PART IV (of IV): Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract...and adoption of Findings?

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).

On Wednesday, 20 December 2006, a Carmelite emailed the following to Senior Planner Sean Conroy, the Planner who prepared the Staff Report for the Special City Council Meeting, 19 December 2006.

Subject: MILLS ACT CONTRACT AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Sean Conroy, Senior Planner:

RE: 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).

In your 19 December 2006 Agenda Item Summary, you wrote, “At the request of the applicant, the City Council reconsidered the application on 19 December 2006 and reached the same decision.” Given that the Agenda Item Summary was prepared prior to the 19 December 2006 City Council meeting, how is it that you articulated the outcome (“and reached the same decision”) when the public hearing had not yet occurred? And how is it that the item was to be a De Novo Hearing, a consideration “as if it had not been previously heard nor decided,” yet the Name states “Reconsideration…and adoption of Findings?”

On Thursday, Senior Planner Sean Conroy responded, as follows:

The City Attorney clarified this matter during the hearing. If you have any questions, please contact Don Freeman at 624-5339. Thank you and happy holidays!

Sean Conroy, Senior Planner City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Community Planning & Building
(831) 620-2010

COMMENTS:
Contrary to Senior Planner Sean Conroy’s assertion that the City Attorney clarified this matter during the hearing, City Attorney Don Freeman failed to address the questions raised in the email to Sean Conroy. Specifically, Conroy was asked about his Agenda Item Summary statement, “At the request of the applicant, the City Council reconsidered the application on 19 December 2006 and reached the same decision.” Note: This question is a planning question, not a legal question.

Thus, not only was the agenda item incorrectly written, the Agenda Item Summary contained the statement that the City Council “reached the same decision.” Despite City Attorney Don Freeman’s admonition to “disregard those Findings” in each City Council Member’s packets, the agenda item and the Agenda Item Summary signify prejudice against Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings. As a result, Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings did not receive a fair and impartial De Novo Hearing on their proposed Mills Act contract and Maintenance and Management Plan.

Note: On 8 August 2006, Senior Planner Sean Conroy prepared a Staff Report on Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings Mills Act Contract and Maintenance and Management Plan for their historic residence. The RECOMMENDED MOTION, as follows: “Approve the Mills Act Contract and adopt the Maintenance and Management Plan.”