Per Capita Comparison: ARE CARMELITES GETTING THEIR MONEY'S WORTH?

CITY---------------POPULATION--------GEN. FUND 05/06---------PER CAPITA

Carmel-by-the-Sea----4,038-----------$11,931,765-------------$2,954.87

Monterey-------------30,161------------$46,600,000------------$1,545.04

Pacific Grove--------15,305------------$14,400,000-------------$ 940.87

Marina----------------18,824------------$10,100,000-------------$ 536.55

Seaside--------------34,454------------$16,200,000-------------$ 470.19


ARE CARMELITES GETTING THEIR MONEY’S WORTH?

Per Capita, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea spends twice as much as the city of Monterey, three times as much as the city of Pacific Grove, and six times as much as the cities of Marina and Seaside. Yet,...

• Our infrastructure, particularly our streets, are in deplorable condition.

• Our cultural assets, namely the Forest Theater, Scout House and the Flanders Mansion, have been historically underfunded leading the current City Council to solve this problem by voting to sell Flanders Mansion and evict tenants from the Scout House.

• No permanent restroom facility at Scenic Road & Santa Lucia Avenue.

• Harrison Memorial Library Hours only 40 hours/week, Closed on Sundays;
Park Branch Hours only 28 hours/week, Closed on Saturdays & Sundays.
Note: Monterey Public Library Hours 56 hours/week, Seaside Branch of the Monterey County Free Libraries Hours 54 hours/week and Pacific Grove Public Library Hours 52 hours/week.

• Under the current City Council, city employees of the Police Department and LIUNA Local 270 have worked for years at a time without a city contract leading to poor morale, etc.

More MISINFORMATION From City Administrator

A new community development department would be "kind of a super department" encompassing the community planning and building, building maintenance, public works, and forest, parks and beach departments, according to Guillen's plan. One person would run the entire agency, similar to those in other Peninsula cities,but the proposed budget contains no money for that job.
(Source: "Budget calls for promotions, new job, more tourism $," Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, May 26, 2006.)

•In the city of Monterey, the City Manager is responsible for coordinating all 8 departments.
•Community Development Director (Building & Safety Inspection, Economic Development, Housing & Property Management, Planning)
•Public Works Director (Construction, Engineering, Forestry, Maintenance, Parks & Traffic)
(Source: http://www.monterey.org/)

•In the city of Pacific Grove, the City Manager is the professional manager of the City.
•Community Development Director (Building, Housing & Planning Divisions)
•Public Works Director/City Engineer (Building & Grounds, Forestry Division, Sewer Division & Streets Division)
(Source: http://www.ci.pg.ca.us/)

•In the city of Seaside, the City Manager oversees the operation of all city departments.
•Community Development Department Head (Planning & Building)
•Public Works Department Head (Engineering, Parks, Streets, Sanitation & Water)
(Source: http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/)

•In the city of Marina, the City Manager coordinates the activities of all the departments.
•Development Services Director (Economic & Community Development)
•Planning Director
•Public Works Director (incl. Building Department)
(Source: http://www.ci.marina.ca.us/)

•In the city of Sand City, the City Administrator acts as the chief administrative officer of the city.
•Community Development Director (Planning & Building)
•Public Works/City Engineer (Contract Service)
(Source: http://www.sandcity.org/)


Therefore, contrary to the claim by City Administrator Rich Guillen that other Peninsula cities have one person responsible for community planning and building, building maintenance, public works, and forest, parks and beach, the Peninsula cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove, Seaside, Marina and Sand City have at least two Directors and at least two Departments for these responsibilities.

Recall Mr. Guillen's pronouncement that cities have a similar percentage of their annual budget in reserves compared to Carmel-by-the-Sea; that is, he stated some time ago that cities have 70%-80% of their annual budget in reserves, similar to Carmel-by-the-Sea. Again, contrary to Guillen's claim, most cities have between 10-15% of their annual budget in reserve funds.

Instead of creating a new "super department" without proposed funding, why doesn't Mr. Guillen act similarly to all the other Peninsula city's City Managers/Administrator and professionally coordinate the operations of the existing Carmel-by-the-Sea city departments?

IN HONOR

World War I Memorial Arch (Ocean Av. & San Carlos St. Median)

In remembrance of all United States Armed Forces members killed in war on this Memorial Day 2006. 

Precedents Lost Over Calendar Girl's Glee

While the local media have reported that Mayor Sue McCloud ("the City") will accept the Carmel Fire Belles check for Carmel Fire Station maintenance and improvements at the Forest Theater Guild's presentation of the film "Calendar Girls" on May 23 at the Forest Theater, in reality, Mayor McCloud does not have the legal authority to accept the monetary gift and will not have the legal authority to accept the gift until the City Council formally votes to accept the gift at a City Council meeting. And while Mary Pankonin, a Carmel Calendar Girl, does not "want to go over past history," Mayor McCloud's actions set disturbing precedents, including:

• A mayor speaking for a City Council when she does not have that legal authority.

• A mayor unilaterally acting against the advice of the City Attorney.

A de facto dictatorship made all the more palatable by a “pleasant and desired outcome?”

In closing, it is well worth remembering the City's Response to the Grand Jury Finding 7, as follows:

Finding 7: Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest.

Response 7: The City generally agrees with this Finding; however, it is important to note that the purpose of public meetings is to do the business of the city and the public, in public...Mayors have only one vote on matters coming before the City Council,...The purpose of doing the public’s business in public is to assure that decisions being made by an elected or appointed body are visible to the public.

Signed by Mayor Sue McCloud

ONE MONTH FROM NOW...JUNE 22, 2006 9:00 A.M.

 

NOTE: BLUE BOX denoting FLANDERS MANSION is wholly within MISSION TRAIL NATURE PRESERVE...de facto PARKLAND and soon to be proclaimed de jure PARKLAND with an accompanying verdict calling for a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE!! 


Case No: M76728

Caption: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel By the Sea, et al

Name: City Council of the City of Carmel

Court Date: 6/22/2006

Time: 9:00:00 AM

Courtroom: Courtroom 14

Court Event Description: Writ of Mandate Hearing

UPDATE: Appeals of Historic Inventory Resources

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea,
Record of Inventory of Historic Resources Appeals

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD

MEMBERS:
Julie Wendt, Chairperson
Paul Coss
Erik Dyar
Kay Holz
Erling Lagerholm


APPEALS: Considerations of Historic appeals of the City's determination to place existing residences on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Single Family Residential R-1 District. (unless otherwise noted)

TOTAL NUMBER OF APPEALS, as of April 2006: 25
APPEALS GRANTED: 11 (Including 1 by City Council, overturning HRB)
APPEALS DENIED: 11
APPEALS CONTINUED: 4
APPEALS NOT HEARD: 1

ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD 17 APRIL 2006 AGENDA

Patrick Paw & Caroline Wong
N.E. Corner Casanova & 10th Av.
Resource Name: Fraser Hancock House
APPEAL DENIED
AYES: DYAR, COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE

Shatzi H. Joy
N.E. corner Casanova & 9th Av.
Resource Name: Herron Cottage & Tree House
APPEAL DENIED
AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE

Margaret Suzuki
E/s San Carlos St. between 11th Av. and 12th Av.
Resource Name: Joseph Catherwood Cottage
APPEAL GRANTED
AYES: COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM WENDT
NOES: DYAR

Peter Taormina
E/s Guadalupe St. between 5th Av. and 6th Av.
Resource Name: Allen Knight House
APPEAL GRANTED
AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE

Diane M. Sena
E/s Lincoln St. between 7th Av. and 8th Av.
Resource Name: Alice Mechenstock House
APPEAL DENIED
AYES: COSS, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: DYAR, LAGERHOLM

Jeffrey & Jennifer Svihus
W/s Junipero Av. between 10th Av. and 11th Av.
Resource Name: Turner House
APPEAL CONTINUED to June 19, 2006


ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MARCH 2006 AGENDA

James & Gail Finnegan
W/s Carmelo bet. 11th Av. & 12th Av.
Resource Name: Mary C. Chapin House
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE

Matthew & Maribeth Aguon
SE Corner Santa Rita & 2nd Av.
Resource Name: Alfred Rico Cottage
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: COSS

Doreen Silva Trust
W/s Carpenter bet. 3rd Av. & 4th Av.
Resource Name: DeSabla Horse Barn
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ, LAGEHOLM
NOES: NONE


ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD FEBRUARY 2006 AGENDA

David & Audrey Hall
W/s Carmelo bet. 11th Av. & 12th Av.
Resource Name: E. P. Young Spec. House
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: COSS, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LAGERHOLM
ABSENT: DYAR
Note: HALL'S APPEAL OF HRB'S DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL ON CITY COUNCIL 2 MAY 2006 AGENDA; APPEAL GRANTED BY CITY COUNCIL


Alfred Johnson
W/s San Antonio bet. Ocean & 4th Av.
Resource Name: Elizabeth McClung White House (Sand & Sea)
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: DYAR

Deborah Storre
NW Corner Lincoln & 8th Av.
Resource Name: J.M. Storrow House
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: COSS, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: HOLZ
ABSENT: DYAR

Joe & Julie Villarreal
N/s 2nd bet. Guadalupe St. & Santa Rita St.
Resource Name: C.D. Osbourne House
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM
NOES: WENDT
ABSENT: DYAR

ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD JANUARY 2006 AGENDA

APPEAL: Consideration of an appeal of the City's issuance of a preliminary Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources for an existing residence in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Appellant: Carmel Preservation Foundation
W/s Lincoln bet. 9th Av. & 10th Av.
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: COSS

APPEAL: Consideration of a Historic Appeal of the City's determination to place an existing structure on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Central Commercial (CC) and Downtown Conservation (DC) Overlay Districts.
Appellant: Doris Rayne Trust
S/s Ocean bet. Lincoln & Dolores
Resource Name: Schweinger Building
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
Note: RAYNE APPEAL OF HRB'S DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2006 AGENDA; AT 4 APRIL 2006 MEETING, IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PULLED THE ITEM.

APPEAL: Consideration of a Historic appeal of the City's determination to place existing residence on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Single Family Residential R-1 District.
Norman & Eleanor Moscow
W/s Camino Real bet. 11th & 12th
Resource Name: Wild Cottage
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LOSS, LAGERHOLM

APPEAL: Consideration of an Historic appeal of the City's determination to place 4 existing residence on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources as an Historic District located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Beach and Riparian Overlay (BR) Districts
Appellant: Kim, Johnson, Liskin
W/s San Antonio bet. Ocean & 4th Av.
APPEAL NOT HEARD DUE TO A POLICY DECISION EARLIER IN THE MEETING TO REMOVE ALL POST-1940 PROPERTIES FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES PENDING COMPLETION OF AN UPDATE OF THE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT.


ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD DECEMBER 2005 AGENDA

Carolyn Ahrens
W/s Carpenter bet. 3rd Av. & 4th Av
Resource Name: Benjamin H. Cory Garage Apartment
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, COSS, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HOLZ

Ruth & Alan Scott
N/s 8th bet. Junipero Av. & Torres St.
Resource Name: George Seideneck House
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, COSS, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HOLZ

Joseph & Susan Raphel
SW San Antonio & 11th Av.
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: COSS
ABSENT: HOLZ


ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD NOVEMBER 2005 AGENDA

William & Mildren Daniel
N/s 13th bet. San Antonio & Carmelo
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS

Elaine Larkin
S/s Mt. View Av. bet. Santa Rita St. & Santa Fe St.
Resource Name: "The Press in the Forest"
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS

William Doolitttle
E/s Casanova bet. 7th Av. & 8th Av.
Resource Name: Daniel T. Fisk House
APPEAL CONTINUED FOR 90 DAYS; YET NOT ON HRB'S FEBRUARY, MARCH, APRIL 2006 AGENDAS.

Eldana Eggleston
W/s Camino Real bet. 7th Av. & 8th Av.
Resource Name: Dr. Amelia Gates Cottage
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LAGERHOLM
ABSENT: COSS


ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD OCTOBER 2005 AGENDA

APPEAL: Consideration of an Historic Appeal of the City's determination to place an existing structure on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Central Commercial (CC) and Downtown Conservation (DC) Overlay Districts.
Appellant: Paul Laub
N.E. Corner Dolores St. & Ocean Av.
Resource Name: Bank of Carmel
APPEAL CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF APPELLANT.

An Open Letter

An Open Letter to Principal Planner Brian Roseth & Associate Planner Sean Conroy:

I, on behalf on the residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea, respectfully request your attention to the following matters.

1. While the Historic Resources Board’s 15 May 2006 meeting was canceled, their agenda did not have the reconsideration of their 23 January 2006 decision to remove 43 post-1940 historic properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources. Since the City Council, at their 2 May 2006 meeting, voted to remand this item back to the Historic Resources Board with direction to reverse their decision and reinstate the 43 post-1940 historic properties, WHY wasn’t this item on the Historic Resources Board’s 15 May 2006 agenda? Will this item be placed on the Historic Resources Board’s next agenda? If not, why not?

2. Will you, acting in good faith, schedule a Mills Act Workshop in the near future? Since the City Council, at their December 2005 meeting, continued a Mills Act contract agenda item citing the need for a Mills Act Workshop to educate themselves and the public prior to the City Council approving any Mills Act contracts, WHY have 5 months elapsed without a Mills Act Workshop?

3. As Principal Planner and Associate Planner, do you understand that DPR 523 Forms submitted to the California Coastal Commission during the Local Coastal Program certification process denote historic properties on the Inventory of Historic Resources regardless of whether the City later omits these historic properties from a City-generated Inventory list or removes DPR 523 Forms from binders?
Case In Point: An examination of the DPR 523 Forms at City Hall included a DPR 523 Form on the Scout House. Yet the City-generated Inventory list omits the Scout House. Days later, after this discrepancy was brought to your attention, the Scout House DPR 523 Form disappeared from the binder. WHY was the Scout House DPR 523 Form removed from the binder?

I sincerely hope that you will respond in a spirit of accountability to the citizens you serve, rather that out of fear of reprisal from a dictatorial and vindictive mayor.

Oblivious to Reality

In a recent Monterey County Herald Letter to the Editor, Burr Schinner of Carmel wrote that as an “outsider” he hopes the “good people of Pacific Grove will hold their elected officials to a higher standard” given his opinion that the Pacific Grove City Council has become “the laughingstock of Monterey County.”

While it is unclear from Mr. Schinner’s letter whether his opinion of the Pacific Grove City Council is based on his attending their City Council meetings, listening to their meetings on T.V. or reading about them in The Monterey County Herald, it is puzzling that Mr. Schinner of “Carmel” would castigate the Pacific Grove City Council when there is a plethora of evidence to suggest that the people of Carmel-by-the-Sea should hold their elected officials to a higher standard.

In their so-called reporting, The Monterey County Herald has a long record under Publisher Jayne Speizer and Executive Editor Carolina Garcia of catering to Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor Sue McCloud and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea by censuring negative news about the City and hyping ordinary news.

Examples include:

• No coverage in over 2 years of the Police Officers and LIUNA Local 270 working without a contract. LIUNA Local 270 and the Police Officer Associations became so frustrated with the City’s bad faith negotiations last contract time that they published an ad in The Carmel Pine Cone explaining their frustration and disgust with the City’s actions in the hope of informing the public.

• No coverage of the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report on Open Government with their focus on the numerous complaints from individuals associated with Carmel-by-the-Sea. And the City Attorney’s submission of a fraudulent letter in response to the Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations.

• Advocacy coverage for the City on the installation of Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. and sale of the Flanders Mansion property. One reporter, in refusing to publish a correction, admitted he was an advocate of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

• Numerous inaccurate articles on Carmel-by-the-Sea, including the City’s propaganda that the proceeds from the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would fund the seismic retrofit of the Carmel Fire Station; age of Mayor McCloud as 63, instead of 71 during pre-election coverage; Flanders Mansion is adjacent to Mission Trail Nature Preserve, instead of located geographically and physically inside the Preserve/Park.

• No coverage on the City Council’s violation of the Local Coastal Program; that is, the City’s removal of 43 post-1940 historic properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources; the City’s refusal to hold a Mills Act Workshop and place on city council agendas Mills Act Contracts for Mills Act Contract applicants; the City’s failure to record Inventory properties with the county; the City’s misuse of methodology for determining historic property status, etc.

As for City Council meetings, it is evident that the Mayor and City Council Members would benefit from training on Robert’s Rules of Order, the Ralph M. Brown Act, etc. Moreover, this City Council’s choice of agenda items, deliberations on items and inconsistent policy-making all qualify the City for “laughingstock” status.

Lastly, if people like Burr Schinner of “Carmel” castigate other cities without first holding their own local elected officials responsible for their conduct, then the danger is obvious; that is, people who believe the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council’s and The Monterey County Herald’s Carmel-by-the-Sea propaganda and spin are oblivious to reality and therefore can never hold their elected officials to a higher standard.

UPDATE: Mr. Hutchings' Quest for MILLS ACT CONTRACT

  

Elizabeth F. Armstrong House #2


At the 2 May 2006 City Council meeting, during Appearances, Mr. David Hutchings addressed the City Council about two concerns.

1. WHEN...will the City Council set a date for The Mills Act Workshop?In December 2005, the City Council continued Mr. Hutchings' agenda item for a Mills Act Contract for his historic residence pending the holding of a Mills Act Workshop to educate the City Council and the public. Additionally, Mr. Hutchings stated that in a conversation with City Administrator Rich Guillen, Guillen told him a workshop could be "set up within a 24 hour period of time."

2. WHY...hasn't the City Council placed on an agenda and held a public hearing on his Mills Act Contract? Mr. Hutchings, referring to Municipal Code 17.32.100 Benefits Available to Historic resources on the Register B. Mills Act Historical Property Contracts. 5. Applications a, asked the City Attorney why the City had not acted on his Mills Act Contract since he had submitted his required materials by June 2005, and as the section states it allows "the City Council to approve and the City Clerk to cause to be recorded approved contracts within the calendar year in which application materials are received. The contract term would begin January 1st of the year following the application." However, because the City Council at their December 2005 meeting continued Mr. Hutchings' Mills Act Contract agenda item pending completion of a Mills Act Workshop, City Attorney Don Freeman stated that the City Council did not have to act of his application until December 31, 2006.

The following verbal exchange between Mr. Hutchings, Mayor McCloud and City Attorney Freeman is telling:

Mayor McCloud: "...then whoever is responsible gets back to you."
Mr. Hutchings: "No one is being responsive to me. And that's really the problem and why I am here today. And it's really nice to say that, with all due respect, but you have to respond. And you're not responding to me."
Mayor McCloud: "We'll get back to you."
City Attorney Freeman: "We'll get back to you."

If, as City Attorney Freeman declared at the meeting, the purpose of continuing Mr. Hutchings' Mills Act Contract agenda item in December 2005 was to hold a Mills Act Workshop to educate the City Council and the public, then why have 5 months elapsed with no commitment by the City to set a date for the Workshop? Mr. Hutchings, and all potential Mills Act Contract applicants, deserve far better treatment from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

BACKDOOR Business Improvement District (BID)???

CONSIDER:

• At the 2 May 2006 City Council meeting, during Public Hearings, the City Council considered the following item: “Consideration of a proposed ballot measure to increase the business license tax to $1.00/$1,000 gross receipts per year.” However, in the City Council’s Agenda Item Summary, prepared by Finance Director Joyce Giuffre, the Description included increasing the business license tax from $0.88/$1,000 gross receipts per year to $1.00/$1,000 gross receipts per year “plus allow for a tax rate escalator for future years based on the San Francisco Consumer Price Index. (CPI).”

• During the public comment period, Maria Murray, past chair of the Carmel Chamber of Commerce and Monta Potter, CEO of Carmel Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the proposed ballot measure.

“...My name is Maria Murray. I’m the immediate past chair of the Carmel Chamber. And for the record, we would like to communicate with you that our Board recently voted to support the increase of the business license. And we fully support it.”

“I’m Monta Potter, the CEO of the Carmel Chamber of Commerce. I want to reiterate what Maria said that the Board had a presentation from Rich and Joyce and did vote to support this. We also asked our membership what they thought through one of our Zoomerang surveys and there was strong support for it because people thought that it wasn’t significant enough to make a difference. Though there were some people opposed to it as you would expect...When the membership voted on this and when the board had the presentation we did not discuss the tax rate escalator. So I think that probably we need to look at that because I don’t know if there would have been as favorable of support if we had talked about it at that time...that was not in our survey or in the Board discussion.”

• Ralph Andersen & Associates Business License Tax Update for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (February 6, 2006)

In their update of their 1996 report, the consultants state that the City’s “Major Five” revenues have remained flat over the years. They argue that Carmel-by-the-Sea will not be at a competitive disadvantage with the institution of an increase in the business license tax from $0.88/$1,000 of gross receipts per year to $1.00/$1,000 of gross receipts per year. As evidence, the consultants cite the base tax and rates of Monterey ($26 base tax, $1.20-$2.40/$1,000 of gross receipts per year) and Pacific Grove ($15 base tax, $1.00/$1,000 of gross receipts per year), for example. However, both Salinas and Marina have no base tax and $0.75-$1.00/$1,000 of gross receipts per year and $0.08-0.625/$1,000 of gross receipts per year, respectively. Most significantly, the more pertinent contextual issue is whether an increase in business license tax makes sense now given the City Council’s and the Carmel Chamber of Commerce’s recent vehement stance against the Transient Occupancy Tax Increase Initiative. The City Council’s and the Carmel Chamber of Commerce’s support of the business license tax increase has the appearance of a possible quid pro quo; that is, the revenue generated by the increase could be used for marketing, a backdoor Business Improvement District, which failed previously.

CITY ADMISSION: "WE'RE...IN VIOLATION OF THE LCP"

UPDATE on the City’s Removal of 43 Properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources, as a Class: WHAT “NEW INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS” AND “THE INTENT WAS NEVER TO TAKE THEM OFF THE LIST?"

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, May 2, 2006

VIII. Public Hearings

B. Consideration of remanding a decision of the Historic Resources Board
that removed properties from the Historic Resources Inventory
developed between 1940 and 1956 with direction to the board to reverse
its decision based on new information and analysis.


The following are remarks made by City Attorney Don Freeman in his presentation/discussion of the above agenda item:

City Attorney Don Freeman: “As the Council may be aware, the City did meet with the Coastal Staff and they asked us just to be consistent with our Local Coastal Plan, that we should reinstate the 43 properties that were removed from the Historic List and as a result of that it would be my recommendation, or staff’s recommendation, that the City Council remand this back to the Historic Preservation Board with the direction that they reinstate the 43 homes that were removed as a group…”

“The actual action that was taken by the HRB was to actually remove these homes from the list and that would be inconsistent with our certified Local Coastal Plan and what we’re recommending is that we direct the HRB to place them back on the list so that we can remain consistent with our legally adopted Local Coastal Plan…”

“The HRB directed that they be taken off of the list, in order for that to be accomplished it would have been necessary for the City to apply for an amendment to the Local Coastal Plan. We didn’t do that. So what I’m recommending is that we place them back on the list until a) the City applies for an amendment to the Local Coastal Plan or in the alternative to allow people the opportunity to appeal their designation or placement on that particular list.”

“The action of the HRB was to take them off of the list. They did not have the legal authority to take them off of the list absent the Coastal Commission approving an amendment to out Local Coastal Plan…so in order to remain consistent with our Local Coastal Plan, what we’re asking the City Council is to direct the HRB to place them back on the list…”

City Councilman Erik Bethel: “So we’re essentially in violation of the LCP.
Don Freeman: “That is correct.”
Bethel: ”..so we need to do this to be in compliance with the law.”
Freeman: “That’s correct.”

City Attorney Don Freeman: “The Board made the decision, and people need to understand the context of how they made that decision was made based upon the fact that for post-1940 homes we did not have a context statement within our Local Coastal Plan and thus, they felt that they were measuring the pre-1940 and the post-1940 against different standards and what they were trying to do was to set the 43 aside until the City had adopted a context statement for the post-1940 homes. The intent was never to take them off the list. It’s unfortunate how the action was written and the action taken. But, be that as it may, the direction we’re asking is that they be reinstated.”

COMMENTS:

• Instead of placing the pending appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s 23 January 2006 decision to remove all post-1940 properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources pending completion of the Historic Context Statement on a City Council agenda, the City Council decided to invent “new information and analysis” in order to justify their action of remanding it to the Historic Resources Board. The only “new information and analysis” is the conversation the City had with the Coastal Commission Staff who informed the City that their action was a violation of the certified Local Coastal Program.

• At the meeting, as shown above, City Attorney Don Freeman stated that “The intent was never to take them off the list. It’s unfortunate how the action was written and the action taken.” That statement is directly contradicted by the record; that is, at the Historic Resources Board 23 January 2006 meeting, (Freeman present), Principal Planner Brain Roseth recommended Option 2, the removal of all post-1940 properties from the Inventory pending completion of the Historic Context Statement. However, also included for the Board’s consideration was Option 1, which stated that the properties would be left on the Inventory and appeals would be heard on a case-by-case basis. Ergo, if the City, as Freeman stated, had no intention of removing them from the list, then the City would have recommended Option 1. A case of dishonesty or amnesia?

Trumanesque Leadership...HELL NO!

President Harry S. Truman, the thirty-third President of the United States, had a sign on his desk in the Oval Office; it read, “"I'm From Missouri,” on one side and "The Buck Stops Here,” on the other side. By placing that sign on his desk, President Truman was stating that he was responsible for ALL decisions made in the Oval Office…ALL of them!

Contrast that character of leadership with Carmel-by-the-Sea’s leadership, or rather lack of leadership….

If Carmelites had accountability in government in Carmel-by-the-Sea…

If the Historic Resources Board Members, Principal Planner Brian Roseth, City Attorney Don Freeman and City Administrator Rich Guillen had as their primary allegiance the residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea, instead of the Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea…

Then…

Historic Resources Board Chairperson Julie Wendt and Historic Resources Board Members Paul Coss, Erik Dyar, Kay Holz, Erling Lagerholm would offer a full explanation for why they unanimously voted to “remove all post-1940 historic properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources pending completion of an update of the Historic Context Statement,” instead of correctly interpreting the Historic Preservation Section of the Local Coastal Program.

Principal Planner Brian Roseth would explain the genesis of the removal of all post 1940 historic properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources; specifically, who ordered him to misinterpret the Local Coastal Program and why did he author the staff report recommending Option #2, the removal of all post-1940 historic properties from the Inventory?

City Attorney Don Freeman would explain why he, present at the meeting on 23 January 2006, addressed questions from the Board and audience, and then allowed the agenda item to be decided by the Historic Resources Board? Especially in light of his recent statement at the 2 May 2006 City Council meeting, the Historic Resources Board “did not have the legal authority to take the buildings off the list.” And he should explain when he concluded that the Historic Resources Board did not have the legal authority, before or after his meeting with the California Coastal Commission staff?

City Administrator Rich Guillen would explain his incompetence on this issue as the manager of the City.

AND Mayor Sue McCloud would explain how it is that she, who incessantly praises herself and her administration for the certification of the Local Coastal Program in November 2004, could be so ignorant of its contents that she allowed this item to be placed on a Historic Resources Board agenda? Furthermore, McCloud should explain whether she initiated the removal of these historic properties herself; that is, did she give policy direction to Principal Planner Brain Roseth to remove properties from the Inventory?

Regardless of whether the Historic Resources Board Members, Principle Planner Brian Roseth, City Attorney Don Freeman, City Administrator Rich Guillen, and Mayor Sue McCloud forthrightly and completely answer these questions, Mayor Sue McCloud has demonstrated a total absence of Trumanesque character---after all, she is, by virtue of her position as mayor, ultimately responsible for this fiasco.

DISTRACT WITH TRIVIA

Unable and/or unwilling to confront the major issues of the City, including:

• A Vision for the City’s Historical and Cultural Assets. Should all the City’s historical and cultural assets be sacrificed in order to maintain the Sunset Center and Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. management of the Sunset Center? Is the Scout House a disposable historical and cultural asset, similar to the City Council’s view of the Flanders Mansion? Should the City Council maximize the potential of all the City’s historical and cultural assets by annually budgeting for their maintenance and improvements?

• Grand Jury Report on Open Government on a Public Hearing Agenda.

• Local Coastal Program Implementation Violations.

• Mills Act Contracts for Homeowners of Historic Inventory Properties.

• Scout House Historic Resource Status, The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance, Maintenance and Improvements.

Mayor McCloud, in dictating the City Council agendas, distracts the public with trivia, compared with the major issues confronting the City, including:


• Business License Tax Increase from $0.88/$1,000 of gross receipts per year to $1.00/$1,000 of gross receipts per year, generating $60,000-$70,000 per year, as estimated by the City’s consultant, Ralph Andersen & Associates.

• Sunset Center and Ocean Avenue Median Landscaping.

• Trial Trolley Service between Carmel-by-the-Sea and Pebble Beach.

• City Flag Design.

Kudos to Enid!

The California Preservation Foundation, California's only statewide non-profit historic preservation organization, honored Enid Sales, Director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation, as "preservationist of the year."

The mission of the California Preservation Foundation is as follows:
"It is the mission of the California Preservation Foundation to ensure that California's rich and diverse historic resources are identified, protected and celebrated for their history and their valuable role in California's economy, environment and quality of life."

Not only has Enid been the driving force in gaining historic designation for individual Carmel-by-the-Sea resources, such as Flanders Mansion, Sunset Center and the Scout House, she has also fought and continues to battle the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for the City's failures in correcting interpreting and implementing the Local Coastal Program.

NOTE: For more information on the Carmel Preservation Foundation, go to http://www.geocities.com/carmelpreservation/

INCONGRUITIES

• City’s $108,000 funding of the Monterey County Visitors & Convention Bureau (“Tourism Improvement District”) for tourism promotion versus City’s “embarrassing” restrooms, primarily for visitors, at Devendorf Park and Del Mar parking lot.

• City Council’s multimillion dollar renovation of Sunset Center versus City Council’s refusal to budget $250,000-$500,000 for Scout House ADA compliance, maintenance and improvements; both City-owned historic and culture assets. (Note: Since the multimillion dollar renovation of Sunset Center did not include Carpenter Hall, it has been suggested that the Scout House be renovated to assume past Carpenter Hall purposes due to its geographic proximity to Sunset Center.)

• Carmel-by-the-Sea residents who use Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch Library near 95% versus Carmel-by-the-Sea residents who attend Sunset Center performances as a percentage of total tickets purchased, 14%.

• Funding for City libraries, specifically funding to restore operating hours to 2004 operating hours, not included in Annual Work Plan – Projects versus $772,000 City subsidy to Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. for their second year of Sunset Center management.

• City’s removal of numerous trees in the Ocean Avenue medians for City’s beautification project versus City Council’s refusal to remove one 80 year-old Monterey Pine with ivy-covered history due to the homeowner’s safety concerns.

• 350 Carmel-by-the-Sea trees removed versus approximately 95 replacement trees planted.

• Negligible revenue generated from bus paid parking on Junipero Avenue and vehicle paid parking in north Sunset Center lot versus loss of a greater amount in sales tax revenue generated from bus passengers, etc. who spend less time shopping in Carmel-by-the-Sea or shop elsewhere. (Source: Anecdotal evidence from a Carmel Plaza business owner.)