Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
May 7, 2024

WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023, the Historic Resources Board held a public meeting to consider the application for a Mills Act contract, including without limitation, information provided to the Historic Resources Board by City staff and through public testimony; and WHEREAS, this Resolution and itsfindings are made based upon evidence presented to the Historic Resources Board at the August 21, 2023 meeting including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and WHEREAS, the Historic Resources Board did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Historic Resources Board of the City of CarmelBy-The-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Mills Act Contract:

FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR A MILLS ACT CONTRACT
For each of the required findings listed below, staff has indicated whether the application supports the adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no" the staff report discusses the issues to facilitate the Historic Resources Board's decision-making. Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.

CMC 17.32.100.B.6.c YES NO
i. The building is designated as an historic resource by the City and is listed on the Carmel Register.
✔
ii. The proposed rehabilitation/restoration and maintenance plan is appropriate in scope and sufficient in detail to guide long-term rehabilitation/restoration and maintenance. Required maintenance and rehabilitation should be more significant than just routine maintenance that would be expected for any property. ✔
iii. Alterations to the historic resource have been in the past, and will continue to be in the future, limited to interior work and to exterior rehabilitation and alterations that:
(A) Comply with the Secretary’s Standards (future additions only); and (B) Do not significantly alter, damage or diminish any primary elevation or character-defining feature; and
(C) Do not increase floor area on the property by more than 15 percent beyond the amount established in the documented original or historic design of the resource; and
(D) Do not result in any second-story addition to a single-story historic resource.
✔
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6E909D58-BD94-41B7-AF48-8DBFEEFA590D Attachment 5
Resolution No. 2023-010-HRB

iv. The Mills Act contract will aid in offsetting the costs of rehabilitating and maintaining the historic resource.
✔
v. Approval of the Mills Act contract will represent an equitable balance of public and private interests and will not result in substantial adverse financial impact on the City.
✔
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Historic Resources Board of the City of Carmel-by-theSea does hereby recommend that the City Council enter into a Mills Act Contract (MA 23-103, Cypress Inn) for the historic “La Ribera Hotel” located on the northeast corner of Lincoln Street and 7th Avenue (APN 010-147-008).

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 21st day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Chroman, Dyar, Pomeroy, Goodhue, Hall
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

Jordan Chroman Leah Young
Chair Historic Resources Board Secretary
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6E909D58-BD94-41B7-AF48-8DBFEEFA590D Attachment 5

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
June 2, 2005
TO COUNTY ASSESSORS AND INTERESTED PARTIES:

NOTICE OF BOARD ACTION

GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF

ENFORCEABLY RESTRICTED HISTORICAL PROPERTY
On May 25, 2005, the Board of Equalization approved the following guidelines pertaining to the assessment of enforceably restricted historical property. These guidelines supersede Letter To Assessors No. 77/174 (dated December 19, 1977).

On June 8, 1976, the voters of California approved Proposition 7 which amended section 8 of article XIII of the California Constitution. This amendment requires that enforceably restricted historical property be valued on a basis that is consistent with its restrictions and uses. Sections 439 through 439.4 were added to the Revenue and Taxation Code to implement Proposition 7.

These statutes, in particular section 439.2, prohibit a valuation of enforceably restricted historical property based on sales data and instead require that such property be valued by a prescribed income capitalization method.

Staff drafted these guidelines in consultation with interested parties and, after discussions, no issues remained unresolved. The guidelines discuss the enforceably restricted historical property requirements, the income to be capitalized, the capitalization rate, the effect of Proposition 13 upon enforceably restricted historical properties that undergo change in ownership or new construction, and the valuation of property under notice of nonrenewal.

The guidelines are posted on the Board's website at www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/guideproc.htm.

We hope this information proves useful and promotes uniformity of assessment for these properties. If you have any questions, please contact our Real Property Technical Services Unit at 916-445-4982.

Sincerely,
/s/ David J. Gau
David J. Gau
Deputy Director
Property and Special Taxes Department
DJG:grs
Enclosure
BETTY T. YEE
Acting Member
First District, San Francisco

BILL LEONARD
Second District, Sacramento/Ontario

CLAUDE PARRISH
Third District, Long Beach

JOHN CHIANG
Fourth District, Los Angeles

STEVE WESTLY
State Controller, Sacramento
RAMON J. HIRSIG
Executive Director
No. 2005/035

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

PROPERTY AND SPECIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
450 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
PO BOX 942879, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94279-0064
916 445-4982 z FAX 916 323-8765
www.boe.ca.gov
Attachment 6
1 GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF

ENFORCEABLY RESTRICTED HISTORICAL PROPERTY

HISTORY
Effective March 7, 1973, Chapter 1442 of the Statutes of 1972 (also known as the Mills Act) added sections 50280 through 50289 to the Government Code to allow an owner of qualified historical property to enter into a preservation contract with local government. When property is placed under such a contract, the owner agrees to restore the property if necessary, maintain its historic character, and use it in a manner compatible with its historic characteristics.

Prior to the passage of Proposition 7 in 1976, these agreements (i.e., Mills Act contracts) constituted enforceable restrictions on the use of land within the meaning of Revenue and Taxation Code section 402.11
(Property Tax Rule 60, repealed January 10, 1978). However, Proposition 7 added the second paragraph to section 8 of article XIII of the California Constitution:

To promote the preservation of property of historical significance, the Legislature may define such property and shall provide that when it is enforceably restricted, in a manner specified by the Legislature, it shall be valued for property tax purposes only on a basis that is consistent with its restrictions and uses.

To implement Proposition 7, Chapter 1040 of the Statutes of 1977 (Senate Bill 380) added sections 439 through 439.4 to the Revenue and Taxation Code. These statutes, in particular section 439.2, prohibit a valuation of enforceably restricted historical property based on sales data and instead require that such property be valued by a prescribed income capitalization method.

ENFORCEABLY RESTRICTED HISTORICAL PROPERTY
Under section 439, historical property is "enforceably restricted" if it meets the definition of a "qualified historical property" as defined in Government Code section 50280.1 and is subject to a historical property contract executed pursuant to Government Code section 50280 and following.

A qualified historical property includes qualified historical improvements and the land on which the improvements are situated, as specified in the historical property contract. If the contract does not specify the land to be included, the qualified historical property includes only a land area of reasonable size to situate the improvements.

A qualified historical property is privately-owned property that is not exempt from property taxation and that also meets either of the following criteria:
• The property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or is located within a registered historic district; or

1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Revenue and Taxation Code.

Attachment 6
2 • The property is listed in any official state, county, city, or city and county official register of historical or architecturally significant sites, places or landmarks, including the California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, State Points of Historical Interest, local landmarks, and local survey listings of historical properties.

The historical property contract must have a minimum term of ten years, and, as applicable, must contain certain other elements, including the following:
• A provision relating to the preservation of the qualified historical property and, when necessary, the restoration and rehabilitation of the property in conformance with state historic preservation guidelines;
• A requirement for the periodic examination of the property to ensure compliance with the agreement;
• A requirement that the historical property agreement be binding upon successor owners of the qualified historical property; and
• A provision for an automatic one-year extension of the contract, with an additional year added to the initial contract term on each anniversary of the contract, unless either party provides notice of nonrenewal. If a notice of nonrenewal is given, the contract runs for its remaining term.

Once a contract is signed, accepted, and recorded, the property subject to the contract must be assessed under section 439.2 on the ensuing lien date. For example, if a contract were recorded in August 2004, the property should have been valued pursuant to section 439.2 for lien date January 1, 2005.

Local authorities may cancel a historical property agreement for breach of contract or failure to protect the historical property. Alternatively, the local entity may take legal action to enforce the contract.

ASSESSMENT
The assessment of an enforceably restricted historical property involves the following aspects:
(1) valuing the restricted historical property; (2) properly applying certain assessment provisions relating to article XIII A of the California Constitution (Prop 13); (3) valuing the restricted historical property following a notice of nonrenewal; and (4) valuing the restricted historical property following cancellation of the contract.

Valuing the Restricted Historical Property
Section 439.2 prohibits the assessor from using sales data relating to similar properties, whether or not enforceably restricted, to value an enforceably restricted historical property. Instead, the assessor must annually value a restricted historical property using an income approach that Attachment 6
3 follows the specific provisions of section 439.2. These provisions explicitly address (1) the determination of the income to be capitalized, (2) the development of the capitalization rate, (3) the capitalization technique to be used, and (4) the determination of the restricted historical property's taxable value on each lien date.

Income to be Capitalized
As provided in section 439.2(a), the income to be capitalized when valuing a restricted historical property is the property's fair rent less allowed expenditures, or allowed expenses. In general, section 439.2(a) follows Property Tax Rule 8(c), with fair rent in section 439.2 corresponding to gross return in Rule 8(c); allowed expenditures, or allowed expenses, in section 439.2 corresponding to gross outgo in Rule 8(c); and the income to be capitalized in section 439.2 corresponding to net return in Rule 8(c). In addition, for the purposes here, "gross income" is synonymous with fair rent, and "net operating income" is synonymous with the income to be capitalized.

The parties to a historical property agreement may stipulate a minimum annual income to be capitalized, in which case the income to be capitalized may not be less than the stipulated amount.

Fair rent, or gross income. The gross income of a restricted historical property is the fair rent for the property considering the restrictions on the property's use. When establishing the fair rent for a restricted historical property, the appraiser should consider the actual rent and typical rents in the area for similar properties in similar use, where the owner pays the property taxes.

The actual rent received by the owner of the subject restricted historical property is relevant to an estimate of fair market rent only if the actual rent is the same rent that would be expected if the existing lease were renegotiated in light of current market conditions, including the subject property's enforceable restrictions on use. With respect to rents from similar, or comparable, properties, if such rents are from properties outside the geographic or market area of the subject property, or from properties that are otherwise dissimilar to the subject property, the rents may not be relevant to an estimate of the subject property's fair rent.

Comparable rental data for single-family residences can be obtained from real estate brokers, rental agencies, and newspaper ads. Many assessors offices maintain rental data for commercial properties, and this data may be helpful when establishing the fair rent for restricted historical property when the contract allows a commercial use. Rental data for commercial property also can be obtained from commercial real estate brokers. For the purpose of estimating anticipated market fair rent and expenditures for use in calculating the subject property's value, rental and expense data for existing restricted historical properties, including the subject historical property, can be obtained through an annual questionnaire sent to property owners.

If sufficient rental data are not available, or such data are unreliable, the appraiser must impute a gross income for the subject restricted historical property. The imputed income should be based on what an informed investor would reasonably expect the property to yield under prudent management, given the provisions under which the property is enforceably restricted.

Attachment 6
4 Allowed expenditures. Section 439.2(a)(3) defines allowed expenditures, or allowed expenses, as expenses necessary for the maintenance of the property's income. Allowed expenses are the same as those permitted in Property Tax Rule 8(c).

Typical expenses include the cost of utilities, maintenance and repair, insurance and property management. Allowed expenses also may include amounts owing for special assessments and special taxes. Expenses related to debt service, general property taxes, and depreciation should not be deducted.

In general, to arrive at the net income to be capitalized, allowed expenses are subtracted from the estimated rental income. However, in order to properly process the income, the appraiser must be aware of the structure of the lease with regard to how expenses are shared between the landlord-owner and the tenant.

The proper perspective from which to view the processing of income and expenses is that of the landlord-owner. The objective is to estimate the net income to the landlord-owner—this is the amount that should be capitalized—and the correct question to ask is the following: What, if any, allowed expenses must the landlord-owner pay out of the rental income that he or she receives?
In a gross lease, almost all of the allowed expenses must be paid out of the gross rent and, therefore, must be subtracted from the gross rent to arrive at the net income to be capitalized. In a net lease, relatively few allowed expenses must be paid by the landlord-owner out of the net rent (because the tenant pays most expenses) and only these expenses should be subtracted from the net rent to arrive at the net income to be capitalized. Frequently, there is a hybrid arrangement—some expenses are paid by the landlord-owner and some by the tenant. How expenses are shared often depends upon the property type together with local conventions.

Income to be capitalized, or net operating income. The income to be capitalized, or net operating income, is simply the fair rent, or gross income, described above less the allowed expenditures described above.

Capitalization Rate
The method of developing the capitalization rate to be used when valuing restricted historical property is prescribed by statute; a capitalization rate derived from sales data or the band of investment is not permitted.

Section 439.2 prescribes two types of capitalization rates for restricted historical property: (1) a capitalization rate to be used when valuing restricted historical property that is an owneroccupied single-family residence and (2) a capitalization rate to be used when valuing all other restricted historical property. Both types of capitalization rates include components for interest (i.e., yield), risk, property taxes, and amortization of improvements; in fact, the two rates are identical except for the amount of the risk component. The capitalization rate contains the following components:

Attachment 6
5 • An interest component annually determined by the State Board of Equalization and based on the effective rate on conventional mortgages as determined by the Federal Housing Finance Board. The interest component is announced annually, in a Letter To Assessors, by October 1 of the preceding assessment year.
• A historical property risk component determined by property type. For owner-occupied single-family residences, the rate is 4 percent; for all other types of restricted historical property, the rate is 2 percent.
• An amortization component for improvements defined as a percentage equal to the reciprocal of the remaining life of the improvements (e.g., if the remaining economic life of the improvements were 20 years, the amortization component would be 5 percent). Since the amortization component applies only to improvements, not to land, which is a nondepreciating asset, it is necessary to adjust the amortization component described in the statute. We recommend the following method of adjustment:

1. Based upon market data, estimate the percentage of total property value attributable to improvements.

2. Multiply this percentage by the amortization component described in the statute (i.e., by the reciprocal of the remaining life of the improvements). For example, if the remaining life of the improvements was 20 years, yielding a reciprocal percentage of 5 percent, and if 70 percent of the total property value was attributable to the improvements, the adjusted amortization factor would be 3.5 percent (0.05 x 0.70 =

0.035).

3. Add the adjusted amortization component to the other capitalization rate components to arrive at the total capitalization rate.
• A property taxes component equal to the percentage of the estimated total tax rate applicable to the property for the assessment year multiplied by the assessment ratio. Typically, the property tax component includes the basic tax rate of 1 percent plus an additional ad valorem rate related to any bonded indebtedness pertaining to the tax rate area in which the property is located. Special district assessments and special taxes are not included in the property tax component. As noted above, they should be treated as allowed expenses.

Capitalization Technique
The capitalization technique to be used when valuing a restricted historical property is prescribed by statute and is formulaic. Section 439.2(e) provides that the restricted value shall be the income to be capitalized, or net operating income, developed as prescribed by statute, divided by one of the two types of capitalization rates prescribed by statute. In other words, the restricted value is the simple quotient of the prescribed income to be capitalized and the prescribed capitalization rate.

Attachment 6
6 Determination of Taxable Value on Each Lien Date
Section 439.2(d) provides that a historical property's restricted value may not be enrolled if it exceeds either (1) the value of the subject property as determined under section 110 (i.e., current market value) or (2) the value of the subject property as determined under section 110.1 (i.e., factored base year value). In other words, section 439.2 states that the taxable value of a restricted historical property on each lien date shall be the lowest of its restricted value, current market value, or factored base year value. The factored base year value for an enforceably restricted historical property is the value that was established for the 1975 lien date2 or as of the
date of the most recent change in ownership, whichever is later, adjusted by the annual inflation factor.

Article XIII A (Prop 13) Considerations
This section discusses how three important elements relating to implementation of article XIII A—change in ownership, new construction, and supplemental assessment—relate to the assessment of restricted historical property. Also discussed is the case in which only a portion of a property is subject to the historical property agreement—that is, the case in which a single property unit contains both restricted and unrestricted portions.

Change in Ownership
When a property subject to a historical property contract undergoes a change in ownership, a new base year value should be established for the property as of the date of change in ownership, as provided in section 110.1. Typically, a restricted historical property's base year value will be greater than its restricted value determined under section 439.2 and hence will not be enrolled as the property's taxable value. However, the establishment of a new base year value enables the assessor to perform the three-way value comparison prescribed by section 439.2(d) and described above. The establishment of a base year value is also necessary in order to calculate the assessed values of historical property should the historical property agreement enter nonrenewal status.

New Construction
Section IV of National Register Bulletin #15 defines a "building" as follows:

A building, such as a house, barn, church, hotel, or similar construction, is created principally to shelter any form of human activity. "Building" may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn.

Section IV further specifies that "[b]uildings eligible for the National Register must include all of their basic structural elements. Parts of buildings, such as interiors, facades, or wings, are not eligible independent of the rest of the existing building. The whole building must be considered,

2 Sections 110.1(d) and 405.5 do not apply to historical properties under contract as of lien date 1975 because the constitutional amendment which placed the valuation of historical property under article XIII rather than article XIII A had not yet been passed and, thus, was not in effect for the 1975 lien date.

Attachment 6
7 and its significant features must be identified." Thus, eligibility for the National Register is determined by the extent to which the basic structural elements of an existing building are intact.

In general, a newly constructed building would not be eligible because it is not an existing building with basic structural elements.3
Also, a newly constructed building is not a historic resource, and, thus, is not a qualified historical property within the meaning of Government Code section 50280.1. For example, a newly constructed detached garage (assuming it is not a reconstruction of a historical garage) clearly would not be eligible because it has no significance in American history or architecture, nor does it meet any of the other requisite criteria.

Bulletin 15, however, does list one type of newly constructed property that may be eligible for inclusion under the Mills Act. A reconstructed historic building is eligible for the National Register if the reconstruction is "accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived."
The historical property contract typically specifies the scope and type of any work to be performed on the historical improvements. Improvements existing as of the date of the contract would be subject to the provisions of section 439.2 unless specifically excluded by the contract.

Any new construction made to the historical structure after the issuing date of the contract would not be subject to the provisions of section 439.2 unless specifically included in the contract or an amendment to the contract. Any questions regarding new construction to enforceably restricted historical structures should be directed to the counsel of the legislative body of the city, county, or city and county that contracted with the property owner.

Assuming that the newly constructed property is subject to the historical property contract, a base year value should be established for the newly constructed portion and this value added to the factored base year value of the existing restricted property.

In some cases, an existing historical property may include a portion that is restricted (i.e., subject to a historical property contract) and a portion that is unrestricted. In this case, separate factored base year values should be maintained for the restricted and unrestricted portions and the base year value of any newly constructed property added to the appropriate portion. The assessment treatment of this type of property is discussed further below.

Supplemental Assessment
Although the assessor is required to establish a new base year value upon a change in ownership or completed new construction involving restricted historical property, such property is not subject to supplemental assessment. As provided in Revenue and Taxation Code section 75.14:

Supplemental assessment; limitation. A supplemental assessment pursuant to this chapter shall not be made for any property not subject to the assessment

3 National Register Bulletin 15, "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation," U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/).

Attachment 6
8 limitations of Article XIII A of the California Constitution. All property subject to the assessment limitations of Article XIII A of the California Constitution shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this article.

As discussed above, the assessment of enforceably restricted historical property is subject to the provisions of article XIII, section 8 of the California Constitution, not article XIII A. Thus, section 75.14 precludes the assessor from enrolling supplemental assessments for enforceably restricted historical property.

Historical property not yet under contract that undergoes a change in ownership or new construction is subject to supplemental assessment, even if the property owner later executes a historical property contract in the same fiscal year. Also, any new construction involving a historical property that does not come under the existing historical property contract (e.g., a detached garage added to a restricted historical property) would be subject to supplemental assessment.

When a Property Contains Both Restricted and Unrestricted Portions When only a portion of a property that would normally be considered a single appraisal unit is restricted by a historical property contract, the assessed value should be determined by making a comparison of three values, determined as follows. First, the portion under contract should be valued using the capitalization method prescribed by section 439.2. Added to this figure should be the lower of the unrestricted portion's fair market value or factored base year value. The resulting sum should be compared to both the fair market value and the factored base year value of the entire property (i.e., both restricted and unrestricted portions) and the lowest of the three figures should be enrolled.

Valuing Property Under Notice of Nonrenewal
As provided in Government Code section 50282, either the owner of a restricted historical property or the local government entity may serve notice that it does not intend to renew the historical property contract. If such notice is not given, another year is automatically added to the term of the initial contract, thus creating a "rolling" contract term that is always equal to the initial contract term.

Section 439.3 prescribes the valuation method for a restricted historical property in nonrenewal status; this valuation method applies until the end of the restricted period (i.e., until the existing contract expires). In essence, the method results in a restricted value that gradually approaches the historical property's factored base year value as the remaining term under the contract decreases. For a property in nonrenewal status, the assessor must annually value the property as follows:

1. Determine the full cash value (i.e., factored base year value) of the property in accordance with section 110.1. (Alternatively, if the property will not be subject to section 110.1 when the historical property agreement expires, determine its fair market value in accordance with Attachment 6
9 section 110, as if the property were free of the agreement's restrictions; or, if the property will be subject to another type of restricted value standard when the historical property agreement expires, determine the property's value as if it were subject to the new restrictions.)

2. Determine the restricted value of the property by the capitalization of income method provided in section 439.2.

3. Subtract the restricted value determined in Step 2 from the factored base year (or other) value determined in Step 1.

4. Using the amount for the interest rate component (section 439.2(b)(1)) announced by the Board, discount the amount obtained in Step 3 for the number of years remaining until the termination of the contract.

5. Determine the restricted value of the property in nonrenewal status by adding the value determined in Step 2 to the amount obtained in Step 4.

The historical property's restricted value in nonrenewal status—that is, the value determined above, in accordance with section 439.3—should be compared with the historical property's factor base year and current market values, and the lowest of these three values should be enrolled as the property's taxable value.

Cancellation of Contract
The government entity party to a historical property contract may cancel the contract, after notice and a public hearing, if it determines that either the owner has breached the agreement or the property has deteriorated to the extent that it no longer meets the standards of a historical property. If the contract is cancelled, the property owner must pay a cancellation fee equal to 12½ percent of the property's current fair market value as though free of the contractual restriction, such value to be determined by the county assessor. After a contract is cancelled, the lower of the property's factored base year value or current market value should be enrolled for the ensuing lien date.

SUMMARY
The key points contained in these guidelines can be summarized as follows:

1. An owner of qualified historical property may enter into a preservation contract with local government. When property is placed under such a contract, the owner agrees to restore the property if necessary, maintain its historic character, and use it in a manner compatible with its historic characteristics. Such property receives the special valuation treatment prescribed under Revenue and Taxation Code sections 439 through 439.4.

2. Enforceably restricted historical property is to be annually valued by the income capitalization method prescribed in section 439.2, which contains specific instructions with Attachment 6
10 regard to the income to be capitalized, the capitalization rate, and the capitalization technique to be used. The restricted value must be compared to the property's current market value and factored base year value, with the lowest of these three values enrolled as the property's taxable value.

3. When assessing restricted historical property, the appraiser should consider how three important elements of article XIII A—change in ownership, new construction, and supplemental assessment—relate to the assessment. The appraiser should consider how a property should be assessed when only a portion of it is subject to a historical property agreement.

4. Restricted historical property under a notice of nonrenewal should be valued in accordance with section 439.3.

5. The government entity party to a historical property contract may cancel the contract. The cancellation fee is 12½ percent of the property's current fair market value as though free of the contractual restriction, with such value to be determined by the local assessor.

Additional information about Mills Act contracts may be obtained from the state Office of Historic Preservation, either by telephone at 916-653-6624, or from their website (www.ohp.parks.ca.gov).
(Note: Please see the assessment examples following.)
Attachment 6
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 1
EXAMPLE 1 (OWNER-OCCUPIED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE)
Subject Restricted Historical Property
Restored, 105-year-old, Victorian single-family residence. Excellent condition. Under Mills Act contract since 1985 and not in nonrenewal status. Owner-occupied.

Determination of Restricted Value (current lien date)
Gross income (Fair rent)
$1,500 per month x 12 months = $18,000
Less: Anticipated vacancy and collection loss
$18,000 x 5% - 900
Effective gross income $17,100
Less: Anticipated operating expenses
Grounds maintenance $600
Fire insurance 400
Management Fee 360
Water and garbage 240
Building maintenance + 500 - 2,100
Net Operating Income $15,000
Restricted Capitalization Rate
Rate Components:

Interest rate .080
Risk (owner-occupied SFR) .040
Property tax (ad valorem) .015
Amortization (50-year remaining life; improvements
constitute 70% of total property market value;

0.02 x 0.70 – 0.014) + .014 .149
Restricted Value
$15,000 ÷ .149 = $100,671
Taxable Value—Three-Way Value Comparison
Restricted value $100,671
Factored base year value (based on prior change in ownership) $357,000 Current market value (based on comparable sales) $450,000 The lowest of the three possible values is the restricted value. Thus, the net taxable value would be $93,671 ($100,671 restricted value less the homeowners' exemption of $7,000).

Note 1: If this property had been a non-owner-occupied SFR, the only difference in the determination of the restricted value would have been the use of a risk rate component of 2% rather than 4% in the capitalization rate.

Note 2: In this and the following examples, the gross income, or fair rent, is presented on a gross rent basis, that is, under the assumption that the landlord-owner pays all operating expenses out of the gross income.

Attachment 6
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 2
EXAMPLE 2 (OFFICE USE)
Subject Restricted Historical Property
Multi-tenant, restored historical office building in a downtown commercial district. Under Mills Act contract since 1985 and not in nonrenewal status.

Determination of Restricted Value (current lien date)
Gross Income (Fair rent):

Offices 140,000 sf @ $1.75/sf = $245,000
x 12 months = $2,940,000
Less: Anticipated vacancy and collection loss
$2,940,000 x 5% - 147,000
Effective gross income $2,793,000
Less: Anticipated operating expenses
Management $290,000
Maintenance 95,000
Insurance 75,000
Utilities 360,000
Janitorial + 140,000 - 960,000
Net Operating Income $1,833,000
Restricted Capitalization Rate
Rate Components:

Interest component .08
Risk .02
Property tax (ad valorem) .011
Amortization (50-year remaining life; improvements
constitute 75% of total property market value

0.02 x 0.75 = 0.015) + .015 .126
Restricted Value
($1,833,000 ÷ .126) = $14,547,619
Taxable Value—Three-Way Value Comparison
Restricted value $14,547,619
Factored base year value (based on prior change in ownership) $18,191,077 Current market value (based on comparable sales) $21,000,000 The lowest of the three possible values is the restricted value. Thus, the taxable value would be $14,547,619
Attachment 6
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 3
EXAMPLE 3 (MIXED USE—RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE)
Subject Restricted Historical Property
Two-story, restored historical property in a downtown district. Upper level is residential unit occupied by owner. Lower level contains three office spaces subject to short-term rental agreements. The income stream for the upstairs unit must be calculated separately from the downstairs unit because the risk rate is different for the owner-occupied unit.

Determination of Restricted Value
Separate restricted values for the upper-level residence and the lower-level office space must be determined, because the risk components are different for the two types of use. The total restricted value is sum of these two values.

Upper-Level Unit
Gross income (Fair rent) based upon comparable rent data $975 per month x 12 months = $11,700
Less: Anticipated vacancy and collection loss
$11,700 x 5% - 585
Effective gross income $11,115
Less: Anticipated operating expenses
Grounds maintenance $300
Fire insurance 200
Management Fee 180
Water and garbage 120
Building maintenance + 250 - 1,050
Upper-Level Net Operating Income $10,065
Restricted Capitalization Rate (owner-occupied SFR)
Rate components:

Interest rate .080
Risk .040
Property tax .010
Amortization ( 50-year remaining life; improvements
constitute 70% of total property market value;

0.02 x 0.70 = 0.014) + .014 .144
Upper-level Restricted Value ($10,065 ÷ .144) = $69,895 Lower-Level Offices
Gross income (Fair rent)
1000 sf @ $1.60/sf = $1,600 x 12 months $19,200
Less: Anticipated vacancy and collection loss
$19,200 x 5% - 960
Effective gross income $18,240
Attachment 6
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 4
Less: Anticipated operating expenses
Grounds maintenance $300
Fire insurance 200
Management Fee 180
Water and garbage 120
Building maintenance + 250 - 1,050
Lower-Level Net Operating Income $17,190
Restricted Capitalization Rate
Rate components:

Interest component .080
Risk .020
Property tax .010
Amortization (50-year remaining life; improvements
constitute 70% of total property market value;

0.02 x 0.70 = 0.014) + .014 .124
Lower Level Restricted Value ($17,190 ÷ .124) $138,629
Add: Upper Level Restricted Value + $69,895
Total Restricted Value $208,524
Taxable Value—Three-Way Value Comparison
Restricted Value $208,524
Factored base year value (based upon prior change in ownership) $364,140 Current market value (based upon comparable sales data) $400,000 The lowest of the three possible values is the restricted value. Thus, the net taxable value would be $201,524 ($208,524 less the homeowners' exemption of $7,000).

Attachment 6
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 5
EXAMPLE 4 (MIXED VALUATION—PART RESTRICTED AND PART UNRESTRICTED) Description of Subject Property (Comprises Both Restricted and Unrestricted Portions) The subject property is a 10-acre parcel with a farmhouse and barn situated on 2 acres; the remaining 8 acres are farmland. The farmhouse and barn are used as an owner-occupied singlefamily residence; this portion of the property is restricted under a Mills Act contract. The remaining 8 acres of farmland are unrestricted.

Value of Restricted Portion (current lien date)
Gross income (Fair rent) for farmhouse and barn
$2,000 per month x 12 months = $24,000
Less: Anticipated vacancy and collection loss
$24,000 x 5% - 1,200
Effective gross income $22,800
Less: Anticipated operating expenses
Grounds maintenance $600
Fire insurance 400
Management Fee 360
Water and garbage 240
Building maintenance + 500 - 2,100
Net Operating Income = $20,700
Restricted Capitalization Rate
Rate components:

Interest component .080
Risk (owner-occupied) .040
Property tax (ad valorem) .010
Amortization (50-year remaining life; improvements
constitute 70% of total property market value

0.02 x 0.70 = 0.014) + .014 .144
Restricted Value ($20,700 ÷ .144) = $143,750
Taxable Value—Three-Way Comparison
Total Property Restricted Value (sum of restricted value above and lower of FBYV or current market value of unrestricted portion)
Restricted Value (portion under contract) $143,750
FBYV (unrestricted portion) + $102,000
Restricted Value (total property) $245,750
Factored base year values (based upon a prior change in ownership of the entire property, allocated between restricted and unrestricted portions):

Farmhouse, barn, and 2 acres (restricted portion) $204,000 8 acres (unrestricted portion) + $102,000
Total FBYV (total property) $306,000
Attachment 6
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 6
Current market values (based upon comparable sales data):

Farmhouse, barn, and 2 acres (restricted portion) $230,000 8 acres (unrestricted portion) + $120,000
Total Current Market Value (total property) $350,000
The lowest of the three values is the Restricted Value (total property), $245,750. Thus, the net taxable value would be $238,750 ($245,750 less $7,000 homeowners' exemption).

Attachment 6
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 7
EXAMPLE 5 (PROPERTY IN NONRENEWAL STATUS)
Description of Subject Restricted Historical Property
The same property as in Example 2, except the property owner has served notice of renewal.

The Mills Act contract covering the property was originally executed in September 1995, and the owner served notice of nonrenewal in June 2004. Value the property for the 2005 lien date, reflecting its nonrenewal status. Assume that the property's restricted, current market, and factored base year values from Example 2, provided below, also refer to January 1, 2005.

Restricted value $14,547,619
Current market value $21,000,000
Factored base year value $18,191,077
Restricted Value in Nonrenewal Status
Value as if unrestricted (factored base year value) $18,191,077 Restricted value - 14,547,619
Difference $ 3,643,458
Present worth of difference
PW1 @ 6.00 %, 9 years (interest component for lien date 2005) x .591898 = $ 2,156,555
Plus restricted value + $14,547,619
Restricted value in nonrenewal status—lien date January 1, 2005 $16,704,174 Taxable Value
Since the restricted value in nonrenewal status, $16,704,174, is less than either the property's current market value or its factored base year value, this is the taxable value.

Attachment 6
carmer-by-the.sea Mait- Fwd: tn connection with cypress tnn cc wlu$nq llzlzozl k,{+b
ts
Carmelby-the-Sea Nova Romero <[email protected]> Fwd: ln connection with Cypress Inn
3 messages
[email protected] <[email protected]>
To: "Waffle Marnie R." <[email protected]>, Romero Nova <[email protected]> Mon, Apr 1 ,2024 al4:41 PM
See below for council please.

Sent from my iPhone, please excuse brevity or typos
Begin forwarded message:

City o, Carmet-By-The.Sea
APR 0 2 2024
From: Angela Love otfice o, the city cte* <[email protected]> Date: April 1,2024 al2:01:52 PM PDf
To: Brandon Swanson <[email protected]>
Subject: ln connection with Cypress lnn
Deor Mr. Swonson:

Per instructions from Mr. Lombordo, ottoched pleose find o copy of on orticle regording Cypress lnn. He would like this to be distributed to the City Council in connection with tomonow's meeting. lf you hove ony problems opening up the ottochment, pleose let me know.

Angelo M. Love
Legol Assistont to Anthony L. Lombordo

ANTHONY LOMBARDO & ASSOCIATES
A Professionol Corporotion
144 W. Gabilan St.

Salinas, CA 93901
Phone (831)751-2330
Fox (831) 751-2331
Emoil : [email protected]
https://mait.gooqte.com/maiUdo/?ik=3e5 t736a27&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:'17951777A543/462857&simpl=msg-f:17951777454,344628 1t2 412J24, 12:33 PM
Sincerely,
Attachment 7
,TravEl: Cypress Inn in Carm.el By The Sea I Califomia Business Joumal '
I o:r" l^oor, l .on,,t' I
restimoniats
I
Advenisins Rates and specs
Page t oI o
&r*\+bpq
&a
u
"*."!
(
ylyt s3 I
AOVENTi5TMENT
City oi By-TheSea
APR 0 2 2024
oflice of the city cle (
5earch...

Submit

NEWSTETTER SIGNUP
California
Business Joumal

FINANCE BUSINESS PEOPLE TECHNOLOGY LAW NEWS MARKETING MEDICAI'

FOOD ART & CULTURE
Travel: CyPress Inn in Carmel BY The WednesdaY, JulY 19, 2017 Sea

ADVTFIISEMENT
o l6views Q No commenls E Human Interest IRick
It Share/Save O t ...

Situated in the enchanting and ultraquaint seaside village of Carmel By The Sea, the Doris DaY-owned, Pethtto://www.calbiziournal.com/cvnress-inn-e:rmel-hv-fhp'sea / n1ll Ol1ar 1
t^b hcfcvc rn
{undrcna, medicrne
*r-0
Attachment 7
(
^Travel: Cypress Inn in Carmel By The Sea I Califomia Business Journal friendly CYPress Inn in one of the
most fasci nating vacation
destinations that You could ever
experience.

BY RICKWEINBERG, C UFORT'IIA BUSINESSJOURNAL
When Dennis Levett approached his business partner' iconic Hollywood actress Doris Day, about purchasing a hotel in the quaint and picturesque Northern california seaside town of Grmel By The sea, she was adamant about one thing: making lt a pet-friendly hotel'
Thirty years later, the peaceful. Mediterranean'styled Cypress Inn is regarded as periraps the best and most prominent pet-friendly hotel in America' The fact that ifs situated in the mesmeri2ing charm of Carmel makes it that much more special
-
thank to Ms' Day.

The legendary Hollywood star won the oscar for her signature song "Que Sera, iera" in ntfred Hitchcock!'The Man who Knew Too Much" in 1955 and a Golden Globe for the film, "Pillow Talk'" she was voted the top box office female star for four consecutive years during the early'50s and was among the Top lO for 1o consecutive years. She was the headline actress opPosite such leading men as Rock Hudson, Cary Grant Clark Gable,James cagney' lames stewirt and Kirk Douglas. She received the Presidential Medal of ireedom from George W. Bush in 20021 and was awarded a Grammy for Lifetime Achievement in 2008.

Since leaving her fabled
film, television, music
and dance (areer, Ms.

Day has devoted herself
to the welfare of
animals. For half of her
life, she hes worked
tirelessly rescuin&
healint and Placint
thousands of abused or
neglected animals in
new homes. she staned
her own organization,
the Dorls Day Pet
Foundation, now known
as the Doris DaY Animal
Foundation. She also
e*ablished the Doris
Day Animal League,
which is a lobbYing
group on behalfof
animal rights and is now

AOVETTI'EMT T
CAUFORNI,As I.ATEST BUSINESS
NEWs
_.-_E,
The
syncopated
Ladles Are
set To lgnlte
Ford
Theatre On
Frlday, )ulY
2E In Los
Angeles, CA
For The Fi6t
Tlme Ever
with
Syncopated
Ladl$ Livcl
Ridcshare
Pl.tform
Pull Up N'
Go Pulls
Ahead of
ComPetitlon
With Thelr
FIrst
Investment
Federal
judge
dlrmlsses
lawsults
atalnst
Renovate
America
,nd lts
tovernment
partners
Concler8e
Auctlons
Announces
Iuly/August
Lineup Of
21 g::-
#t"
arna.ka
L*-. /,r.'^'^" roll.id^,'a.l ^a-/^.'--" i'- ^^*^l L" 'L^ '^-/ s
f-'-ffii l' '81
lt .l
m
I: j
I
Attachment 7
,.Travel: Cypress Ion in Carmel By The Sea I Califomia Business Joumal a part of the Humane Society of the United States. The Foundation has grown inio one of the largest animal welfare organizations in the world - and it continues to operate under her guidance, even at the ate 0t 95' Ms. Days love for animals - and esPe(ially dogs - is felt eveqrytrhere you walk at the delightful and immaculately historic Cypress lnn, which was built in 1929 and was first used as an artgalleryend atelier. Today. beautiful and obedient dots are eveqMhere you turn at this pet-obsessed hotel, including the dining area,
At this moment, two well-behaved Shih Tzus, dressed alike in blue tulle skins and hair bows, are si$ing up in a baby carriage looking at other dogs and their owners pass by. Five feet away is a beautiful well-mannered black Lab *retched out on the floor, satlsfled after consumlng her Cypress lnn pet menu choice of chicken,
No matter where you are at the hotel - by the fireplace in the living room, Terqfs Lounte, walkint through the hallways, or on the outside dinint Patio, adorable, loving dogs are everywhere with their doting owners - the kind of dog owners who ronsider their dogs as a family member and take them everywhere.

Even the Cypress Inn staff treat doEs as honored tuests. Rooms even come equipped with pet bowls and plush dot beds.

The Moroccan-inspired and modern decor hotel rooms also come comPlete with a complimentary crystal decanter of cream sherry (one of Ms. Days favorite drink) atop the wet bar.

The hotel featur€s an endless array of photos and posters of Ms. Day and her films. The television in the dining area regularly plays her films.

The hotelt signature restaurant, Terqy's Lounte, is named after Ms. Days son, Terry Melcher. who was a musician and record producer. He was Impreslve
Luxury Real
Est ta
Opponunltler
worldwlde
More news

WHTTEFOC'(
ADVETN5EM'NI
IAIESTS PO$S
Juty 19,2017
Trrvel: Cypress
Inrt in Carmel
By fhr Se.
)uly 17,2017
,EXsT TO
INSPIR€'
ffi
&
July 11,2017
Thc Valuc and
Power of
Customer LisB

COMMENTS REVIEWS
--e
Sue Eluly 08, 2017
Love artitlcs llke thls. Whlt tn
int.resung story. [.-l
MannyJuly 07, 2017
Very lnsplrlnt rtory. Thanks
for the read. [...1
Don DayeJune 29, 2017
Terrific article. R..llY enjoyed
readlng. [...t
h#^.//$^t^r, nrlhizinrrrnol aam/4.,ao." i-- ^^a-l L" rL^ ^^- /

--"E
il
I
tl
rrY
i*rw
-
\
,s
r,
\
t /
f
lL_
-t
I!
|ffiS,n,,Xt-[!EIr
a
l"
t'
I
t
t
t,
fr-n
Attachment 7
.a uTravel: Cypress Inn in Carmel By The Sea I Ca[fornia Business Joumal in$rumental in shaping the California sound and American west coast rock music. Particularly durinE the counterculture era'
By the time Happy Hour rolls around on any tiven day' the popular lounge is hopping with local peoPle who come by to drinlq hanSout and eat' The Lounge tras a lovety dining room
-
reservations are a must because of its
popuiarity with locals
-
that has an eclectic menu of delicious countryFrench style seafood and steaks.

The quality, preparation and presentation of tie food is impeccable - from is Wild Salmon fresh from Monterrey Bay and Rolry Chicken to the Sole Petrale from san Francisco Bay and the closetcunparalleled Filet Mignon.

The Cypress Inn epitomires everything that is special about Carmel, easily one of the Americat greatest and charming towns.

It was established as a laid-baclr m!6tical Bohemian community home to intellectuals, anists and authors likeJack London and Sinclair Lewis and poet Robinson Jeffers.

The enchanting one-square.mile village on California's windswept Central coast - ifs only 120 miles south of san Francisco
-
has no $reetliShts or
sidewalks (except in the downtown commercial district).

Fast-food restaurants, neon siSns and parking mete6 are prohibited. carmels captlvatlng downtown - vvith fts ecologically harmonigus bockdrep, gorgeous flower gardens, hidden passageways and secret courtyards - features hundreds ofart galleries, wine tastint rooms, unique specialty stores, small art studios, cafet bakeries, restaurants and clothing boutiques. rl+\Jr"
The sidewalk-less side streets are
highlithted by fairytale houses that
look like something out of Hansel
and Gretel. In fact, one is named the
"Hansel House" and another i5
named the "Gretel House.'The
homes do not have street numbers
- only names.
'This town is like a fantasy, like
you're steppint back in time to a

CAIIGORIES
---........--e
Art&Culture 10
Business 3E
Education 36
F€atured 11
Finance 18
Food & Oining 10
Heahh & Fitness 10
Human Interest 27
Insurance 10
Law 12
Marketint 5
Medical 8
News 40
Pcoplc 76
Real Estate 9
Social Media 3
Technolos/ 20
I
period in America when eveo/thint was just simple and perfecq" says one Cypress Inn guest who makes a semi-annual trek to the hotel with his two Solden retrievers. 'Whenever I'm away from it, I dream about it and can't wait to come back. lfs the most special hotel and city lle ever visited." Guests are treated overwhelmingly superbly by the cypress Inn staff - from the front desk and concierge to restaurant host and the servers at The Lounge. They're allso personable and helpful.

Their wonderful and pleasant attitude is an extension of General Mana8er peter Radler. who has had a remarkable (areer in hospitality worldwide. He once owned his own restaurant, Opus One, in Munich, Germany and was the assistant general manager at Hotel Schloessll in Biel, Switzerland before comint to california. where he was an executive at some renowned ADVENTISEMfNI

RELATED SITES
Los Angeles Times
Orange County Register
5an Francisco Chronicle
San Francisco Examiner
San Diego Union Tribune
Oaange Coast Magazine
Orange County Eusiness
lournal
Le^.,,/..^r^- ^.lt i-i^r.-.1 ^^-/^.----- :-- ^^-^t L.rL^ ^-' / A
/
H
Advanced
conrfort 9ol
Eficrerrcy, Co lon, Q
q.
lri I
Attachment 7
t
,Jravel: Cypress Inn in Carmel By The Sea I Califomia Business Joumal restaurants and hotels, including the luxurious Oceana Hotel ln Santa Monica and the Avalon Hotel in Beverly Hills.
"tvly No. 1 priority is the Sreat attitude of our team," Radler says.'Thafs what I d;tue. My Philosophy is lf you have to work, you might as well have fun doing it. we have a lot of fun here and we just love the environment of the people and their pets."
Cypress Inn
Lincoln St. and 7'h Ave.

Carmel By The sea, Cal'f. 93921
83142+3871

san.lose Mercury Nens
l-os Angeles Busines5 Journal
los Anteles Matazine
5acramento Bee
los Angeles Daily News
tAist
OC Weekly
tA weekly
Coast Matazine
PBS Socal
llPR los Argeles
Locale tos Angeles Matazine
5an oieto Matazine
5an Diego Eusin€ssJournal
Silicon Valley Business Journal
San Francisco Eusiness fimes
tA Biz
Advanced
Conrfort Sol
ClFckn.n C@r@. O
TAGGTD caliromia ,usinaer Joumal Californi. Businctr Journ.lr c.lifomia Busina$ News c.liforr a mcdia Crlifornia nawt Carm€l 8y Ih. Se. CyprlJi Inn Dorir Day plt iirndly hotel RELATEO ARTICLE5
Octobet 02,2016

NATURAT WONOER
May 22,2015

NEW SEGINNINGS

NO COMMENIS
9l No commentrl
Ihere are no comments yet, but you (an be first to commenl this article.

LEAVE A REPLY
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required flelds are marked + Comment:

Lil.0
@o
Augu:

MAN OF
A0vfill5tMtNr
httn'//rrnrnU nalhizinr.aal aao/^"-'a" i'- ^^*^l L" 'L^ -^- '
Gl.

Attachment 7

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
May 7, 2024

PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Justin Ono, City Forester
APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT:

Resolution 2024-038 ordering the abatement of a declared Public Nuisance, a privately-owned Monterey pine tree, located at the southeast corner of Casanova Street and Eleventh Avenue
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Hold a Public Hearing to consider any objections to the proposed removal of the Public Nuisance; and

2. Authorize the City Forester to remove the declared nuisance tree on private property; and

3. Determine the final cost to the City of the tree’s removal and levy a lien on the property owner to recoup the cost.

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

In accordance with Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.48.130, trees, shrubs, and other plants growing on private property may be declared a public nuisance by the City Forester if the plants are infested, diseased, dead, or present any danger to persons or property. Such public nuisances must be removed as directed by the City Forester.

The private property located at the southeast corner of Casanova Street and Eleventh Avenue, belonging to the Estate of Eric Stoesser Trust, contains a dead, 75-foot-tall Monterey pine tree that leans toward the public right-of-way. This dead tree must be promptly removed for public safety and at the expense of the property owner.

To initiate the nuisance abatement process, the Public Works/Forestry Division attempted to contact the owner of this property multiple times, as recently as December 13, 2023 by certified mail. Although this notice was sent to the property owner’s last address of record, we did not receive any response within 30 days. The letter was returned with a label indicating the recipient no longer lives at that address. As such, adequate notice has been given to the property owner, but the nuisance has not yet been abated.

At the April 2, 2024 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-025 declaring the tree a Public Nuisance and setting a Public Hearing on May 7, 2024 as a time for hearing objections to the abatement of the Public Nuisance.

The May 7th Public Hearing has been duly noticed in the “Carmel Pine Cone” by the City Clerk. The City Forester also posted “Notices to Abate Public Nuisance” on the property no less than 5 days prior to this Pubic Hearing. Following the opportunity for public comments, Council may authorize the City Forester to abate the nuisance by having the dead tree removed. The stump will remain on the private property.

Staff will keep an account of all actual costs of abatement and submit an itemized statement to the City Council for approval. The statement shall also be sent to the property owner. Following any public comments or objections, Council may raise, lower, or accept the amount of abatement cost, and the determination of Council shall be final. The amount for abatement must be reimbursed by the private property owner, or if not, the amount will be levied against the property via the Assessor per CMC

17.48.130.

Environmental Evaluation
This action does not constitute a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act under Public Resources Code Section 21065. It has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and, therefore, does not require environmental review.

FISCAL IMPACT:

All expenses incurred from the removal and cleanup of the nuisance tree will be at the property owner's expense.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

At the April 2, 2024 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-025 declaring the tree a Public Nuisance and setting a Public Hearing on May 7, 2024 as a time for hearing objections to the abatement of the Public Nuisance.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment #1 - Resolution 2024-038

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-038

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF A DECLARED PUBLIC NUISANCE, A PRIVATELYOWNED MONTEREY PINE TREE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF

CASANOVA STREET AND ELEVENTH AVENUE
WHEREAS, Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) 17.48.130 indicates trees, shrubs, and other plants growing on private property may be declared a nuisance by the City Forester if the plants are infested, diseased, dead, or present any danger to persons or property; and WHEREAS, a dead Monterey pine tree on the private property, located at the southeast corner of Casanova Street and Eleventh Avenue, has been identified by the City Forester to be unsafe and a public nuisance; and
WHEREAS, without a response from the property owner to remove the dead Monterey pine, following a Public Hearing on April 2, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-025, declaring the tree to be a Public Nuisance; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Public Nuisance declaration, Council established a subsequent Public Hearing date of May 7, 2024 to provide an opportunity for any public objections to the tree’s removal; and
WHEREAS, per CMC 17.48.130, the City Forester posted a notice to abate the Public Nuisance on the property no less than five days prior to the Public Hearing, and the Public Hearing was duly noticed by the City Clerk.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-THE-SEA DOES HEREBY:
1) Overrule any public objections to the removal of the declared Public Nuisance. 2) Authorize the City Forester to remove the dead Monterey pine tree located on the Southeast corner of Casanova and Eleventh Avenue.
3) Establish a Public Hearing on June 4, 2024 to review and determine the final cost of removal and levy an assessment on the private property, if necessary, to recover the final cost to the City.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 7th day of May, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_______________________________ ______________________________ Dave Potter, Mayor Nova Romero, MMC, City Clerk
Attachment 1

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
May 7, 2024

PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Katherine Wallace, Associate Planner
APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT:

PERM EN 23-272 (De Caussin): Consideration of a Permanent Encroachment Permit application, PERM EN 23-272 (De Caussin), for existing encroachments in the public right-of-way, fronting a single-family residence located on Carmelo Street 2 northeast of 8th Avenue. APN 010-265-010-000.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) denying a Permanent Encroachment Application (PERM EN 23-272, De Caussin) for extant unpermitted encroachments in the City right-of-way adjacent to the subject residence, located at Carmelo Street 2 northeast of 8th Avenue, APN: 010-265-010.

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

On August 9, 2023, the Planning Commission considered a Track 2 Design Study application (DS 23-019, De Caussin) and approved a new two-story addition to a single-family residence located at Carmelo Street 2 northeast of 8
th Avenue. Resolution No. 2023-040-PC contained a number of standard and special Conditions of Approval, one of which addressed the existing unpermitted encroachments located in the City right-of-way adjacent to the property. The unpermitted encroachments include 110 square feet of sealed decomposed granite paving; 47 square feet of mortared river rock planter bed edging; and 12 square feet of stone walkway/landing with fan-shaped brick edging; (Attachment 2, Site Photographs, and Attachment 3, Site Plan). Condition of Approval #31 of Resolution 2023-040-PC read as follows:

Right of Way. The applicant shall submit a permanent encroachment application for any encroachments that meet the standards outlined in CMC 12.08.060 (Encroachment Application Review Standards) and obtain a permanent encroachment permit and insurance prior to issuance of a building permit. Alternatively, the applicant shall revise the plans to indicate unpermitted encroachments will be removed. All unpermitted encroachments shall be removed by the time of Final Inspection.

The associated Building Permit (BP 23-519, De Caussin), was approved on February 26, 2024 and issued on March 29, 2024. The Track 2 project has not yet been finaled by the Building Division.

In addition to the unpermitted extant encroachments (sealed decomposed granite paving; mortared river rock planter bed edging; stone walkway/landing with fan-shaped brick edging) there are extant “stones placed in a manner forming a curbing/planter” as well as 10.75 linear feet of mortared stone garden wall previously authorized by the City Council in 2004.

Staff identified both the unpermitted and authorized encroachments during a Preliminary Site Assessment (PSA 22-372, De Caussin) that preceded Design Study 23-019, De Caussin. In the course of compiling the Preliminary Site Assessment, staff review of the digitized property file revealed that in August 3, 2004, the City Council authorized the following encroachments, as identified in a letter dated April 8, 2004, from Building Official Timothy Meroney to then-property owner Charlotte Marchiando (Attachment 4, 2004 Encroachment Authorization):

1. Stones placed in a manner forming a curbing/planter.

2. Stepping stones placed flat along the front of the planter.

3. Landscape lighting fixtures. (Ordered removed by City Council).

4. Plants/shrubs carved in the shape of animals.

5. Statues and/or birdhouse structures standing approximately 24” tall.

While most of the features approved in 2004 either were never installed, no longer exist, or (in the case of the plants/shrubs) do not require an encroachment permit, the “stones placed in a manner forming a curbing/planter” are extant and thus are considered legal non-conforming. Additionally, a 2004 photograph indicates the stone garden wall was also in place in 2004 and presumably included in the encroachment authorization, even though it wasn’t explicitly referenced in the code compliance letter. However, there are additional extant encroachments not described in the April 8, 2004 letter that appear to have exceeded the scope of the 2004 authorization. These include the flagstone and brick step landing, the small crushed rock border around the planters, and the sealed decomposed granite parking area.

Because there are extant unpermitted encroachments, CoA #31 was included in Resolution No. 2023-040- PC in accordance with CMC 12.08.125, Nonconforming Existing Encroachments. CMC 12.08.125.A states: At the transfer of property ownership or the issuance of a building permit, the Building Official shall inspect the public right-of-way adjacent to the affected private property. He/she shall require the abatement of any nonconforming encroachments or the property owner may submit an application for an encroachment permit that will be processed in accordance with CMC 12.08.050. As part of the PSA report, staff informed the applicant of the unpermitted existing encroachments. The topic was also raised during the Design Study review process. While the city’s practice of performing property inspections at the transfer of property ownership ceased in 1984 (Ordinance 84-13), the Community Planning and Building Department regularly performs site inspections as part of project reviews and requires the abatements of non-conforming encroachments as a Condition of Approval associated with the project.

The current property owners wish to maintain all existing encroachments. The request for the encroachment has been referred to the City Council in accordance with CMC 12.08.050.D, which states: If the proposed encroachment does not conform to these standards (CMC 12.08.060), or it is the opinion of the City Administrator that the nature of the encroachment is contrary to the public interest or should be referred to the City Council for determination. It has been identified that the proposed encroachment does not conform to the standards below.

STAFF ANALYSIS
CMC 12.08.050 outlines the process for which encroachment permits are reviewed. Encroachment permits may be approved by the City Administrator if the request conforms with the standards outlined in CMC

12.08.060, however, the City Administrator also reserves the right to refer any application to the City Council for consideration if the nature of the application is contrary to the public interested, or should be referred to the City Council for determination.

CMC 12.08.060 - Encroachment Application Review Standards.

A. Need. The applicant shall be determined to have a justifiable need for the encroachment, and the encroachment shall not be contrary to the public interest.

Staff Analysis: The applicant has not provided a justifiable need for the encroachment. The subject property accommodates on-site parking. Paving (included sealed decomposed granite) and other above ground encroachments are expressly prohibited (CMC 17.34.070.B.4) – refer to section F, below.

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

Staff Analysis: The proposed encroachment does not appear to create a hazard to public health or safety.

C. Drainage. The proposed encroachment shall not adversely affect the normal drainage of surface water, unless an acceptable mitigation is included that will be advantageous to the general public and meet the standards herein.

Staff Analysis: The encroachments adversely affect the normal drainage of surface water, as sealed decomposed granite and mortared stone and brick are impermeable surfaces.

D. Circulation and Parking.
a. The proposed encroachment shall not adversely affect vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic nor the parking of vehicles.
b. The proposed encroachment shall not adversely impact existing rights-of-way nor preclude or make difficult the establishment or improvement of existing or potential streets or pedestrian ways.

Staff Analysis: While the sealed decomposed granite area is used for the parking of vehicles, there may be an unintended consequence of maintaining the appearance of a private parking space which would adversely affect the use of the right-of-way by pedestrians and use of the right-of-way for parking of vehicles by the public.

E. Public Use and Enjoyment.
a. The proposed encroachment shall not diminish public use or enjoyment, either visual or physical, of the City property or public right-of-way to be encroached upon. b. The encroachment and enjoyment shall be in the public interest. c. The length of time an encroachment has existed shall not by itself prejudice a decision.

Staff Analysis: Refer to staff analysis in Section D, above. The use of the right-of-way shall be a public benefit and encroachments shall not diminish enjoyment of the right-of-way either visual or physical.

Similarly, the City has adopted clear standards that guide the treatment of the right-of-way that are described and adopted in the General Plan, zoning code, and Residential Design Guidelines. The proposed encroachment is contrary to the policy direction, design objectives, and standards of the zoning code.

F. Compatibility.
a. The proposed encroachment and its mitigation shall be consistent with the General Plan and the adopted ordinances of the City. Particular attention shall be given to Section [P2-3] of the General Plan, which prohibits the construction of sidewalks and concrete curbs in the R-1 district, unless necessary for drainage and/or pedestrian safety. b. The encroachment shall not create, extend, or be reasonably likely to lead to an undesirable land use precedent.
c. Granting of a permit shall not adversely affect the usability or enjoyment of one or more adjoining parcels.
d. The proposed encroachment and its mitigation shall be compatible with the surrounding area and adjoining properties.

Staff Analysis: The City has adopted clear standards that guide the treatment of the right-of-way that are described and adopted in the General Plan, zoning code, and Residential Design Guidelines.

The proposed encroachment is contrary to the policy direction, design objectives, and standards of the zoning code. Allowing for a paved parking space, or other paved area within the right-of-way, could lead to an undesirable land use precedent. Relevant General Plan Policies, Ordinances, and Design Guidelines are described below:

General Plan/Land Use Plan
P1-43 Maintain and enhance the informal, vegetated, open space character of the City’s rights-of-way. Trees in the rights-of-way shall not be removed to provide parking. With the exception of driveways, installation of new paving in the rights-of-way by private property owners is prohibited. (LUP)
P2-3 Prohibit the construction of formal sidewalks and concrete curbs in the R-l district.

Allow informal pedestrian paths and drainage improvements where needed. Control other construction (e.g., retaining walls, pavement, etc.) in the City’s public rights-of-way. (LUP) CMC 17.34.070.B. Public Right-of-Way in the R-1 District.

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

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

3. Landscaping should consist of leafy ground covers, low shrubs and/or trees of the urbanized forest. Natural dirt rights-of-way with pine needles is also permitted.

Parking spaces may be defined in the unpaved right-of-way with landscaping.

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

Residential Design Guidelines
· 1.5 Maintain and enhance the informal, vegetated, open space character of the right-of-way
o Use simple planting plans when right-of-way landscaping is proposed. o Emphasize native plants
o Do not add paving or boulders to the right-of-way.
· 1.7. Where a parking area in the right of way is to be defined, use a design that will reinforce the forest image.
o Natural Soil, shredded bark and wood chips are preferred surface materials.

Gravel is prohibited.
o Separate an existing parking space in the right-of-way from any driveway with plantings.
o Only the city is authorized to add paving or boulders in the public right-of-way, except in the cases of driveways and authorized encroachments. · 2.2 Maintain existing patterns of street edge design and street paving o Avoid adding new pavement at the edge that would widen the street or create a parking space.
o Maintain an informal unpaved and/or landscaped edge where it exists.

G. Public Property/Greenbelt.
a. The proposed encroachment shall not adversely affect any public property, including existing vegetation or its root structure, and shall not significantly reduce greenbelt area that may be used for tree planting.
b. Significant trees which would be affected by the proposed encroachment shall be identified by the Director of Forest, Parks and Beach and approval for removal shall follow City policy.

Staff Analysis: The General Plan describes the right-of-way as an important open space resource that contributes to the city’s parklike environment. As described in the General Plan:

The city of Carmel has nine formally designated park, open space, and recreational areas as well as the Rio Park, which is located outside of the City limits, but is owned by the City. The parks and open space amount to over 68 acres of land. In addition, the City has approximately 67 acres of other areas that can be considered an important open space resource, but are not available for the traditional park and recreation use. Unimproved Right of Way, otherwise known as a linear greenbelt, as well as miniature parks are examples of such resources. (Open Space and Conservation Element, Page 7-6)
The General Plan further defines the greenbelt area as:

An unimproved right-of-way (ROW), where roadway width is reduced and a certain percentage of the ROW is dedicated to self-sufficient landscaping. Linear greenbelt landscaping might include shrubbery, decorative rocks, occasional benches, and trees that may also act as traffic calming features. Management of these areas is limited.

Approval of the subject encroachments would preclude the ability to enhance the public rightof-way –Residential Design Guideline 1.5 states: Maintain and enhance the informal, vegetated, open space character of the right-of-way. Paving the right-of-way precludes the ability to establish, enhance, and provide for future landscaping.

H. Mitigation. When deemed appropriate by the City, the applicant shall include those measures appropriate to compensate the City for the loss of the use of City property or the public right-of-way, or to repair damage thereto.

Staff Analysis: As staff has recommended denial of the encroachment, mitigation has not been proposed. If the City Council is inclined to grant the encroachment, or a similar encroachment, mitigation may be considered to compensate the city for the loss of the use of the city’s property or the public right-of-way.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the denial of the encroachment permit. The property owner is responsible for the removal of unpermitted encroachments per CoA #31 of Resolution 2023-040-PC.

Alternatively, the Council may consider CMC 12.08.125.B, below.

CMC 12.08.125.B. City staff may cooperate with the property owner to help remove and dispose of asphalt that has not been authorized by the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the denial of the encroachment permit. The property owner is responsible for the removal of unpermitted encroachments per CoA #31 of Resolution 2023-040-PC.

Alternatively, the Council may consider CMC 12.08.125.B, below.

CMC 12.08.125.B. City staff may cooperate with the property owner to help remove and dispose of asphalt that has not been authorized by the City.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

On August 3, 2004, the City Council approved a permit for encroachments in the City right-of-way (see Attachment 4), which have since exceeded the scope of the 2004 permit.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Resolution 2024-037
Attachment 2 - Site Photographs
Attachment 3 - Site Plan
Attachment 4 - 2004 Encroachment Permit

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-037

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DENYING A PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT APPLICATION (PERM EN 23-272, DE CAUSSIN) FOR ENCROACHMENTS IN THE RIGHTOF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT CARMELO STREET 2 NORTHEAST OF 8TH AVENUE, APN: 010-265-010.

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2023, Amy Denney, (“Applicant”) submitted an application on behalf of Myrtle De Caussin (“Owner”) requesting approval of a Permanent Encroachment Permit application PERM EN 23-272 (De Caussin) described herein as (“Application”); and WHEREAS, the Application has been submitted for the property located on Carmelo Street 2 northeast of 8th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is proposing to maintain extant unpermitted encroachments, specifically 110 square feet of sealed decomposed granite paving; 47 square feet of mortared river rock planter bed edging; and 12 square feet of stone walkway/landing with fan-shaped brick edging; and WHEREAS, these encroachments would be in addition to encroachments previously authorized by the City Council on August 4, 2004, including but not limited to stones placed in a manner forming a curbing/planter and a stone garden wall; and
WHEREAS, the application has been referred to the City Council in accordance with CMC

12.08.050.D, which states: If the proposed encroachment does not conform to these standards (CMC

12.08.060), or it is the opinion of the City Administrator that the nature of the encroachment is contrary to the public interest or should be referred to the City Council for determination; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2024, a notice of the public hearing scheduled for May 7, 2024, was published in the Carmel Pine Cone in compliance with State law (California Government Code 65091) and mailed to owners of real property within a 300-foot radius of the project indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on or before April 27, 2024, the Applicant posted the public notice on the project site and hand-delivered a copy of the public notice to each property within a 100-foot radius of the project site indicating the date and time of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony regarding the Encroachment Permit, including without limitation, information provided to the City Council by City staff and through public testimony on the conceptual design of the project; and WHEREAS, this Resolution and its findings are made based upon evidence presented to the Council at the hearing including, without limitation, the staff report and attachments submitted by the Community Planning and Building Department; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, attachments, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgement to evaluate the project; and
Attachment 1
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”), together with State Guidelines (14 California Code Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”) and City Environmental Regulations (CMC 17.60) require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, according to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA guidelines, and local environmental regulations, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.; and
WHEREAS, the facts set forth in the recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding Encroachment Permit Application EN 23-272 (De Caussin):
1) There is no justifiable need for the encroachment;
2) The encroachment is contrary to public interest;
3) The encroachment may impact the public’s right to access the right-of-way; 4) The encroachment is incompatible with the policies, ordinances, and design guidelines for the treatment of the right-of-way; and
5) The encroachment would diminish the ability to enhance and improve the public greenbelt.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby DENY a Permanent Encroachment Application (PERM EN 23-272, De Caussin) for encroachments in the right-of-way adjacent to the subject residence, located at Carmelo Street 2 northeast of 8th Avenue, APN: 010-265-010.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 7
th day of May, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Dave Potter Nova Romero
Mayor City Clerk
Attachment 1
2004
2004
Attachment 2
2008
2011
Attachment 2
2016
2018
Current condition
Attachment 2

DE CAUSSIN RESIDENCE
Carmelo St. 2NE of 8th Ave.

Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
APN: 010-265-010

PARTIAL SITE PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
Attachment 3
Previous (Undated) photograph of right-of-way.

1. ExisƟng mortared stone garden wall (not shown, hidden by the plants).

2. ExisƟng glued DG walkway/parking area (previously dirt).

3. ExisƟng mortared river rock edging (previously steppingstones).

4. ExisƟng fan shaped landing with brick edging (previously steppingstones and brick edging).

Existing right-of-way encroachments.
2 3  2 4
4 3
Attachment 3
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Community Planning and Building
Building Services Division
and Office of Code Enforcement
(Office Hours of the Building Official; 8-9am M-F)

POST OFFICE DRAWER G
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
(831) 620-2010 OFFICE
(831) 620-2014 FAX
April 8, 2004
Charlotte J. Marchiando
P.O. Box 7596
Carmel, CA 93921
RE: E/S Carmelo between 7th and 8th
Block N, Lot 16, APN 10-265-10
Dear Ms. Marchiando,
A recent inspection of the property noted above revealsthat numerous items have been placed at the front of the site within the public right-of-way. This has been done without the required approval of the City of Carmel. The itemsI speak of are as follows:

1. Stones placed in a manner forming a curbing/planter.

2. Stepping-stones placed flat along the front of the planter.

3. Landscape lighting fixtures.

4. Plants/shrubs carved in the shape of animals.

5. Statues and/or birdhouse structures standing approximately 24" tall.

This situation constitutes a violation of the Carmel Municipal Code since no Encroachment Permit has been granted by the City Council for this work.

Therefore, please remove all of the aforementioned items from City property as soon as possible but no later than April 26, 2004 to avoid further enforcement action. Upon removal, you may apply for approval from the City Council through the Encroachment Permit process. I have enclosed an application for your convenience.

I wish to resolve this matter amicably and seek your immediate cooperation. Should you have any questions please contact this office.

Sincerely,
Timothy J. Meroney
Building Official/Manager
Code Compliance Coordinator
Cc: Brian Roseth, Principle Planner
Rich Guillen, City Administrator
+/24104 MET w/OWNER; App, By 5/15/04 For CC Few IM
(
MALE
Attachment 4

CARMELO ZUE /
874
ROW

STORIE WAS, LITES,

CARVED NARITS, STATUES
Attachment 4

CITY HALL
BOX CC
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA 93921
. August 4, 2004
Charlotte J. Marchiando
Post Office Box 7596
Carmel, CA 93921
Re: . Encroachment application
Dear Ms. Marchiando:

At its regular meeting of August 3, 2004, the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-theSea approved your encroachment application with the condition that the lighting be removed as soon as possible. Please contact Building Official Meroney at 620-2010 at your earliest convenience to complete the permit process.

If you need any further information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 831-620-2000.

Sincerely,
Koven Crouch
Karen Crouch
City Clerk
C: Tim Meroney, Building Official
Attachment 4
WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO:

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
BOX CC
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CA 93921

THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY

HOLD HARMLESS ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this__day of Play _, 2005, between the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, hereinafter called CITY, and
hereinafter called OWNER, with reference to the following facts:

OWNER is in possession of and owns certain real property in CITY known as Block / Lot(s)_/L Assessor's Parcel No. 10 - 244- 10 , Zoning District Per , street location
OWNER has requested from CITY permission to construct and maintain a structural encroachment on CITY street orsidewalk area adjacent to or near the property, described asfollows:

As existing Rechether of 4-8-04
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, agree as follows:

1. CITY grants permission to OWNER to construct and maintain a structural encroachment on CITY street or sidewalk area adjacent to or near OWNER'S property, as described above. Said permission is subject to the following conditions:
a. Execution of this Hold Harmless Agreement and compliance with the provisions of paragraph 3 below.
b.

2. OWNER, his successors and assigns, agrees to name CITY an additional insured and to hold CITY harmlessfrom any and all claims, actions and demands of third parties of any kind, character and description arising out of or due to any accident or mishap in, on, or aboutsaid structural encroachment so constructed or so maintained or any error or omission resulting in personal injury or property damage.
3 . OWNER agreesto provide CITY and maintain a certificate of insurance from an insurance carrier acceptable to CITY certifying that OWNER has public liability and property damage insurance with limits of not less than $500,000 combined single limit for personal injury and/or property damage for property located in the R-1 zoning district and limits of not less than $1,000,000 Rev. 3/02
Attachment 4
for property located in all other zoning districts. The certificate must indicate this insurance is primary over any other valid or collectible insurance CITY may have, insures owner's performance of this Hold Harmless Agreement and that the Carrier will notify CITY in the event of any material change in the policy, including the nonrenewal thereof. Said Certificate of Insurance must name CITY, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees as additional insured insofar asthe insurance pertains to this encroachment. Owner further agreesto maintain said insurance as long as said encroachment remains on CITY property.

In the event of cancellation or nonrenewal, the insurance company will give thirty (30) days' written notice to CITY. The Certificate must be signed by an authorized employee of the insurance carrier and mailed to : City Clerk, Carmel-by-the-Sea, P. O. Box CC, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921.

4. CITY may terminate and revoke this Agreement at any time that it is determined by the City Council to be in the best interests of City and necessary to promote the public health, safety or welfare. Any expense caused to OWNER, his successors or assigns, by termination of this Agreement shall be borne by OWNER, hissuccessors or assigns.
5 . The parties agree that this contract isfor the direct benefit of the land in that it makes the property more usable and increases its value, as such, agree that the covenants herein shall run with the land, and the parties agree that the covenants shall bind the successors and assigns of OWNER.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA: OWNER(S):

Charlotte Je marchiends
By: Richard Guillen, City Administrator
ATTEST:

Karen Crouch, City Clerk

CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of Monterey SS.

On may I 2004, before me, Linda Harvey ,
Notary Public,
personally appeared CHARLOTTEJ.MARCHIANDO, personally known to me or_ proved to me on the basis ofsatisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledgment to he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

WITNESS my hand and official seal:

LINDA HARVEY Jude Vanwey
Comm #1336726 Signature of Notary
Notary Public-California
@
A
IC
I
Rev. 3/02 Monterey County
My Comm. Exp. Dec 29, 2005
Attachment 4

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
May 7, 2024

PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Evan Kort, Associate Planner
APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT:

Consideration of a Permanent Encroachment Permit application, PERM EN 23-242 (Maxcy-Levy) for the installation of pavers in the public right-of-way fronting a singlefamily residence located at Camino Real 3 northwest of 8th Avenue (APN: 010-265- 005) - Recommended for continuance to August 6, 2024
RECOMMENDATION:

Recommended for continuance to August 6, 2024.

BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:

FISCAL IMPACT:

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION:

ATTACHMENTS: