmel Forest.
1:45 p.m. Arrival of speakers; Attendees assemble.
2:00 p.m. Program begins.
4:00 p.m. Program over.
Program:
Opening remarks by Forest and Beach Chair Joe Ford, who introduces City Forester
Mike Branson, the Forest and Beach Commissioners and any other officials present
(Council, Planning, former mayors, etc.). Joe Ford introduces Clayton Anderson,
President of Friends of Carmel Forest.
Clayton Anderson introduces the board of FOCF, tells about the mission of the
organization and invites guests to pick up interesting “Forest Facts” information available
on table at entrance. He also will invite guests to take gift packets of Friends of Carmel
Forest note cards home with them.
Presentation of awards for best photograph and best painting by Joe Ford.
Forest and Beach Commissioner Tom Leverone presents a synopsis of the Carmel Forest
Management Plan so attendees can better understand how the City maintains our forest.
Guest Speaker: Jim Rieser, James J. Rieser Fine Art, speaking on trees artists love to
paint and photograph.
Conclusion and thanks by Joe Ford.
Packets of Friends of Carmel Forest note cards given to attendees as they leave.
26
Estimate of Expenses:
Carpenter Hall – all day 8-5 (free to City)
Chuck August sound system: $125.
2 awards @ $250 each: $500.
Honorarium: $100.
Refreshments and tableware: $125.
Friends of Carmel Forest Note cards: $100.
2 ads in Pine Cone Calendar: $50.
Ad in Pine Cone: $250
Flyer and invitation printing: $250
Call for submissions of art and photography – to include:
- Calling for paintings and photographs of Monterey Cypress and Monterey Pine
- To be dropped off Sunday, Oct. 17 between 9 and 10 a.m.
- $250 award to best painting and best photograph, presented at 2 pm program.
Judging will be done by The Center for Photographic Art and the Carmel Art
Association.
- Winners could be featured on next year’s program flyer
- 15 paintings and 15 photographs will be accepted
- Each artist should provide easel for display
- Artist may include business card with contact information
- To secure spot, call Barbara Livingston at 626-1610 or email
friendsofcarmelforest.com with dimensions of piece and whether it is a painting
or photograph.
- Flyer should be distributed to art galleries; mailed to known artists who might be
interested; and a press release with above details should be sent to three local
papers.
One-page flyer/invitation with attractive art/photo graphic perhaps by Clayton’s Dennis
the Menace contact artist to include:
- Time, place, details of event
- Details about display of art for those attending
- Refreshments
- Free information on caring for gardens and trees available
- Display by Pilgrim’s Way of books on cypress and pine
- Gift for all attendees at end of program
Prepared by: Mike Branson
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing co-sponsorship between the Forest and Beach Commission and the Friends of Carmel Forest (FOCF) of a Tree and Art event on Sunday, October 17, 2010, and authorize the expenditure of City funds in an amount not to exceed $1,000.
Description: The Forest and Beach Commission requests co-sponsorship with the FOCF, an official city support group, of a Tree and Art event from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sunday, October 17, 2010, at the Sunset Center. The program outline is attached. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Support Group Policy C89-47 requires a City Council Resolution to authorize co-sponsorship of any event with an official support group.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: Not to exceed $1,000 - from Council Discretionary Fund #01-60207 for event costs. Event costs will be shared with the FOCF.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: At its August meeting, the Forest and Beach Commission unanimously approved a recommendation that the City Council approve co-sponsorship of this event with the FOCF. City sponsorship of this event supports recognition as a Tree City USA and allows the Forest and Beach Commission to perform one of its identified duties under
Municipal Code Chapter 2.32.060(D): To provide publicity in regard to the problems of the urban forest, including a public information program concerning care of forest resources, and including cooperation with school programs on conservation and the like.
Decision Record: Council has approved similar Resolutions for co-sponsored events with the FOCF.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TO AUTHORIZE CO-SPONSORSHIP BETWEEN THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION AND THE FRIENDS OF CARMEL FOREST OF A TREE AND ART EVENT FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 4:00 P.M. ON OCTOBER 17, 2010 AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,000.
________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, one of the duties of the Forest and Beach Commission is to to
provide publicity in regard to the urban forest, including a public information program; and
WHEREAS, a Tree and Art event is planned from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on
October 17, 2010 at the Sunset Center; and
WHERAS, the Friends of Carmel Forest is an official support group of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea; and
WHEREAS, City co-sponsorship with an official support group requires approval of the City Council per Support Group Policy C89-47.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Authorize co-sponsorship between the Forest and Beach Commission and
the Friends of Carmel Forest for a Tree and Art event from 9:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. on October 17, 2010 at the Sunset Center.
2. Authorize the expenditure of City funds from Council Discretionary
Account #01-60207 in an amount not to exceed $1,000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE SEA this 14th day of September 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
_________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
A Tree and Art Event Presented by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the Friends of Carmel Forest
“The Iconic Trees of Carmel - Monterey Pine, Monterey Cypress”
Sunday, October 17
2:00 - 4:30 p.m. Event program (12 noon art and photo viewing begins)
Carpenter Hall, Sunset Center
Schedule for the day:
9:00 – 10:00 a.m. Artists drop off paintings and photographs
10:30 - 11:30 a.m. Judging of paintings (Carmel Art Association)
Judging of photographs (Center for Photographic Art). Each category will be
limited to 15. Every attempt will be made to display all of the art. Each artist to
provide own easel.
12:00 noon. Display of winning art (Sunset to provide two easels)
Display of books on cypress, pine and artists (Pilgrim’s Way)
Refreshments in place (Carmel Coffee House and Carmel Bakery)
Display of Forest Facts information by Friends of Carmel Forest.
1:45 p.m. Arrival of speakers; Attendees assemble.
2:00 p.m. Program begins.
4:00 p.m. Program over.
Program:
Opening remarks by Forest and Beach Chair Joe Ford, who introduces City Forester
Mike Branson, the Forest and Beach Commissioners and any other officials present
(Council, Planning, former mayors, etc.). Joe Ford introduces Clayton Anderson,
President of Friends of Carmel Forest.
Clayton Anderson introduces the board of FOCF, tells about the mission of the
organization and invites guests to pick up interesting “Forest Facts” information available
on table at entrance. He also will invite guests to take gift packets of Friends of Carmel
Forest note cards home with them.
Presentation of awards for best photograph and best painting by Joe Ford.
Forest and Beach Commissioner Tom Leverone presents a synopsis of the Carmel Forest
Management Plan so attendees can better understand how the City maintains our forest.
Guest Speaker: Jim Rieser, James J. Rieser Fine Art, speaking on trees artists love to
paint and photograph.
Conclusion and thanks by Joe Ford.
Packets of Friends of Carmel Forest note cards given to attendees as they leave.
26
Estimate of Expenses:
Carpenter Hall – all day 8-5 (free to City)
Chuck August sound system: $125.
2 awards @ $250 each: $500.
Honorarium: $100.
Refreshments and tableware: $125.
Friends of Carmel Forest Note cards: $100.
2 ads in Pine Cone Calendar: $50.
Ad in Pine Cone: $250
Flyer and invitation printing: $250
Call for submissions of art and photography – to include:
- Calling for paintings and photographs of Monterey Cypress and Monterey Pine
- To be dropped off Sunday, Oct. 17 between 9 and 10 a.m.
- $250 award to best painting and best photograph, presented at 2 pm program.
Judging will be done by The Center for Photographic Art and the Carmel Art
Association.
- Winners could be featured on next year’s program flyer
- 15 paintings and 15 photographs will be accepted
- Each artist should provide easel for display
- Artist may include business card with contact information
- To secure spot, call Barbara Livingston at 626-1610 or email
friendsofcarmelforest.com with dimensions of piece and whether it is a painting
or photograph.
- Flyer should be distributed to art galleries; mailed to known artists who might be
interested; and a press release with above details should be sent to three local
papers.
One-page flyer/invitation with attractive art/photo graphic perhaps by Clayton’s Dennis
the Menace contact artist to include:
- Time, place, details of event
- Details about display of art for those attending
- Refreshments
- Free information on caring for gardens and trees available
- Display by Pilgrim’s Way of books on cypress and pine
- Gift for all attendees at end of program
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Authorizing City Co-Sponsorship with Library Board of Trustees & Carmel Public Library Foundation of a Former Board Director Brunch
Meeting Date: September 14, 2010
Prepared by: Janet Cubbage, Library Director
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing City co-sponsorship with the Library Board of Trustees and Carmel Public Library Foundation of a Former Board Director Brunch on Sunday, November 7, 2010.
Description: The Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation request City co-sponsorship of the First Annual Former Board Director Brunch to be held at Harrison Memorial Library on Sunday, November 7, 2010. Wine will be served.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: This donor cultivation event is expected to advance the Carmel Public Library Foundation’s goals in the area of major gifts fundraising. City Policy C89-47 requires support groups to obtain City Council co-sponsorship of events at which alcohol is served at which alcohol is served. The Carmel Public Library Foundation will secure a Daily License Permit from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING CITY CO-SPONSORSHIP WITH THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND THE
CARMEL PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION OF A FORMER BOARD DIRECTOR BRUNCH ON SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2010
WHEREAS, the Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation request co-sponsorship of a Former Board Director Brunch at Harrison Memorial Library, and
WHEREAS, the City’s Support Groups Policy requires support groups to obtain City Council approval to co-sponsor events at which alcohol is served; and
WHEREAS, the event will advance the Carmel Public Library Foundation’s goals in the area of major gifts fundraising.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Agree to co-sponsor with the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation the November 7, 2010 Former Board Director Brunch.
2. Authorize the City Administrator to notify the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees and Carmel Public Library Foundation of the Council’s agreement to co-sponsor the event.
3. Authorize the City Administrator to officially notify the City’s insurance carrier of the co-sponsorship.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 14th day of September, 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Janet Cubbage, Library Director
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing City co-sponsorship with the Library Board of Trustees and Carmel Public Library Foundation of a Former Board Director Brunch on Sunday, November 7, 2010.
Description: The Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation request City co-sponsorship of the First Annual Former Board Director Brunch to be held at Harrison Memorial Library on Sunday, November 7, 2010. Wine will be served.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: This donor cultivation event is expected to advance the Carmel Public Library Foundation’s goals in the area of major gifts fundraising. City Policy C89-47 requires support groups to obtain City Council co-sponsorship of events at which alcohol is served at which alcohol is served. The Carmel Public Library Foundation will secure a Daily License Permit from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING CITY CO-SPONSORSHIP WITH THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND THE
CARMEL PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION OF A FORMER BOARD DIRECTOR BRUNCH ON SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2010
WHEREAS, the Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation request co-sponsorship of a Former Board Director Brunch at Harrison Memorial Library, and
WHEREAS, the City’s Support Groups Policy requires support groups to obtain City Council approval to co-sponsor events at which alcohol is served; and
WHEREAS, the event will advance the Carmel Public Library Foundation’s goals in the area of major gifts fundraising.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Agree to co-sponsor with the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation the November 7, 2010 Former Board Director Brunch.
2. Authorize the City Administrator to notify the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees and Carmel Public Library Foundation of the Council’s agreement to co-sponsor the event.
3. Authorize the City Administrator to officially notify the City’s insurance carrier of the co-sponsorship.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 14th day of September, 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Establishing Authorization for Summary Criminal History Information for Employment, Licensing or Certification of Emergency Medical Technicians
Meeting Date: 14 September 2010
Prepared by: George Rawson, Public Safety Director
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution establishing authorization for summary criminal history information for employment, licensing or certification of emergency medical technicians.
Description: California Assembly Bill 2917 was passed to establish a statewide emergency medical technician (EMT) registry and to develop standards, guidelines, and regulations for certification of EMTs. In order to comply with AB2917, the City must approve a Resolution authorizing access to State and local criminal records, as part of a Criminal History Screening Program for emergency medical technicians, including contract employees and volunteers.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: In order for the City to comply with Health and Safety Code requirements for the certification and employment of EMTs (including contractors and volunteers), City Council must approve a Resolution authorizing City officials to have access to summary criminal history information from State and local criminal records.
Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ESTABLISHING AUTHORIZATION FOR SUMMARY CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION FOR
EMPLOYMENT, LICENSING, OR CERTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS
WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(11), 11105.2 and 13300(b)(11)
authorize authorities to access state and local summary criminal history information for employment, licensing, or certification purposes; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code Section 11105(b)(11) authorizes authorities to access
federal level criminal history information by transmitting fingerprint images and related information to the Department of Justice to be transmitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(11) and 13300(b)(11) require the
criminal history information to be used to implement a statute that contains requirements for, or exclusions from, employment, certification, or licensing based upon specific criminal conduct; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(11) and 13300(b)(11) require the
governing board of a municipality to specifically authorize access to summary criminal history information for employment, licensing, or certification purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA:
1. Authorizes City officials to access state, local, and federal level summary criminal history information for employment, licensing, and certification of emergency medical technicians, including but not limited to volunteers and contract employees, and may not disseminate the information to a private entity: and
2. That the City shall not consider a person who has been convicted of a violent or serious felony or misdemeanor eligible for employment, certification, or licensing as an emergency medical technician, including as a volunteer or contract employee; except that such conviction may be disregarded if it is determined that mitigating circumstances exist, or that the conviction is not related to the employment, certification, or license in question.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 14th day of September 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
__________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: George Rawson, Public Safety Director
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution establishing authorization for summary criminal history information for employment, licensing or certification of emergency medical technicians.
Description: California Assembly Bill 2917 was passed to establish a statewide emergency medical technician (EMT) registry and to develop standards, guidelines, and regulations for certification of EMTs. In order to comply with AB2917, the City must approve a Resolution authorizing access to State and local criminal records, as part of a Criminal History Screening Program for emergency medical technicians, including contract employees and volunteers.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: In order for the City to comply with Health and Safety Code requirements for the certification and employment of EMTs (including contractors and volunteers), City Council must approve a Resolution authorizing City officials to have access to summary criminal history information from State and local criminal records.
Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ESTABLISHING AUTHORIZATION FOR SUMMARY CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION FOR
EMPLOYMENT, LICENSING, OR CERTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS
WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(11), 11105.2 and 13300(b)(11)
authorize authorities to access state and local summary criminal history information for employment, licensing, or certification purposes; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code Section 11105(b)(11) authorizes authorities to access
federal level criminal history information by transmitting fingerprint images and related information to the Department of Justice to be transmitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(11) and 13300(b)(11) require the
criminal history information to be used to implement a statute that contains requirements for, or exclusions from, employment, certification, or licensing based upon specific criminal conduct; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code Sections 11105(b)(11) and 13300(b)(11) require the
governing board of a municipality to specifically authorize access to summary criminal history information for employment, licensing, or certification purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA:
1. Authorizes City officials to access state, local, and federal level summary criminal history information for employment, licensing, and certification of emergency medical technicians, including but not limited to volunteers and contract employees, and may not disseminate the information to a private entity: and
2. That the City shall not consider a person who has been convicted of a violent or serious felony or misdemeanor eligible for employment, certification, or licensing as an emergency medical technician, including as a volunteer or contract employee; except that such conviction may be disregarded if it is determined that mitigating circumstances exist, or that the conviction is not related to the employment, certification, or license in question.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 14th day of September 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
__________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Authorizing City Administrator to File Financial Assistance Application with State Water Resources Control Board for Storm Drain Improvements under Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Meeting Date: 14 September 2010
Prepared by: Heidi Burch
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign and file a financial assistance application in the amount of $715,000 with the State Water Resources Control Board for storm drain improvements under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).
Description: This project involves work on storm drains and intersections in the City of Carmel intended to improve drainage and prevent uncontrolled runoff into Carmel Bay, an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The City’s storm drain system is in need of repair/replacement to prevent the discharge of pollutants into adjacent soil and groundwater, uncontrolled water runoff, and downstream flooding. With these CWSRF funds, the City can replace deteriorating storm drains, relocate manholes and pipes to public land to improve access and maintenance, and reconstruct two intersections to direct water into storm drains.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: $715,000
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The project will replace aging storm drain pipes, relocate pipes and manholes to public land to improve access and maintenance, and reconstruct two intersections to direct runoff into the storm drains.
Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN AND FILE A FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $715,000 WITH THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
WHEREAS, the federal Clean Water Act provides funds to the State of California for a State Revolving Fund to provide financial assistance for the construction of facilities or implementation of measures necessary to address water quality problems and prevent pollution of the waters of the State; and
WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing Project Applications under the program; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the SWRCB require the Applicant to certify by resolution the approval of Application(s) before submission of said Application(s) to the State; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California to complete the Project(s):
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea hereby:
1. Appoints the City Administrator to sign and file, for and on behalf of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of storm drain improvements and intersection reconstruction; and
2. Agrees and further does authorize the City Administrator or his designee to certify that the Agency has and will comply with all applicable state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements related to any financing or financial assistance received from the State Water Resources Control Board; and
3. Authorizes the City Administrator or his designee to negotiate and execute a financial assistance agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or change orders thereto and certify financing agreement disbursements on behalf of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNTIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 14th day of September 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
______________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Heidi Burch
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign and file a financial assistance application in the amount of $715,000 with the State Water Resources Control Board for storm drain improvements under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).
Description: This project involves work on storm drains and intersections in the City of Carmel intended to improve drainage and prevent uncontrolled runoff into Carmel Bay, an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The City’s storm drain system is in need of repair/replacement to prevent the discharge of pollutants into adjacent soil and groundwater, uncontrolled water runoff, and downstream flooding. With these CWSRF funds, the City can replace deteriorating storm drains, relocate manholes and pipes to public land to improve access and maintenance, and reconstruct two intersections to direct water into storm drains.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: $715,000
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The project will replace aging storm drain pipes, relocate pipes and manholes to public land to improve access and maintenance, and reconstruct two intersections to direct runoff into the storm drains.
Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN AND FILE A FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $715,000 WITH THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
WHEREAS, the federal Clean Water Act provides funds to the State of California for a State Revolving Fund to provide financial assistance for the construction of facilities or implementation of measures necessary to address water quality problems and prevent pollution of the waters of the State; and
WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing Project Applications under the program; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the SWRCB require the Applicant to certify by resolution the approval of Application(s) before submission of said Application(s) to the State; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California to complete the Project(s):
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea hereby:
1. Appoints the City Administrator to sign and file, for and on behalf of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, a Financial Assistance Application for a financing agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board for the planning, design, and construction of storm drain improvements and intersection reconstruction; and
2. Agrees and further does authorize the City Administrator or his designee to certify that the Agency has and will comply with all applicable state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements related to any financing or financial assistance received from the State Water Resources Control Board; and
3. Authorizes the City Administrator or his designee to negotiate and execute a financial assistance agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or change orders thereto and certify financing agreement disbursements on behalf of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNTIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 14th day of September 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
______________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Approving Application for Grant Funds from State of California's Habitat Conservation Fund to Complete Del Mar Master Plan
Meeting Date: September 14, 2010
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving the application for grant funds from the State of California’s Habitat Conservation Fund to complete the Del Mar Master Plan.
Description: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea will apply for grant funds from the State of California’s on October 1, 2010, to fund projects to complete the Del Mar Master Plan. Projects included in this grant application are: an ADA-compliant pedestrian pathway along San Antonio Avenue from 4th Avenue to Ocean Avenue, estimated at 1,300 feet; a 600-foot boardwalk and staircase for beach access at 4th Avenue; a 200-foot boardwalk and viewing platform at the Del Mar Dunes; and the protection and restoration of the North Dunes.
Overall Cost: City Funds: A 50% match is required. This amount to be determined.
Grant Funds: To be determined.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the Resolution.
Important Considerations: Updated cost estimates are needed for each of the projects remaining in the Del Mar Plan, and discussions are under way with the Coastal Conservancy for funding portions of the Plan. As these proceed, a decision will be made regarding the specific projects to be included in the HCF application.
Decision Record: None
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAM TO COMPLETE THE DEL MAR MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990, which provides funds to the State of California for grants to local agencies to acquire, enhance, restore or develop facilities for public recreation and fish and wildlife habitat protection purposes; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the HCF Program, setting up necessary procedures governing project application under the HCF Program; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and
Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application(s) before submission of said application(s) to the State; and
WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into a contract with the State of California to complete the project(s);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea hereby:
1. Approve the filing of an application for the Habitat Conservation Fund
Program; and
2. Certify that said applicant has or will have available, prior to commencement of any work on the project included in this application, the required match and sufficient funds to complete the project; and
3. Certify that the applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project(s), and
4. Certify that the applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the provisions contained in the contract shown in the grant administration guide; and
5. Delegate the authority to the City Administrator to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the project.
6. Agree to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA on this 14th day of September 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving the application for grant funds from the State of California’s Habitat Conservation Fund to complete the Del Mar Master Plan.
Description: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea will apply for grant funds from the State of California’s on October 1, 2010, to fund projects to complete the Del Mar Master Plan. Projects included in this grant application are: an ADA-compliant pedestrian pathway along San Antonio Avenue from 4th Avenue to Ocean Avenue, estimated at 1,300 feet; a 600-foot boardwalk and staircase for beach access at 4th Avenue; a 200-foot boardwalk and viewing platform at the Del Mar Dunes; and the protection and restoration of the North Dunes.
Overall Cost: City Funds: A 50% match is required. This amount to be determined.
Grant Funds: To be determined.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the Resolution.
Important Considerations: Updated cost estimates are needed for each of the projects remaining in the Del Mar Plan, and discussions are under way with the Coastal Conservancy for funding portions of the Plan. As these proceed, a decision will be made regarding the specific projects to be included in the HCF application.
Decision Record: None
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAM TO COMPLETE THE DEL MAR MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990, which provides funds to the State of California for grants to local agencies to acquire, enhance, restore or develop facilities for public recreation and fish and wildlife habitat protection purposes; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the HCF Program, setting up necessary procedures governing project application under the HCF Program; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and
Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application(s) before submission of said application(s) to the State; and
WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into a contract with the State of California to complete the project(s);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea hereby:
1. Approve the filing of an application for the Habitat Conservation Fund
Program; and
2. Certify that said applicant has or will have available, prior to commencement of any work on the project included in this application, the required match and sufficient funds to complete the project; and
3. Certify that the applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project(s), and
4. Certify that the applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the provisions contained in the contract shown in the grant administration guide; and
5. Delegate the authority to the City Administrator to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the project.
6. Agree to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA on this 14th day of September 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Approving Revised Terms of Reference for Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force
Meeting Date: September 14 , 2010
Prepared by: Heidi Burch
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving revised terms of reference for the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force to enable reorganization of membership and business practices to improve representation and responsiveness.
Description: In February 1990, the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force was established, to comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. The task force was charged with developing and implementing the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) to address waste management conditions within the county. The Task Force is guided by “Terms of Reference,” that prescribe Task Force membership and procedures.
In May 2010, the Task Force revised its Terms of Reference. Membership was
amended to include the County’s franchised waste haulers, the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority, the Monterey County Business Council, and the Pebble Beach Community Services District. The by-laws removed some Task Force members that had not actively participated in many years: Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments; military organizations; and several County departments.
The revised Terms of Reference will assist the Task Force achieve its goals by including critical representatives to its membership and by employing new technologies not previously available to expedite distribution of vital information.
State law requires that the Board of Supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities within the County must approve the proposed amendments.
Overall Cost: City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Approve this Resolution.
Important Considerations: If ratified, the Task Force would comprise representatives from all 12 Monterey County cities, a public member from all five County Supervisorial districts; the Monterey County Health Department; Pebble Beach Community Services District, all County franchise waste haulers; the Monterey Regional Waste Management District; Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority; various environmental organizations, the recycling and agriculture industries; and the Monterey County Business Council.
Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:
___________________________ __________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING REVISED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE MONTEREY COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE TO ENABLE REORGANIZATION OF MEMBERSHIP AND BUSINESS PRACTICES TO IMPROVE REPRESENTATION AND RESPONSIVENESS
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1990, the Board of Supervisors established by resolution the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force (“Task Force”) to comply with Public Resources Code Section 40950; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved the Terms of Reference to govern membership and practices of the Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea approved membership on the Task Force and approved the Terms of Reference by adopting Resolution 6105 on August 1, 1990; and
WHEREAS, amendment of the Terms of Reference requires an affirmative vote by twothirds of written ballots returned by Task Force members; approval by the Board of Supervisors; and approval by a majority of the city councils of the cities that contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area of Monterey County; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2010, the Task Force unanimously by written ballot approved the Terms of Reference as amended as shown on the document attached hereto as Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, the revisions to the Terms of Reference will assist the Task Force to achieve its goals by modernizing its membership and practices in order to improve representation and responsiveness to vital issues; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2010, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 10-230 to approve the revised Terms of Reference for the Task Force; and
WHEREAS, in the development of this matter, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, this action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity that shall not result in direct or indirect physical change to the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds each recital set forth above to be true and correct, and by this reference incorporates each as an integral part of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. The City Council approves the revised Terms of Reference for the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force, attached hereto as Attachment 1 and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA on this 14th day of September 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Heidi Burch
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving revised terms of reference for the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force to enable reorganization of membership and business practices to improve representation and responsiveness.
Description: In February 1990, the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force was established, to comply with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. The task force was charged with developing and implementing the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) to address waste management conditions within the county. The Task Force is guided by “Terms of Reference,” that prescribe Task Force membership and procedures.
In May 2010, the Task Force revised its Terms of Reference. Membership was
amended to include the County’s franchised waste haulers, the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority, the Monterey County Business Council, and the Pebble Beach Community Services District. The by-laws removed some Task Force members that had not actively participated in many years: Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments; military organizations; and several County departments.
The revised Terms of Reference will assist the Task Force achieve its goals by including critical representatives to its membership and by employing new technologies not previously available to expedite distribution of vital information.
State law requires that the Board of Supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities within the County must approve the proposed amendments.
Overall Cost: City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Approve this Resolution.
Important Considerations: If ratified, the Task Force would comprise representatives from all 12 Monterey County cities, a public member from all five County Supervisorial districts; the Monterey County Health Department; Pebble Beach Community Services District, all County franchise waste haulers; the Monterey Regional Waste Management District; Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority; various environmental organizations, the recycling and agriculture industries; and the Monterey County Business Council.
Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:
___________________________ __________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING REVISED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE MONTEREY COUNTY INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE TO ENABLE REORGANIZATION OF MEMBERSHIP AND BUSINESS PRACTICES TO IMPROVE REPRESENTATION AND RESPONSIVENESS
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1990, the Board of Supervisors established by resolution the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force (“Task Force”) to comply with Public Resources Code Section 40950; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved the Terms of Reference to govern membership and practices of the Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea approved membership on the Task Force and approved the Terms of Reference by adopting Resolution 6105 on August 1, 1990; and
WHEREAS, amendment of the Terms of Reference requires an affirmative vote by twothirds of written ballots returned by Task Force members; approval by the Board of Supervisors; and approval by a majority of the city councils of the cities that contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area of Monterey County; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2010, the Task Force unanimously by written ballot approved the Terms of Reference as amended as shown on the document attached hereto as Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, the revisions to the Terms of Reference will assist the Task Force to achieve its goals by modernizing its membership and practices in order to improve representation and responsiveness to vital issues; and
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2010, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 10-230 to approve the revised Terms of Reference for the Task Force; and
WHEREAS, in the development of this matter, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, this action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity that shall not result in direct or indirect physical change to the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds each recital set forth above to be true and correct, and by this reference incorporates each as an integral part of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. The City Council approves the revised Terms of Reference for the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force, attached hereto as Attachment 1 and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA on this 14th day of September 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Awarding Bid to Granite Construction Company for Dolores Street Improvements between 4th Av. & 5th Av.
Meeting Date: 14 September 2010
Prepared by: Stu Ross/Margi Perotti, Public Works Dept.
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution awarding a bid to Granite Construction Company in the amount of $58,886 for the Street Improvements to Dolores Street between 4th and 5th Avenues, approve a project contingency of $5,886, and approve engineering and inspection during construction of $11,773 for a total project cost of $76,524.
Description: Repaving of Dolores Street between 4th and 5th Avenues compliments the completion of the Carmel Foundation Trevvett Court housing project. It also will improve the structural fabric of the street and provide for safer driving conditions.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $76,524.00
Construction Bid: $58,865.00
Project Contingency: $5,886.00
Project Engineering and inspection: $11,773.00
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: Dolores Street between 4th and 5th is an area of senior living and the structural integrity of the street was compromised as the result of the Trevvett Court housing project. An overlay will restore the structural integrity of this section of Dolores Street.
Decision Record: The Dolores Street Improvement project has been scheduled for several years and is a project recommended as high priority in the Pavement Management study performed by Nichols Engineering.
Attachments:
• Letter from Neill Engineering recommending award of bid to Granite Construction.
• Tabulation of Bids prepared by Neill Engineering
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AWARDING THE BID TO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON DOLORES STREET BETWEEN 4TH AND 5TH AVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,865, APPROVING A PROJECT CONTINGENCY OF $5,886, APPROVING ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION OF $11,773 FOR A TOTAL PROJECT COST OF $76,524
WHEREAS, the reconstruction of Dolores Street between 5th and 6th Avenue was rated high for replacement in the Nichols Engineering Pavement Management Report; and
WHEREAS, seven bids were received for the project on 26 August 2010 and the low bidder was Granite Construction Company for a bid price of $58,865; and
WHEREAS, additional funding is needed for project contingency in the amount of $5,886 and for engineering and inspection services during construction in the amount of $11,773.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA does hereby:
1. Award the bid for construction to Granite Construction Company at a bid price of $58,865.
2. Approve $5,886 for project contingency and $11,773 for engineering and
inspection services during construction.
3. Amend the F.Y. 2010/2011 Capital Improvement Program to include the Dolores Street Project and approve the use of funds from the “Repave San Carlos” (Acct. # 01-89576) and the “Street/Road Projects based on Nichols Engineering” (Acct. #01-89585) projects identified in the approved Capital Improvements Program.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 14th day of September, 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Stu Ross/Margi Perotti, Public Works Dept.
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution awarding a bid to Granite Construction Company in the amount of $58,886 for the Street Improvements to Dolores Street between 4th and 5th Avenues, approve a project contingency of $5,886, and approve engineering and inspection during construction of $11,773 for a total project cost of $76,524.
Description: Repaving of Dolores Street between 4th and 5th Avenues compliments the completion of the Carmel Foundation Trevvett Court housing project. It also will improve the structural fabric of the street and provide for safer driving conditions.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $76,524.00
Construction Bid: $58,865.00
Project Contingency: $5,886.00
Project Engineering and inspection: $11,773.00
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: Dolores Street between 4th and 5th is an area of senior living and the structural integrity of the street was compromised as the result of the Trevvett Court housing project. An overlay will restore the structural integrity of this section of Dolores Street.
Decision Record: The Dolores Street Improvement project has been scheduled for several years and is a project recommended as high priority in the Pavement Management study performed by Nichols Engineering.
Attachments:
• Letter from Neill Engineering recommending award of bid to Granite Construction.
• Tabulation of Bids prepared by Neill Engineering
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AWARDING THE BID TO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON DOLORES STREET BETWEEN 4TH AND 5TH AVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,865, APPROVING A PROJECT CONTINGENCY OF $5,886, APPROVING ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION OF $11,773 FOR A TOTAL PROJECT COST OF $76,524
WHEREAS, the reconstruction of Dolores Street between 5th and 6th Avenue was rated high for replacement in the Nichols Engineering Pavement Management Report; and
WHEREAS, seven bids were received for the project on 26 August 2010 and the low bidder was Granite Construction Company for a bid price of $58,865; and
WHEREAS, additional funding is needed for project contingency in the amount of $5,886 and for engineering and inspection services during construction in the amount of $11,773.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA does hereby:
1. Award the bid for construction to Granite Construction Company at a bid price of $58,865.
2. Approve $5,886 for project contingency and $11,773 for engineering and
inspection services during construction.
3. Amend the F.Y. 2010/2011 Capital Improvement Program to include the Dolores Street Project and approve the use of funds from the “Repave San Carlos” (Acct. # 01-89576) and the “Street/Road Projects based on Nichols Engineering” (Acct. #01-89585) projects identified in the approved Capital Improvements Program.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 14th day of September, 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution in Support of H.R. 4040, the Big Sur Forest Service Management Unit Act
Meeting Date: 14 September 2010
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution in Support of H.R. 4040, the Big Sur Forest Service Management Unit Act, which will enhance the protection of the public lands and waterways of the Big Sur area.
Description: H.R. 4040, the Big Sur Forest Service management Act of 2009, sponsored by Congressman Sam Farr, makes structural changes designed to improve the management of the Los Padres National Forest’s Monterey Ranger District.
These changes include: reorganizing the Monterey Ranger District into a Management Unit known as the Big Sur Management Unit (BSMU); directing the US Forest Service to develop a wildlife management plan tailored to the new BSMU; revising the Forest Service boundaries of the new BSMU to more closely match the boundary with actual Federal ownership and remove the Big Sur Valley and other private lands from the current boundary; designating several river segments with the Federal lands of the LPNF as wild and scenic under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; and making several minor boundary changes to wilderness designations enacted by Congress in 2002.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: H.R. 4040 is an important step to protect and preserve the scenic and natural public lands and waterways in the Big Sur area.
Decision Record: N/A
Reviewed by:
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA SUPPORTING H.R. 4040, THE BIG SUR FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT UNIT ACT,
WHICH WILL ENHANCE THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERWAYS OF THE BIG SUR AREA
WHEREAS, Congressman Sam Farr sponsored H.R. 4040, the Big Sur Forest
Service Management Unit Act of 2009, to protect the wild and scenic nature of the Big Sur Region; and
WHEREAS, the Big Sur region is host to a unique set of local concerns, and H.R. 4040 would establish the Big Sur Management Unit (BSMU) which would reorganize the Monterey Ranger District. Converting the 325,000 acres of the Monterey Ranger District into the Big Sur Management Unit (BSMU) will provide the region with the autonomy and budget authority this spectacular public land deserves. Furthermore, Section 104, which designates the BSMU as a Wildland Urban Interface Special Study Area and directs the United States Forest Service to develop and annually update a fire management plan specifically for the BMSU, will ensure this region’s specific fire protection needs are met and further protect its wild public resources; and
WHEREAS, the rivers and streams flowing through public lands in the northern Santa Lucia Mountains are of incredible ecological and recreational value and H.R. 4040 will designate 90 miles of the most biologically and culturally sensitive rivers and streams in the Los Padres National Forest as federal Wild and Scenic Rivers, including sections of the Arroyo Seco River, Big Creek, Carmel River, San Antonio River, and the
San Carpoforo Creek. This is the highest legal protection a waterway may be granted, and will protect them in perpetuity; and
WHEREAS, the Big Sur Wilderness Areas are of priceless value and importance to the state, as well as outstanding recreational value to the County, H.R. 4040 will modify certain boundaries and incorporate new areas for a gain of approximately 2,000 acres of National Wilderness; and
WHEREAS, thousands of people visit the region every year, and the Arroyo
Seco/Indians Road will be converted into a National Recreation Trail so it may continue to be used by hikers, equestrians and mountain bikers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea hereby supports the passage of H.R. 4040, as it will be an instrumental step in the protection of the public lands and waterways of the Big Sur area, and will preserve the natural quality of the Central Coast for all to enjoy.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is directed to transmit a copy of
this Resolution and indicate the City’s support of H.R. 4040 to Congressman Farr, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and President Obama.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA on this 14th day of September 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution in Support of H.R. 4040, the Big Sur Forest Service Management Unit Act, which will enhance the protection of the public lands and waterways of the Big Sur area.
Description: H.R. 4040, the Big Sur Forest Service management Act of 2009, sponsored by Congressman Sam Farr, makes structural changes designed to improve the management of the Los Padres National Forest’s Monterey Ranger District.
These changes include: reorganizing the Monterey Ranger District into a Management Unit known as the Big Sur Management Unit (BSMU); directing the US Forest Service to develop a wildlife management plan tailored to the new BSMU; revising the Forest Service boundaries of the new BSMU to more closely match the boundary with actual Federal ownership and remove the Big Sur Valley and other private lands from the current boundary; designating several river segments with the Federal lands of the LPNF as wild and scenic under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; and making several minor boundary changes to wilderness designations enacted by Congress in 2002.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: H.R. 4040 is an important step to protect and preserve the scenic and natural public lands and waterways in the Big Sur area.
Decision Record: N/A
Reviewed by:
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA SUPPORTING H.R. 4040, THE BIG SUR FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT UNIT ACT,
WHICH WILL ENHANCE THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERWAYS OF THE BIG SUR AREA
WHEREAS, Congressman Sam Farr sponsored H.R. 4040, the Big Sur Forest
Service Management Unit Act of 2009, to protect the wild and scenic nature of the Big Sur Region; and
WHEREAS, the Big Sur region is host to a unique set of local concerns, and H.R. 4040 would establish the Big Sur Management Unit (BSMU) which would reorganize the Monterey Ranger District. Converting the 325,000 acres of the Monterey Ranger District into the Big Sur Management Unit (BSMU) will provide the region with the autonomy and budget authority this spectacular public land deserves. Furthermore, Section 104, which designates the BSMU as a Wildland Urban Interface Special Study Area and directs the United States Forest Service to develop and annually update a fire management plan specifically for the BMSU, will ensure this region’s specific fire protection needs are met and further protect its wild public resources; and
WHEREAS, the rivers and streams flowing through public lands in the northern Santa Lucia Mountains are of incredible ecological and recreational value and H.R. 4040 will designate 90 miles of the most biologically and culturally sensitive rivers and streams in the Los Padres National Forest as federal Wild and Scenic Rivers, including sections of the Arroyo Seco River, Big Creek, Carmel River, San Antonio River, and the
San Carpoforo Creek. This is the highest legal protection a waterway may be granted, and will protect them in perpetuity; and
WHEREAS, the Big Sur Wilderness Areas are of priceless value and importance to the state, as well as outstanding recreational value to the County, H.R. 4040 will modify certain boundaries and incorporate new areas for a gain of approximately 2,000 acres of National Wilderness; and
WHEREAS, thousands of people visit the region every year, and the Arroyo
Seco/Indians Road will be converted into a National Recreation Trail so it may continue to be used by hikers, equestrians and mountain bikers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea hereby supports the passage of H.R. 4040, as it will be an instrumental step in the protection of the public lands and waterways of the Big Sur area, and will preserve the natural quality of the Central Coast for all to enjoy.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is directed to transmit a copy of
this Resolution and indicate the City’s support of H.R. 4040 to Congressman Farr, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and President Obama.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA on this 14th day of September 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Approving Amendment to Carmel Youth Center Articles of Incorporation
Meeting Date: September 14, 2010
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving an amendment to the Carmel Youth Center Articles of Incorporation deleting Article IV related to corporate memberships.
Description: The Carmel Youth Center Articles of Incorporation were amended in 1991. This amendment included in Article IV designates 24 memberships of which the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is named as one. The membership designation has not been in practice for a number of years. Furthermore, there is no desire to revert back to this type of organization.
The Carmel Youth Center Board has requested that the Articles of Incorporation be amended to exclude Article IV “Memberships”.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $0
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The City has not designated a person for the membership as a voting member. The Carmel Youth Center has operated effectively without the designated memberships. The City continues to have a productive relationship with the Carmel Youth Center.
Decision Record: No prior decision by the City Council has occurred on this issue.
Reviewed:
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving an amendment to the Carmel Youth Center Articles of Incorporation deleting Article IV related to corporate memberships.
Description: The Carmel Youth Center Articles of Incorporation were amended in 1991. This amendment included in Article IV designates 24 memberships of which the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is named as one. The membership designation has not been in practice for a number of years. Furthermore, there is no desire to revert back to this type of organization.
The Carmel Youth Center Board has requested that the Articles of Incorporation be amended to exclude Article IV “Memberships”.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $0
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The City has not designated a person for the membership as a voting member. The Carmel Youth Center has operated effectively without the designated memberships. The City continues to have a productive relationship with the Carmel Youth Center.
Decision Record: No prior decision by the City Council has occurred on this issue.
Reviewed:
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Require Property Owner to Remove Stone Veneer Applied to Residence Without Approval
Meeting Date: 14 September 2010
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to require a property owner to remove a stone veneer that was applied to a residence without approval. The property location is on the southeast corner of Third and Torres. The appellant and property owner is James Ardaiz.
Description: The property owner installed a stone veneer on portions of an existing residence. The Planning Commission allowed some of the stone to remain but required that two small strips of stone be removed. The appellant is requesting that the stone be allowed to remain.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Important Considerations: The City’s Design Guidelines encourage stonework to appear structural and authentic and to avoid a purely gratuitous or decorative appearance. Stone applied around only windows or doors as ornamentation is also discouraged.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission required that the applicant remove a portion of the stone veneer on 12 May 2010. The property owner submitted an appeal on 26 May 2010.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 14 SEPTEMBER 2010
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO REQUIRE A PROPERTY OWNER TO REMOVE A STONE VENEER THAT WAS APPLIED TO A RESIDENCE WITHOUT APPROVAL. THE PROPERTY LOCATION IS THE SE CORNER OF TORRES STREET & THIRD AVENUE. THE APPELLANT AND PROPERTY OWNER IS JAMES ARDAIZ.
BACKGROUND
This site is located on the southeast corner of Torres Street and Third Avenue and is developed with a one-story residence. A Track One Design Study application was previously approved by staff for exterior alterations to the residence. The approval included an addition of approximately 150 square feet to accommodate a new primary entry, a new dining area and a hallway with French doors. A building permit was issued for the project on 27 May 2008.
The dining area projection was approved with a stone veneer, while the remainder of the addition was approved with board and batten wood siding only. During an inspection, it was identified that the applicant had installed a stone veneer on the primary entry and on both sides of the French doors along the hallway. Staff was concerned that the additional stonework was not consistent with the Design Guidelines and therefore referred the matter to the Planning Commission for review.
The Planning Commission reviewed this issue on 12 May 2010 and approved the stone veneer on the primary entry but required the stone to be removed from either side of the French doors along the hallway and be replaced with board and batten siding.
APPEAL
The property owner filed an appeal with the City Clerk on 26 May 2010. The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s requirement to remove the stone from the sides of the French doors (see attached letter).
EVALUATION
Residential Design Guideline 9.10 states, “The application of stone should appear structural and authentic. A gratuitous or purely decorative appearance should be avoided.” Guideline 9.10 further states:
“The application of stone around only windows or doors as ornamentation is
discouraged” and “The use of stone on the full exterior of individual building element is encouraged. The use of stone on just one elevation, the street façade for example, is discouraged.”
The appellant contends that the stone does appear structural as it gives the impression of two stone columns rising from a stone pediment that runs under the French doors and supporting the beam the runs along the hallway.
Staff does not concur with the appellant. As originally approved, the stone on the dining room projection was consistent with the Guidelines, as it appeared structural and authentic. The stone wrapped around an entire building projection, rather than being applied on a flat surface of one elevation. The stonework that was added on either side of the French doors is inconsistent with the Guidelines as it is applied on only one elevation and does not wrap around an entire building element. The stone appears more decorative rather than giving the impression of stone pillars or columns. The stone also transitions to wood siding for no apparent structural reason.
Staff does note that the Guidelines are designed to assist in the decision making process for projects that affect the appearance of individual properties and the character of the community as a whole. The Guidelines are not intended to be inflexible nor used like an ordinance and therefore do allow for some discretion. Staff also notes that the stonework is not readily visible from the street due to the elevation of the residence above the street, the fence along the property line and the existing tree canopy.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to require a property owner to remove a stone veneer that was applied to a residence without approval. The property location is on the southeast corner of Third and Torres. The appellant and property owner is James Ardaiz.
Description: The property owner installed a stone veneer on portions of an existing residence. The Planning Commission allowed some of the stone to remain but required that two small strips of stone be removed. The appellant is requesting that the stone be allowed to remain.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Important Considerations: The City’s Design Guidelines encourage stonework to appear structural and authentic and to avoid a purely gratuitous or decorative appearance. Stone applied around only windows or doors as ornamentation is also discouraged.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission required that the applicant remove a portion of the stone veneer on 12 May 2010. The property owner submitted an appeal on 26 May 2010.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 14 SEPTEMBER 2010
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO REQUIRE A PROPERTY OWNER TO REMOVE A STONE VENEER THAT WAS APPLIED TO A RESIDENCE WITHOUT APPROVAL. THE PROPERTY LOCATION IS THE SE CORNER OF TORRES STREET & THIRD AVENUE. THE APPELLANT AND PROPERTY OWNER IS JAMES ARDAIZ.
BACKGROUND
This site is located on the southeast corner of Torres Street and Third Avenue and is developed with a one-story residence. A Track One Design Study application was previously approved by staff for exterior alterations to the residence. The approval included an addition of approximately 150 square feet to accommodate a new primary entry, a new dining area and a hallway with French doors. A building permit was issued for the project on 27 May 2008.
The dining area projection was approved with a stone veneer, while the remainder of the addition was approved with board and batten wood siding only. During an inspection, it was identified that the applicant had installed a stone veneer on the primary entry and on both sides of the French doors along the hallway. Staff was concerned that the additional stonework was not consistent with the Design Guidelines and therefore referred the matter to the Planning Commission for review.
The Planning Commission reviewed this issue on 12 May 2010 and approved the stone veneer on the primary entry but required the stone to be removed from either side of the French doors along the hallway and be replaced with board and batten siding.
APPEAL
The property owner filed an appeal with the City Clerk on 26 May 2010. The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s requirement to remove the stone from the sides of the French doors (see attached letter).
EVALUATION
Residential Design Guideline 9.10 states, “The application of stone should appear structural and authentic. A gratuitous or purely decorative appearance should be avoided.” Guideline 9.10 further states:
“The application of stone around only windows or doors as ornamentation is
discouraged” and “The use of stone on the full exterior of individual building element is encouraged. The use of stone on just one elevation, the street façade for example, is discouraged.”
The appellant contends that the stone does appear structural as it gives the impression of two stone columns rising from a stone pediment that runs under the French doors and supporting the beam the runs along the hallway.
Staff does not concur with the appellant. As originally approved, the stone on the dining room projection was consistent with the Guidelines, as it appeared structural and authentic. The stone wrapped around an entire building projection, rather than being applied on a flat surface of one elevation. The stonework that was added on either side of the French doors is inconsistent with the Guidelines as it is applied on only one elevation and does not wrap around an entire building element. The stone appears more decorative rather than giving the impression of stone pillars or columns. The stone also transitions to wood siding for no apparent structural reason.
Staff does note that the Guidelines are designed to assist in the decision making process for projects that affect the appearance of individual properties and the character of the community as a whole. The Guidelines are not intended to be inflexible nor used like an ordinance and therefore do allow for some discretion. Staff also notes that the stonework is not readily visible from the street due to the elevation of the residence above the street, the fence along the property line and the existing tree canopy.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project & Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration
Meeting Date: 14 September 2010
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Carmel Sands Lodge is located on the northeast corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue. The appellant is Barbara Livingston.
Description: The project consists of the demolition of the existing 42-room Carmel Sands Lodge and the construction of a new 42-room hotel that includes a 64-space underground garage, a restaurant, a day spa and two retail spaces. The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and is requesting that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the project.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Important Considerations: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a lead agency prepare an Initial Study for all projects that are not categorically or statutorily exempt. An Initial Study is prepared to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The City prepared an Initial Study for this project and determined that all potentially significant environmental impacts could be mitigated. The Planning Commission, therefore, adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission approved the project and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on 14 July 2010. An appeal was filed on 27 July 2010.
Attachments:
• Staff Report dated 14 September 2010
• Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (submitted under separate cover)
• Appeal Information (Attachment “A”)
• Applicant’s Correspondence (Attachment “B”)
• Planning Commission Correspondence Review (Attachment “C”)
• Response to Comments (Attachment “D”)
• Planning Commission Findings and Conditions of Approval (Attachment “E”)
• Hotel Comparison Tables (Attachment “F”)
• Project Plans (Attachment “G”)
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD & COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 14 SEPTEMBER 2010
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE CARMEL SANDS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE CARMEL SANDS LODGE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAN CARLOS STREET AND FIFTH AVENUE.
THE APPELLANT IS BARBARA LIVINGSTON.
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
The Carmel Sands Lodge is located at the northwest corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District. The lodge consists of 42 guest rooms and a 120-seat restaurant in three buildings. The site also includes a large surface parking lot and a swimming pool. The buildings on the site are not considered historically
significant. A Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City’s Historic Inventory was issued on 1 September 2006.
An application was filed in 2008 for the demolition of the existing hotel and the construction of a new 57 room hotel. The Planning Commission (PC) reviewed this project on August 13th, November 12th and December 10th, 2008. The PC continued the project at its 10 December 2008 hearing. The City has a cap on the number of hotel rooms and the applicant had not yet identified where the additional 15 rooms would come from. The PC indicated that more information was needed regarding the addition 15 rooms.
The project was subsequently revised to eliminate the proposal to add 15 rooms. The revised project was then reviewed by the PC at four separate meetings. On 10 March 2010 the PC approved the Design Concept, and on 14 July 2010 the PC approved all development permits and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
An appeal was filed on 27 July 2010 by Carmel resident Barbara Livingston.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing buildings on-site and construct a new hotel (see project plans in Attachment “G”). The redevelopment will include the following features:
• 42 hotel rooms in four buildings
• Intra-block walkway and interior courtyard
• Two retail spaces
• Limited use restaurant
• 64-space underground garage
• Day spa facility
• A Porte Cochere vehicle entrance on San Carlos Street
PROJECT DATA FOR A 32,997 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations Allowed/Required Existing Proposed
Floor Area 44,546 sf (135%) 20,780 sf (63%) 39,077 sf (118%)
Building Coverage 31,347 sf (95%) 10,559 sf (34%) 25,052 sf (76%)
Building Height 30 ft. 26 ft. 30 ft.*
Parking 57 spaces 42 spaces 64 spaces
*Applicant is requesting height exceptions for tower elements per CMC 17.14.150.
APPEAL
The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the PC’s decision to approve the project and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on two points, 1) an EIR should have been prepared, and 2) the project has significant drawbacks (see attachment “A”). It is important to note that many of the letters, emails and the petition attached to the appellant’s submittal were addressing the previous proposal of a 57 unit motel, not the current proposal.
EVALUATION
The following section addresses comments raised in the appellant’s letter. The numbers below correspond to the numbers annotated on attachment “A” for reference purposes.
Staff summarizes the concerns raised by the appellant followed by a brief response.
1. The appellant argues that the applicant’s attorney stated in a letter that an EIR should be required for the project.
Response: This letter was in reference to the previous proposal that included 15 new hotel rooms and not to the current proposal, which does not increase the room count. The applicant’s attorney has submitted a letter to the Council indicating that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for the project (see Attachment “B”).
2. The primary basis of the appeal is that an EIR should be prepared for the project.
Response: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a lead agency prepare an Initial Study (IS) for all projects that are not categorically or statutorily exempt. An IS is prepared to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
Based on the results of the IS, a lead agency may determine whether to prepare a Negative Declaration (ND), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A MND can only be adopted if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project will have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided. CEQA Guidelines Section 15384 defines substantial evidence as:
“...enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might be reached…Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.”
The City prepared an IS for this project and determined that a MND was appropriate as all potentially significant impacts could be mitigated. The IS/MND was then circulated for public comment. The City received 10 comments, most of which simply requested that an EIR be prepared (see Attachment “C”). Two comment letters raised questions as to whether sufficient information had been provided in the IS/MND. The City then prepared a Response to Comments that was subsequently reviewed by the PC (see Attachment “D”).
On 9 December 2009 and again on 10 February 2010 the PC determined that the MND was appropriate for the project. The PC determined that the comments had been responded to, and that no substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts had been presented. The PC then adopted the MND on 14 July 2010 (see Attachment “E”).
3. The appellant argues that the project could result in a canyon effect on San Carlos Street if the properties north of Fifth Avenue were built out to the sidewalk.
Response: The ‘canyon effect’ referred to by the appellant is actually a desirable attribute in the commercial district. The General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Commercial Design Guidelines all encourage properties in the SC District to be built at, or close to the street to create a pedestrian wall (see O1-11, P1-64, & P1-68 of the General Plan, CMC 17.14.130, & Commercial Design Guideline pg. 8).
Even if the City did determine that a canyon effect at this location could be detrimental, the proposed project would not contribute any more to this effect than the existing twostory structure on San Carlos Street already does, which is built to the sidewalk and stretches from lot line to lot line.
4. The appellant argues that public comments were not responded to.
Response: The Planning Commission reviewed and considered all public comments, both oral and written. The Commission determined that all of the comments were appropriately addressed through the IS/MND, the Response to Comments (see Attachment “D”) and the deliberation of the Commission.
5. The appellant argues that the mass and scale of the project are inappropriate.
Response: The majority of commercial building sites in the City are between 2,500 and 8,000 square feet in size. Most of these small commercial sites were developed independently with a wide array of architectural styles. The architectural variety and small building sites contribute to the unique character of the City.
Apart from the Carmel Plaza, the majority of sites larger than 8,000 square feet are occupied by hotels. While most of the commercial buildings are modest in size and scale, many of the hotels are much larger in scale and generally consist of a single architectural style. Hotels such as the Pine Inn, La Playa, and the Cypress Inn, for example, are all developed on sites well over 8,000 square feet and are much larger in scale than surrounding development. However, these buildings add rich diversity and contribute significantly to the character of the City.
Tables A and B (see Attachment “F”) provide some additional context as to site size, number of rooms, density and height of many of the hotels in town, including most of the hotels surrounding the Carmel Sands project. While the Sands is the second largest hotel site in the City, the project height, number of rooms, and room density are very consistent with many of the hotels in town, including those in the immediate vicinity.
The total proposed floor area ratio for the project is 118% and the total building coverage is 76%. The floor area is 17% below the base allowed floor area for the site (135%) and 27% percent below the maximum allowed floor area with bonuses (145%). The building coverage is 19% below the maximum allowed coverage (95%).
6. Traffic congestion at San Carlos and Fifth and overall parking has not been adequately addressed.
Response: The analysis shows only slight changes to peak hour and daily trips to the site. The existing surface parking lot accommodates 42 vehicles for the forty two-room motel and the 120 seat restaurant. The site is currently nonconforming by approximately six parking spaces. The proposed project exceeds the on-site parking requirement by 7 spaces, a 13-space improvement based on the City’s required parking standards. The project also creates new on-street parking spaces by eliminating existing access points on Fifth Avenue and on Mission Street. The Porte de Cochere will also allow vehicles to pull off the street while checking in or out of the hotel, thus limiting congestion (see Attachment “D” for more information).
7. The appellant argues that it is unlikely an EIR would be required if this project is approved and later additional hotel units are proposed.
Response: This argument is purely speculative. If a proposal were submitted to add additional units to this site, an IS would be prepared. Based on the results of an IS, the City would then take the appropriate action. Adding rooms would raise potential concerns related to parking and traffic along with issues related to where the proposed new rooms were being transferred from. All of these issues would need to be addressed
in the environmental review.
8. The appellant argues that an EIR was required for the Plaza del Mar Project and should therefore be required for this project.
Response: There are several aspects to this project that make it very different from the Plaza del Mar Project (SE Cor. Dolores & 7th ). The Plaza del Mar project was located adjacent to an historic district, involved a potentially significant architectural structure, required the removal of significant trees, involved a significant intensification of use and was requesting exceptions to several General Plan and Zoning standards.
The Carmel Sands project is not adjacent to an historic district, does not involve historically or architecturally significant structures, does not include the removal of any significant trees, is not significantly intensifying the use on the site and is not requesting any variances or exceptions to General Plan or Zoning standards.
Planning Commission: On 14 July 2010, the Planning Commission approved the
project with a 4-1 vote. One of the primary topics of discussion was whether it was appropriate to have each building include variations in materials, colors and styles, as shown on the drawings. The concern expressed by the Commission was that having several variations in materials and styles may appear unauthentic and contrived. The Commission approved the project with a condition that all of the buildings be clad with stucco siding with only slight color variations. The applicant is required to return to the Commission for the final review of the exterior treatments prior to building permit issuance.
If the appeal is denied, the Council may want to discuss whether it prefers a unified appearance, as conditioned by the Planning Commission, or slight variations in materials and styles, as proposed by the applicant. The Council could then provide direction to the Planning Commission on this issue.
Fiscal Benefits: The applicant argues that the proposed project will result in a substantial financial benefit to the City. The applicant estimates that additional tax revenue resulting from this project could be as much as $360,000 a year. While staff has not performed a financial analysis, and the applicant did not provide information on how the $360,000 figure was obtained, it can be safely assumed that an upgraded hotel will result in an increase in tax revenue.
OPTIONS
The following are potential options for the Council to consider regarding this appeal:
Option 1: Deny the appeal
This option would uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and adopt a MND.
Option 2: Grant the appeal
This option would void the Planning Commission’s approval of the project and would require the preparation of an EIR before taking further action on the project.
Option 3: Grant the appeal in part
If the Council determines that an EIR is not required, but would like to see changes in the project design and/or additional information in the MND prior to final approval, this option could be selected. The Council could remand the project back to the Planning Commission with directions.
Option 4: Continue Consideration of the Appeal to a Future Date
This option would allow the City Council to request additional information prior to making a final decision on the appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carmel Sand Redevelopment Project and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Carmel Sands Lodge is located on the northeast corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue. The appellant is Barbara Livingston.
Description: The project consists of the demolition of the existing 42-room Carmel Sands Lodge and the construction of a new 42-room hotel that includes a 64-space underground garage, a restaurant, a day spa and two retail spaces. The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and is requesting that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the project.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Important Considerations: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a lead agency prepare an Initial Study for all projects that are not categorically or statutorily exempt. An Initial Study is prepared to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The City prepared an Initial Study for this project and determined that all potentially significant environmental impacts could be mitigated. The Planning Commission, therefore, adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission approved the project and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on 14 July 2010. An appeal was filed on 27 July 2010.
Attachments:
• Staff Report dated 14 September 2010
• Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (submitted under separate cover)
• Appeal Information (Attachment “A”)
• Applicant’s Correspondence (Attachment “B”)
• Planning Commission Correspondence Review (Attachment “C”)
• Response to Comments (Attachment “D”)
• Planning Commission Findings and Conditions of Approval (Attachment “E”)
• Hotel Comparison Tables (Attachment “F”)
• Project Plans (Attachment “G”)
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD & COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 14 SEPTEMBER 2010
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE CARMEL SANDS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE CARMEL SANDS LODGE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAN CARLOS STREET AND FIFTH AVENUE.
THE APPELLANT IS BARBARA LIVINGSTON.
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
The Carmel Sands Lodge is located at the northwest corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District. The lodge consists of 42 guest rooms and a 120-seat restaurant in three buildings. The site also includes a large surface parking lot and a swimming pool. The buildings on the site are not considered historically
significant. A Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City’s Historic Inventory was issued on 1 September 2006.
An application was filed in 2008 for the demolition of the existing hotel and the construction of a new 57 room hotel. The Planning Commission (PC) reviewed this project on August 13th, November 12th and December 10th, 2008. The PC continued the project at its 10 December 2008 hearing. The City has a cap on the number of hotel rooms and the applicant had not yet identified where the additional 15 rooms would come from. The PC indicated that more information was needed regarding the addition 15 rooms.
The project was subsequently revised to eliminate the proposal to add 15 rooms. The revised project was then reviewed by the PC at four separate meetings. On 10 March 2010 the PC approved the Design Concept, and on 14 July 2010 the PC approved all development permits and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
An appeal was filed on 27 July 2010 by Carmel resident Barbara Livingston.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing buildings on-site and construct a new hotel (see project plans in Attachment “G”). The redevelopment will include the following features:
• 42 hotel rooms in four buildings
• Intra-block walkway and interior courtyard
• Two retail spaces
• Limited use restaurant
• 64-space underground garage
• Day spa facility
• A Porte Cochere vehicle entrance on San Carlos Street
PROJECT DATA FOR A 32,997 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations Allowed/Required Existing Proposed
Floor Area 44,546 sf (135%) 20,780 sf (63%) 39,077 sf (118%)
Building Coverage 31,347 sf (95%) 10,559 sf (34%) 25,052 sf (76%)
Building Height 30 ft. 26 ft. 30 ft.*
Parking 57 spaces 42 spaces 64 spaces
*Applicant is requesting height exceptions for tower elements per CMC 17.14.150.
APPEAL
The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the PC’s decision to approve the project and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on two points, 1) an EIR should have been prepared, and 2) the project has significant drawbacks (see attachment “A”). It is important to note that many of the letters, emails and the petition attached to the appellant’s submittal were addressing the previous proposal of a 57 unit motel, not the current proposal.
EVALUATION
The following section addresses comments raised in the appellant’s letter. The numbers below correspond to the numbers annotated on attachment “A” for reference purposes.
Staff summarizes the concerns raised by the appellant followed by a brief response.
1. The appellant argues that the applicant’s attorney stated in a letter that an EIR should be required for the project.
Response: This letter was in reference to the previous proposal that included 15 new hotel rooms and not to the current proposal, which does not increase the room count. The applicant’s attorney has submitted a letter to the Council indicating that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for the project (see Attachment “B”).
2. The primary basis of the appeal is that an EIR should be prepared for the project.
Response: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a lead agency prepare an Initial Study (IS) for all projects that are not categorically or statutorily exempt. An IS is prepared to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
Based on the results of the IS, a lead agency may determine whether to prepare a Negative Declaration (ND), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A MND can only be adopted if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project will have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided. CEQA Guidelines Section 15384 defines substantial evidence as:
“...enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might be reached…Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.”
The City prepared an IS for this project and determined that a MND was appropriate as all potentially significant impacts could be mitigated. The IS/MND was then circulated for public comment. The City received 10 comments, most of which simply requested that an EIR be prepared (see Attachment “C”). Two comment letters raised questions as to whether sufficient information had been provided in the IS/MND. The City then prepared a Response to Comments that was subsequently reviewed by the PC (see Attachment “D”).
On 9 December 2009 and again on 10 February 2010 the PC determined that the MND was appropriate for the project. The PC determined that the comments had been responded to, and that no substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts had been presented. The PC then adopted the MND on 14 July 2010 (see Attachment “E”).
3. The appellant argues that the project could result in a canyon effect on San Carlos Street if the properties north of Fifth Avenue were built out to the sidewalk.
Response: The ‘canyon effect’ referred to by the appellant is actually a desirable attribute in the commercial district. The General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Commercial Design Guidelines all encourage properties in the SC District to be built at, or close to the street to create a pedestrian wall (see O1-11, P1-64, & P1-68 of the General Plan, CMC 17.14.130, & Commercial Design Guideline pg. 8).
Even if the City did determine that a canyon effect at this location could be detrimental, the proposed project would not contribute any more to this effect than the existing twostory structure on San Carlos Street already does, which is built to the sidewalk and stretches from lot line to lot line.
4. The appellant argues that public comments were not responded to.
Response: The Planning Commission reviewed and considered all public comments, both oral and written. The Commission determined that all of the comments were appropriately addressed through the IS/MND, the Response to Comments (see Attachment “D”) and the deliberation of the Commission.
5. The appellant argues that the mass and scale of the project are inappropriate.
Response: The majority of commercial building sites in the City are between 2,500 and 8,000 square feet in size. Most of these small commercial sites were developed independently with a wide array of architectural styles. The architectural variety and small building sites contribute to the unique character of the City.
Apart from the Carmel Plaza, the majority of sites larger than 8,000 square feet are occupied by hotels. While most of the commercial buildings are modest in size and scale, many of the hotels are much larger in scale and generally consist of a single architectural style. Hotels such as the Pine Inn, La Playa, and the Cypress Inn, for example, are all developed on sites well over 8,000 square feet and are much larger in scale than surrounding development. However, these buildings add rich diversity and contribute significantly to the character of the City.
Tables A and B (see Attachment “F”) provide some additional context as to site size, number of rooms, density and height of many of the hotels in town, including most of the hotels surrounding the Carmel Sands project. While the Sands is the second largest hotel site in the City, the project height, number of rooms, and room density are very consistent with many of the hotels in town, including those in the immediate vicinity.
The total proposed floor area ratio for the project is 118% and the total building coverage is 76%. The floor area is 17% below the base allowed floor area for the site (135%) and 27% percent below the maximum allowed floor area with bonuses (145%). The building coverage is 19% below the maximum allowed coverage (95%).
6. Traffic congestion at San Carlos and Fifth and overall parking has not been adequately addressed.
Response: The analysis shows only slight changes to peak hour and daily trips to the site. The existing surface parking lot accommodates 42 vehicles for the forty two-room motel and the 120 seat restaurant. The site is currently nonconforming by approximately six parking spaces. The proposed project exceeds the on-site parking requirement by 7 spaces, a 13-space improvement based on the City’s required parking standards. The project also creates new on-street parking spaces by eliminating existing access points on Fifth Avenue and on Mission Street. The Porte de Cochere will also allow vehicles to pull off the street while checking in or out of the hotel, thus limiting congestion (see Attachment “D” for more information).
7. The appellant argues that it is unlikely an EIR would be required if this project is approved and later additional hotel units are proposed.
Response: This argument is purely speculative. If a proposal were submitted to add additional units to this site, an IS would be prepared. Based on the results of an IS, the City would then take the appropriate action. Adding rooms would raise potential concerns related to parking and traffic along with issues related to where the proposed new rooms were being transferred from. All of these issues would need to be addressed
in the environmental review.
8. The appellant argues that an EIR was required for the Plaza del Mar Project and should therefore be required for this project.
Response: There are several aspects to this project that make it very different from the Plaza del Mar Project (SE Cor. Dolores & 7th ). The Plaza del Mar project was located adjacent to an historic district, involved a potentially significant architectural structure, required the removal of significant trees, involved a significant intensification of use and was requesting exceptions to several General Plan and Zoning standards.
The Carmel Sands project is not adjacent to an historic district, does not involve historically or architecturally significant structures, does not include the removal of any significant trees, is not significantly intensifying the use on the site and is not requesting any variances or exceptions to General Plan or Zoning standards.
Planning Commission: On 14 July 2010, the Planning Commission approved the
project with a 4-1 vote. One of the primary topics of discussion was whether it was appropriate to have each building include variations in materials, colors and styles, as shown on the drawings. The concern expressed by the Commission was that having several variations in materials and styles may appear unauthentic and contrived. The Commission approved the project with a condition that all of the buildings be clad with stucco siding with only slight color variations. The applicant is required to return to the Commission for the final review of the exterior treatments prior to building permit issuance.
If the appeal is denied, the Council may want to discuss whether it prefers a unified appearance, as conditioned by the Planning Commission, or slight variations in materials and styles, as proposed by the applicant. The Council could then provide direction to the Planning Commission on this issue.
Fiscal Benefits: The applicant argues that the proposed project will result in a substantial financial benefit to the City. The applicant estimates that additional tax revenue resulting from this project could be as much as $360,000 a year. While staff has not performed a financial analysis, and the applicant did not provide information on how the $360,000 figure was obtained, it can be safely assumed that an upgraded hotel will result in an increase in tax revenue.
OPTIONS
The following are potential options for the Council to consider regarding this appeal:
Option 1: Deny the appeal
This option would uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and adopt a MND.
Option 2: Grant the appeal
This option would void the Planning Commission’s approval of the project and would require the preparation of an EIR before taking further action on the project.
Option 3: Grant the appeal in part
If the Council determines that an EIR is not required, but would like to see changes in the project design and/or additional information in the MND prior to final approval, this option could be selected. The Council could remand the project back to the Planning Commission with directions.
Option 4: Continue Consideration of the Appeal to a Future Date
This option would allow the City Council to request additional information prior to making a final decision on the appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carmel Sand Redevelopment Project and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
CITY COUNCIL: Ordinance Amending Titles 8 & 15 of Municipal Code and Adopting 2010 California Fire, Building, Residential, Energy, Mechanical and Plumbing Codes with Amendments
Meeting Date: 14 September 2010
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an Ordinance amending Title 8 and Title 15 of the Municipal Code and Adopting the 2010 California Fire, Building, Residential, Energy, Mechanical and Plumbing Codes with amendments. (2nd reading)
Description: Approval of this Ordinance would revise the Municipal Code to be current with the 2010 State Codes with local amendments.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance.
Important Considerations: Every few years the State of California adopts revisions and amendments to the codes regulating construction activities. Adoption of this Ordinance is necessary to stay in compliance with the 2010 California Building Codes and to amend the codes to address specific needs of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Decision Record: Council adopted the first reading of this Ordinance on 3 August 2010.
Reviewed by:
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2010 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING TITLE 8 AND TITLE 15 OF THE CARMEL MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE 2010 CALIFORNIA FIRE, BUILDING, RESIDENTIAL, ENERGY, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND
ELECTRICAL CODES WITH AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has adopted the California Codes
promulgated by the International Codes Committee related to buildings and construction and does so when the State of California adopts new or revised editions; and
WHEREAS, the new 2010 California Codes were adopted by the State of California under the International Code Committee and the California Building Standards Commission as the new codes for this state; and
WHEREAS, Titles 8 and 15 of the Carmel Municipal Code (see Exhibit “A”) have been revised to reflect the needs of our specific requirements under these codes and thereby may stand alone as the specific requirements for construction within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the first reading of this ordinance on 3 August 2010.
THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section One. Titles 8 and 15 of the Municipal Code of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea are amended as shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein. All previous amendments not identified and revised in Exhibit “A” will remain in effect.
Section Two. Severability. If any section, subsection, or part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unenforceable, all other sections, subsections, or parts of subsections of this ordinance shall remain valid and enforceable.
Section Three. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days upon final adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
this 14th day of September, 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
EXHIBIT “A”
Revisions to Titles 8 & 15
Deletions to these titles are noted as deleted, a line through the existing text.
Amendments/changes to the text are shown in bold italic for clarity and attention with the exception of CMC Section 8.32.100, which has been rewritten in its entirety.
Two sections have been eliminated in their entirety as they have been absorbed into the California Codes through the International Codes Committee and are no longer a “stand alone” code.
All other amendments as currently constituted shall remain in effect.
Chapter 8.32
FIRE CODE*
8.32.010 California Fire Code – Adopted.
For the purpose of prescribing regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire or explosion, that certain code known as the 2007 2010 California Fire Code, including Appendix Chapter 1 4 and Appendices A, B, BB, C, CC, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and AE, published by the International Code Council, save and except those portions as are deleted, modified, or amended, of which code not less than three copies are now on file in the office of the City Clerk, is adopted and incorporated in the municipal code as if set out at length in this code, and the provisions thereof shall be controlling within the limits of this City. (Ord. 2008-01 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-04 § 1, 2003; Ord. 2001-08 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2000-09 § 1, 2001).
8.32.020 Fire Code – Effective Date – Copy on File.
The effective date for the 2007 2010 California Fire Code adopted by CMC 8.32.010 within the City shall be January 8 1, 2008 2011. The City Clerk shall maintain on file in the official records the edition of the California Fire Code currently in effect at all times. (Ord. 2008-01 § 1,
2008; Ord. 2001-08 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2000-09 § 1, 2001).
8.32.100 Amendments to the California Fire Code.
The 2010 California Fire Code is amended and changed as follows as described in subsections (1) through (36) of this section.
(Ord. 2008-01 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-04 § 1, 2003; Ord. 2001-08 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2000-09 § 1, 2001).
(1) Section 101.1 is amended to read as follows: 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Fire Code of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
(2) Section 101.2.1 is amended to read as follows: 101.2.1 Appendices. Provisions in Appendix Chapter 4 and Appendices A, B, BB, C, CC, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, M, and AE are hereby adopted in their entirety and shall apply.
(3) Section 102.1 is amended to read as follows: 102.1 Construction and design provisions.
The construction and design provisions of this code shall apply to:
1. Structures, facilities and conditions arising after the adoption of this code.
2. Existing structures, facilities and conditions not legally in existence at the time of adoption of this code.
3. Existing structures, facilities and conditions when identified in specific sections of this code.
4. Existing structures, facilities and conditions, which, in the opinion of the fire code official, constitute a distinct hazard to life and property.
5. Existing structures to which additions, alterations or repairs are made that involve the addition, removal or replacement of fifty percent (50%) or greater of the linear length of the walls of the existing building (exterior plus interior) within a five-year period.
6. Existing structures to which additions, alterations or repairs are made within a fiveyear period that are valued at an amount of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).
(4) Section 102.3 is amended to read as follows: 102.3 Change of use or occupancy. No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any structure that would place the structure in a different division of the same groups or occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless
such structure is made to comply with the provisions of this code.
(5) Section 103.5 is added to read as follows: 103.5 Police powers. The fire code official and his deputies shall have the powers of police officers in performing their duties under this code. When requested to do so by the fire code official, the chief of police of the jurisdiction is
authorized to assign such available police officers as necessary to assist the fire code official in enforcing the provisions of this code.
(6) Section 105.6.1.5 is added to read as follows: 105.6.1.5 Agricultural Explosive Devices. An operational permit is required for storage or use of any agricultural explosive device including “bird bombs”.
(7) Section 105.7.5 is amended to read as follows: 105.7.5 Fire alarm and detection systems and related equipment. A construction permit is required for installation of or modification to fire alarm and detection systems and related systems, including systems installed in Group R-3 occupancies (one- and two-family homes). Maintenance performed in accordance with this code is not considered a modification and may not require a permit as determined by the fire code official.
(8) Section 109.3 is amended to read as follows: 109.3 Violation penalties. Persons who shall violate any provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions of this code, shall be guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine not more than five hundred dollars
($500.00). Each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a separate offense.
(9) Section 111.4 is amended to read as follows: 111.4 Failure to comply. Any person who shall continue any work after having been served with a stop work order, except such work as that person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition, shall be guilty of an infraction as specified in Section 109.3 of this code.
(10) Section 202 is amended to add the following definitions:
ALL WEATHER SURFACE. A road surface constructed to the minimum standards adopted by the jurisdiction.
BRIDGE. A structure to carry a roadway over a depression or obstacle.
(11) Section 503.2.6.1 is added to read as follows: 503.2.6.1 Private bridge engineering. Every private bridge hereafter constructed shall meet the following engineering requirements:
a. The weight shall be designed for a minimum of HS-20 loading as prescribed by the AASHTO.
b. The unobstructed vertical clearance shall be not less than 15 feet clear.
c. The width shall be a minimum of 20 feet clear. The fire code official may require additional width when the traffic flow may be restricted or reduce the width to a minimum of 12 feet for Occupancy Group U or R-3 occupancies.
d. The maximum grade change of the approach to and from any private bridge shall not exceed 8% for a minimum distance of 10 feet.
(12) Section 503.2.6.2 is added to read as follows: 503.2.6.2 Private bridge certification. Every private bridge hereafter constructed shall be engineered by a licensed professional engineer knowledgeable and experienced in the engineering and design of bridges. Certification that the bridge complies with the design standards required by this code and the identified standards, and that the bridge was constructed to those standards, shall be provided by the licensed engineer, in writing, to the fire code official. Every private bridge, including existing and those constructed under this code, shall be certified as to its maximum load limits every ten (10) years or whenever deemed necessary by the fire code official. Such recertification shall be by a licensed professional engineer knowledgeable and experienced in the engineering and design of bridges. All fees charged for the purpose of certification or recertification of private bridges shall be at the owner’s expense.
(13) Section 503.2.7 is amended to read as follows: 503.2.7 Grade. The grade of fire apparatus access roads shall be no greater than 15% unless specifically approved by the fire code official.
(14) Section 503.2.7.1 is added to read as follows: 503.2.7.1 Paving. All fire apparatus access roads over eight percent (8%) shall be paved with a minimum 0.17 feet of asphaltic concrete on 0.34 feet of aggregate base. All fire apparatus access roads over fifteen percent (15%) where approved shall be paved with perpendicularly grooved concrete.
(15) Section 503.7 is added to read as follows: 503.7 Fire apparatus access roads. All fire apparatus access road names shall be issued by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
(16) Section 506.1 is amended to read as follows: 506.1 Where required. Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or fire-fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to required a key box or other approved emergency access device to be installed in an approved location. The key box or other approved emergency access device shall be of an approved type and shall contain keys or other information to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official.
(17) Section 507.5.2 is amended to read as follows: 507.5.2 Inspection, testing and maintenance. Fire hydrant systems shall be subject to periodic tests as required by the fire code official. Fire hydrant systems shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and shall be repaired where defective. Additions, repairs, alterations and servicing shall comply with approved standards. When required by the fire code official, hydrants shall be painted in accordance with the most current edition of NFPA 291.
(18) Section 603.6.6 is added to read as follows: 603.6.6 Spark arresters. An approved spark arrester shall be installed on all chimneys, incinerators, smokestacks or similar devices for conveying smoke or hot gases to the outer air.
(19) Section 901.1.1 is added to read as follows: 901.1.1 Responsibility. The owner of the protected premises shall be responsible for all fire protection systems within the protected premises, whether existing or installed under this code.
(20) Section 901.4 is amended to read as follows: 901.4 Installation. Fire protection systems shall be maintained in accordance with the original installation standards for that system. All systems shall be extended, altered, or augmented as necessary to maintain and continue protection whenever the building is altered, remodeled or added to. Alterations to the fire protection systems shall be done in accordance with applicable standards.
(21) Section 901.4.5 is added to read as follows: 901.4.5 Nonoperational equipment. Any fire protection equipment that is no longer in service shall be removed.
(22) Section 901.6.3 is added to read as follows: 901.6.3 Qualifications of Inspection, Testing and Maintenance Personnel. All personnel performing any inspection, testing or maintenance of any fire protection system shall be qualified. Where such inspection, testing and maintenance is performed by an outside service company, the company shall be appropriately licensed in accordance with the California Business & Professions Code or by the California State Fire Marshal.
(23) Section 903.2 is amended to read as follows: 903.2 Where required. Approved automatic
sprinkler systems shall be provided in all new buildings and structures constructed, moved into
or relocated within the jurisdiction. This section supersedes the square footage limitations of all
subsections within Section 903.2.
Exceptions:
(1) Structures not classified as Group R occupancies and not more than 500 square feet in total
floor area.
(2) Detached agricultural buildings, as defined by this code, located at least one hundred feet
(100’) from any other structure or the property line, whichever is closer.
(3) Accessory structures associated with existing non-sprinklered R-3 occupancies (one or two
family dwellings) and less than 1500 square feet in total fire area.
(4) Where an insufficient water supply exists to provide for an automatic fire sprinkler system
and where the fire code official permits alternate protection.
(24) Section 903.2.8 is amended to read as follows: 903.2.8 Group R. An automatic sprinkler
system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided in all buildings with a Group
R fire area, including, but not limited to, one- and two-family dwellings, townhomes, and
216
manufactured homes and mobile homes located outside of licensed mobile home parks hereafter
constructed, moved into or relocated within the jurisdiction, including all additions to buildings
already equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems.
(25) Section 903.3.1.1.2 is added to read as follows: 903.3.1.1.2 Elevators. Automatic fire
sprinklers shall not be installed at the top of passenger elevator hoistways or in the associated
passenger elevator mechanical rooms.
903.3.1.1.2.1 Where automatic fire sprinklers are not installed at the top of passenger elevator
hoistways, heat detectors for the shunt trip mechanism shall not be installed, nor shall smoke
detectors for elevator recall be installed.
903.3.1.1.2.2 Where automatic fire sprinklers are not installed in associated elevator mechanical
rooms, heat detectors for the shunt trip mechanism shall not be installed. A smoke detector shall
be installed for elevator recall.
(26) Section 903.3.1.3 is amended to read as follows: 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D sprinkler systems.
Where allowed, automatic sprinkler systems installed in one- and two-family dwellings shall be
installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13D.
903.3.1.3.1 All fire sprinkler systems installed in one- and two-family dwellings shall be
tested for leakage by undergoing a hydrostatic test made at 200 psi for a two-hour duration.
903.3.1.3.2 Each water system supplying both domestic and fire protection systems shall
have a single indicating-type control valve, arranged to shut off both the domestic and sprinkler
systems off of a single water meter. A separate shut-off valve for the domestic system only shall
be permitted to be installed. The location of the control valve shall be approved by the fire code
official.
903.3.1.3.3 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all bathrooms, regardless of square
footage.
903.3.1.3.4 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all attached garages and structures.
903.3.1.3.5 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all accessible storage areas.
903.3.1.3.5.1 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all under-stair spaces including all
closets.
903.3.1.3.6 Local water flow alarms shall be provided on all sprinkler systems. Local
water flow alarms shall be powered from the main kitchen refrigerator circuit. The local water
flow alarm shall be clearly audible from within the master bedroom at an audibility level of not
less than 75 dBa. Where no kitchen exists in the building, the water flow alarm shall be powered
from the bathroom lighting circuit.
(27) Section 903.4.1 is amended to read as follows: 903.4.1 Monitoring. Alarm, supervisory
and trouble signals shall be distinctly different and shall be automatically transmitted to an
approved UL-listed central station as defined in NFPA 72-2010, or, when approved by the fire
code official, shall sound an audible signal at a constantly attended location. The fire alarm
system installed to transmit such signals shall be considered a building fire alarm system and
shall be documented as a UL-certificated central station service system.
(exceptions remain unchanged)
(28) Section 903.4.2 is amended to read as follows: 903.4.2 Alarms. One exterior approved
audible device shall be connected to every automatic sprinkler system in an approved location.
Such sprinkler water-flow alarm devices shall be activated by water flow equivalent to the flow
of a single sprinkler of the smallest orifice size installed in the system. Where a building fire
alarm system is installed, actuation of the automatic sprinkler system shall actuate the building
217
fire alarm system. Interior alarm notification appliances shall be installed as required by Section
903.4.2.1.
(29) Section 903.4.2.1 is added to read as follows: 903.4.2.1 Where an automatic fire sprinkler
system is installed in a building with more than one tenant or with over 100 sprinkler heads,
audible and visible notification appliances shall be installed throughout the building as follows:
a. Audible notification appliances shall be installed so as to be audible at 15 dBa above
average sound pressure level throughout the building.
b. Visible notification appliances shall be installed in all public and common use areas,
restrooms and corridors in accordance with the spacing requirements of NFPA 72.
c. Visible notification appliances can be eliminated in normally unoccupied portions of
buildings where permitted by the fire code official.
EXCEPTION: The requirements of this section do not apply to Group R-3 Occupancies.
(30) Section 903.4.3 is amended to read as follows: 903.4.3 Floor control valves. Approved
indicating control valves and water flow switches shall be provided at the point of connection to
the riser on each floor in all buildings over one story in height, and shall be individually
annunciated as approved by the fire code official.
(31) Section 907.1.6 is added to read as follows: 907.1.6 Multiple Fire Alarm Systems.
Multiple fire alarm systems within a single protected premises are not permitted, unless
specifically authorized by the fire code official.
(32) Section 907.2 is amended to read as follows: 907.2 Exception 1. The manual fire alarm
box is not required for fire alarm control units dedicated to elevator recall control.
(33) Section 907.7.4 is added to read as follows: 907.7.4 Zone transmittal. Where required by
the fire code official, fire alarm signals shall be transmitted by zone to the supervising station
and retransmitted by zone to the public fire service communications center.
(34) Section 907.7.5 is amended to read as follows: 907.7.5 Monitoring. Fire alarm systems
required by this chapter, by the California Building Code, or installed voluntarily shall be
monitored by a UL-listed central station and shall be documented as UL-certificated central
station service systems in accordance with NFPA 72-2010 and this section.
(35) Section 907.8.2 is amended to read as follows: 907.8.2 Completion documents. The
following documentation shall be provided at the time of acceptance testing for all fire alarm
system installations:
1. A record of completion in accordance with NFPA 72.
2. A contractor’s statement verifying that the system has been installed in accordance
with the approved plans and specifications, and has been 100% tested in accordance with NFPA
72.
3. A contractor’s affidavit of personnel qualifications, indicating that all personnel
involved with the installation of the fire alarm system meet the qualification requirements of the
fire code official.
(36) Add the following Appendix to read as follows: APPENDIX AE – ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY SYSTEMS
218
AE101.1 Scope. Applications for the installation, additions or remodel of alternative energy
system, including but not limited to photovoltaic and wind generation systems, shall be subject to
this appendix when conditioned by the fire code official.
AE101.2 Conflicting Sections. Where provisions in this appendix conflict with other sections of
this code or other appendices, the provisions of this appendix shall prevail unless otherwise
directed by the fire code official.
AE102 SIGNING AND MARKING: All photovoltaic systems shall be permanently marked as
specified in this section.
AE102.1 Main Service Disconnect
a. Main Panel Exterior Marking. A placard is required to be permanently affixed to the
main service disconnect panel. The placard shall be red in color with white capital letters at least
3/4” in height and in a non-serif font, to read “SOLAR DISCONNECT INSIDE PANEL.” The
placard shall be constructed of weather-resistant, durable plastic with engraved letters, or other
approved material.
b. Circuit Disconnecting Means Marking. A permanent label is to be affixed adjacent to
the circuit breaker controlling the inverter or other photovoltaic system electrical controller. The
label shall have contrasting color capital letters at least 3/8” in height and in a non—serif font, to
read “SOLAR DISCONNECT.” The label shall be constructed of durable adhesive material or
other approved material.
AE102.2 Direct Current (DC) Conduits, Raceways, Enclosures, Cable Assemblies, and
Junction Boxes.
a. Marking is required on all interior and exterior direct current (DC) conduits, raceways,
enclosures, cable assemblies, and junction boxes.
b. Marking Locations. Marking shall be placed on all DC conduits, raceways, enclosures,
and cable assemblies every ten feet (10’), at turns and above and below penetrations. Marking
shall also be placed on all DC combiner and junction boxes.
c. Marking Content and Format. Marking for DC conduits, raceways, enclosures, cable
assemblies and junction boxes shall be red with white lettering with minimum 3/8” capital letters
in a non-serif font, to read “WARNING: SOLAR CIRCUIT”. Marking shall be reflective,
weather resistant, and suitable for the environment. Materials used should be in compliance with
UL Standard 969.
AE102.3. Secondary Power Sources. Where photovoltaic systems are interconnected to battery
systems, generator backup systems, or other secondary power systems, additional signage
acceptable to the fire code official shall be required indicating the location of the secondary
power source shutoff switch.
AE102.4. Installer Information. Signage acceptable to the fire code official indicating the name
and emergency telephone number of the installing contractor shall be required to be installed
adjacent to the man disconnect.
AE102.5 Inverters. No markings are required for inverters.
AE102.6 AC Photovoltaic Systems. AC Photovoltaic Systems shall be marked as specified in
this section.
219
a. Main Panel Exterior Marking. A placard is required to be permanently affixed to the
car service disconnect panel. The placard shall be red in color with white capital letters at least
3/4” in height and in a non—serif font, to read “SOLAR DISCONNECT INSIDE PANEL.” The
placard shall be constructed of weather resistant, durable plastic with engraved letters, or other
approved material.
b. Circuit Disconnecting Means Marking. A permanent label is to be affixed adjacent to
tne circuit breaker controlling the inverter or other photovoltaic system electrical controller. The
label shall have contrasting color capital letters at least 3/8” in height and in a non-serif font, to
read “SOLAR DISCONNECT.” The label shall be constructed of durable adhesive material or
other approved material.
AE103 BUILDING MOUNTED PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS.
AE103.1. All building- or roof—mounted photovoltaic systems shall be installed as specified in
this section.
a. Access, Pathways, and Smoke Ventilation. Access and spacing requirements shall be
observed to ensure emergency access to the roof, provide pathways for specific areas of the roof,
provide for smoke ventilation opportunity areas, and to provide emergency egress from the roof.
b. Exceptions. Exceptions to the requirements in this section shall be permitted to be
granted by the fire code official where access, pathway or ventilation requirements are reduced
due to any of the following circumstances:
(1). Proximity and type of adjacent exposures.
(2). Alternative access opportunities, as from adjoining roofs.
(3). Ground level access to the roof.
(4). Adequate ventilation opportunities below solar arrays.
(5). Adequate ventilation opportunities afforded by module set back fro other rooftop
equipment.
(6). Automatic ventilation devices.
(7). New technologies, methods, or other innovations that ensure adequate fire
department access, pathways, and ventilation opportunities.
c. Designation of ridge, hip, and valley does not apply to roofs with 2-in-12 or less pitch.
d. Measurement Conventions. All roof dimensions shall be measured to centerlines.
e. Roof Access Points. Roof access points shall be defined as areas where ladders are not
placed over openings (windows or doors) and are located at strong points of building
construction and in locations wiere they will not conflict with overhead obstructions (tree limbs,
wires, or signs).
AE103.2 Household Systems (One- and Two-Family Dwellings)
a. Access and Pathways.
(1). Hip Roof Layouts. Modules shall be located in a manner that provides one (1) three
foot (3’) wide clear access pathway from the eave to the ridge of each roof slope where the
modules are located. The access pathway shall be located at a structurally sound location on the
building, such as a bearing wall. EXCEPTION: Where adjoining roof planes provide a three
foot (3’) wide clear access pathway.
(2). Single Ridge Layouts. Modules shall be located in a manner that provides two (2)
three-foot (3’) wide access pathways from the eave to the ridge on each roof slope where the
220
modules are located.
(3). Hip and Valley Layouts. Modules shall be located no closer than one and one-half
feet (1-1/2’) to a hip or valley if modules are to be placed on both sides of a hip or valley. Where
modules are located on only one side of a hip or valley that is of equal length, the modules shall
be permitted to be placed directly adjacent to the hip or valley.
b. Ridge Setback. The modules shall be located no higher than one and one—half feet
(1—1/2’) below the ridge.
AE103.3. Commercial Systems.
a. Definition. Commercial Systems shall be defined as all photovoltaic systems installed
in any occupancy other than a one and two family dwelling.
b. Alternative Requirements. Where the fire code official determines that the roof
configuration is similar to residential (i.e., townhouses, condominiums, or single-family
attached buildings) the fire code official shall be permitted to make a determination to apply the
requirements under Section AE103.2, above.
c. Access. There shall be a minimum six—foot (6’) wide clear perimeter around the
edges of the roof. EXCEPTION: If either access to the building is 250’ or less, there shall be a
minimum four foot (4’) wide clear perimeter around the edges of the roof.
d. Pathways. Pathways shall be established as follows:
(1). Pathways shall be over structural members.
(2). Centerline axis pathways shall be provided in both axes of the roof.
(3). Centerline axis pathways shall run on structural members or Over the next closest
structural member nearest to the center lines of the roof.
(4). Pathways shall be straight line not less than four feet (4’) clear to skylights,
ventilation hatches, and/or roof standpipes.
(5). Pathways shall provide not less than four feet (4’) clear around roof access hatches
with at least one not less than four foot (4’) clear pathway to the parapet or roof edge.
e. Smoke Ventilation.
(1). Solar arrays shall be no greater than 150 feet by 150 feet in distance in either axis.
(2). Ventilator options between array sections shall be (a) a pathway eight feet (8’) or
greater in width; (b) a pathway four feet (4’) or greater in width and bordering on existing roof
skylights or ventilation hatches; or (c) a pathway four feet (4’) or greater in width and bordering
four foot by eight foot (4’ X 8) “venting cutouts” every twenty feet (20’) on alternating sides of
the pathway.
AE104. Location of Direct Current (DC) Conductors.
a. Exterior mounted Direct Current conduits, wiring systems and raceways for
photovoltaic circuits shall be located as close as possible to the ridge, hip or valley and from the
hip or valley as directly as possible to an outside wall to reduce trip hazards and maximize
ventilation opportunities.
221
b. Conduit runs between sub—arrays and to DC combiner boxes shall use design
guidelines that minimize the total amount of conduit by taking the shortest path from the array to
the DC combiner box.
c. DC combiner boxes shall be located so that conduit runs are minimized in the
pathways between arrays.
d. DC wiring shall be run in metallic conduit or raceways when located within enclosed
spaces in a building and shall be run as follows:
(1). When run perpendicular or parallel to load bearing members, a minimum ten—inch
(10”) space below roof decking or sheathing shall be maintained.
(2). Where flexible metal conduit (FMC) or metal clad cable (MC) containing PV power
circuit conductors is installed across ceilings or floor joists, the raceway or cable shall be
protected by guard strips.
AE105 GROUND MOUNTED PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS
AE105.1 Marking shall be in accordance with Section AE102, above.
AE105.2 Setbacks. Special setback requirements do not apply to ground-mounted, freestanding
photovoltaic arrays. NOTE: The zoning regulations of the jurisdiction regulate setbacks between
buildings, accessory structures (possibly including ground-mounted photovoltaic arrays) and
property lines.
AE105.3 Clearances. A clear area of ten feet (10’) around ground-mounted photovoltaic
installations shall be provided.
AE105.4 Non-Combustible Base. A gravel base or other non—combustible base acceptable to
the fire code official shall be installed and maintained under and around the installation.
AE105.5 Protection. Fencing, skirting, or other suitable security barrier shall be installed when
required by the fire code official. NOTE: Security barriers are intended to protect individuals and
animals from contact with energized conductors or other components.
AE105.6 Fire Sprinkler Protection. Fire sprinkler protection is not required for ground-mounted
photovoltaic installations.
222
Chapter 15.04
ADMINISTRATION OF BUILDING CODES*
Sections:
15.04.010 Purpose.
15.04.020 Definitions.
15.04.030 Administrative Officer – Building Official.
15.04.040 Exemptions.
15.04.050 Liability of City.
15.04.060 Authority of Building Official.
15.04.070 Permit – Required.
15.04.075 Permit – Exemptions.
15.04.080 Permit – Application.
15.04.090 Permit – Fee.
15.04.100 Permit – Review of Application – Issuance.
15.04.110 Permit – Validity – Expiration.
15.04.120 Inspection.
15.04.130 Enforcement – Right of Entry.
15.04.140 Commencing Work Without Permit – Penalty Fee.
15.04.150 Reinspection Fee.
15.04.160 Inspection – Permit Required.
15.04.170 Board of Appeals – Created.
15.04.180 Board of Appeals – Membership.
15.04.190 Board of Appeals – Hearing.
15.04.200 Board of Appeals – Form of Procedure.
15.04.210 Board of Appeals – Compensation.
15.04.220 Appeal to City Council – Filing.
15.04.230 Appeal to City Council – Hearing.
15.04.240 Appeal From Actions to Abate Dangerous Buildings.
15.04.250 Violation of Building Code – Penalty.
15.04.260 Violation of Housing Residential Code – Penalty.
15.04.270 Violation of Mechanical Code – Penalty.
15.04.280 Violation of Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code – Penalty.
15.04.290 Violation of Plumbing or Electrical Code – Penalty.
15.04.300 Effective Date of Codes.
* For statutory provisions on administration and enforcement of housing laws, see Health and
Safety Code § 17960.
Prior legislation: Ords. 326 C.S., 75-20, 77-28, 83-25, 85-13, 87-11, 87-14 and 88-1.
15.04.030 Administrative Officer – Building Offical.
The Chief Building Inspector of the City shall have the power and it shall be her/his duty,
personally and through her/his authorized deputies and assistants, to enforce all the provisions of
this title and all the laws of the State of California relating to building and construction. The
Chief Building Inspector, referred to herein as the Building Official, shall report to the Director
223
of the Department of Community Planning and Building and/or the City Administrator. (Ord.
89-29 § 1, 1989).
Section 15.04.090 Permit – Fee.
A. The Building Official shall not issue a permit to any person for work which would be in
violation of the State Contractors Licensing Law.
B. Due to the increased inspections required for work done under an owner’s permit, all fees
established herein shall be increased 20 percent with a minimum increase of $25.00, unless said
owner is the holder of a valid license issued by the State Contractors Licensing Board indicating
qualification to perform the work for which the permit is issued. (Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999;
Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1112.2).
C. A plan review fee shall be charged for review of all plans and applications pertaining
to a permit. The fee shall be 65% of the building permit fee normally charged at the time of
issuance. This fee shall be collected upon the submittal of the application by the applicant
and may be adjusted as necessary during the plan review process.
15.04.180 Board of Appeals – Membership.
The board shall be composed of five members, four of whom shall sit on all appeals and may
be qualified as follows: one architect, one civil or structural engineer, one general contractor and
one layman, and three alternates each qualified by education or experience in the field of
plumbing, electrical or mechanical installations. When, in the opinion of the Building Official,
a conflict arises in the composition of the Board the Planning Commission may be utilized for
such matters of appeal. On general matters, any one of the alternates may sit as a member, but
on technical matters in their specific field the specialist in that field of construction shall sit. At
least four members of the board shall be residents of the City. The board shall develop
reasonable rules and regulations for conducting its business at each hearing and deliver a copy
thereof to the Building Official at the time of each hearing. Said rules and regulations should be
available to the public. The board shall render its decision and findings in writing and furnish a
copy thereof to the appellant and Building Official. (Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 §
1115.0(a)).
15.04.240 Appeal From Actions to Abate Dangerous Buildings.
The appeal provisions of the California Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings
under the California Building Code, as adopted, shall may be followed where they conflict with
or expand upon the appeal provisions of CMC 15.04.170 through 15.04.240. (Ord. 89-29 § 1,
1989; Code 1975 § 1115.2).
15.04.250 Violation of Building Code – Penalty.
The penalty provision of the 2007 California Building Code shall apply to all violations of
said code. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge,
alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, use, occupy, or maintain any
building or structure in the City, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any
of the provisions of this code.
Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this code shall be deemed
guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation
of any of the provisions of this code is committed, continued, or permitted, and shall be deemed
guilty of an infraction. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B),
1999; Ord. 96-1, 1996; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1115.2(d)).
224
15.04.260 Violation of Housing Residential Code – Penalty.
The penalty provision of the 2007 California Housing Residential Code shall apply to all
violations of said code. It reads:
No person, firm or corporation, whether as owner, lessee, sublessee, occupant, shall erect,
construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, demolish, equip, use, occupy or
maintain any building or premises, or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or
in violation of any of the provisions of this Code or any order issued by the Building
Official hereunder. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of
an infraction for each day such violation continues.
(Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1, 1996;
Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1115.2(e)).
15.04.270 Violation of Mechanical Code – Penalty.
The penalty provision of the 2007 California Mechanical Code shall apply to all violations of
said code. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, install, alter, repair,
relocate, add to, replace, use, or maintain heating, ventilating, cooling, or refrigeration equipment
in the jurisdiction, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the
provisions of this code. Maintenance of equipment which was unlawful at the time it was
installed and which would be unlawful under this code, shall constitute a continuing violation of
this code.
Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this code shall be deemed
guilty of an infraction and each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each
and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this code
is committed, continued, or permitted. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord.
99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1, 1996; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1115.2(f)).
15.04.280 Violation of Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code – Penalty.
The penalty provisions of the 1997 California Building Code for as it relates to the Abatement
of Dangerous Buildings shall apply to all violations of said code. No person, firm or corporation,
whether as owner, lessee, sublessee, or occupant, shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair,
move, improve, remove, demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or premises, or
cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this
code or any order issued by the Building Official hereunder. Any person violating the provisions
of this section shall be guilty of an infraction for each day such violation continues. (Ord. 2008-
02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1, 1996; Ord. 89-29 §
1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1115.2(g)).
15.04.290 Violation of Plumbing or Electrical Code – Penalty.
Violations of any provisions of the 2007 California Plumbing Code, the 2007 California
Electrical Code, or any other uniform code adopted by the City for which no specific penalty
provision or maximum punishment has been adopted, shall be an infraction. Each separate day,
or portion thereof, during which any such violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense.
(Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1, 1996;
Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1115.2(h)).
225
Chapter 15.08
BUILDING CODE*
15.08.010 Adoption.
The 2007 2010 California Building Code, including the appendix thereto, and the California
Building Code Standards, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk as required by law, are
adopted by reference and incorporated into this title as the building code for the City except as
amended in this chapter and Chapter 15.04 CMC. The Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Map, as transmitted to the City on November 18, 2008, by the Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, is also adopted as required by law. (Ord. 2009-04, 2009; Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008;
Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1, 1996; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code
1975 § 1121.0).
15.08.030 Moving Buildings.
Moved Buildings. Buildings or structures relocated or moved within the City limits need not
shall comply with the requirements of a new building. Moved buildings shall be structurally
certified by a licensed engineer prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building
Official. Any knob and tube wiring shall be replaced with approved cable or conduit. (Ord. 2008-
02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 96-1, 1996; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1122.0).
15.08.160 Skylights.
All skylights installed in any fire rated roof within any commercial building or zoning district
shall be laminated wire glass and shall be inoperable unless otherwise approved by the Building
Official and/or Fire Chief Code Official. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999;
Ord. 96-1, 1996; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989).
Chapter 15.12
DANGEROUS BUILDINGS CODE*
(Delete this section in its entirety. Covered under Sec. 116 of the CBC.)
Sections:
15.12.010 Adoption.
* Prior legislation: Ords. 326 C.S., 77-28, 85-13, and 87-11.
15.12.010 Adoption.
The 2007 California Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, copies of which are on
file with the City Clerk as required by law, is adopted by reference and incorporated into this title
as the dangerous buildings code for the City except as amended by Chapter 15.04 CMC. (Ord.
2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1 § 1, 1996;
Ord. 92-24, 1992; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1121.1).
226
Chapter 15.13
BUILDING SECURITY CODE
Sections:
15.13.010 Adoption.
15.13.010 Adoption. Building Security
The 2007 California Building Security: Code, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk
as required by law, is adopted by reference and incorporated into this title.
All commercial buildings shall meet the requirements of Title 8 and the Fire Code and item #2
below.
Residential buildings in all land use zones shall comply with the following:
1. Where entry doors are placed a window shall be located within 36” of that door. Where
no window is present a “peep-hole” unit shall be installed in the entry door.
2. All locks and dead-bolt locks located within exterior doors shall not be keyed from both
sides of the lock (exterior key only).
(Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1 § 1,
1996).
Chapter 15.20
MECHANICAL CODE*
15.20.010 Adoption.
The 2007 2010 California Mechanical Code, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk as
required by law, is adopted by reference and incorporated into this title as the mechanical code
for the City, except as amended in this chapter and Chapter 15.04 CMC. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1,
2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1 § 1, 1996; Ord. 92-24,
1992; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1131.0).
Chapter 15.24
PLUMBING CODE*
15.24.010 Adoption.
The 2007 2010 California Plumbing Code, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk as
required by law, is adopted by reference and incorporated into this title as the plumbing code for
the City, except as amended in this chapter and in Chapter 15.04 CMC. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008;
Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 92-24, 1992; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989;
Code 1975 § 1141.0).
227
Chapter 15.32
HOUSING CODE*
This section is eliminated in its entirety and is absorbed into the California Building Code and
is no longer a separate code.
Sections:
15.32.010 Adoption.
* Prior legislation: Ords. 326 C.S., 77-28, 85-13 and 87-11.
15.32.010 Adoption.
The 2007 California Housing Code, as promulgated by the International Code Council, copies
of which are on file with the City Clerk as required by law, is adopted by reference and
incorporated into this title as the housing code for the City. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-
03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1 § 1, 1996; Ord. 92-24, 1992; Ord. 89-29 § 1,
1989; Code 1975 § 1151.0).
Chapter 15.36
ELECTRICAL CODE*
15.36.010 Adoption.
The 2007 2010 California Electrical Code, based on the 2005 National Electric Code, as promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk as required by law, is adopted by reference and incorporated into this title
as the electrical code for the City, except as amended in this chapter and in Chapter 15.04 CMC. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1 § 1, 1996; Ord. 91-1 § 1, 1991; Code 1975 § 116
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an Ordinance amending Title 8 and Title 15 of the Municipal Code and Adopting the 2010 California Fire, Building, Residential, Energy, Mechanical and Plumbing Codes with amendments. (2nd reading)
Description: Approval of this Ordinance would revise the Municipal Code to be current with the 2010 State Codes with local amendments.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance.
Important Considerations: Every few years the State of California adopts revisions and amendments to the codes regulating construction activities. Adoption of this Ordinance is necessary to stay in compliance with the 2010 California Building Codes and to amend the codes to address specific needs of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Decision Record: Council adopted the first reading of this Ordinance on 3 August 2010.
Reviewed by:
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2010 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING TITLE 8 AND TITLE 15 OF THE CARMEL MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE 2010 CALIFORNIA FIRE, BUILDING, RESIDENTIAL, ENERGY, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND
ELECTRICAL CODES WITH AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has adopted the California Codes
promulgated by the International Codes Committee related to buildings and construction and does so when the State of California adopts new or revised editions; and
WHEREAS, the new 2010 California Codes were adopted by the State of California under the International Code Committee and the California Building Standards Commission as the new codes for this state; and
WHEREAS, Titles 8 and 15 of the Carmel Municipal Code (see Exhibit “A”) have been revised to reflect the needs of our specific requirements under these codes and thereby may stand alone as the specific requirements for construction within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the first reading of this ordinance on 3 August 2010.
THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section One. Titles 8 and 15 of the Municipal Code of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea are amended as shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein. All previous amendments not identified and revised in Exhibit “A” will remain in effect.
Section Two. Severability. If any section, subsection, or part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unenforceable, all other sections, subsections, or parts of subsections of this ordinance shall remain valid and enforceable.
Section Three. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days upon final adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
this 14th day of September, 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
EXHIBIT “A”
Revisions to Titles 8 & 15
Deletions to these titles are noted as deleted, a line through the existing text.
Amendments/changes to the text are shown in bold italic for clarity and attention with the exception of CMC Section 8.32.100, which has been rewritten in its entirety.
Two sections have been eliminated in their entirety as they have been absorbed into the California Codes through the International Codes Committee and are no longer a “stand alone” code.
All other amendments as currently constituted shall remain in effect.
Chapter 8.32
FIRE CODE*
8.32.010 California Fire Code – Adopted.
For the purpose of prescribing regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire or explosion, that certain code known as the 2007 2010 California Fire Code, including Appendix Chapter 1 4 and Appendices A, B, BB, C, CC, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and AE, published by the International Code Council, save and except those portions as are deleted, modified, or amended, of which code not less than three copies are now on file in the office of the City Clerk, is adopted and incorporated in the municipal code as if set out at length in this code, and the provisions thereof shall be controlling within the limits of this City. (Ord. 2008-01 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-04 § 1, 2003; Ord. 2001-08 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2000-09 § 1, 2001).
8.32.020 Fire Code – Effective Date – Copy on File.
The effective date for the 2007 2010 California Fire Code adopted by CMC 8.32.010 within the City shall be January 8 1, 2008 2011. The City Clerk shall maintain on file in the official records the edition of the California Fire Code currently in effect at all times. (Ord. 2008-01 § 1,
2008; Ord. 2001-08 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2000-09 § 1, 2001).
8.32.100 Amendments to the California Fire Code.
The 2010 California Fire Code is amended and changed as follows as described in subsections (1) through (36) of this section.
(Ord. 2008-01 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-04 § 1, 2003; Ord. 2001-08 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2000-09 § 1, 2001).
(1) Section 101.1 is amended to read as follows: 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Fire Code of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
(2) Section 101.2.1 is amended to read as follows: 101.2.1 Appendices. Provisions in Appendix Chapter 4 and Appendices A, B, BB, C, CC, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, M, and AE are hereby adopted in their entirety and shall apply.
(3) Section 102.1 is amended to read as follows: 102.1 Construction and design provisions.
The construction and design provisions of this code shall apply to:
1. Structures, facilities and conditions arising after the adoption of this code.
2. Existing structures, facilities and conditions not legally in existence at the time of adoption of this code.
3. Existing structures, facilities and conditions when identified in specific sections of this code.
4. Existing structures, facilities and conditions, which, in the opinion of the fire code official, constitute a distinct hazard to life and property.
5. Existing structures to which additions, alterations or repairs are made that involve the addition, removal or replacement of fifty percent (50%) or greater of the linear length of the walls of the existing building (exterior plus interior) within a five-year period.
6. Existing structures to which additions, alterations or repairs are made within a fiveyear period that are valued at an amount of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).
(4) Section 102.3 is amended to read as follows: 102.3 Change of use or occupancy. No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any structure that would place the structure in a different division of the same groups or occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless
such structure is made to comply with the provisions of this code.
(5) Section 103.5 is added to read as follows: 103.5 Police powers. The fire code official and his deputies shall have the powers of police officers in performing their duties under this code. When requested to do so by the fire code official, the chief of police of the jurisdiction is
authorized to assign such available police officers as necessary to assist the fire code official in enforcing the provisions of this code.
(6) Section 105.6.1.5 is added to read as follows: 105.6.1.5 Agricultural Explosive Devices. An operational permit is required for storage or use of any agricultural explosive device including “bird bombs”.
(7) Section 105.7.5 is amended to read as follows: 105.7.5 Fire alarm and detection systems and related equipment. A construction permit is required for installation of or modification to fire alarm and detection systems and related systems, including systems installed in Group R-3 occupancies (one- and two-family homes). Maintenance performed in accordance with this code is not considered a modification and may not require a permit as determined by the fire code official.
(8) Section 109.3 is amended to read as follows: 109.3 Violation penalties. Persons who shall violate any provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions of this code, shall be guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine not more than five hundred dollars
($500.00). Each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a separate offense.
(9) Section 111.4 is amended to read as follows: 111.4 Failure to comply. Any person who shall continue any work after having been served with a stop work order, except such work as that person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition, shall be guilty of an infraction as specified in Section 109.3 of this code.
(10) Section 202 is amended to add the following definitions:
ALL WEATHER SURFACE. A road surface constructed to the minimum standards adopted by the jurisdiction.
BRIDGE. A structure to carry a roadway over a depression or obstacle.
(11) Section 503.2.6.1 is added to read as follows: 503.2.6.1 Private bridge engineering. Every private bridge hereafter constructed shall meet the following engineering requirements:
a. The weight shall be designed for a minimum of HS-20 loading as prescribed by the AASHTO.
b. The unobstructed vertical clearance shall be not less than 15 feet clear.
c. The width shall be a minimum of 20 feet clear. The fire code official may require additional width when the traffic flow may be restricted or reduce the width to a minimum of 12 feet for Occupancy Group U or R-3 occupancies.
d. The maximum grade change of the approach to and from any private bridge shall not exceed 8% for a minimum distance of 10 feet.
(12) Section 503.2.6.2 is added to read as follows: 503.2.6.2 Private bridge certification. Every private bridge hereafter constructed shall be engineered by a licensed professional engineer knowledgeable and experienced in the engineering and design of bridges. Certification that the bridge complies with the design standards required by this code and the identified standards, and that the bridge was constructed to those standards, shall be provided by the licensed engineer, in writing, to the fire code official. Every private bridge, including existing and those constructed under this code, shall be certified as to its maximum load limits every ten (10) years or whenever deemed necessary by the fire code official. Such recertification shall be by a licensed professional engineer knowledgeable and experienced in the engineering and design of bridges. All fees charged for the purpose of certification or recertification of private bridges shall be at the owner’s expense.
(13) Section 503.2.7 is amended to read as follows: 503.2.7 Grade. The grade of fire apparatus access roads shall be no greater than 15% unless specifically approved by the fire code official.
(14) Section 503.2.7.1 is added to read as follows: 503.2.7.1 Paving. All fire apparatus access roads over eight percent (8%) shall be paved with a minimum 0.17 feet of asphaltic concrete on 0.34 feet of aggregate base. All fire apparatus access roads over fifteen percent (15%) where approved shall be paved with perpendicularly grooved concrete.
(15) Section 503.7 is added to read as follows: 503.7 Fire apparatus access roads. All fire apparatus access road names shall be issued by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
(16) Section 506.1 is amended to read as follows: 506.1 Where required. Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-saving or fire-fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to required a key box or other approved emergency access device to be installed in an approved location. The key box or other approved emergency access device shall be of an approved type and shall contain keys or other information to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official.
(17) Section 507.5.2 is amended to read as follows: 507.5.2 Inspection, testing and maintenance. Fire hydrant systems shall be subject to periodic tests as required by the fire code official. Fire hydrant systems shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and shall be repaired where defective. Additions, repairs, alterations and servicing shall comply with approved standards. When required by the fire code official, hydrants shall be painted in accordance with the most current edition of NFPA 291.
(18) Section 603.6.6 is added to read as follows: 603.6.6 Spark arresters. An approved spark arrester shall be installed on all chimneys, incinerators, smokestacks or similar devices for conveying smoke or hot gases to the outer air.
(19) Section 901.1.1 is added to read as follows: 901.1.1 Responsibility. The owner of the protected premises shall be responsible for all fire protection systems within the protected premises, whether existing or installed under this code.
(20) Section 901.4 is amended to read as follows: 901.4 Installation. Fire protection systems shall be maintained in accordance with the original installation standards for that system. All systems shall be extended, altered, or augmented as necessary to maintain and continue protection whenever the building is altered, remodeled or added to. Alterations to the fire protection systems shall be done in accordance with applicable standards.
(21) Section 901.4.5 is added to read as follows: 901.4.5 Nonoperational equipment. Any fire protection equipment that is no longer in service shall be removed.
(22) Section 901.6.3 is added to read as follows: 901.6.3 Qualifications of Inspection, Testing and Maintenance Personnel. All personnel performing any inspection, testing or maintenance of any fire protection system shall be qualified. Where such inspection, testing and maintenance is performed by an outside service company, the company shall be appropriately licensed in accordance with the California Business & Professions Code or by the California State Fire Marshal.
(23) Section 903.2 is amended to read as follows: 903.2 Where required. Approved automatic
sprinkler systems shall be provided in all new buildings and structures constructed, moved into
or relocated within the jurisdiction. This section supersedes the square footage limitations of all
subsections within Section 903.2.
Exceptions:
(1) Structures not classified as Group R occupancies and not more than 500 square feet in total
floor area.
(2) Detached agricultural buildings, as defined by this code, located at least one hundred feet
(100’) from any other structure or the property line, whichever is closer.
(3) Accessory structures associated with existing non-sprinklered R-3 occupancies (one or two
family dwellings) and less than 1500 square feet in total fire area.
(4) Where an insufficient water supply exists to provide for an automatic fire sprinkler system
and where the fire code official permits alternate protection.
(24) Section 903.2.8 is amended to read as follows: 903.2.8 Group R. An automatic sprinkler
system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided in all buildings with a Group
R fire area, including, but not limited to, one- and two-family dwellings, townhomes, and
216
manufactured homes and mobile homes located outside of licensed mobile home parks hereafter
constructed, moved into or relocated within the jurisdiction, including all additions to buildings
already equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems.
(25) Section 903.3.1.1.2 is added to read as follows: 903.3.1.1.2 Elevators. Automatic fire
sprinklers shall not be installed at the top of passenger elevator hoistways or in the associated
passenger elevator mechanical rooms.
903.3.1.1.2.1 Where automatic fire sprinklers are not installed at the top of passenger elevator
hoistways, heat detectors for the shunt trip mechanism shall not be installed, nor shall smoke
detectors for elevator recall be installed.
903.3.1.1.2.2 Where automatic fire sprinklers are not installed in associated elevator mechanical
rooms, heat detectors for the shunt trip mechanism shall not be installed. A smoke detector shall
be installed for elevator recall.
(26) Section 903.3.1.3 is amended to read as follows: 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D sprinkler systems.
Where allowed, automatic sprinkler systems installed in one- and two-family dwellings shall be
installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13D.
903.3.1.3.1 All fire sprinkler systems installed in one- and two-family dwellings shall be
tested for leakage by undergoing a hydrostatic test made at 200 psi for a two-hour duration.
903.3.1.3.2 Each water system supplying both domestic and fire protection systems shall
have a single indicating-type control valve, arranged to shut off both the domestic and sprinkler
systems off of a single water meter. A separate shut-off valve for the domestic system only shall
be permitted to be installed. The location of the control valve shall be approved by the fire code
official.
903.3.1.3.3 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all bathrooms, regardless of square
footage.
903.3.1.3.4 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all attached garages and structures.
903.3.1.3.5 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all accessible storage areas.
903.3.1.3.5.1 Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in all under-stair spaces including all
closets.
903.3.1.3.6 Local water flow alarms shall be provided on all sprinkler systems. Local
water flow alarms shall be powered from the main kitchen refrigerator circuit. The local water
flow alarm shall be clearly audible from within the master bedroom at an audibility level of not
less than 75 dBa. Where no kitchen exists in the building, the water flow alarm shall be powered
from the bathroom lighting circuit.
(27) Section 903.4.1 is amended to read as follows: 903.4.1 Monitoring. Alarm, supervisory
and trouble signals shall be distinctly different and shall be automatically transmitted to an
approved UL-listed central station as defined in NFPA 72-2010, or, when approved by the fire
code official, shall sound an audible signal at a constantly attended location. The fire alarm
system installed to transmit such signals shall be considered a building fire alarm system and
shall be documented as a UL-certificated central station service system.
(exceptions remain unchanged)
(28) Section 903.4.2 is amended to read as follows: 903.4.2 Alarms. One exterior approved
audible device shall be connected to every automatic sprinkler system in an approved location.
Such sprinkler water-flow alarm devices shall be activated by water flow equivalent to the flow
of a single sprinkler of the smallest orifice size installed in the system. Where a building fire
alarm system is installed, actuation of the automatic sprinkler system shall actuate the building
217
fire alarm system. Interior alarm notification appliances shall be installed as required by Section
903.4.2.1.
(29) Section 903.4.2.1 is added to read as follows: 903.4.2.1 Where an automatic fire sprinkler
system is installed in a building with more than one tenant or with over 100 sprinkler heads,
audible and visible notification appliances shall be installed throughout the building as follows:
a. Audible notification appliances shall be installed so as to be audible at 15 dBa above
average sound pressure level throughout the building.
b. Visible notification appliances shall be installed in all public and common use areas,
restrooms and corridors in accordance with the spacing requirements of NFPA 72.
c. Visible notification appliances can be eliminated in normally unoccupied portions of
buildings where permitted by the fire code official.
EXCEPTION: The requirements of this section do not apply to Group R-3 Occupancies.
(30) Section 903.4.3 is amended to read as follows: 903.4.3 Floor control valves. Approved
indicating control valves and water flow switches shall be provided at the point of connection to
the riser on each floor in all buildings over one story in height, and shall be individually
annunciated as approved by the fire code official.
(31) Section 907.1.6 is added to read as follows: 907.1.6 Multiple Fire Alarm Systems.
Multiple fire alarm systems within a single protected premises are not permitted, unless
specifically authorized by the fire code official.
(32) Section 907.2 is amended to read as follows: 907.2 Exception 1. The manual fire alarm
box is not required for fire alarm control units dedicated to elevator recall control.
(33) Section 907.7.4 is added to read as follows: 907.7.4 Zone transmittal. Where required by
the fire code official, fire alarm signals shall be transmitted by zone to the supervising station
and retransmitted by zone to the public fire service communications center.
(34) Section 907.7.5 is amended to read as follows: 907.7.5 Monitoring. Fire alarm systems
required by this chapter, by the California Building Code, or installed voluntarily shall be
monitored by a UL-listed central station and shall be documented as UL-certificated central
station service systems in accordance with NFPA 72-2010 and this section.
(35) Section 907.8.2 is amended to read as follows: 907.8.2 Completion documents. The
following documentation shall be provided at the time of acceptance testing for all fire alarm
system installations:
1. A record of completion in accordance with NFPA 72.
2. A contractor’s statement verifying that the system has been installed in accordance
with the approved plans and specifications, and has been 100% tested in accordance with NFPA
72.
3. A contractor’s affidavit of personnel qualifications, indicating that all personnel
involved with the installation of the fire alarm system meet the qualification requirements of the
fire code official.
(36) Add the following Appendix to read as follows: APPENDIX AE – ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY SYSTEMS
218
AE101.1 Scope. Applications for the installation, additions or remodel of alternative energy
system, including but not limited to photovoltaic and wind generation systems, shall be subject to
this appendix when conditioned by the fire code official.
AE101.2 Conflicting Sections. Where provisions in this appendix conflict with other sections of
this code or other appendices, the provisions of this appendix shall prevail unless otherwise
directed by the fire code official.
AE102 SIGNING AND MARKING: All photovoltaic systems shall be permanently marked as
specified in this section.
AE102.1 Main Service Disconnect
a. Main Panel Exterior Marking. A placard is required to be permanently affixed to the
main service disconnect panel. The placard shall be red in color with white capital letters at least
3/4” in height and in a non-serif font, to read “SOLAR DISCONNECT INSIDE PANEL.” The
placard shall be constructed of weather-resistant, durable plastic with engraved letters, or other
approved material.
b. Circuit Disconnecting Means Marking. A permanent label is to be affixed adjacent to
the circuit breaker controlling the inverter or other photovoltaic system electrical controller. The
label shall have contrasting color capital letters at least 3/8” in height and in a non—serif font, to
read “SOLAR DISCONNECT.” The label shall be constructed of durable adhesive material or
other approved material.
AE102.2 Direct Current (DC) Conduits, Raceways, Enclosures, Cable Assemblies, and
Junction Boxes.
a. Marking is required on all interior and exterior direct current (DC) conduits, raceways,
enclosures, cable assemblies, and junction boxes.
b. Marking Locations. Marking shall be placed on all DC conduits, raceways, enclosures,
and cable assemblies every ten feet (10’), at turns and above and below penetrations. Marking
shall also be placed on all DC combiner and junction boxes.
c. Marking Content and Format. Marking for DC conduits, raceways, enclosures, cable
assemblies and junction boxes shall be red with white lettering with minimum 3/8” capital letters
in a non-serif font, to read “WARNING: SOLAR CIRCUIT”. Marking shall be reflective,
weather resistant, and suitable for the environment. Materials used should be in compliance with
UL Standard 969.
AE102.3. Secondary Power Sources. Where photovoltaic systems are interconnected to battery
systems, generator backup systems, or other secondary power systems, additional signage
acceptable to the fire code official shall be required indicating the location of the secondary
power source shutoff switch.
AE102.4. Installer Information. Signage acceptable to the fire code official indicating the name
and emergency telephone number of the installing contractor shall be required to be installed
adjacent to the man disconnect.
AE102.5 Inverters. No markings are required for inverters.
AE102.6 AC Photovoltaic Systems. AC Photovoltaic Systems shall be marked as specified in
this section.
219
a. Main Panel Exterior Marking. A placard is required to be permanently affixed to the
car service disconnect panel. The placard shall be red in color with white capital letters at least
3/4” in height and in a non—serif font, to read “SOLAR DISCONNECT INSIDE PANEL.” The
placard shall be constructed of weather resistant, durable plastic with engraved letters, or other
approved material.
b. Circuit Disconnecting Means Marking. A permanent label is to be affixed adjacent to
tne circuit breaker controlling the inverter or other photovoltaic system electrical controller. The
label shall have contrasting color capital letters at least 3/8” in height and in a non-serif font, to
read “SOLAR DISCONNECT.” The label shall be constructed of durable adhesive material or
other approved material.
AE103 BUILDING MOUNTED PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS.
AE103.1. All building- or roof—mounted photovoltaic systems shall be installed as specified in
this section.
a. Access, Pathways, and Smoke Ventilation. Access and spacing requirements shall be
observed to ensure emergency access to the roof, provide pathways for specific areas of the roof,
provide for smoke ventilation opportunity areas, and to provide emergency egress from the roof.
b. Exceptions. Exceptions to the requirements in this section shall be permitted to be
granted by the fire code official where access, pathway or ventilation requirements are reduced
due to any of the following circumstances:
(1). Proximity and type of adjacent exposures.
(2). Alternative access opportunities, as from adjoining roofs.
(3). Ground level access to the roof.
(4). Adequate ventilation opportunities below solar arrays.
(5). Adequate ventilation opportunities afforded by module set back fro other rooftop
equipment.
(6). Automatic ventilation devices.
(7). New technologies, methods, or other innovations that ensure adequate fire
department access, pathways, and ventilation opportunities.
c. Designation of ridge, hip, and valley does not apply to roofs with 2-in-12 or less pitch.
d. Measurement Conventions. All roof dimensions shall be measured to centerlines.
e. Roof Access Points. Roof access points shall be defined as areas where ladders are not
placed over openings (windows or doors) and are located at strong points of building
construction and in locations wiere they will not conflict with overhead obstructions (tree limbs,
wires, or signs).
AE103.2 Household Systems (One- and Two-Family Dwellings)
a. Access and Pathways.
(1). Hip Roof Layouts. Modules shall be located in a manner that provides one (1) three
foot (3’) wide clear access pathway from the eave to the ridge of each roof slope where the
modules are located. The access pathway shall be located at a structurally sound location on the
building, such as a bearing wall. EXCEPTION: Where adjoining roof planes provide a three
foot (3’) wide clear access pathway.
(2). Single Ridge Layouts. Modules shall be located in a manner that provides two (2)
three-foot (3’) wide access pathways from the eave to the ridge on each roof slope where the
220
modules are located.
(3). Hip and Valley Layouts. Modules shall be located no closer than one and one-half
feet (1-1/2’) to a hip or valley if modules are to be placed on both sides of a hip or valley. Where
modules are located on only one side of a hip or valley that is of equal length, the modules shall
be permitted to be placed directly adjacent to the hip or valley.
b. Ridge Setback. The modules shall be located no higher than one and one—half feet
(1—1/2’) below the ridge.
AE103.3. Commercial Systems.
a. Definition. Commercial Systems shall be defined as all photovoltaic systems installed
in any occupancy other than a one and two family dwelling.
b. Alternative Requirements. Where the fire code official determines that the roof
configuration is similar to residential (i.e., townhouses, condominiums, or single-family
attached buildings) the fire code official shall be permitted to make a determination to apply the
requirements under Section AE103.2, above.
c. Access. There shall be a minimum six—foot (6’) wide clear perimeter around the
edges of the roof. EXCEPTION: If either access to the building is 250’ or less, there shall be a
minimum four foot (4’) wide clear perimeter around the edges of the roof.
d. Pathways. Pathways shall be established as follows:
(1). Pathways shall be over structural members.
(2). Centerline axis pathways shall be provided in both axes of the roof.
(3). Centerline axis pathways shall run on structural members or Over the next closest
structural member nearest to the center lines of the roof.
(4). Pathways shall be straight line not less than four feet (4’) clear to skylights,
ventilation hatches, and/or roof standpipes.
(5). Pathways shall provide not less than four feet (4’) clear around roof access hatches
with at least one not less than four foot (4’) clear pathway to the parapet or roof edge.
e. Smoke Ventilation.
(1). Solar arrays shall be no greater than 150 feet by 150 feet in distance in either axis.
(2). Ventilator options between array sections shall be (a) a pathway eight feet (8’) or
greater in width; (b) a pathway four feet (4’) or greater in width and bordering on existing roof
skylights or ventilation hatches; or (c) a pathway four feet (4’) or greater in width and bordering
four foot by eight foot (4’ X 8) “venting cutouts” every twenty feet (20’) on alternating sides of
the pathway.
AE104. Location of Direct Current (DC) Conductors.
a. Exterior mounted Direct Current conduits, wiring systems and raceways for
photovoltaic circuits shall be located as close as possible to the ridge, hip or valley and from the
hip or valley as directly as possible to an outside wall to reduce trip hazards and maximize
ventilation opportunities.
221
b. Conduit runs between sub—arrays and to DC combiner boxes shall use design
guidelines that minimize the total amount of conduit by taking the shortest path from the array to
the DC combiner box.
c. DC combiner boxes shall be located so that conduit runs are minimized in the
pathways between arrays.
d. DC wiring shall be run in metallic conduit or raceways when located within enclosed
spaces in a building and shall be run as follows:
(1). When run perpendicular or parallel to load bearing members, a minimum ten—inch
(10”) space below roof decking or sheathing shall be maintained.
(2). Where flexible metal conduit (FMC) or metal clad cable (MC) containing PV power
circuit conductors is installed across ceilings or floor joists, the raceway or cable shall be
protected by guard strips.
AE105 GROUND MOUNTED PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS
AE105.1 Marking shall be in accordance with Section AE102, above.
AE105.2 Setbacks. Special setback requirements do not apply to ground-mounted, freestanding
photovoltaic arrays. NOTE: The zoning regulations of the jurisdiction regulate setbacks between
buildings, accessory structures (possibly including ground-mounted photovoltaic arrays) and
property lines.
AE105.3 Clearances. A clear area of ten feet (10’) around ground-mounted photovoltaic
installations shall be provided.
AE105.4 Non-Combustible Base. A gravel base or other non—combustible base acceptable to
the fire code official shall be installed and maintained under and around the installation.
AE105.5 Protection. Fencing, skirting, or other suitable security barrier shall be installed when
required by the fire code official. NOTE: Security barriers are intended to protect individuals and
animals from contact with energized conductors or other components.
AE105.6 Fire Sprinkler Protection. Fire sprinkler protection is not required for ground-mounted
photovoltaic installations.
222
Chapter 15.04
ADMINISTRATION OF BUILDING CODES*
Sections:
15.04.010 Purpose.
15.04.020 Definitions.
15.04.030 Administrative Officer – Building Official.
15.04.040 Exemptions.
15.04.050 Liability of City.
15.04.060 Authority of Building Official.
15.04.070 Permit – Required.
15.04.075 Permit – Exemptions.
15.04.080 Permit – Application.
15.04.090 Permit – Fee.
15.04.100 Permit – Review of Application – Issuance.
15.04.110 Permit – Validity – Expiration.
15.04.120 Inspection.
15.04.130 Enforcement – Right of Entry.
15.04.140 Commencing Work Without Permit – Penalty Fee.
15.04.150 Reinspection Fee.
15.04.160 Inspection – Permit Required.
15.04.170 Board of Appeals – Created.
15.04.180 Board of Appeals – Membership.
15.04.190 Board of Appeals – Hearing.
15.04.200 Board of Appeals – Form of Procedure.
15.04.210 Board of Appeals – Compensation.
15.04.220 Appeal to City Council – Filing.
15.04.230 Appeal to City Council – Hearing.
15.04.240 Appeal From Actions to Abate Dangerous Buildings.
15.04.250 Violation of Building Code – Penalty.
15.04.260 Violation of Housing Residential Code – Penalty.
15.04.270 Violation of Mechanical Code – Penalty.
15.04.280 Violation of Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code – Penalty.
15.04.290 Violation of Plumbing or Electrical Code – Penalty.
15.04.300 Effective Date of Codes.
* For statutory provisions on administration and enforcement of housing laws, see Health and
Safety Code § 17960.
Prior legislation: Ords. 326 C.S., 75-20, 77-28, 83-25, 85-13, 87-11, 87-14 and 88-1.
15.04.030 Administrative Officer – Building Offical.
The Chief Building Inspector of the City shall have the power and it shall be her/his duty,
personally and through her/his authorized deputies and assistants, to enforce all the provisions of
this title and all the laws of the State of California relating to building and construction. The
Chief Building Inspector, referred to herein as the Building Official, shall report to the Director
223
of the Department of Community Planning and Building and/or the City Administrator. (Ord.
89-29 § 1, 1989).
Section 15.04.090 Permit – Fee.
A. The Building Official shall not issue a permit to any person for work which would be in
violation of the State Contractors Licensing Law.
B. Due to the increased inspections required for work done under an owner’s permit, all fees
established herein shall be increased 20 percent with a minimum increase of $25.00, unless said
owner is the holder of a valid license issued by the State Contractors Licensing Board indicating
qualification to perform the work for which the permit is issued. (Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999;
Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1112.2).
C. A plan review fee shall be charged for review of all plans and applications pertaining
to a permit. The fee shall be 65% of the building permit fee normally charged at the time of
issuance. This fee shall be collected upon the submittal of the application by the applicant
and may be adjusted as necessary during the plan review process.
15.04.180 Board of Appeals – Membership.
The board shall be composed of five members, four of whom shall sit on all appeals and may
be qualified as follows: one architect, one civil or structural engineer, one general contractor and
one layman, and three alternates each qualified by education or experience in the field of
plumbing, electrical or mechanical installations. When, in the opinion of the Building Official,
a conflict arises in the composition of the Board the Planning Commission may be utilized for
such matters of appeal. On general matters, any one of the alternates may sit as a member, but
on technical matters in their specific field the specialist in that field of construction shall sit. At
least four members of the board shall be residents of the City. The board shall develop
reasonable rules and regulations for conducting its business at each hearing and deliver a copy
thereof to the Building Official at the time of each hearing. Said rules and regulations should be
available to the public. The board shall render its decision and findings in writing and furnish a
copy thereof to the appellant and Building Official. (Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 §
1115.0(a)).
15.04.240 Appeal From Actions to Abate Dangerous Buildings.
The appeal provisions of the California Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings
under the California Building Code, as adopted, shall may be followed where they conflict with
or expand upon the appeal provisions of CMC 15.04.170 through 15.04.240. (Ord. 89-29 § 1,
1989; Code 1975 § 1115.2).
15.04.250 Violation of Building Code – Penalty.
The penalty provision of the 2007 California Building Code shall apply to all violations of
said code. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge,
alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip, use, occupy, or maintain any
building or structure in the City, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any
of the provisions of this code.
Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this code shall be deemed
guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation
of any of the provisions of this code is committed, continued, or permitted, and shall be deemed
guilty of an infraction. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B),
1999; Ord. 96-1, 1996; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1115.2(d)).
224
15.04.260 Violation of Housing Residential Code – Penalty.
The penalty provision of the 2007 California Housing Residential Code shall apply to all
violations of said code. It reads:
No person, firm or corporation, whether as owner, lessee, sublessee, occupant, shall erect,
construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, demolish, equip, use, occupy or
maintain any building or premises, or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or
in violation of any of the provisions of this Code or any order issued by the Building
Official hereunder. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of
an infraction for each day such violation continues.
(Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1, 1996;
Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1115.2(e)).
15.04.270 Violation of Mechanical Code – Penalty.
The penalty provision of the 2007 California Mechanical Code shall apply to all violations of
said code. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, install, alter, repair,
relocate, add to, replace, use, or maintain heating, ventilating, cooling, or refrigeration equipment
in the jurisdiction, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the
provisions of this code. Maintenance of equipment which was unlawful at the time it was
installed and which would be unlawful under this code, shall constitute a continuing violation of
this code.
Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this code shall be deemed
guilty of an infraction and each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each
and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this code
is committed, continued, or permitted. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord.
99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1, 1996; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1115.2(f)).
15.04.280 Violation of Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code – Penalty.
The penalty provisions of the 1997 California Building Code for as it relates to the Abatement
of Dangerous Buildings shall apply to all violations of said code. No person, firm or corporation,
whether as owner, lessee, sublessee, or occupant, shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair,
move, improve, remove, demolish, equip, use, occupy or maintain any building or premises, or
cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this
code or any order issued by the Building Official hereunder. Any person violating the provisions
of this section shall be guilty of an infraction for each day such violation continues. (Ord. 2008-
02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1, 1996; Ord. 89-29 §
1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1115.2(g)).
15.04.290 Violation of Plumbing or Electrical Code – Penalty.
Violations of any provisions of the 2007 California Plumbing Code, the 2007 California
Electrical Code, or any other uniform code adopted by the City for which no specific penalty
provision or maximum punishment has been adopted, shall be an infraction. Each separate day,
or portion thereof, during which any such violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense.
(Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1, 1996;
Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1115.2(h)).
225
Chapter 15.08
BUILDING CODE*
15.08.010 Adoption.
The 2007 2010 California Building Code, including the appendix thereto, and the California
Building Code Standards, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk as required by law, are
adopted by reference and incorporated into this title as the building code for the City except as
amended in this chapter and Chapter 15.04 CMC. The Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Map, as transmitted to the City on November 18, 2008, by the Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection, is also adopted as required by law. (Ord. 2009-04, 2009; Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008;
Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1, 1996; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code
1975 § 1121.0).
15.08.030 Moving Buildings.
Moved Buildings. Buildings or structures relocated or moved within the City limits need not
shall comply with the requirements of a new building. Moved buildings shall be structurally
certified by a licensed engineer prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building
Official. Any knob and tube wiring shall be replaced with approved cable or conduit. (Ord. 2008-
02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 96-1, 1996; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1122.0).
15.08.160 Skylights.
All skylights installed in any fire rated roof within any commercial building or zoning district
shall be laminated wire glass and shall be inoperable unless otherwise approved by the Building
Official and/or Fire Chief Code Official. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999;
Ord. 96-1, 1996; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989).
Chapter 15.12
DANGEROUS BUILDINGS CODE*
(Delete this section in its entirety. Covered under Sec. 116 of the CBC.)
Sections:
15.12.010 Adoption.
* Prior legislation: Ords. 326 C.S., 77-28, 85-13, and 87-11.
15.12.010 Adoption.
The 2007 California Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, copies of which are on
file with the City Clerk as required by law, is adopted by reference and incorporated into this title
as the dangerous buildings code for the City except as amended by Chapter 15.04 CMC. (Ord.
2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1 § 1, 1996;
Ord. 92-24, 1992; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1121.1).
226
Chapter 15.13
BUILDING SECURITY CODE
Sections:
15.13.010 Adoption.
15.13.010 Adoption. Building Security
The 2007 California Building Security: Code, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk
as required by law, is adopted by reference and incorporated into this title.
All commercial buildings shall meet the requirements of Title 8 and the Fire Code and item #2
below.
Residential buildings in all land use zones shall comply with the following:
1. Where entry doors are placed a window shall be located within 36” of that door. Where
no window is present a “peep-hole” unit shall be installed in the entry door.
2. All locks and dead-bolt locks located within exterior doors shall not be keyed from both
sides of the lock (exterior key only).
(Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1 § 1,
1996).
Chapter 15.20
MECHANICAL CODE*
15.20.010 Adoption.
The 2007 2010 California Mechanical Code, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk as
required by law, is adopted by reference and incorporated into this title as the mechanical code
for the City, except as amended in this chapter and Chapter 15.04 CMC. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1,
2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1 § 1, 1996; Ord. 92-24,
1992; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989; Code 1975 § 1131.0).
Chapter 15.24
PLUMBING CODE*
15.24.010 Adoption.
The 2007 2010 California Plumbing Code, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk as
required by law, is adopted by reference and incorporated into this title as the plumbing code for
the City, except as amended in this chapter and in Chapter 15.04 CMC. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008;
Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 92-24, 1992; Ord. 89-29 § 1, 1989;
Code 1975 § 1141.0).
227
Chapter 15.32
HOUSING CODE*
This section is eliminated in its entirety and is absorbed into the California Building Code and
is no longer a separate code.
Sections:
15.32.010 Adoption.
* Prior legislation: Ords. 326 C.S., 77-28, 85-13 and 87-11.
15.32.010 Adoption.
The 2007 California Housing Code, as promulgated by the International Code Council, copies
of which are on file with the City Clerk as required by law, is adopted by reference and
incorporated into this title as the housing code for the City. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-
03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1 § 1, 1996; Ord. 92-24, 1992; Ord. 89-29 § 1,
1989; Code 1975 § 1151.0).
Chapter 15.36
ELECTRICAL CODE*
15.36.010 Adoption.
The 2007 2010 California Electrical Code, based on the 2005 National Electric Code, as promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk as required by law, is adopted by reference and incorporated into this title
as the electrical code for the City, except as amended in this chapter and in Chapter 15.04 CMC. (Ord. 2008-02 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2003-03 § 2, 2003; Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 96-1 § 1, 1996; Ord. 91-1 § 1, 1991; Code 1975 § 116
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)