Part III: Mills Act Workshop

Commentary: Mills Act Workshop

The City Council’s 24 October 2006 Mills Act Workshop deliberations served to add more, not less, confusion and chaos into the public arena without any articulated plan as to the city’s future course of action.

Simply put, there are essential 3 aspects of the City’s Preservation Program which need clarification; the Historic Context Statement, Chapter 17.32 Historic Preservation of the Municipal Code and the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources.

I: The Historic Context Statement
The City’s Historic Context Statement is used by qualified architectural historians to evaluate potential historic resources for “determining eligibility for the Carmel Inventory (17.32.060); “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.” Ergo, the Historic Context Statement is the preserve of experts, not Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council members.
Moreover, the City Council’s generated confusion over the Historic Context Statement illuminated a distressing situation; and that is, City Council Members act as if there are charged with reinventing the wheel, when they are supposed to respect the advise and recommendations of the Planning Staff and the Historic Resources Board. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) consists of a group of “professional members” and members of the public with a “demonstrated interest in and knowledge of architectural history, architecture, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, architecture, historic architecture, local history or fields related to historic preservation such as construction, planning, geography, landscape architecture, urban design, ethnography, fine arts, or real estate.” The HRB Members have “Duties and Powers” (2.74.020) “To advise the City Council on proposed Mills Act contracts and proposed tax credit applications.” Similarly, the Planning Staff, a group of professionals, prepares staff reports and makes recommendations based on their knowledge and expertise. Yet City Council members do not seriously consider their advice and recommendations, particularly regarding Mills Act Contracts.

Note: In both the Scheingart Mills Act Contract application (Kathryn Waite House) and the Hutchings Mills Act Contract application (Elizabeth F. Armstrong House # 2), the Planning Staff and the HRB recommended to the City Council that these Mills Act Contracts be approved. The City Council denied the Hutchings’ a Mills Act Contract on 8 August 2006. And the City “temporarily removed” the Scheingart residence from the Inventory until the California Coastal Commission staff communicated to the City that this action was “illegal;” apparently, the Scheingart’s have since withdrawn their Mills Act Contract application.

II. Chapter 17.32 Historic Preservation of the Municipal Code
According to the City’s Municipal Code, 5 “Required Findings” must be met prior to the City Council approving a Mills Act Contract.

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…from staff:

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

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

Finding #3: Alternations 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 alteraations 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.

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.

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.

In contrast, the State Requirement is basically only that the “properties must be identified as historic (National, State or Local level).” As Sean Conroy stated during his PowerPoint presentation, most communities only have the State Requirements.

To be fair and equitable, The City Council should repeal Findings #3 (D) and (F), especially since the City Council is defining “Meet all zoning standards applicable to the location of the property,” as “meet all current zoning standards applicable to the location of the property.”

III. The Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources

The crux of the City’s preservation implementation problem is the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources; that is, there appears to be numerous DPR 523 Forms containing “slightly inaccurate, but more often grossly inadequate” information, as City Councilman Gerard Rose stated. However, for property owners who have appealed their respective designations, a review by the Planning Staff, Historic Resources Board and City Council will ensure properties lacking historic merit will be removed from the City’s Inventory.

In retrospect, the appropriate lesson to be learned from nearly 2 years of implementing the historic preservation section of the Local Coastal Program is the following: For the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, the City should have contracted with an architectural historian committed to more rigorous research standards or contracted with another architectural historian to review the Inventory for accuracy, completeness, et cetera prior to their submittal to the California Coastal Commission for certification.

Lastly, while City Councilman Gerard Rose exclaimed that the City Council needs to “straighten up our own house,” it is axiomatic that competent public servants would have straightened up their own houses prior to the city’s submittal of the city’s Local Coastal Program to the California Coastal Commission for certification in 2004. A corollary: City Council Members do not suffer the consequences of their failures to adequately perform their duties and responsibilities, rather members of the public are unnecessarily adversely impacted.