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?