GNM76728 UPDATE: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al.

Case Details of GNM76728: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel By the Sea, et al


WRIT OF MANDATE HEATING: Thursday, November 16, 2006, 9:00 A.M.

Case Information:

Case Number GNM76728
Case Caption Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel By the Sea, et al
Filing Date 11/3/2005
Case Type Civil: Monterey
Filing Type Petition
Original Filing Date 11/3/2005


Attorney Information:
Attorney Type Last Name First Name Middle Name
PET Brandt-Hawley Susan
RES Conners William B.


Judge Information:
Judge Courtroom Location
Hon. Robert O’Farrell
Supervising Judge - Civil Department 14 Monterey Courthouse,
1200 Aguajito Rd., 2nd Floor
Monterey, CA 93940


Hearings:
Type Date Time Location
Motion Hearing 1/20/2006 09:00:00 Courtroom 15
Motion Hearing 2/3/2006 09:00:00 Courtroom 14
Writ of Mandate Hearing 6/22/2006 09:00:00 Courtroom 14
Writ of Mandate Hearing 11/16/2006 09:00:00 Courtroom 14


NOTE: Click on Title above or copy and paste the following link to go directly to Monterey County Superior Court information on the case.

https://www.justicepartners.monterey.courts.ca.gov/Public/JPPublicViewCase.aspx?id=XAFWj8IAGgzeDLgwjkVPNA==

HISTORIC APPEALS UPDATE: Through August 2006

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

TOTAL NUMBER OF APPEALS to HRB, as of August 2006: 44
APPEALS GRANTED BY CITY COUNCIL: 6
APPEALS GRANTED BY HRB: 18
APPEALS DENIED BY HRB: 17
APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED BY HRB (AS A GROUP): 12



ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD 21 AUGUST 2006 AGENDA

ADMINISTRATION
Consideration of an action by the Board to dismiss the following appeal applications:

Charlene Mathews Walters Tr
W/s Monte Verde bet. Ocean & 4th
Resource Name: Abbie McDow House
APPEAL DISMISSED

Bank of America Tr
SW Camino Real & 11th
Resource Name: Robert Allen Griffin House
APPEAL DISMISSED

Christopher Schaepe & Jennie Chiu Tr
SW Casanova & 11th
Resource Name: Reginald Markham House
APPEAL DISMISSED

Dennis Levett
SE Cor. Dolores & 4th
Resource Name: Frederick Bigland Apartments
APPEAL DISMISSED

Edward Ybarro
W/s Torres bet. 1st & 2nd
Resource Name: F. A. Watson House
APPEAL DISMISSED

C.W. Freedman
NE Cor. Casanova & 7th
Resource Name: D. W. Johnson House
APPEAL DISMISSED

Caryl Lockett Miller
N/s Ocean bet. Santa Fe & Santa Rita
Resource Name: W. O. Swain Cottage #3
Common Name: Ocean House
APPEAL DISMISSED

Michael Castillo
SW Cor. Ocean & Forest
Resource Name: Florence Lockwood Studio/House
APPEAL DISMISSED

Sylvia Breiholz
NW Cor. Monte Verde & 10th
Resource Name: Guest House
APPEAL DISMISSED


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

Maureen Chodosh
NW Cor. San Carlos & 10th
Resource Name: Albert E. Otey House
Staff Recommendation: Grant Appeal
APPEAL GRANTED

Donald & Elizabeth Mathews
E/s Santa Rita bet. 1st & 2nd
Resource Name: Ben Figuroa House
Staff Recommendation: Amend DPR to include Carmel stone wall and chimney on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, but remove the historic designation of the primary residence.
APPEAL GRANTED

Carol Benton Richmond
E/s Mission bet. 7th & 8th
Resource Name: Carmel Ballet Academy
Staff Recommendation: Grant Appeal
APPEAL CONTINUED

Faustino & Ines Seoane
W/s Torres bet. 10th & 11th
Resource Name: ”Carmel Type” Cottage
Staff Recommendation: Grant Appeal
APPEAL GRANTED

James & Marjorie Barrow
E/s Monte Verde bet. 7th & 8th
Resource Name: Caroline P. Webster House
Staff Recommendation: Grant Appeal
APPEAL DENIED


ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD 17 JULY 2006 AGENDA

ADMINISTRATION
Consideration of an action by the Board to dismiss the following appeal applications:

Mary W. Ives
NE Corner San Carlos & St. Lucia
Resource Name: Rev. Gardner House
APPEAL DISMISSED

Winston Boyer
NE Corner Camino Real & 13th
Resource Name: Robert W. Covington House
APPEAL NOT DISMISSED

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

Emily Leonardi
E/s Santa Rita bet. 5th & 6th
Resource Name: Raymond Meeks House
APPEAL DISMISSED


APPEALS
Consideration of an appeal of the City’s determination to place existing structures located in the Residential and/or Limited Commercial (RC) District on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

Mission St. Properties
W/s Mission bet. 4th & 5th
Resource Name: Joe McEldowney House
Staff Recommendation: Grant Appeal
APPEAL GRANTED

Dorothy Price
W/s Lincoln bet. 12th & 13th
Resource Name: “Snow White”
Staff Recommendation: Deny Appeal
APPEAL CONTINUED

Tony & Jane Diamond Name
SE Corner of Santa Rita & 3rd
Resource Name: Grey Gables/Culbertson House
Staff Recommendation: Deny Appeal
APPEAL DENIED



ON CITY COUNCIL 8 AUGUST 2006 AGENDA
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.

William G. Doolittle Trust
E/s Casanova Street between 7th and 8th Avenues
Resource Name: Daniel T. Fiske House
Staff Recommendation: Grant Appeal
APPEAL GRANTED


ON CITY COUNCIL 11 JULY 2006 AGENDA
Consideration of appeals of the Historic Resources Board’s decisions to deny request to remove properties from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

Alfred Johnson
W/s San Antonio between Ocean & 4th Avenues
Resource Name: House No. 4 for E. M. White
Common Name: “Quiet Cove”
Staff Recommendation: Deny Appeal
APPEAL GRANTED

Doreen Silva
W/s Carpenter between 3rd & 4th
Resource Name: DeSabla Horse Barn
Staff Recommendation: Grant Appeal
APPEAL GRANTED


ON CITY COUNCIL 6 JUNE 2006 AGENDA
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.

Norman and Eleanor Moscow
W/s Camino Real between 11th & 12th Avenues
Resource Name: Wild Cottage
Staff Recommendation: Grant Appeal
APPEAL GRANTED

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.

John Mandurrago & Pacific Grove Land Company
SE Corner 7th Avenue and Dolores Street
Resource Name: Palo Alto Savings and Loan Building
Staff Recommendation: Deny Appeal
APPEAL GRANTED


ON CITY COUNCIL 2 MAY 2006 AGENDA
Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

David Hall
W/s Carmelo between 11th and 12th Avenues
Resource Name: E. P. Young Spec. House
Staff Recommendation: Grant Appeal
APPEAL GRANTED

Sixth Historic Resources Board Appeal to the City Council

 
Resource Name: Daniel T. Fisk House
Location: Casanova 3 N.E. 8th Av. 

The following appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources is the sixth and latest appeal to the City Council. It represents the City Council’s sixth approval of an appeal; hence, removal of another resource from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.


Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
4:30 p.m., Open Session

VIII. Public Hearings


B. Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the east side of Casanova Street between 7th and 8th Avenues from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant is William G. Doolittle and the property owner is the William G. Doolittle Trust.


Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to grant the appeal to remove property 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
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE


Selected relevant city document excerpts, as follows:

Meeting Date: 8 August 2006
Prepared by: Nathan Schmidt, Assistant 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 is William G. Doolittle and property owner is the William Doolittle Trust (E/s Casanova bet. 7th & 8th, Blk B, Lot 14, APN: 010-195-010).

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 the removal of the property from the inventory.

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal.

Important Considerations: The subject property is 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 1939.

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 Inventory unless substantial evidence demonstrates that it is not an historic resource.

The appellant retained a qualified professional consultant to evaluate the property. The consultant presented substantial evidence to the Board. The Board considered this evidence but found it insufficient to remove the property from the Inventory. The reasons advanced by the consultant for removal from the inventory include a lack of architectural significance and a poor relationship to the City’s Historic Context Statement.

Decision Record: The Historic Resources Board denied the applicant’s request to remove the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources on 19 June 2006. The applicant filed an appeal with the City Clerk on 28 June 2006.



CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT

TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR

FROM: NATHAN SCHMIDT, ASSISTANT PLANNER

DATE: 8 AUGUST 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.

BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject structure is a single story residence constructed in approximately 1939. A building permit was issued that same year for an addition to the residence connecting the detached garage with the house.

The structure was identified as an historic resource as part of the City’s on-going survey of historic structures. A DPR 523 form was filed with the City on 18 July 2002 and was accepted by the California Coastal Commission as part of the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources in October 2004. The DPR indicates that the structure qualifies as an historic structure under California Criterion #3 (Architecture) as a good unaltered example of a type of minimal traditional residential design found in Carmel. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) denied this appeal on 19 June 2006.

EVALUATION
In this section staff provides an evaluation of why the property may, or may not, qualify as an historic resource. Within this analysis the appellant’s arguments and evidence will also be discussed. Staff recognizes four possible reasons for removing a property from the Carmel Inventory: 1) There are gross, non-correctable errors in the historic documentation, 2) The property bears a poor or minimal relationship to the adopted Historic Context Statement, 3) There are a sufficient number of other, better preserved or more important resources of the same type elsewhere within the City, and 4) The resource has lost its historic integrity through past alterations.

Process: CMC 17.32.070 states that when a qualified professional identifies an historic resource it is added to the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources and it 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 ordinance also states that any decision to remove a resource from the inventory shall be based on a recommendation by a qualified professional. However, the City Administrator and City Attorney have determined that if an owner does not want to hire a qualified professional they can present their own argument for the Board’s consideration. The owner in this case has chosen to hire a qualified professional.

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 home does not have architectural significance and does not meet the requirements for listing on the Carmel Inventory because it is not distinctive or unique.

2. The building does not meet any of the criteria for listing in the California Register, and as such, it does not qualify for designation as “historic” on the Carmel Inventory.

Architectural Style / Criterion #3: The original DPR form states that the home is significant under California Register criterion 3, in the area of architecture, as a good unaltered example of a type of residential design found in Carmel in the immediate pre- WWII period referred to as Minimal Traditional style. The majority of the HRB agreed with this evaluation stating that the home’s Minimal Traditional design is unique and should be preserved. The HRB determined that the structure’s elegant design was typical of its era and worthy of preservation.

The owner’s consultant argues that the home is not a Minimal Traditional Style home as stated in the DPR but a “split-level” design. The consultant states that, “the elevation difference between the house and the garage was not part of the house as designed because the residence and garage were constructed as separate structures. That the house has a traditional look that is stylistically unremarkable.” Staff concurs with the appellant’s assessment, that the home portrays an ordinary appearance of an ambiguous design.

Relationship to Context Statement: The DPR indicated that the home is related to the Architectural Development Theme of the Context statement. The HRB determined that the even though the Minimal Traditional style is not mentioned in the Context Statement the modest nature of construction was typical of it’s era. The Board concluded that the residence should be preserved in order to maintain diversity in architecture throughout the City.

Staff does not concur with the HRB’s assessment. The Minimal Traditional style is not identified as a significant architectural style in the Context Statement. Since the residence was constructed within the years covered in the Context Statement, the Council should not treat this property as it would properties that were developed after 1940. The lack of coverage for this style in the Context Statement indicates that this is either not a significant part of the City’s Development or is not worth preserving.

Integrity: The structure is relatively unaltered. There was a small addition in 1939 connecting the main house to the garage. However, this addition does not affect the historic integrity of the home as it was added shortly after the original construction date. Both staff and the HRB agree that the loss of integrity is not sufficient reason for removing the residence from the inventory.

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

• The structure is an unaltered example of a significant architectural style in the City.

RECOMMENDATION
Grant the appeal.



Historic Resources Board’s Minutes for 6/19/06

William Doolittle
E/s Casanova bet 7th and 8th

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

Nathan Schmidt, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.

Chairperson Wendt declared the public hearing open at 6:12 p.m.

Ms. Bunse, appeared before the Board.

Chairperson Wendt declared the public hearing closed at 6:17 p.m., and entered into record a report from Kent Seavey regarding ineligibility for the adjacent property.

Board member Lagerholm moved to grant the appeal and remove it from the City’s Historic Inventory, motion died due to lack of a second.
Dyar moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Holz and carried by the following roll call vote:

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

APPEALS of Historic Resources Board's Decisions to the City Council

Between 2 May 2006 and 8 August 2006, the City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea has granted 6 appeals, of a total of 6 appeals on agendas, overturning decisions of the Historic Resources Board.


CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
August 8, 2006

VIII. Public Hearings

B. Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the east side of Casanova Street between 7th and 8th Avenues from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant is William G. Doolittle and the property owner is the William G. Doolittle Trust.

Historic Resources Board 6/19/06

Board member Lagerholm moved to grant the appeal and remove it from the City’s Historic Inventory, motion died due to lack of a second.

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

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

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal.

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to grant the appeal, overturn the decision of the Historic Resources Board and remove the property from the City’s Historic Inventory, seconded by Council Member ROSE and carried by the following roll call:

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


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

VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS

B. 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.

Historic Resources Board 2/27/06

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

Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal.

Council Member ROSE moved to grant the appeal, overturn the decision of the Historic Resources Board and remove the property from the City’s Historic Inventory, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call:

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


C. 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.

Historic Resources Board 3/20/06

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
ABSENT: NONE

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal.

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to grant the appeal, overturn the decision of the Historic Resources Board and remove the property from the City’s Historic Inventory, seconded by Council Member ROSE and carried by the following roll call:

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


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

VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS

B. 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 be. 11th & 12th, Blk R, Lot 11 & 13, APN: 010-274- 005).

Historic Resources Board 1/23/06

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
ABSENT: NONE

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal.

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


F. 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. The property owner is the Pacific Grove Land Company. The appellant and project designer is John Mandurrago.

Historic Resources Board 12/19/05

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
ABSTAINED: NONE

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

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
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE


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

VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS

C. 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.

Historic Resources Board 2/27/06

Board member Lagerholm moved to grant the appeal and remove the residence from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources the motion failed due to lack of a second.

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

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

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal.

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

"An ordinance is a rule of the city"

Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 8, 2006

VIII. Public Hearings

C. Consideration of an appeal of the Design Review Board’s decision to deny part of a Design Study application for exterior alterations to an existing residence located on the west side of San Antonio between 11th & 12th Avenues. The appellant is Michael Batori and the property owners are Jerry and Cindy Johnston.

Council Member ROSE moved to grant the appeal, overturn the decision of the Design Review Board, allowing for a 5’3” front fence clad with stone and additional skylights, seconded by Council Member BETHEL and carried by the following roll call:

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



During City Council deliberations on the above agenda item, the following verbal exchanges occurred:

Mayor McCLOUD: “Council, we have a zoning ordinance which states 3 feet maximum for a fence, a wall and that this limit shall not be altered by the Design Review Board or the Planning Commission and I’m sure it means Council. We cannot vote against our own city ordinances.”

Councilman ROSE: “Actually we can.”

Councilman BETHEL: “We do all the time.”

Councilman ROSE: “And we do all the time. And because it does not include the Council, the Council is perfectly capable of approving it and should.”

City Attorney FREEMAN: “I have to differ with you. An ordinance is a rule of the city. If the City Council wishes to amend the ordinance, that’s one thing, but there is no provision in the ordinance for granting exceptions or doing anything else to it...because it is an ordinance, if you do approve this, what I would recommend is we take a look at the ordinance, in terms of revising the ordinance to be consistent with this decision and in additional because of the Design Guidelines regarding skylights, we probably ought to take a look at those as well to incorporate some of the comments that have been made this evening so that again everyone is treated the same throughout the city.”

Councilman ROSE: “I respectfully disagree with your legal opinion. As you know, there is a well recognized provision in the law that says if you include 1 or 2 items and exclude a third, then the third is indeed excluded. The ordinance does not include the City Council. The City Council has in fact the right to override the finding of the lower boards and I hope that we’ll do so.”

City Attorney FREEMAN: “Excuse me, but it does have the ability to do that but it is an ordinance. And an ordinance can only be changed by another ordinance, not be a motion of the City Council or a resolution of the City Council…The ordinance is the law of the city. The City Council does not have the ability to go beyond the ordinance. If the City Council wishes to change the ordinance or develop other findings on this application, such as, there is an existing fence there, and you’re not creating a new fence, perhaps some type of replacement, you can come up with certain findings to do that, but you can’t just simply say that because we have an ordinance that says 3’ you can now build one 5’. You don’t have the ability to do that, as a Council, without amending the ordinance.”

Councilman ROSE: “I respectfully disagree. I think we can do what we just did. And I think we can just do it by saying there is an existing fence and we’re just putting additional clad on it and it’s perfectly acceptable.”

City Attorney FREEMAN: “Again, if you develop findings, such as what you have just indicated, you can do that. That’s correct; you’re not changing the ordinance. But the motion as it was previously stated did not incorporate those kinds of things in it. And you would need to articulate them so that...”

Councilman ROSE: “I just did.”

City Attorney FREEMAN: “O.K. That’s fine...You can’t just change an ordinance by granting an appeal.”


COMMENT: While Councilman Rose’s zealous advocacy for “green architecture” and aesthetics is noteworthy, his attitude that Council Members can cavalierly vote against the city’s ordinances is disturbing. Members of the public must have confidence that its elected representatives respect the law, as City Attorney Freeman stated, “The ordinance is the law of the city,” and not abuse their position by substituting their subjective, zealous opinions for an accurate interpretation of the ordinances as written, on a case-by-case basis.

NO CONTRACT for Firefighters & LIUNA Local 270; CONTRACT for Police

CITY COUNCIL
Tour of Inspection
&
Closed Session
Monday, August 7, 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:

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



Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 8, 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 Rich Guillen: “The Council met in Closed Session and there are no announcements at this time.”


VII. Consent Calendar

G. Consideration a Resolution ratifying a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association.

UPDATE: At the 8 August 2006 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a one-year contract with the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association, retroactively effective to July 1, 2006. The contract includes raises and benefit changes which will cost the city an additional $90,000 in Fiscal Year 2006/07.

(Source: "Council, police OK contract," The Carmel Pine Cone, August 25, 2006, pg. 24A.)

MILLS ACT: Participating California Cities & Counties

As of 2006, according to the California State Office of Historic Preservation, there are 83 cities and counties participating in the Mills Act Program; a total of 1713 historic resources state-wide.
Note: The City of Monterey has 7 historic resources property owners with Mills Act Contracts and the County of Monterey’s application is currently pending.


COMMUNITIES PARTICIPATING IN MILLS ACT PROGRAM

Jurisdiction County # of Contracts

Berkeley Alameda 1
Fremont Alameda 2
Chico Butte 4
Danville Contra Costa 4
Claremont Los Angeles 2
Covina Los Angeles 0
Glendale Los Angeles 17
Glendora Los Angeles 5
La Verne Los Angeles 6
Long Beach Los Angeles 22
Los Angeles (county) Los Angeles 2
Los Angeles (city) Los Angeles 235
Monrovia Los Angeles 64
Pasadena Los Angeles 25
Pomona Los Angeles 0
Redondo Beach Los Angeles 43
San Gabriel Los Angeles 1
Santa Monica Los Angeles 18
Sierra Madre Los Angeles 14
South Pasadena Los Angeles 3
West Hollywood Los Angeles 68
Whittier Los Angeles 24
Belvedere Marin 1
Larkspur Marin 1
Monterey (city) Monterey 7
Monterey (county) (pending) Monterey 0
Napa (city) Napa 0
St. Helena Napa 0
Truckee Nevada 4
Anaheim Orange 127
Brea Orange 5
Dana Point Orange 5
Irvine Orange 1
Laguna Beach Orange 5
La Mesa Orange 0
Orange (city) Orange 74
San Clemente Orange 16
San Juan Capistrano Orange 1
Santa Ana Orange 29
Tustin Orange 6
Placer (county) Placer 0
Corona Riverside 17
Palm Springs Riverside 1
Sacramento (city) Sacramento 29
Colton San Bernardino 12
Fontana San Bernardino 2
Highland San Bernardino 2
Ontario San Bernardino 12
Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 45
San Bernardino (city) San Bernardino 0
Upland San Bernardino 28
Chula Vista San Diego 29
Coronado San Diego 0
Encinitas San Diego 1
Escondido San Diego 54
La Mesa San Diego 22
National City San Diego 3
San Diego (city) San Diego 475
San Diego (county) San Diego 14
San Francisco (city and county) San Francisco 1
San Luis Obispo (city) San Luis Obispo 23
Redwood City San Mateo 5
San Mateo (city) San Mateo 1
South San Francisco San Mateo 6
Gilroy Santa Clara 1
Los Altos Santa Clara 5
Morgan Hill Santa Clara 1
Palo Alto Santa Clara 2
San Jose Santa Clara 4
Santa Clara (city) Santa Clara 34
Santa Clara (county) Santa Clara 4
Saratoga Santa Clara 0
Sunnyvale Santa Clara 3
Benicia Solano 12
Vallejo Solano 3
Modesto Stanislaus 12
Jamestown (unicorporated) Tuolomne 1
Soulsbyville (unincorporated) Tuolomne 1
Tuolomne (unicorporated) Tuolomne 1
Tuttletown (unincorporated) Tuolomne 1
Ojai Ventura 1
Ventura (City) Ventura 2
Ventura (county) Ventura 1

TOTAL 1713

Based on notifications provided to the Office of Historic Preservation. Actual totals likely greater. As of May 2006

(Source:
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/

PART V: David & Debbie Hutchings' MILLS ACT CONTRACT

  
Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor Sue McCloud
8 August 2006 City Council Meeting

Mayor McCLOUD seconded Councilman CUNNINGHAM'S motion to DENY the Hutchings' Mills Act Contract; subsequently, McCLOUD, CUNNINGHAM & HAZDOVAC voted to DENY the Hutching's Mills Act Contract, BETHEL & ROSE dissented.

UPDATE: On 9 August 2006, the day after the City Council denied the Hutchings' Mills Act Contract, David Hutchings filed an "appeal" to the City Council for a reconsideration of its 8 August 2006 decision to deny a Mills Act Contract after the City conducts a Mills Act Workshop.

Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
4:30 p.m., Open Session

VIII. Public Hearings

A. Consideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan for an existing historic residence located on the west side of Lincoln Street between 8th & 9th Avenues. The property owners are David & Debbie Hutchings.

Council Member CUNNINGHAM moved to deny the Hutchings’ Mills Act Contract and Maintenance and Management Plan for their historic residence, the Elizabeth F. Armstrong House #2, seconded by Council Member McCLOUD and carried by the
following roll call:

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


Meeting Date: 8 August 2006
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Senior Planner
City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan for an existing historic residence located on the west side of Lincoln bet. 8th & 9th, in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District (Blk 94, Lot 13 APN: 010-193-005). The property owners are David & Debbie Hutchings.

Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a Mills Act Contract that would be forwarded to the County Assessor’s Office and would result in a potential reduction of property taxes if approved by the City. The contract
would be good for a minimum of 10 years.

City Funds: Approval of the Contract will result in a decrease in property taxes for subject property. The actual reduction will be calculated by the County Assessor’s Office.

Staff Recommendation: Postpone the approval the Mills Act Contract and the Maintenance and Management Plan as submitted.

Important Considerations: CMC 17.32.100 identifies benefits available to historic properties listed on the City’s Register of Historic Resources. The most significant of these benefits is the granting of a Mills Act Contract. Goal 1-5 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourages providing incentives for property owners to preserve and rehabilitate historic resources.

Decision Record: On 17 October 2005 the Historic Resources Board recommended approval of a Mills Act Contract for the subject property to the City Council.


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT

TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR

DATE: AUGUST 2, 2006

SUBJECT: PROPOSED HUTCHINGS MILLS ACT CONTRACT
The City Council Agenda Packet contains a staff report prepared by Senior Planner, Sean Conroy. This staff report is basically the same one presented to the City Council on December 6, 2006. You will note that the planning staff recommendation is to approve entering into a Mills Act contract with the David & Debbie Hutchings (property owners).
Recalling the City Council’s deliberations and after reviewing the staff report once again, from my perspective the following items remain unanswered as noted below:

• A City Council workshop needs to be scheduled to educate the public on how the
Mills Act will be applied in our community;

• Staff needs to present to the City Council (at a regularly scheduled meeting) Mills Act criteria that meets the minimum intent of the State Law and is in-line with City Council policy direction;

• The City Attorney needs to review and recommend to the City Council a model
agreement that can be applied to any property that meets the Mills Act criteria; and

• Finally, staff needs to analyze the financial impact to the City’s Property Tax
revenues so that the City Council fully understands the financial impact of Mills
Act property approvals.

Until the above items are addressed, I feel that it is premature to approve (or deny) the Hutchings request to enter into a Mills Act contract.


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT

TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR

FROM: SEAN CONROY, SENIOR PLANNER

DATE: 8 AUGUST 2006

SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A MILLS ACT CONTRACT AND A
MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR AN EXISTING HISTORIC RESIDENCE LOCATED IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT

RECOMMENDED MOTION
Approve the Mills Act Contract and adopt the Maintenance and Management Plan.

BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The subject residence is an English Arts and Crafts style residence with both one and two story elements. The residence is located on the west side of Lincoln Street between 8th and 9th Avenues and was constructed in 1935 by noted local architect C.J. Ryland. The residence and detached garage qualify as historic resources under California Criterion 3 (architecture). A DPR 523 form was filed with the City on 9 April 2002.

On 12 June 2002 with recommendations from the Historic Preservation Committee, the Planning Commission approved a small addition and minor alterations to the historic resource. The additions increase the floor area on the site by approximately 11%.

On 17 October 2005 the Historic Resources Board placed the residence on the City’s Register of Historic Resources and recommended approval of a Mills Act Contract to the City Council. The City Council continued this item on 6 December 2006 until an informational workshop was held educating the public on the Mills Act.

EVALUATION

Mills Act Contracts: Goal 1-5 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourages providing incentives, such as tax relief, to promote preservation and rehabilitation of historic resources. CMC 17.32.100 identifies potential benefits to properties that are included on the City’s Register of Historic Resources. The most significant benefit is the granting of a Mills Act Contract. The Mills Act was enacted by the State of California in 1972 and grants participating local governments authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties. Owners are expected to actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of their historic properties while receiving property tax relief.

As part of the City’s Local Coastal Program, Mills Act Contracts are now being offered to qualifying properties. The purpose of granting a contract is to aid in offsetting the costs of maintenance and rehabilitation or to offset the potential loss of income that might otherwise be achieved on the property.

Terms of the Contract: Mills Act Contracts will have a 10-year term with one year being added annually to the term unless one of the parties has taken action to terminate the contract. Once a contract is approved by the City it is forwarded to the County Recorder’s Office and to the County Assessor’s Office. The assessor calculates the actual tax savings based on the Income Approach to Value method (see attached).

Maintenance & Management Plan: Approval of a Mills Act Contract includes the adoption of a Maintenance and Management plan, which guides maintenance efforts throughout the life of the contract. This plan must be updated at least every 10 years. The City’s Preservation Consultant prepared a thorough evaluation of the property’s character-defining features and made maintenance recommendations. Her review is attached.

Based on these recommendations, the applicant has prepared a maintenance schedule identifying the proposed long-term maintenance and the potential cost associated with each activity. Because this structure has been maintained in such excellent condition, the Maintenance and Management Plan is relatively limited.

Required Findings: CMC 17.32.100.B requires that specific findings be made before a Mills Act Contract can be approved. The following is a list of the findings with a response from staff:

Finding #1: The building is designated as an historic resource by the City and is listed on the Carmel Register.

Response: The residence was placed on the City’s Register of Historic Resources on 17 October 2005 by the Historic Resources Board.

Finding #2: The proposed maintenance plan is appropriate in scope and sufficient in detail to guide long-term maintenance.

Response: The residence has been maintained in an excellent manner and has recently been renovated. The maintenance plan identifies maintenance that will be done on a year-to-year basis and also identifies on-going maintenance activities. The plan is sufficient to guide long-term maintenance and allows the City to re-evaluate the plan periodically.

Finding #3: Alterations to the historic resource have been in the past, and will continue to be in the future, limited to interior work and to exterior rehabilitation and alterations that:

(A) Comply with the Secretary’s Standards, and do not affect the basic form and design of the original historic resource, and

(B) Do not affect any primary elevation, and

(C) Do not alter, damage or diminish any character-defining feature, and

(D) Do not increase floor area on the property by more than 15 percent beyond the amount established in the documented original or historic design of the resource, and

(E) Do not result in any second-story addition to a single-story historic resource, and

(F) Meet all zoning standards applicable to the location of the property.

Response: An addition was approved on the rear to the historic residence in 2002 that increased the floor area on the site by approximately 11%. No addition or alteration has occurred that has affected the primary (east) elevation, with the exception of the in-kind replacement of the garage doors. The Historic Resources Board and the Planning Commission determined that the addition to the rear was consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. Any future proposal for alterations would be required to follow the City’s adopted procedures and be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards and the requirements of this contract.

As part of the addition and remodel in 2002, the Planning Commission granted two zoning exceptions, one for plate height (excess of 18’) and one for the number of stories. The Council should discuss if this violates required finding 3F, or if the finding can still be made since the exceptions were granted by the Planning Commission.

Finding #4: The Mills Act contract will aid in offsetting the costs of rehabilitating
and/or maintaining the historic resource and/or will offset potential losses of income that might otherwise be achieved on the property.

Response: The approval of this contract will assist in offsetting future costs of maintenance and will offset potential losses of income that might otherwise be achieved on the site had the residence not been identified as an historic resource.

Finding #5: Approval of the Mills Act contract will represent an equitable balance of public and private interests and will not result in substantial adverse financial impact on the City.

Response: Approval of the Mills Act Contract will be consistent with Goal 1-5 and Objective 1-16 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan which encourages providing incentives for property owners to preserve and rehabilitate historic resources. Although the adoption of all Mills Act Contracts will decrease the property taxes available to the City, this financial impact is minimal because:

1) only a limited number of properties can meet the requirements for a contract.

2) only a portion of the property tax from any single property will be lost and

3) the lost revenue to the City is offset by the value of preserving important historic resources. This contract represents an equitable balance of public and private interests.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Mills Act Contract.

PART IV: David & Debbie Hutchings' MILLS ACT CONTRACT

“De minimis:” Why the City Council Should Have Granted the Hutchings’ MILLS ACT CONTRACT

De minimis:
adj. (dee-minnie-miss) Latin for "of minimum importance" or "trifling." Essentially it refers to something or a difference that is so little, small, minuscule or tiny that the law does not refer to it and will not consider it. In a million dollar deal, a $10 mistake is de minimis.
(Source: http://www.thelawencyclopedia.com/term/de_minimis?gclid=CLSrwYjv54YCFTODCwodYBjGAg)


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT

TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR

FROM: SEAN CONROY, SENIOR PLANNER

DATE: 8 AUGUST 2006

SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A MILLS ACT CONTRACT AND A
MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR AN EXISTING HISTORIC RESIDENCE LOCATED IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT

RECOMMENDED MOTION
Approve the Mills Act Contract and adopt the Maintenance and Management Plan.


Required Findings: CMC 17.32.100.B requires that specific findings be made before a Mills Act Contract can be approved. The following is a list of the findings with a response from staff:

(F) Meet all zoning standards applicable to the location of the property.

Response: An addition was approved on the rear to the historic residence in 2002 that increased the floor area on the site by approximately 11%. No addition or alteration has occurred that has affected the primary (east) elevation, with the exception of the in-kind replacement of the garage doors. The Historic Resources Board and the Planning Commission determined that the addition to the rear was consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. Any future proposal for alterations would be required to follow the City’s adopted procedures and be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards and the requirements of this contract.
As part of the addition and remodel in 2002, the Planning Commission granted two zoning exceptions, one for plate height (excess of 18’) and one for the number of stories

The Council should discuss if this violates required finding 3F, or if the finding can still be made since the exceptions were granted by the Planning Commission.




ISSUE: Whether the zoning exception, granted by the Planning Commission, for an increase in second story by 12” (according to Associate Planner Sean Conroy at the meeting) meets the requirements of 3 (F) Meet all zoning standards applicable to the location of the property.

Thus, at the 8 August 2006 City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Council meeting, the following verbal exchange occurred between Council Member Bethel and City Attorney Freeman regarding the Hutchings’ Mills Act Contract application:

City Councilman BETHEL: “My understanding of the word de minimis basically means that if this is ruled so insignificant, the 12” plate height, then my recollection of what the word means...is it would meet all the zoning standards applicable."

City Attorney FREEMAN: De minimis means...to give you an example. If you have a 10’ setback and if the setback is only 9’11”, it’s over by 1”, while it’s not technically 10’, the reality of it is it’s de minimis in nature, it doesn’t really affect anything and thus it’s not precedent setting. If somebody else actually came in with a 1” difference, we would grant that as well because it doesn’t really mean anything. So what you have to determine is this 12” plate height is that de minimis in nature. So that if somebody else came in with a similar problem, which could happen but may never happen, would you consider that de minimis too? And if the answer to that is yes, you would consider that de minimis and it would comply with all the rules as written.

Amazingly, after this exchange, Council Member CUNNINGHAM moved to deny the Hutchings’ Mills Act Contract for the property’s failure to meet criterion 3 (F), seconded by Mayor McCLOUD, and carried by the following roll call:

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

After the vote, Council Member Cunningham had the chutzpah to shout out into the audience in the direction of David Hutchings, “Reapply David! Reapply! Reapply! Reapply!”

PART III: David & Debbie Hutchings' MILLS ACT CONTRACT

City Administrator & Council Members Comments on the HUTCHINGS’ Mills Act Contract Agenda Item: 8 August 2006 City Council Meeting


Verbal Exchange between City Administrator GUILLEN and Mills Act Contract Applicant DAVID HUTCHINGS:

City Administrator GUILLEN: “…I did place a cover memo on top of this particular report and there’s basically 4 bullets that I have listed that I think the Council needs to consider as part of their action tonight. We had talked about a workshop, I think the Council still needs to schedule that and maybe have more in-depth discussion at the Council level so that you are more familiar with the Act as well as the public…”

Mills Act Contract Applicant DAVID HUTCHINGS: “...You say here workshop for the benefit of the public. Actually at the City Council meeting, when you review the tapes, and again we talked about this…the workshop was for the City Council, period. That’s how it was presented."

City Administrator Rich Guillen: “Yeah. That’s fine. I don’t disagree.”


But later, City Administrator Rich Guillen: “...educate the public, but from my standpoint it was really more education of the public, than it was the council, because I think you generally understand the criteria, but I don’t know if the public really knows the criteria means...”

REBUTTAL: So, Guillen, which one of your stories reflects reality? At the December City Council meeting, you stated the Mills Act Workshop would be for the benefit of the City Council. Early on during the 8 August 2006 City Council meeting, you stated that the Workshop would be for the Council and the public. Then later on during the meeting, you stated that the Workshop was exclusively for the public because you believed the Council “generally understand the criteria.” For the benefit of the City Council OR the Council and the public OR the public? So many versions, so much incoherence, so much doublespeak!


City Administrator Rich Guillen: “Let me comment on that. Because the staff’s understanding and maybe I need to take the responsibility more than anybody else at this dais. But the staff’s understanding at that time is that you do not want to have that Mills Act Workshop until you really understood what the revised or amended Historic Context Statement said cause you had talked about having the best of the best houses considered historic. And we cannot do that until we revise the Historic Context Statement. We went to the prior person who drafted the Historic Context Statement and that person was not available. I’m getting off line here. But it’s not like we haven’t tried. I mean, literally, it’s not like we haven’t tried. And then secondly, you know, while I was trying to give the Council an out here in my cover memo. Just continue it. Because we still really have at least 3 more months, maybe 4 more months before this Act applies again. And within that timeframe I think you can accomplish these points that I listed in my memo.”

RETORT: “And we cannot do that until we revise the Historic Context Statement.” WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN! The City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, as originally submitted in 2004 to the California Coastal Commission, was supposed to represent the “best of the best” already. Apparently, none of the Council Members, nor the City Administrator, bothered to read and comprehend the contents of the Local Coastal Program with regard to historic resources prior to the City’s submission of the LCP to the California Coastal Commission. Gross incompetence doesn’t even begin to explain this mockery of city government!


City Administrator GUILLEN: “Finally, the most important one, we don’t really, totally, completely know what the financial impact will be to our property tax revenues, which is our second highest revenue source in this city. And even though there might only be one house put in the Mills Act, that obviously would not have any major implication. But we have 3 historic resources, 300 historic resources, or a little less than that and out of those even if a third were placed into the Mills Act requirements, I think we could have some substantial financial impacts to our revenue sources.”

RETORT: The Mills Act is an integral part of the Historic Preservation element of the City’s Local Coastal Program; as such, all of the ramifications, including the number of historic resources on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources and the financial calculations and implications, should have been considered prior to the original submittal to the California Coastal Commission.

Moreover, as David Hutchings articulated on the financial impacts, “the differences between fair market value versus rental value and capitalizes it. And the range is somewhere between 40-60% tax savings to the individual applicant to help him use that funds to help with the maintenance program of his house.”


City Administrator GUILLEN: “…the crystal ball’s kind of foggy and it was really foggy in December and it’s a little clearer now, but it’s still foggy, and I think 3 more months it would be a little less foggy, if we do have the workshop and do some other things and it would make your decision a lot easier…”

RETORT: The only valid foggy “crystal ball” analogy is to Rich Guillen’s mental processes. As the city’s Administrator, Guillen should have initiated, scheduled and conducted a Mills Act Workshop soon after December 2005. Instead, his lack of initiative and incompetence has created this foggy crystal ball fiasco and denied the Hutchings a timely Mills Act Contract decision. (Note: The Hutchings’ applied for the Mills Act Contract in June 2005.)



City Councilman ROSE: “...I don’t see how the applicant is prejudiced if we postpone the decision until after our workshop. What I want to assure is that all property owners who are situated similarly to the applicant are treated equally and fairly…but I don’t think he should either get an advantage or a disadvantage because of it. As long as we hear his application by the end of the year…I think it’s better public policy to take a step back and make sure we have our ducks in order before we sign a contract.”


Verbal Exchange between ROSE and Mills Act Contract Applicant HUTCHINGS:

City Councilman ROSE: “We need to hold one.” (a workshop)

DAVID HUTCHINGS: “What assurances do I have from the City Council that it will be done this time. The last time I was here in December that this was continued…and the City Council at that time would not give a date certain…What assurance do I have?”

“There are things that I would be prejudiced by, as you know property taxes. The assessment to be done by January 1, with the county. However, there are tax planning issues involved individually. Now, I’ve waiting since June 2005…It cost me because of the result of the continuance, $25,000. If this goes past January 1, it’s going to cost me an another $25,000, $50,000. So I think I have been prejudiced by this.”


Later on during the hearing, City Councilman ROSE: “...You don’t make people wait a year for something like this. It’s our fault, not his fault, that we didn’t have a workshop. It’s our fault, not his, that we haven’t given him an answer. It’s our fault, not his, that we haven’t come up with standards.”

RETORT: While Rose voted to grant the Hutchings’ Mills Act Contract, to his credit, his contradictory comments regarding whether to hold a Mills Act Workshop prior to a vote on Hutchings’ Mills Act Contract or go ahead and vote on the Hutchings’ Contract prior to a Mills Act Workshop indicated a confused and disconnected stance on the matter.



Carmelite MONTE MILLER: “I agree totally with the applicant and I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that after, this was in December of last year. Monterey’s had this Act for years. And it would have been very simple for Carmel to go over and find out from Monterey how they are administering it. And it’s a very simple economic analysis to know whatever the percentage reduction is, you were pushing the benefits of historical for the last couple of years. You hired Kent Seavy to tell which ones were historical. So I think you have the responsibility to allow these people to get the benefits of a historical house. And this business of, last December you should have had a workshop scheduled of whoever doesn’t know enough about this Act, to do an economic analysis on the impacts. But I think this guy’s been treated really badly. And I think it behooves you to make justice to him be approving his application today.”

COMMENT: ABSOLUTELY! Monte Miller was the only member of the public to speak in support of granting the Hutchings’ Mills Act Contract. If any one of the five City Council Members was treated as Mr. Hutchings’ has been treated by the City Council and City Administrator, does anyone really think he/she would not be OUTRAGED by such treatment?



City Councilwoman HAZDOVAC: “We were given 300 structures that were designated historic. I don’t really take that as my responsibility and my fault. And the problem with this application is I don’t see this as an historic structure. So I would be voting no if you made a motion to go ahead and grant this Mills Act application. I don’t see this house as historic...”

RETORT: The day the California Coastal Commission certified the City’s Local Coastal Program submittal is the day YOU became RESPONSIBLE for its contents. Therefore, YOU and your colleagues are ALL AT FAULT! Moreover, once a property is placed on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, it is considered “historic,” until and unless substantive evidence is presented to contradict that designation. No such information was been presented to the City Council. Therefore, YOU are acting in an IRRESPONSIBLE manner; you are supposed to apply the historic element of the Local Coastal Program on a case-by-case basis, not base your decision on YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED PERSONAL OPINION!!!



Mayor MCCLOUD: On the application today...”are the normal maintenance of sanding, painting, scraping, gutter cleaning, cleaning windows. I just don’t think that’s what the Mills Act was talking about. And I have a real problem with granting such a big tax break for things that are landscaping, adding soil, so forth.”

RETORT: While McCloud is rewriting the Mills Act, perhaps she can time travel to the 18th century and rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America. Only delusional arrogance would allow an individual to erroneously interpret the Mills Act, disregard the Historic Resources Board’s 17 October 2005 unanimous decision to recommend to the City Council a Mills Act Contract for the Hutchings’ Elizabeth F. Armstrong House # 2, dismiss the Planning Staff’s recommendation and substitute her own erroneous, irrelevant and extraneous opinion.

Suggested Reading:

U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Washington, D.C.: U.S Government Printing Office, 1995.

Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program
Technical Assistance Bulletin #12
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Department of Parks & Recreation

PART II: David & Debbie Hutchings' MILLS ACT CONTRACT

CITY COUNCIL

Regular Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, August 8, 2006

VIII. Public Hearings

A. Consideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan for an existing historic residence located on the west side of Lincoln Street between 8th & 9th Avenues. The property owners are David & Debbie Hutchings.


At the City Council 8 August 2006 meeting, during the public hearing on the Hutchings’ Mills Act Contract, City Administrator Rich Guillen stated the following to augment his Staff Report advising against approving/denying the Hutchings’ Mills Act Contract.

"Let me comment on that. Because the staff’s understanding and maybe I need to take the responsibility more than anybody else at this dais. But the staff’s understanding at that time is that you do not want to have that Mills Act Workshop until you really understood what the revised or amended Historic Context Statement said cause you had talked about having the best of the best houses considered historic. And we cannot do that until we revise the Historic Context Statement. We went to the prior person who drafted the Historic Context Statement and that person was not available. I’m getting off line here. But it’s not like we haven’t tried. I mean, literally, it’s not like we haven’t tried. And then secondly, you know, while I was trying to give the Council an out here in my cover memo. Just continue it. Because we still really have at least 3 more months, maybe 4 more months before this Act applies again. And within that timeframe I think you can accomplish these points that I listed in my memo."

Yet, at the Special City Council Meeting of 13 June 2006, the Resolution “authorizing the City Administrator to sign a Consultant Services Agreement” with Archives and Architecture was on the agenda; Mayor McCloud pulled the item at that meeting.


Special Meeting
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
IV. Orders of Council

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.


Meeting Date: 6 June 2006
Prepared by: Brian Roseth, Principal Planner

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

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).
Grant Funds: n/a
Staff time: n/a

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.

Reviewed by:

_____________________________ ______________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date


CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, dated this 13th day of June 2006 is by and between the CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as “City”, and ARCHIVES AND ARCHITECTURE, HERITAGE RESOURCE PARTNERS, hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”.

I. SERVICES BY CONSULTANT

A. Consultant will perform all services, carry out all responsibilities, and prepare such reports as described in the Scope of Work, Schedule, Work Products and Budget, contained in Consultant’s proposal, hereinafter referred to as Scope of Services, attached as Exhibit A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference.

B. Said services and all duties incidental or necessary thereto shall be performed diligently and competently and in accordance with professional standards of performance.

II. COMPENSATION

A. 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. Such amount shall constitute full and complete payment by City under this Agreement.

B. Consultant shall submit an itemized invoice to City on a monthly basis. Each invoice shall reference the specific item(s) in the Scope of Services completed or partially completed (by %) during that period for which payment is requested. For partially completed items the invoice shall also show a running total of the percent completed-to-date from past invoices. City shall make payment for work completed within forty-five (45) days of receipt of invoice.

C. City shall have the right to withhold payment to Consultant for any work not completed in a satisfactory manner until such time as Consultant modifies such work so that the same is satisfactory as determined by City and in accordance with professional standards of performance.

III. OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT

A. Ownership of any reports, data, studies, surveys, charts, maps, figures, photographs, memoranda, and any other documents which are developed, compiled, or produced as a result of this Agreement, whether or not completed, shall be vested in City.

B. Methodology, materials, software, logic and systems developed under the said Contract are the property of Consultant, subconsultants, and City, and may be used as Consultants and/or City see fit, including the right to revise or publish the same without limitation.

IV. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

A. The City Administrator of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, or the Administrator’s designee, shall have primary administrative responsibility for City under this Agreement, and shall review and approve Consultant's invoices to City under this Agreement.

B. The City Administrator, or the Administrator’s designee, shall have primary responsibility for overseeing and reviewing Consultant's preparation of products as outlined in the Scope of Work, and shall coordinate all communications with Consultant from City.

V. COMPLETION DATE

A. 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. Completion of Task V, Presentations, specified in the Scope of Work shall be scheduled by City as needed for public presentations and public hearings included as part of the Scope of Services. Consultant will diligently proceed with the work contracted for, but it is expressly agreed and understood that Consultant shall not be held responsible for delays occasioned by factors beyond its control, nor by factors that could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of the execution of the Agreement between the parties.

VI. SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT

A. Consultant and City reserve the right to terminate or suspend this Agreement at any time by giving twenty (20) days' written notice to the other party. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports, or other material prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted to City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on the project prior to the date of suspension or termination.

B. In the event that City requests termination of the work prior to completion, Consultant reserves the right to complete such analyses and records as may be necessary to place its files in order.

VII. NON-DISCRIMINATION/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

A. Consultant and any subconsultants will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, sex, age, national origin, marital status, physical or other motor handicap, unless based upon bona fide occupational qualification. Consultant will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, sex, age, national origin, marital status, physical or other motor handicap.

VIII. ASSIGNMENT

A. This Agreement may not be assigned or otherwise transferred by the parties hereto without the written consent of the other party. Unless otherwise stated in an amendment to this Agreement the specific personnel from the Consultant used in completion of the Scope of Services shall be:

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

IX. MODIFICATION

A. No change, alteration, modification, or addition to this Agreement will be effective unless it is in writing and properly signed by all parties hereto.

X. HOLD HARMLESS

A. Consultant shall hold City and its officers, agents, and employees, harmless from all suits, claims or liabilities of any nature, including attorney fees, costs and expenses, for or on account of injuries or damages sustained by any persons or omissions of Consultant, its agents, subconsultants or employees pursuant to this Agreement, or on account of any unpaid wages or other remuneration for services; and if a suit in respect to the above is filed, Consultant shall appear and defend the same at its own cost and expense, and if judgment be rendered or settlement made requiring payment of damages by City, which damages are based in whole or part on the negligent activities or omissions of Consultant, its agents or employees, Consultant shall pay the same.

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS

A. Consultant and sub-consultants shall be in compliance with all applicable State, Federal and City laws and safety regulations.

XII. INSURANCE
A. Consultant and sub-consultants shall maintain and keep in force during the term of this Agreement the following insurance: a comprehensive general liability policy, including non-owned, hired and owned automobile coverage and broad form liability extension coverage endorsed on to the policy in the limits of at least $500,000 for bodily injury for persons injured in any one accident; and at least $300,000 for property damage.

XIII. ADDITIONAL SERVICES

A. It is understood and agreed by City and Consultant that City might request Consultant to render additional professional services beyond the original Scope of Services as defined in Exhibit A to this Agreement. Such additional services may include those due to abnormal conditions beyond Consultant's control, changes in phasing, time delays, changes in scope or requirements on the part of others and services necessitated by legal challenge of the work products. Any work requested of Consultant by City beyond that identified in Exhibit A shall constitute additional services and shall require additional payment for services at the rates specified below:

Partner ……………………………………………………..............$95.00 per hour
Associate Historians/Technical Services ………$70 per hour

B. Such work will be undertaken only upon written authorization of City, written agreement by all parties, and based upon an agreed amount of compensation.

XIV. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

A. Consultant is and shall be at all times during the term of this Agreement an independent contractor. Consultant shall maintain a valid business license with the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea at all times during the term of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, ARCHIVES AND ARCHITECTURE
CALIFORNIA

By: By:
_________________________ ________________________________
Rich Guillen LESLIE DILL
City Administrator Partner


NOTE: At the 8 August 2006 City Council meeting, Mayor McCloud stated, “...one of the things that we were trying to do before we did the workshop was to get the Historic Context Statement done. And that has hit a couple of bumps which has delayed what our effort is as far as the sequence we were trying to do.” And again, City Administrator Rich Guillen stated, “We went to the prior person who drafted the Historic Context Statement and that person was not available. I’m getting off line here. But it’s not like we haven’t tried. I mean, literally, it’s not like we haven’t tried.”

PART I: David & Debbie Hutchings' MILLS ACT CONTRACT

Mayor McCloud’s Revisionist History

Perhaps Mayor McCloud has a poor memory. Or perhaps it is more sinister. Perhaps she confuses her convenient opinion of the moment with reality. In any event, at the 8 August 2006 City Council meeting during the Council’s deliberations on the city’s first Mills Act Contract for the historic property owned by David and Debbie Hutchings, Mayor Sue McCloud fallaciously and fictitiously stated:

“I would like to remind Council that one of the things that we were trying to do before we did the workshop was to get the Historic Context Statement done. And that has hit a couple of bumps which has delayed what our effort is as far as the sequence we were trying to do. So in all fairness to staff, you know, we now are still at that point where, and the other thing I would say is, there is no difference whether we decide it tonight or we decide it in 2 months, when we could have, everybody being treated on a level playing field from the standpoint of proceeding after a workshop. But the sequence we were going to do, Historic Context Statement, and then the workshop.”

In short, only in the mind of Sue McCloud is there a linkage between the update of the Historic Context Statement and the granting of Mills Act Contracts; that is, a public understanding that the update of the Historic Context Statement was to be completed prior to Council consideration of Mills Act Contracts. There is absolutely no evidence in the public record to indicate that the City Council ever intended to hold hostage Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings’ Mills Act Contract to the update of the Historic Context Statement.

Finally, perhaps Mayor McCloud has forgotten the intent of a phrase in the City’s Response to the 2005 Monterey County Grand Jury’s Report on Open Government, a letter she signed as mayor of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, dated March 8, 2006; “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.” Ergo, Mayor McCloud’s decision to link the Historic Context Statement to Mills Act Contracts was not “visible to the public” and in violation of the spirit and letter of the Ralph M. Brown Act.


References:
Note the independent relationship vis a vis historic preservation of the Historic Context Statement and Mills Act Contract, as codified in the City’s Municipal Code.


Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code

Chapter 17.32
HISTORIC PRESERVATION

17.32.060 Determining Eligibility for the Carmel Inventory.

A. Historic Context Statement.

2. The purpose of the Historic Context Statement is to establish a baseline of information against which the potential historic significance of a property is evaluated. “The significance of an historic property can be judged and explained only when it is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are those patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within history or prehistory is made clear.” (National Register Bulletin: “How to Apply the National Register Criteria For Evaluation,” p. 7). However, exclusion of a resource type from the context statement shall not preclude a finding of historical significance by a qualified professional.


17.32.100 Benefits Available to Historic Resources on the Register.

B. Mills Act Historical Property Contracts.
1. Purpose. A Mills Act contract under State law is an agreement between the City of Carmel and a property owner of an historic building listed on the Carmel Register. The property owner benefits from a reduction in property taxes, and the City is assured that the historic building is rehabilitated, maintained and preserved. All Mills Act contracts shall be established, processed and approved in conformance with California law.

"Barney's Bank"

  
Palo Alto Savings and Loan Bank
Location: Dolores St. & 7th Av., S.E. Corner


CITY COUNCIL

Regular Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, August 8, 2006

VII. Consent Calendar

I. Adopt findings granting an appeal of a decision of the Historic Resources Board, determining the former Palo Alto Savings and Loan building to be historically significant and listing the property on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources. The property 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.


At the 8 August 2006 City Council meeting, the above Consent Calendar item was pulled; along with previously submitted written comments, Elinor Laiolo presented the following "new information" at the meeting:


“I’m Elinor Laiolo. And I would just like to say that I have asked that this item be reconsidered, although somebody else had done it before me. Because I believe there was a body of information relative to the property located at the southeast corner of Dolores and 7th Street which is now referred to as Plaza Del Mar. And that information was absent from deliberations by the council on June 6, 2006.

At that time, I was out of the country and did not know prior to my departure that a discussion on the issue was to be on that day’s agenda. The information concerns the role played by Mr. Barnet, more familiarly known a Barney, not my Barney, another Barney, the city’s lucky to have had two Barneys. Mr. Barnet Segal with Palo Alto Salinas Valley Savings and Loan Association. Barney served as Treasurer of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for 8 years. He had opened the first bank in Carmel-by-the-Sea with a charter from the State of California, outdoing APG & N. It started the Carmel Business Association and the Carmel Art Association as well as the Carmel Saving and Loan Association which make it possible for many folks to purchase property and construct their individual and personal homes in the years prior to and after World War II. While some material has been already accumulated, there is still information to be verified and developed.

I would ask then that the Council, which you have already put into action, I believe, to consider hearing this information in regard to the Plaza Del Mar site, which is more familiarly known to long-time residents as Barney’s Bank.

Thank you.”


Note: In 2004, Elinor Laiolo, signed Sue McCloud’s nomination papers to run for mayor. She is presently on The Carmel Foundation 2006-2007 Board of Directors, serving as Secretary.

Council Member ROSE pulled Item I from the Consent Calendar;
Council Member ROSE moved to postpone the adoption of findings and schedule the re-opening of a public hearing to allow consideration of the new information, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and carried by the following roll call:

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

ETHICS...No Confidence in Government Without ETHICAL CONDUCT

While the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has a “Code of Ethics” for “Administration and Personnel,” the City apparently does not have a “Code of Ethics” for the City Council, Boards and Commissions.

The City’s “Code of Ethics” for Administration and Personnel, as follows:

Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Title 2
ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL

Chapter 2.52
PERSONNEL SYSTEM*
Sections:
Article I. Code of Ethics
2.52.010 Code of Ethics.

Article I. Code of Ethics

2.52.010 Code of Ethics.

As public employees we are entrusted with the confidence of those we serve to fulfill the responsibilities of our roles. Our actions are deemed representative of those we serve and our function, therefore, carries with it a greater responsibility than that of the private enterprise employee. Our system of government is viewed by the public through our acts as we fulfill the demands of our positions. We must demonstrate competency, integrity, honesty, courtesy and fairness in all relationships, private and public, to best represent the type of government desired by all. We have a patriotic duty to fulfill our roles in the highest standard possible for the purpose of assuring exemplary government for all people. A departure from this ideal creates an injustice for all. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).


Since a search of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s web site (http://www.carmelcalifornia.com/) and the Institute for Local Government’s web site (http://www.cacities.org/index.jsp?displaytype=§ion=about&zone=ilsg) did not yield a City of Carmel-by-the-Sea “Code of Ethics” for City Council, Board and Commissions, the City of Calistoga’s “Code of Ethics” is reprinted, as follows:

CODE OF ETHICS
for members of Calistoga City Council, Boards and Commissions

Preamble
The citizens and businesses of Calistoga are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government which has earned the public's full confidence for integrity. In keeping with the City of Calistoga Commitment to Excellence, the effective functioning of democratic government therefore requires that:

• public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting the operations of government;

• public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions;

• public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and

• public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.

To this end, the Calistoga City Council has adopted a Code of Ethics for members1 of the City Council and of the City's boards and commissions to assure public confidence in the integrity of local government and its effective and fair operation.

1 For ease of reference in the Code of Ethics, the term "member" refers to any member of the Calistoga City Council or any of the City's boards and commissions established by the City Council.

City of Calistoga Code of Ethics

1. Act in the Public Interest

Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, members will work for the common good of the people of Calistoga and not for any private or personal interest, and they will assure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions coming before the Calistoga City Council, boards and commissions.

2. Comply with the Law

Members shall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California and the City of Calistoga in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but are not limited to: the United States and California constitutions; the Calistoga Municipal Code; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, employer responsibilities, and open processes of government; and City ordinances and policies.

3. Conduct of Members

The professional and personal conduct of members must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of Council, boards and commissions, the staff or public.

4. Respect for Process

Members shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the City Council and board and commissions governing the deliberation of public policy issues, meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of policy decisions of the City Council by City staff.

5. Conduct of Public Meetings

Members shall prepare themselves for public issues; listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and focus on the business at hand. They shall refrain from interrupting other speakers; making personal comments not germane to the business of the body; or otherwise interfering with the orderly conduct of meetings.

6. Decisions Based on Merit

Members shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand, rather than on unrelated considerations.

7. Communication

Members shall publicly share substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration by the Council or boards and commissions, which they may have received from sources outside of the public decisionmaking process.

8. Conflict of Interest

In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good, members shall not use their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have a material financial interest, or where they have an organizational responsibility or personal relationship which may give the appearance of a conflict of interest.

In accordance with the law, members shall disclose investments, interests in real property, sources of income, and gifts; and they shall abstain from participating in deliberations and decision-making where conflicts may exist.

9. Gifts and Favors

Members shall not take any special advantage of services or opportunities for personal gain, by virtue of their public office, that are not available to the public in general. They shall refrain from accepting any gifts, favors or promises of future benefits which might compromise their independence of judgment or action or give the appearance of being compromised.

10. Confidential Information

Members shall respect the confidentiality of information concerning the property, personnel or affairs of the City. They shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their personal, financial or other private interests.

11. Use of Public Resources

Members shall not use public resources not available to the public in general, such as City staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for private gain or personal purposes.

12. Representation of Private Interests

In keeping with their role as stewards of the public interest, members of Council shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of third parties before the Council or any board, commission or proceeding of the City, nor shall members of boards and commissions appear before their own bodies or before the Council on behalf of the private interests of third parties on matters related to the areas of service of their bodies.

13. Advocacy

Members shall represent the official policies or positions of the City Council, board or commission to the best of their ability when designated as delegates for this purpose. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the City of Calistoga, nor will they allow the inference that they do.

14. Policy Role of Members

Members shall respect and adhere to the council-manager structure of Calistoga city government as outlined by the Calistoga Municipal Code. In this structure, the City Council determines the policies of the City with the advice, information and analysis provided by the public, boards and commissions, and City staff.

Members therefore shall not interfere with the administrative functions of the City or the professional duties of City staff; nor shall they impair the ability of staff to implement Council policy decisions.

15. Independence of Boards and Commissions

Because of the value of the independent advice of boards and commissions to the public decision-making process, members of Council shall refrain from using their position to unduly influence the deliberations or outcomes of board and commission proceedings.

16. Positive Work Place Environment

Members shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive work place environment for City employees and for citizens and businesses dealing with the City. Members shall recognize their special role in dealings with City employees to in no way create the perception of inappropriate direction to staff.

17. Implementation

As an expression of the standards of conduct for members expected by the City, the Calistoga Code of Ethics is intended to be self-enforcing. It therefore becomes most effective when members are thoroughly familiar with it and embrace its provisions.

For this reason, ethical standards shall be included in the regular orientations for candidates for City Council, applicants to board and commissions, and newly elected and appointed officials. Members entering office shall sign a statement affirming they read and understood the City of Calistoga code of ethics. In addition, the Code of Ethics shall be annually reviewed by the City Council, boards and commissions, and the City Council shall consider recommendations from boards and commissions and update it as necessary.

18. Compliance and Enforcement

The Calistoga Code of Ethics expresses standards of ethical conduct expected for members of the Calistoga City Council, boards and commissions. Members themselves have the primary responsibility to assure that ethical standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government.

The chairs of boards and commissions and the Mayor have the additional
responsibility to intervene when actions of members that appear to be in violation of the Code of Ethics are brought to their attention.

The City Council may impose sanctions on members whose conduct does not comply with the City's ethical standards, such as reprimand, formal censure, loss of seniority or committee assignment, or budget restriction. The City Council also may remove members of boards and commissions from office.

A violation of this code of ethics shall not be considered a basis for challenging the validity of a Council, board or commission decision.

(Sources: http://www.cacities.org/index.jspdisplaytype=§ion=conf&zone=ilsg&sub_sec=conf_codes; http://www.cacities.org/resource_files/22034.Calistoga%20CODE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf)

In the context of the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea,…

A mayor who “rules” by personal fiat, not allegiance to the City’s Municipal Code, General Plan, Local Coastal Program, etc...

A city administrator who plagiarizes and misleads the public...

A city attorney who authorizes the submission of an inaccurate and fraudulent response letter to the Monterey County Grand Jury...

Carmelites cannot, nor should not, tolerate a city government with such a “dearth of ethical conduct” record!