Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.
IV. Orders of Business
B. Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan and adoption of Findings for an existing historic residence located on the west side of Lincoln Street between 8th and 9th Avenues. The property owners are David & Debbie Hutchings. (De novo Hearing).
After Mayor Sue McCloud’s recitation of the item, excluding “adoption of Findings,” City Attorney Don Freeman remarked, as follows:
De Novo Hearing; “brand new hearing”
"Inadvertently, there are a set of Findings that were distributed in the packet, you should disregard those Findings, again this is a De Novo hearing, and regardless of what the decision is today, we will bring back findings at the January meeting for your approval…”
While City Attorney Don Freeman instructed the City Council to disregard the Findings For Decision in the City Council Members’ packets, Freeman failed to mention the inaccurate noticing of the agenda item; that is, the agenda item should have read “Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan,” not “Reconsideration…and adoption of Findings.” Note: Mayor Sue McCloud, Mayor Pro Tem Paula Hazdovac and City Administrator Rich Guillen are responsible for the agenda. Interestingly, all three were silent during the deliberations.
The Findings For Decision in the City Council Members packets included Findings 1 and 2, as follows:
FINDINGS FOR DECISION:
1. While the property is listed on the City’s Historic Register, the Council questioned the validity of the historic designation of the property.
2. The minimal maintenance needed for the residence, as identified in the Maintenance and Management Plan, did not meet the intent of the Mills Act. The maintenance items were typical of normal care of a residence. Since there was no serious damage and no need for extensive rehabilitation, the significant monetary value of the tax reduction was not needed or warranted.
At a previous City Council meeting, Finding 1 was solely expressed by City Council Member Paula Hazdovac, while Finding 2 was solely expressed by Mayor Sue McCloud. Needless to say, Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings’ representative thoroughly discredited both Findings 1 and 2.
Rebutting Finding 1, the representative cited the evaluations and conclusions of three architectural historians, Kent Seavey, William Salmon and Sheila McElroy. All three architectural historians concluded that the Elizabeth F. Armstrong House qualified as an historic resource. Additionally, Kent Seavey stated that 5 entities had evaluated the Hutchings residence, and all concluded that the Elizabeth F. Armstrong House was an historic resource.
Rebutting Finding 2, the representative stated the proposed Maintenance and Management Plan was “not a normal maintenance plan.” It is not a normal maintenance plan, comparable to maintenance typical of the normal care of a residence because all maintenance, including repairs and replacements, require that the owner adhere to Secretary of Interior Standards.
3 comments:
At least 4 City Council members seem to be determined to reduce the number of "historic" buildings in CbtS to a minimum and so far they have been unwilling to allow anybody to benefit from the Mills Act. Why is this so? Do they want to see our village built out as much as possible with new and too often inappropriate buildings? Are they determined to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs so some people can maximize short term profit at the expense of the longer term economy of the city? Are they determined to allow property owners to do whatever they want to their property no matter how many others suffer economic or quality of life problems? Are there other reasons that are driving their decision making? It would be interesting to know the truth.
It's interesting that the city administration expends funds to hire a consultant to do a study, make recommendations or provide expert analyses, and when the information does not agree with their preconceived views the information is discarded as invalid. This even happens with staff and commission recommendations.
What a waste!
Paula wants us to take her uneducated, untrained opinion over 3 architectural historians. Sue fails to understand the difference between interpreting the law and imposing her personal bias onto the law. Pity poor Mr. and Mrs. Hutchings. They were denied before they even applied for a Mills Act contract.
Now Mike and Gerard are the self-anointed historic experts. All of them had to have a Mills Act Workshop not to long ago to educate themselves on the Mills Act. Who are they kidding?
As the saying goes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, particularly in the minds of this arrogant group.
Post a Comment