# 5 of 12 "Historic Resources" NOT ON Carmel's Inventory of Historic Resources

 
Resource Name: Arnold Genthe House
Location: E/s Camino Real 2 N. of 11th Av. 

5. Arnold Genthe House
E/s Camino Real 2 N. of 11th Av.

Date Construction: 1906

Period of Significance: 1900-1940

Architectural Style: Shingled Cottage

Significance: California Register of Historical Resources criterion (2) is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. Arnold Genthe, a famous German-born photographer, specialized in portraits of artistic celebrities and political leaders of his day in San Francisco and New York; he was a pioneer in color photography. He designed his house and was a member of George Sterling’s Bohemian crowd.

Source: Carmel-by-the-Sea, Historic Survey, 1989-96
Inventory of Significant Historic Buildings
By The Carmel Preservation Foundation
Director Enid Sales

Allan Paterson: Harbinger of Mayor McCloud's Autocratic, Over-Controlling, Micromanaging Tyranny

“We are treated like school kids and must be chaperoned in case we might make a decision concerning art,” she wrote. “In my opinion, a good working committee is needed in Carmel to remind the city and citizens that our heritage is from the early artists. That won’t happen as long as the tight control is in place.” (Eleen Auvil’s Letter of Resignation from the Carmel Art Board, June 2006)

“I am saddened and frustrated by this stasis,” she wrote in her letter, adding that the city council failed to consult CAB before deciding some art-related matters. (Margot Petit Nichols’ Letter of Resignation from the Carmel Art Board, June 2006)

“7. Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest.” (Finding 7, 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report on Open Government, January 2006)

"They are trained to spread disinformation and collect information...McCloud is bullying to the people on the commissions. The mayor runs everything." (Barbara Livingston, City Councilwoman, April 2002)

I protest “the erosion and minimization of all commissions in the City. Over the past two years, all of these city bodies have been weakened or relatively ignored.” (Antonia Verleye, Resigned from the Community & Cultural Commission, 2002)

"Recently you have manipulated the Planning Commission down from 7 to 5 ... I do not appreciate that. Design Traditions is a visionary landmark piece of planning legislation ... Do not micromanage it at this time ... before it has a chance to start working. The Steering Committee and the Planning Commission have made their recommendations. Please respect them! How can we continue to have confidence in your leadership if you behave in this autocratic way?"
(Allan Paterson, Terminated Planning Commissioner, October 2000)


As the record above demonstrates, from as early as the year 2000 to today, Mayor McCloud has amassed a record characterized as authoritarian. “I think it’s a question of power,” McCloud stated. “There aren’t any real issues. It’s all personal attacks.” (Mayor Sue McCloud, April 2002) Thus, her record is one of an absence of serious consideration of issues and ideas; rather, her record is one of intolerance of cooperation, collaboration, dissent and even disrespect for individuals who take their obligation to the public seriously by following their respective duties, responsibilities and authority as delineated in the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code.

To focus on the most recent events surrounding the resignations of all three Carmel Art Board Members, according to Mayor McCloud, “putting the art board on the shelf for the moment” is justified because of the City Council’s decision to vote to approve a contract to complete the inventory and appraisal of the City’s art collection. Furthermore, McCloud stated that the City Council’s action forced the Carmel Art Board “to set aside mush of its mission,” even though Mary Brownfield reported that the Carmel Art Board has “broad jurisdiction over public art in the city.”

Specifically, at the 2 May 2006 City Council meeting, the City Council voted to approve a consent calendar item awarding Ellen Osterkamp a professional services agreement for art inventory and art appraisal services in an amount not to exceed $90,000. Moreover, this agenda item and action was not the result of a recommendation from the Carmel Art Board, rather it was solely due to Mayor McCloud. And, according to Mayor McCloud, “the results will dictate the role of the art board, which will have the task of either building the collection or culling it.”

The role of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board, as described in the Municipal Code, is far broader than acquiring and deaccessioning artworks. As follows:


Chapter 2.37
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ART BOARD
2.37.060 Duties, Responsibilities and Authority.
The Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board shall have the following duties, responsibilities and authority:
A. To develop and upgrade the City’s permanent art collection, by advising Council on items which should be acquired or deaccessioned.
B. To direct the Art in Public Places Program, which is any work of art displayed in an open City-owned area, on the exterior of any City-owned facility, within any City-owned facility in areas designated as public areas, lobbies or for public assemblies.
C. To explore on a continuing basis the availability of funds for the Art in Public Places Program from private, corporate and government sources.
D. To review plans for the installation of art in public places.
E. To enrich the public environment for both residents and visitors to the area through their exposure to the visual arts.
F. To nurture, enhance and encourage the City’s artistic community.
G. To increase public access to works of art and to promote understanding and awareness of visual arts in the public environment.
H. To promote diversity of the visual arts through a variety of styles, designs and media.
I. To maintain a current inventory and appropriate appraisals of City-owned visual arts and to advise Council as needed on matters pertaining to the maintenance, placement, alteration, sale, transfer, ownership and acceptance or refusal of donations and other matters pertaining to art in public places. (Ord. 2002-07 § 1, 2002).

In short, Mayor McCloud’s authoritarian record, including not allowing for any cooperation and collaboration with the city’s advisory commissions and boards, and therefore, not taking their advise; her expectation that individuals do what they are told without question or debate; her intolerance of dissent; her focus on demonizing critics by labeling their legitimate criticism as “personal attacks;” make it impossible for employees and especially commission and board members to meaningfully contribute to making Carmel-by-the-Sea a better community for all of us!

# 4 of 12 "Historic Resources" NOT ON Carmel's Inventory of Historic Resources

  
Resource Name: Professor Guido Marx House
Common Name: "Holiday House"
Location: W/s Camino Real 2 N. of 7th Av.

4. Professor Marx House - “Holiday House”
W/s Camino Real 2 N. 7th Av.

Date Construction: 1905

Period of Significance: 1900-1940

Architectural Style: Craftsman Shingle

Significance: California Register of Historical Resources criterion (2) is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. “One of the treasures of Carmel’s heritage,” “Holiday House” is one of the oldest surviving houses on “Professors Row” on Camino Real. “Professors Row” was named mainly for Stanford University professors who built these houses. Professor Guido Marx was a Professor of Mathematics and Engineering at Stanford University. “Holiday House” was built for his family as a summer home.

Source: Carmel-by-the-Sea, Historic Survey,1989-96
Inventory of Significant Historic Buildings
By The Carmel Preservation Foundation
Director Enid Sales

# 3 of 12 "Historic Resources" NOT ON Carmel's Inventory of Historic Resources

  
Resource Name: Murphy Barn/Powers Studio
Location: San Antonio Av. between 2nd Av. & 4th Av.

3. Murphy Barn/Powers Studio
W/s San Antonio bet. 2nd Av. & 4th Av.

Date Construction: 1846

Architectural Style: “Hand-Hewn Logs and Adobe”

Builder: Mathew Murphy

Significance: California Register of Historical Resources criterion (2) is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history and (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. Originally part of the Murphy homestead, San Francisco attorney Frank Hubbard Powers, co-founder of Carmel-by-the-Sea with J. Franklin Devendorf, purchased the property in 1904. The dream of Frank Powers and his wife, Jane Gallatin Powers, was to create in Carmel “an artist’s empire for the soul.” The structure is hand-hewn and squared log construction; known as a “Midland Log House.”

Source: Carmel-by-the-Sea, Historic Survey, 1989-96
Inventory of Significant Historic Buildings
By The Carmel Preservation Foundation
Director Enid Sales

# 2 of 12 "Historic Resources" NOT ON Carmel's Inventory of Historic Resources

  
Resource Name: Forest Theater
Location: Mr. View Av. between Guadalupe St. & Santa Rita St.

2. Forest Theater

Forest Theater 1939 Mt. View Av. bet. Guadalupe St. & Santa Rita St.

Significance: Herbert Heron founded, designed and built Forest Theater in 1910; WPA in 1939.
“An excellent example of an open space theatre that brings together environment and the theater audience.”

Architect: Bert Heron

Source: A Significant Building Survey for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, By the Monterey Architecture Resource Inventory, R. Janick, L. Boone, K. Seavy, January 1979.


Forest Theater
Date Construction: 1910

Period of Significance: 1902-1945

Significance: California Register of Historical Resources criterion (2) is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history and (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. The Forest Theater has the distinction of being “the first open-air community theater in America.” Founded and designed by Herbert Heron in 1910; the stage and dressing rooms were rebuilt by the City and the WPA in 1939, as were the seats for the audience.

Source: Carmel-by-the-Sea, Historic Survey, 1989-96
Inventory of Significant Historic Buildings
By The Carmel Preservation Foundation
Director Enid Sales

# 1 of 12 "Historic Resources" NOT ON Carmel's Inventory of Historic Resources

 

Resource Name: Sunset Community & Cultural Center
Location: Between San Carlos St & Mission St; 8th Av. & 10 Av. 


1. Sunset Community & Cultural Center
Amazingly, Sunset School Primary Classrooms #16, #17 and #18 are on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources, but not Sunset Community & Cultural Center. Yet the “Sunset Center” is on the National Register of Historic Places at the "State" level of significance, as follows:


Applicable Criterion ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING
Applicable Criterion EVENT
Architect Donovan, John J.
Architect et.al.
Architectural Style LATE GOTHIC REVIVAL
Area of Significance ARCHITECTURE
Area of Significance EDUCATION
Area of Significance ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION
Area of Significance PERFORMING ARTS
Current Function RECREATION AND CULTURE
Current Function RECREATION AND CULTURE
Current Function SOCIAL
Current Subfunction AUDITORIUM
Current Subfunction CIVIC
Current Subfunction MEETING HALL
Current Subfunction MUSEUM
Current Subfunction MUSIC FACILITY
Current Subfunction THEATER
Current Subfunction THEATER
Historic Function EDUCATION
Historic Function RECREATION AND CULTURE
Historic Function SOCIAL
Historic Subfunction AUDITORIUM
Historic Subfunction MEETING HALL
Historic Subfunction MUSIC FACILITY
Historic Subfunction SCHOOL
Historic Subfunction THEATER
Level of Significance STATE
Other name Sunset School
Owner LOCAL
Period of Significance 1925-1949

Source: National Register of Historic Places

http://www.nr.nps.gov/iwisapi/explorer.dll?IWS_SCHEMA=NRIS97&IWS_LOGIN=1&IWS_REPORT=100000001


Sunset Cultural Center 1903-72 E/s San Carlos St. bet. 8th Av. & 10th Av.
Significance: “The overall design of Sunset Center reflects an image of an European country church with gothic styled detailing.” Associated with C.J. Ryland, who built the main auditorium in 1931.

Source: A Significant Building Survey for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, By the Monterey Architecture Resource Inventory, R. Janick, L. Boone, K. Seavy, January 1979.

Sunset Center
Architectural Style: Late Gothic Revival
“The Sunset Theater/Sunset School Auditorium is historically significant to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea under National Register Criterion A because it was the nucleus of artistic, civic and social events which took place there during the years 1931-57. Associated with a large number of world-famous artists who performed in Carmel after 1931.

Source: Carmel-by-the-Sea, Historic Survey, 1989-96
Inventory of Significant Historic Buildings
By The Carmel Preservation Foundation
Director Enid Sales

Administrative Denial of Appellants' Historic Resources Appeals

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
AGENDA
17 July 2006

ADMINISTRATION
Consideration of an action by the Board to deny the following appeals applications.

Mary W. Ives
N.W. Corner San Carlos St. & Santa Lucia Av.
Resource Name. Rev. Gardner House

Winston Boyer
N.E. Corner Camino Real & 13th Av.
Resource Name: Robert W. Covington House

Carolyn Priestley Martin
E/s Santa Fe St. between Mt. View Av. & 8th Av.
Resource Name: Jacob W. Wright House (2)

Emily Leonardi
E/s Santa Rita St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
Resource Name: Raymond Meeks House


STAFF REPORT
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
SEAN CONROY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
17 JULY 2006

SUBJECT: Consideration of an Action by the Board to Close Inactive Appeal Applications

Summary: The property owners of the above properties submitted appeal applications without background information and evidence justifying the appeal. On November 21, 2005, the City notified property owners requesting additional information by the end of March 2006. These property owners did not provide any substantive evidence. Therefore, the City planning staff recommends the Board close these inactive appeal applications; these appeals have been inactive for more that 8 months.

A Corollary: No Need For Four City Council Members!

The City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Record:


The Historic Resources Board:

Since May 2006, of the 5 appeals to the City Council of Historic Resources Board’s decisions, the City Council has overturned all of the Historic Resources Board’s decisions. (see City Council Overturns HRB’s Decision: E. P. Young Spec. House REMOVED from Historic Inventory (WATCHDOG date 7/13/2006), City Council Overturns HRB’s Decision: Wild Cottage REMOVED from Historic Inventory (WATCHDOG date 7/14/2006), City Council Overturns HRB’s Decision: Palo Alto Savings & Loan REMOVED from Historic Inventory (WATCHDOG date 7/15/2006), City Council Overturns HRB’s Decision: E.M. White No. 4 “Quiet Cove” REMOVED from Historic Inventory (WATCHDOG date 7/17/2006) and City Council Overturns HRB’s Decision: DeSabla Horse Barn REMOVED from Historic Inventory (WATCHDOG date 7/18/2006)).


Harrison Memorial Library & Park Branch:

At the 22 June 2006 Special City Council meeting, City Administrator Rich Guillen was not only antagonistic towards the library, but recommended not funding the libraries in the amount of $35,000. Further, Mayor McCloud stated that she required statistics from the library prior to making a determination, even though Library Director Margaret Pelikan stated that the library provides the city library statistics every month. Both the mayor and city administrator evinced a lack of respect for the Library Director and patrons of Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch. Moreover, adding insult to injury, Mary Brownfield of The Carmel Pine Cone reported that after the close of the public meeting, City Administrator Guillen stated that the City would hire a consultant to determine the times of the additional library hours.

The Carmel Art Board:

Just recently, the Carmel Art Board disbanded largely due to the cumulative effects of the Mayor’s and City Administrator’s lack of understanding and disrespect for the Art Board’s expertise and function.

The Former Community & Cultural Commission:

Prior to its dissolution as the Community & Cultural Commission, Mayor McCloud verbally chastised its members for not conforming their actions to her edicts; that is, when the Community & Cultural Commission Members attempted to act as a responsible advisory body with particular expertise and experience, Mayor McCloud demonstrated a lack of understanding of the role of advisory bodies and a disrespect for its members.

The record of the Mayor, City Council Members, and City Administrator vis-a-vis the Historic Resources Board, Harrison Memorial Library & Park Branch, the now defunct Carmel Art Board and the former Community & Cultural Commission, shows their lack of understanding of the role of advisory commissions/boards and a disrespect of Commission/Board Members and the Library Director. Moreover, this record supports the perception that the Mayor, City Council Members and City Administrator are not acting in the public interest. As the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report on Open Government stated:

Whether or not the public interest is being subverted through any covert process may be immaterial if the public has the perception their interests are not represented and outcomes are predetermined.

Given this state of City affairs, a corollary: There is no need for four City Council Members since the Mayor and City Administrator do it all, albeit dysfunctionally and not to the public’s benefit.

Pilot Project: Augment Forest Diversity

 

Goal: Nurture young pine and oak seedlings with the goal of seeing them through sapling stage to mature age stage.

Location: Carmel-by-the-Sea

Number Planted: 4 Pine Seedlings & 2 Oak Seedlings

Date Planted: Late Fall 2005

Heights: 23" - 28" (Pine Sedlings) & 5" (Oak Seedlings) 

Pilot Project: Augment Forest Diversity

  

Pilot Project: Augment Forest Diversity

  

Pilot Project: Augment Forest Diversity

  

Pilot Project: Augment Forest Diversity

  

Pilot Project: Augment Forest Diversity

  

THREE MONTHS & Still No Contract with Firefighters, LIUNA Local 270 & Police Officer Associations!

CITY COUNCIL
Tour of Inspection
&
Closed Session
Monday, July 10, 2006


III. Adjournment to Closed Session at City Hall

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:

Labor Negotiations - Gov't. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea's Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, City Administrator Guillen, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the Firefighters, LIUNA Local 270 and Police Officer Associations.


Regular Meeting
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
4:30 p.m., Open Session

V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and
the City Administrator.

A. Announcements from Closed Session.

City Administrator stated they met in Closed Session and there are no announcements at this time.

Interpretation: Closed Sessions regarding Firefighters, LIUNA Local 270 and Police since May 2006, and still no contract announcement.

City Council Overturns HRB's Decision: DeSabla Horse Barn REMOVED from Historic Inventory

  

Resource Name: DeSabla Horse Barn
Location: Carpenter St. 5 S.W. 3rd Avenue

The following appeal is the fifth appeal to the City Council regarding an appellant’s appeal of a Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny removal of an appellant’s resource from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.


Selected excerpts from City documents follow:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
July 11, 2006

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the west side of Carpenter between 3rd & 4th Avenues from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owner is Doreen Silva

Resource Name: DeSabla Horse Barn

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to grant the appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision and to remove the property located on the west side of Carpenter, between 3rd & 4th Avenues from the City’s inventory of historic resources, seconded by Council Member ROSE and carried by the following roll call:

AYES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC, ROSE & McCLOUD
NOES: NONE



Regular Meeting
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
4:30 p.m., Open Session

Public Hearings
Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the west side of Carpenter between 3rd & 4th Avenues from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owner is Doreen Silva


City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting Date: 11 July 2006
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Associate Planner

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located in the Single Family Residential (R-1)District from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owner is Doreen Silva (W/s Carpenter bet. 3rd & 4th).

Description: The appellant seeks removal of the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. Approval of the appeal would overturn a decision of the Historic Resources Board and result in removing the property from the list.

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal.

Important Considerations: The subject property has been included on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources that was adopted as part of the Local Coastal Program in 2004. The structure was constructed in approximately 1898 as a barn and converted to a residence in 1937.

CMC 17.32.070 states that a property identified as an historic resource on the Carmel Inventory shall be presumed historically significant and shall not be removed from the City's Inventory unless substantial evidence demonstrates that it is not an historic resource.

Decision Record: The Historic Resources Board denied the applicant’s request to remove the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources on 21 March 2006. The applicant filed an appeal with the City Clerk on 31 March 2006.



CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
FROM: SEAN CONROY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 11 JULY 2006
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC
RESOURCES BOARD’S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO
REMOVE A PROPERTY FROM THE CITY’S INVENTORY OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Grant the appeal.


Basis for Appeal: The appellant is requesting that the subject structure be removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources for the following reasons:

1) The structure has lost its physical integrity due to additions and alterations.

2) The structure does not convey an association with the historic themes of agriculture and transportation.


HRB’s Review:
In summary, the HRB’s decision to deny the appeal was based on the following points:

• The structure is a rare example of a particular property type in the City.

• National Register Bulletin #15 allows for greater flexibility for additions and alterations if there are few or no other extant examples.

• While the structure has been converted into a residence, the form of the orginal barn is still visibly clear.



HRB Minutes for 3/20/06

Doreen Silva Trust
W/S Carpenter bet 3rd & 4th

Consideration of an appeal of the City's determination to place an existing residence on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.

Sean Conroy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.

Board member Holz moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Coss and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM,
NOES: NONE

City Council Overturns HRB's Decision: E. M. White House No. 4 "Quiet Cove" REMOVED from Historic Inventory

  

Resource Name: E. M. White House No. 4 "Quiet Cove"
Location: W/s San Antonio bet. Ocean & 4th Avenues, No. 4 of "Sand & Sea."


The following appeal is the fourth appeal to the City Council regarding an appellant’s appeal of a Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny removal of an appellant’s resource from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

Selected excerpts from City documents follow:


CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
July 11, 2006

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the west side of San Antonio between Ocean & 4th Avenues from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owner is Alfred Johnson.

Council Member ROSE moved to grant the appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision and to remove the property located on the west side of San Antonio, between Ocean & 4th Avenues from the City’s inventory of historic resources, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call:

AYES: BETHEL, HAZDOVAC, ROSE & McCLOUD
NOES: CUNNINGHAM


Regular Meeting
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
4:30 p.m., Open Session

Public Hearings

Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the west side of San Antonio between Ocean & 4th Avenues from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owner is Alfred Johnson.

Resource Name: E.M. White House No. 4 “Quiet Cove”


City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting Date: 11 July 2006
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Associate Planner


Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Beach and Riparian Overlay (BR) Districts from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owner is Alfred Johnson. (W/s San Antonio bet. Ocean & 4th)

Description: The appellant seeks removal of his property from the City’s list of Historic Resources. Approval of the appeal would overturn a decision of the Historic Resources Board and result in removing the property from the list.

Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal.

Important Considerations: The appellant’s property is listed on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources that was adopted as part of the Local Coastal Program in 2004. The subject residence and detached garage were built in 1941 in an early Modernist style, as part of a four-property development designed by Jon Konigshofer.

CMC 17.32.070 states that a property identified as an historic resource on the Carmel Inventory shall be presumed historically significant and shall not be removed from the City's Inventory unless substantial evidence demonstrates that it is not an historic resource.

Decisions on whether this resource should remain on the Historic Resources Inventory are compromised by the lack of coverage for post-1940 properties in the Historic Constext Statement. In such situations, it is appropriate to be cautious when removing a property from the Inventory. Upon completion of an updated Context Statement it may be evident that the property was historic and its removal resulted in damage to, or loss of, the resource. This result would be contrary to the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Decision Record: The Historic Resources Board denied the appellant’s request to remove the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources on 27 February 2006. The applicant filed an appeal with the City Clerk on 7 March 2006.


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
FROM: SEAN CONROY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 11 JULY 2006
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD’S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO REMOVE A PROPERTY FROM THE CITY’S INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) AND BEACH AND RIPARIAN OVERLAY (BR) DISTRICTS.

RECOMMENDED MOTION
Deny the appeal.


Basis for Appeals: The appellants are requesting that the subject structures and District be removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources for the following reasons:

1. Jon Konigshofer does not qualify as a designer of historical significance.

2. The Modernist Style is not described in the Context Statement.

3. The district is not associated with anyone of historical significance.

4. The period of significance listed in the DPR is inaccurate.

5. The residence has lost its integrity due to additions and alterations.



HRB’s Review: In summary, the Board’s decision to deny the appeal was based on the following points:

• A 'fair argument' has been made in the DPR 523 form that Jon Konigshofer is an important builder and that the residence is architecturally significant.

• General Plan Policy P1-85 states that exclusion from Context Statement doesn't preclude a finding of significance.

• The changes that have occurred to the property were approved by the City and determined to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

• The residence is an important contributor to a historic district.
Staff concurs with the Board’s findings.



HRB Minutes for 2/27/06

Alfred Johnson
W/s San Antonio bet. Ocean & 4th

Consideration of an appeal of the City’s determination to place an existing residence on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Beach and Riparian Overlay (BR)Districts.

Sean Conroy, Associate Planner presented the staff report.

Board member Coss deny the appeal, seconded by Holz and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: DYAR

City Administrator's STAFF REPORT: PLARIARIZED MCCVB Content

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: JULY 3, 2006
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONSENT
TO THE CITY OF MONTEREY TO FORM THE MONTEREY
COUNTY TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT


City Administrator Rich Guillen's STAFF REPORT, as noted above, contained verbatim plariarized content from the Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau's (MCCVB)"Increasing Tourism & Occupancy in Monterey County with a Tourism Improvement District" report.

As follows, the locations of Guillen’s plagiarized MCCVB content as the information appeared in his STAFF REPORT, the locations as the information appeared in the MCCVB’s PR report and the content:


Guillen’s paragraph 1 is verbatim MCCBV’s “A Tourism Improvement District (TID) for Monterey County" paragraph 2:

The MCCVB, together with a coalition of lodging owners and general managers, proposes forming a TID in Monterey County to take effect January 2007. The proposed TID includes, preliminarily, all lodging establishments located within the unincorporated areas of Monterey County and the incorporated city limits of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Salinas, Sand City, Seaside, and Soledad.
(Note: Guillen eliminated Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, Pacific Grove and Soledad.)


Guillen’s paragraph 2 is verbatim “A Tourism Improvement District (TID) for Monterey County” paragraph 1:

Tourism Improvement Districts (TIDs) have been used successfully in destinations throughout the country to promote tourism, increase occupancy, enhance visitor services, and increase sales andcommercial activities. Competing California destinations such as Sonoma County, San Jose, and Sacramento are three of the many state locales with TIDs in operation; Napa County, San Diego, and San Luis Obispo, among numerous other communities, now have TIDs in development.


Guillen’s paragraph 3 is verbatim MCCVB’s “Tourism Summary” paragraph 1:

Tourism in Monterey County peaked in 1999 and dropped off significantly thereafter as the economy faltered. Since then, Monterey County has recovered at a much slower rate than the rest of California, with occupancy still 12.1% lower that it was in 1999.


Guillen’s paragraph 3 is verbatim MCCVB’s “Tourism Summary” paragraph 2:

A 23.8% increase in room revenue since 1999 has created a false sense of a healthy tourism industry in the county. The reality is that room revenue has increased largely because our room rates have risen 36.6% to become the highest in California.


Guillen’s “STAFF REVIEW” is verbatim “TID Mission & Vision” paragraph 1 & 2:

The mission of the TID is to provide the county and the MCCVB with a well-managed, stable funding source for tourism promotion, which will generate more revenue for lodgings and tourism-related businesses, and deliver a direct return on investment to municipalities in the form of increased transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenue for the general fund. A TID will allow the MCCVB to realize its vision for the county, a vision of regaining market share and becoming a top destination nationwide for individual travelers and groups. MCCVB projects that by driving occupancy back up to the 1999 level of 71.2%, the county will generate an additional $56.2 million in annual hotel revenues within five years.


. Guillen’s “TID Facts” is verbatim MCCVB’s “TID Facts:”

• The TID will be designed and governed by the assessed lodgings, and customized to fit the needs of our district
• Assessed businesses will automatically become members of the MCCVB, with no additional membership fee required to receive benefits
• TID funds cannot be diverted for other government programs
• TID funds will be used exclusively for tourism promotion


Guillen’s “Core Benefits of a TID” is verbatim MCCVB’s “Core Benefits of a TID”

• The many types of lodging establishments in Monterey County, from B&Bs to resorts, will unite in an unprecedented effort to promote tourism
• The TID will fund a greater number of innovative marketing initiatives by the MCCVB, proven to bring additional tourists to Monterey County
• An increase in overall tourists will bring more business to lodging establishments and tourism-related businesses countywide
• Participating municipalities will benefit from a greater TOT contribution to the general fund


Guillen’s “FISCAL IMPACT” is MCCVB’s “Funding the TID:”

The proposed TID requires an assessment of $1.00 per room night for full-service lodging establishments and $0.50 per room night for limited service lodging establishments (level of service as defined by Smith Travel Research). In addition, the MCCVB has developed an updated funding formula for municipality contributions based on TOT revenue. This unique matching of public contributions with private funding could result in an additional $2.2 million to be used exclusively for destination marketing.


Guillen’s “SUMMARY” is MCCVB’s “Conclusion” paragraphs 1& 2:

In 2004, visitors accounted for 53.8% of total tax receipts in Monterey County, the equivalent of $365 per household.

Monterey County will continue to be out-marketed by competing California communities unless we more aggressively promote the county as a destination. Forming a Tourism Improvement District will unite lodgings and municipalities, doubling the investment of each. A stable funding source will enable the MCCVB to conduct intensive marketing on behalf of Monterey County—[Guillen omitted the following: a destination with a rich history, distinctive attractions, and stunning natural beauty capable of drawing visitors from around the world.]


COMMENTS:

• City Administrator Rich Guillen’s attempt to claim the MCCVB’s PR material as his own, is not only plagiarism, it is deceitful; that is, it represents an attempt to fool Carmelites into thinking that his report is his own, instead of the PR materials of the MCCVB.

• A non-existent standard of professionalism is reflected in City Administrator Rich Guillen’s record; a record of prevarication, plagiarism and unprofessionalism.

• Needless to say, a professional City Administrator is an honest and independent arbiter of information, not a propaganda purveyor for a special interest, in this instance MCCVB. Unfortunately, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has the latter, not the former.

Reference:
Increasing Tourism & Occupancy in Monterey County with a Tourism Improvement District, monterey county convention & visitors bureau
In partnership with Monterey County and the Cities of Marina 􀂏 Monterey 􀂏 Sand City 􀂏 Seaside
http://www.ci.pg.ca.us/age/CCO/A-CCO20060517/9C.pdf, pages 5-6.

City Council Overturns HRB's Decision: Palo Alto Savings & Loan REMOVED from Historic Inventory

  

 

Resource Name: Palo Alto Savings & Loan Building
Location: Dolores St. & 7th Av., S.E. Corner 

The following appeal is the third appeal to the City Council regarding an appellant’s appeal of a Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny removal of an appellant’s resource from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

Selected excerpts from City documents follow:

MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
June 6, 2006

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Consideration of an appeal of a decision of the Historic Resources Board placing a comercial structure, known as the Palo Alto Svings and Loan building, on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources. The building is located on the southeast corner of Seventh Avenue and Dolores Street. The property owner is the Pacific Grove Land Company. The appellant and project designer is John Mandurrago.

Brian Roseth, Principal Planner, presented the staff report.

Council Member ROSE moved to grant the appeal and remove the commercial structure, known as the Palo Alto Savings and Loan building, from the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources, seconded by Council Member CUNNINGHAM and carried by the following roll call:

AYES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM & ROSE
NOES: HAZDOVAC & McCLOUD



Meeting Date: 6 June 2006
Prepared by: Elizabeth Caraker, Contract Planner
City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of a decision of the Historic Resources Board placing a commercial structure, known as the Palo Alto Savings and Loan building, on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources. The building is located on the southeast corner of Seventh Avenue and Dolores Street in the Service Commercial (SC) District (Blk 91, Lots 2, 4, 6, & 8, APN: 010-145-020). The property owner is the Pacific Grove Land Company. The appellant and project designer is John Mandurrago.

Description: The appellant is requesting the grant of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board placing the Palo Alto Savings and Loan building on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources.

Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Board’s decision.

Important Considerations: CMC Section 17.32.040 lists requirements for a building to qualify as an historic resource. The property is less than 50-years old and, under National and State standards, needs to be of exceptional importance to qualify as historic. The Historic Resources Board determined that the property met this test, based on evidence in the record—including testimony from the American Institute of Architects, Monterey Bay Chapter. Evidence supporting this decision included the significance of the architect, the beauty of the design, the importance of the California Bay Area Tradition architectural style and the contribution this building makes to the diversity of design in Carmel.

The Board’s decision is final unless overturned by the City Council. If the building is historic, the Plaza Del Mar project cannot be approved unless modified to incorporate the historic building into the design. The applicant/appellant has stated this is not economically feasible. The City Council can affirm or overturn the Board’s Determination. If the appeal is granted, the property will be removed from the Inventory. If the appeal is denied, the property will remain on the Inventory.

Decision Record: On 8 December 2005, the Department of Community Planning and Building issued a Preliminary Determination of Ineligibility for the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources. On 14 December 2005, the Monterey Bay Chapter of the American Institute of Architects filed an appeal. On 19 December 2005, the Historic Resources Board considered the appeal and reversed staff’s determination. On 23 January 2006, the Board adopted Findings for Decision supporting its determination, and placing the property on the Carmel Inventory.



CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR DECISION AND CONDITIONS

The Historic Resources Board determined that the Palo Alto Savings and Loan building does qualify a historic resource for the following reeasons:

• The building was designed by Walter Burde. This architect was exceptional in the quality and execution of his designs, his professionalism and his contribution to architecture within Carmel and the region. Walter Burde was generous in his support for other, younger architects, and was respected by his peers.

• Walter Burde received the AIA Monterey Bay Chapter Award of Merit in 1959 and again in 1973.

• Walter Burde received the Governor’s Design award in 1966.

• The American Institute of Architects honored Walter Burde at both regional and national levels. He was accepted as a Fellow of the Institute in 1969, one of only two or three architects awarded this honor in the entire Central Coast area. This is the second highest honor that the AIA can bestow upon an architect.

• The Palo Alto Savings and Loan building is of exceptional importance. It is a pure, original and unique example of modern architecture in the Second Phase of the Bay Regional Style.

• The building is heroic in scale and disign, one of only a few in Carmel that achieve this distinction and the best of its kind built in the past 74 years in Carmel.

• The building is extremely well preserved, in contrast to the few other buildings of this time and by this architect.

• Since the City lacks an updated Historic Context Statement with which to evaluate potential historic resources, the Board must be extremely cautious in its determinations about what qualifies as historic so that important historic resources are not lost through ignorance of their significance.

• The Palo Alto Savings and Loan building provides the City with diversity in architecture, as encouraged by the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan.

• The building reflects its time. It avoids the cloying mimicry of historical styles of the past so prevalent in recent commercial projects that robs the community of the potential enjoyment of diverse, progressive, modern architecture reflecting the current era.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons the Palo Alto Savings and Loan building does rise to the level of exceptional importance required to qualify a building of less than 50 years in age. It should be recognized as an historic resource so that future generations can enjoy and appreciate the quality and diversity of this architecture as an excellent example of the modern era, the Second Bay Regional style, and as one of the most important architects within this region.


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
MINUTES
19 December 2005

APPLICATION
Palo Alto Saving & Loan
SE Cor. Dolores & 7th

Consideration of an appeal of a Preliminary Determination of Ineligibility for the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources and recommendation’s to the Planning Commission on the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report for the demolition of a commercial structure and the construction of a mixed-use project in the Service Commercial (SC) District.

Board member Coss moved grant the appeal and to place the building on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, seconded by Lagerholm and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: DYAR, COSS, LAGERHOLM
NOES: WENDT
ABSENT: HOLZ

City Council Overturns HRB's Decision: Wild Cottage REMOVED from Historic Inventory

  
Resource Name: Wild Cottage
Location: Camino Real 4 S.W. 11th Avenue


The following appeal is the second appeal to the City Council regarding an appellant’s appeal of a Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny removal of an appellant’s resource from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

Selected excerpts from City documents follow:

MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
June 6, 2006

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board's decision to deny a request to remove a property located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District from the City's Inventory of Historic Resources (Norman and Eleanor Moscow, W/s Camino Real bet. 11th & 12th).

Council Member ROSE moved to overturn the decision of Historic Resources Board and to remove the property located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call:

AYES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC, ROSE & McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE


FINDINGS FOR DECISION:

1. The numerous additions and alterations that have occurred to the residence overtime, particularly to the east elevation, have caused the residence to lose its architectural integrity. The residence therefore does not qualify as an historic resource under California Criterion #3.

2. There are other, more intact examples of early vernacular architecture already listed on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources.

3. The residence is not associated with important events or persons that have contributed to the history of the City.

4. The property has not yielded any information important to the prehistory or history of the City.

5. The appellant submitted a report from a qualified professional demonstrating that the property does not qualify as an historic resource. The Council concurs with the analysis of this report.


Meeting Date: 6 June 2006
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Associate Planner
City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owner is Norman and Eleanor Moscow (W/s Camino Real bet. 11th & 12th).

Description: The subject property has been included on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources that was adopted as part of the Local Coastal Program in 2004. The residence was originally constructed in approximately 1925.
The appellant seeks removal of the property from the City’s list of Historic Resources. Approval of the appeal would overturn a decision of the Historic Resources Board and result in removing the property from the list.

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal.

Important Considerations: CMC 17.32.070 states that a property identified as an historic resource on the Carmel Inventory shall be presumed historically significant and shall not be removed from the City’s Inventory unless substantial evidence demonstrates that it is not an historic resource.

Decision Record: The Historic Resources Board denied the applicant’s request to remove the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources on 23 January 2006. The applicant filed an appeal with the City Clerk on 3 February 2006.



STAFF REPORT
FROM: SEAN CONROY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 6 JUNE 2006
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC
RESOURCES BOARD’S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO REMOVE A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT FROM THE CITY’SINVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES.

RECOMMENDED MOTION
Grant the appeal.

Basis for Appeal:
The appellant is requesting that the subject structure be removed from the City's Inventory of Historic Resources for the following reasons:

1. The structure has lost integrity due to additions and alterations.

2. The period of significance is inaccurate in the DPR 523 Form.

3. The structure does not qualify as significant according to the California
Register standards or the Historic Context Statement.

Integrity:
While the subject structure contributes to the residential character of the City, the additions that have occurred to the residence over time, taken collectively, have caused the residence to lose its architectural integrity.


HRB’s Review: The Historic Resources Board voted three to two to deny the appeal. The decision was based on the following points:

• Both the 1945 addition and the 1999 addition were in keeping with the style of the original structure.

• The minor changes to the roof pitch and size of the garage are not significant enough to warrant a loss of integrity.

• The findings in the original DPR are accurate.


HRB Minutes for 23 January 2006

Norman & Eleanor Moscow
W/s Camino Real bet. 11th & 12th
Resource Name: Wild Cottage

Consideration of an appeal of the City's determination to placd an existing residence on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.

Sean Conroy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.

Board member Lagerholm moved to grant the appeal and remove the residence from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, seconded by Coss and failed by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COSS, LAGERHOLM,
NOES: DYAR, HOLZ, WENDT
ABSENT: NONE

Board member Dyar moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Holz and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: COSS, LAGERHOLM

City Council Overturns HRB's Decision: E. P. Young Spec. House REMOVED from Historic Inventory

  
Resource Name: E. P. Young Spec. House
Location: Carmelo 2 S.W. 11th Avenue

This appeal is the first appeal to the City Council regarding an appellant’s appeal of a Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny removal of an appellant’s resource from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

Selected excerpts from City documents follow:


MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
May 2, 2006

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board's decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the west side of Carmelo, between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues from the city's inventory of historic resources. The appellant and property owner is David Hall.

Sean Conroy, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to approve the appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision and to remove the property located on the west side of Carmelo, between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues from the City’s inventory of historic resources, seconded by Council Member BETHEL and carried by the following roll call:

AYES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC & McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: ROSE
ABSTAIN: NONE


Meeting Date: 2 May 2006
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Associate Planner

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owner is David Hall.

Description: The subject property has been included on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources that was adopted as part of the Local Coastal Program in 2004. The subject residence is a Tudor revival style residence with both one and two-story elements. The residence was originally constructed in 1926 as one of two residential designs by Robert Stanton on neighboring lots. The DPR 523 Form indicates that the structure qualifies as an historic resource under California Criterion #2 (persons) and #3 (architecture) and relates to the Architectural Development theme of the City’s Historic Context Statement (W/s Carmelo bet. 11th & 12th)
The appellant seeks removal of his property from the City’s list of Historic Resources.
Approval of the appeal would overturn a dicision of the Historic Resources Board and result in removing the property from the list.

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal.

Important Considerations: CMC 17.32.070 states that a property identified as an historic resource on the Carmel Inventory shall be presumed historically significant and shall not be removed from the City’s Inventory unless substantial evidence demonstrates that it is not an historic resource. The appellant has presented evidence from a qualified professional demonstrating that the property does not qualify as historic.

Decision Record: The Historic Resources Board denied the appellant’s request to remove the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources on 27 February 2006. The appellant filed an appeal with the City Clerk on 9 March 2006.



CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
FROM: SEAN CONROY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 2 MAY 2006

RECOMMENDED MOTION
Grant the appeal and overturn the Historic Resources Board’s decision.

HRB’s Review: In summary, the Historic Resources Board voted three to one to deny the appeal on 27 February 2006. The Board’s decision was based on the following points:

• There are only a limited number of structures designed by Stanton on the City's Inventory.

• While the residence is only a modest example of Tudor-style architecture, modest architecture is part of the character of the City.

• Two of the City’s Preservation Consultants determined that the residence qualifiesas historic.

• Despite the many changes that have occurred over time, the residence still maintains its character as seen from the street.

Conclusion: Staff supports granting the appeal for the following reasons:

• There are other, better examples of Stanton’s work in the City.

• There have been no appeals of the historic designation of the orther properties associated with Stanton on the City's Inventory.

• There are numerous, better examples of the Tudor-revival style in the City.

• The subject structure has undergone numerous changes and alterations.



CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
MINUTES
27 Februrary 2006

APPEALS

David Hall
W/s Carmelo bet. 11th Av. & 12th Av.
Resource Name: E.P. Young Spec. House

Consideration of an appeal of the City’s determination to place an existing residence on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.

Sean Conroy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.

Board member COSS moved to deny the appeal, seconded by HOLZ and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COSS, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LAGERHOLM
ABSENT: DYAR

City Administrator: "A consultant will be hired to study the library hours."

City Administrator: “A consultant will be hired to study the library hours."
(Source: “$11.75 million budget gives $35K for more library hours, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, July 7, 2006)

At the 22 June 2006 City Council meeting, the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council unanimously approved the City’s $11,749,860 budget for 2006/07. Of the additional $100,000 in revenues discovered by City Administrator Rich Guillen, City Council Members Michael Cunningham, Erik Bethel and Gerard Rose decided to allocate $35,000 towards the restoration of 2004 operating hours at Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch.

At the meeting, Library Director Margaret Pelikan advised the City Council that the $35,000 would be best spent by allotting 4 hours to the Park Branch (children’s library), on Saturdays and 4 hours at Harrison Memorial Library on Sundays.

Yet, City Administrator Guillen not only objected to the allocation of $35,000 to the libraries, he complained that the Carmel Library Board declined 2 years ago to take him up on his suggestion to allow the city to handle the library’s accounting, saving the library $16,000 annually.

In deciding to allocate $35,000 to the libraries, City Councilmen Cunningham, Bethel and Rose stated that Pelikan and Guillen would decide the issue of allocating additional library hours. But, after the public meeting, Mary Brownfield reported in the 7 July 2006 The Carmel Pine Cone, City Administrator Guillen said “a consultant will be hired to study the library hours.”

Questions:

• With policy direction from City Councilmen Cunningham, Bethel and Rose to work with the Library Director to determine the allocation of additional library hours and given the Library Director gave her recommendation as to the allocation of the additional 8 hours, WHY does the City need to spend money hiring a consultant to study the library hours?

• Is this an example of a City Administrator’s personal pique at the Library Board for not having taken him up on his suggestion 2 years ago informing public policy. In other words, is Guillen’s evident emotional antagonism towards the library clouding all objective reason?

MCCVB: Carmel-by-the-Sea's Membership Fee Changed From $241,170 to $108,360!

“For years, Carmel and the bureau have discussed the city joining, but the $200,000 cost was prohibitive, according to City Administrator Rich Guillen.”

(Source: “Tourism bureau decides to charge: Not all cities think services worth fees,” Dania Akkad, The Monterey County Herald, 3 July 2006)


On Monday, 3 July 2006, Dania Akkad, The Monterey County Herald, reported that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea had for years been discussing the possibility of joining the Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau (MCCVB). However, according to City Administrator Rich Guillen, the “$200,000 cost was prohibitive.” Recently, however, it was reported that MCCVB “reformulated” the amount Carmel-by-the-Sea would be required to pay to $108,000. And at that bargain cost, the City Council unanimously voted to join MCCVB at the City Council’s 22 June 2006 Special Meeting.

In an e-mail to Naiomi Skiles, Manager, Membership & Convention Services, MCCVB, a request for an explanation as to how Carmel-by-the-Sea’s membership fee changed from $200,000 to $108,000, was answered as follows:

“...the previous formula was based on a percentage of TOT revenues from FY 1998-99, whereas, the current, or new formula is based on a percentage of TOT revenues from the previous year (in this case, FY 2004/05). The exact formula changed slightly, which explains the variance.”

As a follow-up, when Naiomi Skiles was presented with Carmel-by-the-Sea’s TOT revenues of $3,547,616 (FY 1998/99) and $3,611,990 (FY 2004/05), and her response that the exact formula had “changed only slightly,” she did not respond to a request for an explanation as to the membership fee changing from $200,000 to $108,000, nor did President/CEO John McMahon, but Nat Rojanasathira, Marketing Coordinator did respond, as follows:

“The membership fee for Carmel-by-the-Sea was previously about $200,000, based on 6.8% of TOT from FY 1998/99. Today, it is based on 3% of TOT from the previous year (in this case FY 2004/05), and is $108,000. This is how the membership fee has changed from $200,000 to $108,000.”

A follow-up request for clarification, as follows:
The previous membership fee rate of 6.8% TOT revenues FY 1998/99 of $3,546,616 is $241,170.

The current membership fee is 3% of $3,611,990 or $108,360.

Comparing Carmel-by-the-Sea with the city of Monterey, for example, Monterey’s membership fee is $478,000 on TOT revenues of $13,627,997 (or 3-4%).

Question: At the time Carmel-by-the-Sea was quoted over $200,000 as MCCVB membership fee, were the cities of Marina, Monterey, Sand City and Seaside paying MCCVB membership fees of 6.8% of TOT revenues FY 1998/99?

Nat Rojanasathira’s response: “...the Cities of Marina, Monterey, Sand City, Seaside and the County of Monterey have contributed fees of 6.8% of TOT from 1998/99.”

Today, Marie Vasari, Herald Staff Writer, wrote that John McMahon, President/CEO MCCVB, is currently promoting a tourism business district which would raise an “additional $2.2 million for designation marketing.” Moreover, it was reported that this additional revenue for designation marketing is needed in order to remain competitive with other tourist destinations and because MCCVB’s “operating budget is $2.1 million, compared to $3.1 million in 2001.”

COMMENTS:

Déjà vu: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s MCCVB membership fee morphing from $241,170 into $108,360 is reminiscent of City Administrator Guillen’s Storm Water Drainage Utility Fee Program in 2003. His Program initially cost Carmel-by-the-Sea property owners $$442,600 (with $250,000 diverted to the General Fund), then $270,600, then finally $151,500.

RESIDENT UNFRIENDLY: City's Budgetary Priorities Atypical

“We need to start paying our reserves,” McCloud said.

(Source: “$11.75 million budget gives $35K for more library hours, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, July 7, 2006)


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
California

Annual Financial Report
June 30, 2005

BALANCE SHEET
Government Funds
June 30, 2005

Fund Balances
623,709 Reserved for debt service

Unreserved
$37,662 Designated for street and traffic safety
$740,451 Designated for liability insurance
$647,527 Designated for health insurance
$1,370,334 Designated for capital improvements
$249,579 Designated for equipment replacement
$1,432,394 Designated for benefits and wc insurance
$657,000 Designated for reserves
$549,690 Designated for economic uncertainty
$165,011 Designated for emergency response
$140,000 Designated for general services and operations
$468,857 Designated for customer deposits
$1,240,439 Undesignated

8,322,653 Total Fund Balances


(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA California, Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2005, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, Fund Financial Statements, Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds, Pg. 4)


COMMENT & QUESTION:

• For Fiscal Year 2006/07, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has an $11.75 million budget, an estimated $10-$25 million deferred maintenance and over $8.3 million in reserves.

• Yet Mayor McCloud publicly states, “we need to start paying our reserves.” What is her rationale for such a statement, given the City’s deteriorated and decayed infrastructure and the magnitude of the reserves vis a vis the annual budget?

The LOSS of Carmel-by-the-Sea's UNIQUENESS & INDIVIDUALITY : LOCALLY APPROVED & SANCTIONED

The gradual and incremental, but inexorable loss of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s traditionally known character and ambiance is demonstrated by the following:

• The City Council’s removal of 32 eucalyptus trees on 4th Avenue; known for their traffic calming effect, these non-diseased trees were removed rather than regularly pruned to ameliorate resident’s safety concerns.

• The City Administrator’s removal of the Post Office Bump-Out on 5th Avenue.

• A senescent, dying forest; this state of affairs is due to the City Council’s inadequate funding of the Forest, Beach & Parks Department over a long period of time.

• Closed and approved for sale historical/cultural city assets i.e. Scout House and Flanders Mansion.

• Loss of city management of Sunset Center in favor of the City Council’s installation of Sunset Cultural Center, Inc., a non-profit group.

• The City Council’s reduction of Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch hours for patrons; thus rendering our historical/cultural/educational city asset less accessible to all.

• Live music in downtown restaurants.

• Plan for lights in Ocean Avenue medians.

Underlying these losses to Carmel-by-the-Sea’s character is the City Council’s betrayal of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s credo:

THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is hereby determined to be primarily, a residential City wherein business and commerce have in the past, are now, and are proposed to be in the future subordinated to its residential character;...

Adopted by Ordinance No. 96 passed on this 5th day of June 1929


COMMENTS:

While the Bates cartoon controversy demonstrates that 1000 people can be mobilized to sign a petition calling for the return of the Bates cartoons to the Post Office, how is it that these same 1000 people are not similarly outraged and mobilized about the city’s fiscal mismanagement, out-of-control deferred maintenance and decayed infrastructure, the City Council’s vote to sell the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion Property, the City Council’s decision to evict tenants and close the Scout House, the city’s non-regenerating forest, the City Administrator’s and City Council’s lack of support for Library Director Margaret Pelikan and Harrison Memorial Library and Park Branch (no, $35,000 is not enough, the city can well afford $123,000 for the restoration of 2004 operating hours if the City Council had the commitment and will to do it), etc.? Or is it simply easier to wail at the Federal government, rather than confront issues and problems of our local city government?

UPDATE of City's Historic Context Statement PULLED From Agenda by MAYOR MCCLOUD

Special Meeting
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
4:30 pm

IV. Orders of Council
Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement for an amount not to exceed $21,750 to retain the services of Archives and Architecture to prepare an update of the City’s Historic Context Statement for the 1940 through 1965 period.


City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Prepared by: Brian Roseth, Principal Planner

Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement for an amount not to exceed $21,750 to retain the services of Archives and Architecture to prepare an update of the City’s Historic Context Statement for the 1940 through 1965 period.

Description:
Approval would engage a consulting firm to draft an amendment to the adopted Historic Context Statement. This document identifies persons, events and architecture important in the City’s history.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: $21,750 ($19,775 for Consultant plus 10% contingency).

Staff Recommendation: Authorize the City Administrator to enter into the Agreement.

Important Considerations:
The Historic Context Statement identifies persons, events and architecture important in the City’s history. It also provides guidance on the types of physical resources still present that can represent these in the historic preservation program. Based on this guidance, historic resources are subsequently identified for listing on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory. This final step of identifying specific resources is not part of the contract.

The existing Context Statement was adopted by the City Council in 1997. It was accepted by the Coastal Commission as part of the City’s LCP in 2004. The existing document only covers historic periods up to 1940 and needs to be updated. The recommended consultant will conduct research on the post-1940 period and work with the Historic Resources Board and staff to prepare a draft. Extensive public participation is anticipated during the process. Following approval by the City Council, the document will be submitted to the Coastal Commission as an amendment to the LCP.

Decision Record:

The General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan requires periodic updates to the Context Statement. This project is listed in the City Council’s work program.


CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT

ARCHIVES AND ARCHITECTURE, HERITAGE RESOURCE PARTNERS

Leslie A. G. Dill, Partner and Principal Historian
Charlene Detlefs Duval, Partner and Principal Historian
Franklin Maggi, Partner, Architectural Historian and Preservation Planner
Jessica Kusz, Preservation Specialist


COMPENSATION
City shall pay Consultant for the services identified in the attached Scope of Services. Consultant agrees to perform all services and incur all costs required by this Agreement for an amount not to exceed $19,775.


COMPLETION DATE
The completion date for all services in Tasks I through IV specified in the Scope of Work, submitted by Consultant as part of Exhibit-A, shall be six months from the date of contract authorization.


City Council
Minutes of June 13, 2006 meeting

B. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement for an amount not to exceed $21,750 to retain the services of Archives and Architecture to prepare an update of the City's Historic Context Statement for the 1940 through 1965 period.

Mayor McCloud announced that Item B. had been pulled from the Agenda.


COMMENTS:

• According to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code and the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Plan, the Historic Context Statement, adopted by the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council in 1997, should have been updated in 2002.

• If the Historic Context Statement had been updated in 2002, then the City could not have used the 1997 Historic Context Statement as a vehicle to remove all post-1940 historic resources from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

• Just considering Historic Preservation, Land Use & Community Character Element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, since the City’s record is that of not updating the Historic Context Statement every 5 years as stipulated and violating the LCP by removing all post-1940 historic resources as a group, contrary to the process allowed in the LCP, then is it reasonable for Carmelites to assume that there are other areas of the LCP the City is violating?



CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
MUNICIPAL
CODE
Chapter 17.32
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
17.32.060 Determining Eligibility for the Carmel Inventory.
A. Historic Context Statement.
3. The Historic Context Statement shall be updated at least every five years. Updates shall be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as LCP amendments.


Carmel by-the-Sea
General Plan and Local Coastal Plan
L a n d U s e a n d C o m m u n i t y
C h a r a c t e r E l e m e n t

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 1-43
Cultural Resources
Historic Preservation

P1-85 Maintain an Historic Context Statement that documents the historic periods, themes, events, people, architects and builders who have contributed to the cultural and developmental history of the City. Use the Historic Context Statement to identify, document and understand the importance of historic resources. Exclusion from this document shall not preclude a finding of significance for any
resource. The Historic Context Statement shall be updated at least every five years. Updates shall be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as LCP amendments. (See Appendix F: Historic Context Statement, Carmel-by-the-Sea, 1997). (LUP)

RESCISSION DECISION: Historic Resources Board rectifies their VIOLATION OF LCP

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD

19 JUNE 2006 MEETING

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
PAUL COSS (Absent)
ERIK DYAR
KAY HOLZ
ERLING LAGERHOLM
JULIE WENDT, CHAIR

VI. ADMINISTRATION
1. Reconsideration of the Board’s decision to remove all post-1940 structures from the City’s Inventory.

On Monday, 19 June 2006, under ADMINISTRATION, Principal Planner Brian Roseth presented his staff report to the Board. In his staff report, Mr. Roseth reviewed the history of their decision; that is, the City Attorney and Principal Planner recommended the removal of all post-1940 structures from the City’s Inventory. However, after meeting with the California Coastal Commission staff, the California Coastal Commission staff informed the City that their action was in violation of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s certified Local Coastal Program. Ergo, faced with an appeal and the lack of California Coastal Commission staff support, the City Council unanimously voted to remand the decision of the Historic Resources Board with direction to the board to reverse its decision.

By the following roll call, the Historic Resources Board (3-1) rescinded their 23 January 2006 decision and placed all the post-1940 historic resources back on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LAGERHOLM
ABSENT: COSS

NOTE: The Historic Resources Board’s rescission decision on 19 June 2006 was not reported in The Carmel Pine Cone.



CITY COUNCIL AGENDA & MINUTES
MAY 2, 2006

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
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.

Meeting Date: 2 May 2006
Prepared by: Brian Roseth, Principal Planner
City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: 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.

Description: On 23 January 2006, the Historic Resources Board removed 43 properties developed between 1940 and 1956 from the Historic Resources Inventory, until completion of an update to the Historic Context Statement. An appeal of this action is pending. Staff of the California Coastal Commission has informed the City that the Baord's action violates the approved LCP. The proposed Council action would remand the issue back to the Historic Resources Board with instructions to rescing its action in light of this new information.

Staff Recommendation:
Remand the issue to the Historic Resources Board with direction.

Important Considerations:
The Historic Resources Board removed 43 properties from the Historic Resources Inventory. All of these resources were developed between 1940 and 1956. This period is not yet covered in the City's Historic Context Statement. The Board removed these resources as a class, in one motion, pending completion of an update to the Context Statement. This avoided separate analysis, hearings and decisions on these properties. Although the Board's action was taken to save time, it violates the City's approved and certified Local Coastal Program. This Program establishes a clear process for removing historic resources from the City's Inventory.

Decision Record:
23 January 2006, the Historic Resources Board took action.


MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
May 2, 2006

VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS

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.

Don Freeman, City Attorney, presented the staff report and noted that the Historic Resources Board did not have the authority to remove the 1940-1956 properties from the Historic Resources Inventory and that their decision to do so was inconsistent with the Local Coastal Plan.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 5:58 p.m.

Carla Ramsey, representative for the Local Government Relations Committee of the Association of Realtors in Monterey and Miriam Shakat, counsel for Lombardo & Gilles addressed Council regarding clarification of process of determining historicity.

At 6:04 p.m., Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member CUNNINGHAM moved 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, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call:

AYES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC & McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: ROSE
ABSTAIN: NONE

HISTORIC 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.

TOTAL NUMBER OF APPEALS, as of June 2006: 36
APPEALS GRANTED: 15 (Including 1 by City Council, overturning HRB)
APPEALS DENIED: 15
APPEALS CONTINUED: 10
APPEALS NOT HEARD: 1


ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD 19 JUNE 2006 AGENDA

Jeffery & Jennifer Svihus
W/s Junipero between 10th Av. & 11th Av.
Resource Name: Turner House
APPEAL CONTINUED

Sigrid Banks
E/s Lincoln St. between 13th Av. & Santa Lucia Av.
Resource Name: Laumeister House
APPEAL GRANTED
AYES: LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: DYAR
RECUSAL: HOLZ
ABSENT: COSS

Belinda Ray
S/s Sant Lucia Av. Between Dolores St. & Mission St.
Resource Name: Betty Buckley House
APPEAL GRANTED
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM
NOES: WENDT
ABSENT: COSS

William Doolittle
E/s Casanova St. between 7th Av & 8th Av.
Resource Name: Daniel T. Fisk House
APPEAL DENIED
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LAGERHOLM
ABSENT: COSS


ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD 26 JUNE 2006 AGENDA

Tony & Judy Tollner
N.E. corner Santa Rita St. & 6th Av.
Resource Name: George C. Bestor House
APPEAL GRANTED
AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE

Sydney Roussel
W/s Carmelo St. between 9th Av. & 10th Av.
Resource Name: Roussel Residence
APPEAL DENIED
AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE

Thomas & Renate Mannan
W/s San Carlos St. between 1st Av. & 2nd Av.
Resource Name: Jo Mora House
APPEAL CONTINUED

Donald & Elizabeth Mathews
E/s Santa Rita St. between 1st Av. & 2nd Av.
Resource Name: Ben Figuroa House
APPEAL CONTINUED

Carl & Jan Cox
E/s Casanova St. between 9th Av. & 10th Av.
Resource Name: Artie Bowen House
APPEAL DENIED
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LAGERHOLM
ABSENT: COSS

Luella Richter Floyd
N.W. Corner Monte Verde St. & 9th Av.
Resource Name: Etta C. Fletcher House
APPEAL CONTINUED

HEALTH & SAFETY: A Carmelite's Quest for City Government Accountability

Special Meeting
Thursday June 22, 2006
4:00 p.m.
City Hall Conference Room


III. Adjournment to Closed Session at City Hall
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:

Conference with Legal Counsel re: existing litigation – Gov’t Code Section 54956.9
(a) – MARCIA GREEN, Plaintiff v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; ROBERT F. ENZ
CONSTRUCTION; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Defendant - Monterey County
Superior Court Case No. M71281.
At the Closed Session, the City Council denied the claim and referred the claim for damages to St. Paul Travelers, the City’s insurance carrier.
Note: 110836 6/27/06 ST. PAUL TRAVELERS 20,000.00 TWO $10,000 INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLES (DEWEY CASE AND GREEN CASE)


HIGHLIGHTS:

Attorney for Carmelite Marcia Green, Raymond H. Goettsch, Of Counsel, Demler, Armstrong & Rowland, LLP, submitted a claim for damages against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on May 23, 2006.

Included in the claim for damages is Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B.”

Summary of Exhibit “A:”

On February 25, 2004 a City 90’ tall Monterey Pine Tree “snapped at the base of the tree and fell through the center portion” of Marcia Green’s house.

In July 2004, Marcia Green reported 7 “dangerous” trees to the City on her street. The City inspected 3 of the 7 trees and removed 2 trees in December 2004.

In 2005, a utility arborist, and in January 2006, a PG & E lineman, expressed concern about the condition of two of the trees. During this time period, Marcia Green contacted the City Forester. The City Forester, Michael Branson, told her to “keep an eye on it.” She does not “believe the City has set up a reliable method to further monitor this tree.”

In April 2006, a utility forester told Marcia Green that another tree “poses a danger of falling and crashing onto her home or onto the home of a neighbor…”

Summary of Exhibit “B:”

Carmelite Marcia Green, through her attorney, has filed an inverse condemnation claim against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for the damage incurred to her home on February 25, 2004 and the “continuing danger other City trees pose to her home.” Ergo, Marcia Green is “seeking the loss in fair market value of her home in an amount to be determined but not less than $500,000, or the cost to repair in the amount of $250,000, as well as attorney’s fees and costs of approximately $100,000.

And as a result of 4 trees continuing to pose “a danger of falling” of her home and her neighbors homes, etc., Marcia Green is seeking damages for “continuing nuisance” of $250,000 and “the difference between the market value of claimant’s home and the diminished value of claimant’s home given the dangerous condition of the public property created by the subject trees.”


SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY

Case No: M71281

Caption: Green, Marcia vs. City of Carmel by the Sea, et al

Name: Marcia Green

Court Dates & Court Event Description:
7/21/2006; Motion Hearing
8/18/2006; Settlement Conference
8/28/2006; Jury Trial: Long Cause

Courtroom: Courtroom 14

Judge: Hon. Robert O’Farrell

Questions For Carmelites:

1. Does the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea have an adequate, proactive and effective Forestry Management Plan?

2. Is a Forest, Parks & Beach Fiscal Year 2006/07 Budget of $ 399,552 enough to fund an adequate, proactive and effective Forest Management Plan?

3. Did the City Forester and the City respond appropriately to the concerns expressed by Marcia Green and others about hazardous trees on City property?

A City Policy of Continuing Deferred Maintenance Despite Millions of Dollars in Reserves

Capital Investments, including Carmel-by-the-Sea’s road infrastructure, water and sewer systems, government buildings, cultural and historic facilities and parks, are the “public physical heritage” of the city and essential to the city’s economy and quality of life. Our "public physical heritage" has been neglected and allowed to deteriorate over many years. Mayors and City Council Members have not provided adequate annual funding for routine maintenance, repair, replacement, ADA compliance and capital improvements.

As Carmel-by-the-Sea’s deferred maintenance grows over time, the deterioration accelerates over time; thereby increasing the magnitude of money the City must expend to restore its infrastructure, etc. to its original condition. Moreover, the infrastructure gets to the point where it is less expensive to rebuild. For example, City Administrator Rich Guillen described three levels of road conditions which require either slurry seal, overlay or total reconstruction. Needless to say, the spending required for total reconstruction could be avoided, and the city’s capital assets extended, if the City Council committed to adequate levels of funding for maintenance on an annual basis.

In sum, the City’s chronic under investment in Carmel-by-the-Sea’s public assets can negatively impact our economy, expose the City to legal liability, and threaten residents’ and visitors’ health and safety.

Lastly, when reserves or “Unreserved Fund Balances” reach 70% of the General Fund, (ex. $12 million General Fund, $8 million in Reserves and millions in deferred maintenance), then the City Administrator is exercising poor financial management of the city and the City Council is negligent in allowing reserves to accumulate to an obscene level while the City’s infrastructure continues to experience accelerated deterioration over time.