CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.
C.Announcements from City Administrator.
• Presentation of Economic Revitalization Plan
OBSERVATIONS, COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
REMEMBER...
THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is hereby determined to be primarily, a residential City wherein business and commerce have in the past, are now, and are proposed to be in the future subordinated to its residential character; and that said determination is made having in mind the history and the development of said city, its growth and the causes thereof; and also its geographical and topographical aspects, together with its near proximity to the cities of Pacific Grove and Monterey and the businesses, industries, trades, callings and professions in existence and permissible therein.
Adopted by Ordinance No. 96 passed on this 5th day of June 1929
STAFF REPORT FROM CITY ADMINISTRATOR RICH GUILLEN ON ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLAN
Selected quotations from Staff Report, followed by comments and questions, as follows:
“Increasing revenues through economic development was specified by the City Council as one of the City Administrator’s goals for calendar year 2006.”
Reference:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MARCH 5, 2007
SUBJECT: ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLAN
Comment And Questions: On the City Council agenda of 13 March 2007, under Resolutions, was the transfer of the fiscal year 2005-06 General Fund surplus of $636,273 to the Capital Improvement Reserve Fund. A surplus, combined with the fact that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is one of the highest per capita spending cities in California, prompts the following question: Is it a question of a need for more city revenue or a question of mismanagement of $12 million dollars in revenue annually? Why is it that our city, with much greater per capita spending compared to other California cities, has a closed community center, a dilapidated Indoor and Outdoor Forest Theatre and an ill maintained and closed National Register of Historic Places structure?
“An ad hoc committee was formed to develop an economic development plan for the business area...The ad hoc committee included Tom Glidden (La Playa Hotel), Tod Strain (Macerich – Carmel Plaza), Jeff Burghardt (Anda Burghardt – City’s marketing consultant), Council Member Paula Hazdovac, the Community Services Director, City Clerk, and the City Administrator.”
Reference:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MARCH 5, 2007
SUBJECT: ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLAN
Comment: The ad hoc committee, the “Economic Revitalization (ER) Team," is comprised of 6 members; 4 from the city, 1 the city’s marketing consultant, and 2 representing the business sector. Question: Are these individuals qualified to formulate and dictate economic policy in Carmel-by-the-Sea?
“The ER Team commenced meeting in January 2007 and met a total of four times to develop the attached ER Plan spreadsheet.”
Reference:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MARCH 5, 2007
SUBJECT: ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLAN
Comment: Greg Sellers, the city’s former Economic Development Coordinator, completed a draft report representing approximately 10 months of part-time work. The ER Team met “a total of 4 times.” Yet no credit is given to Greg Sellers. Such unprofessional conduct is reminiscent of a previous Rich Guillen action, namely a Staff Report consisting of plagiarized MCCVB promotion materials, without source attribution.
ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLAN
Selected excerpts from the Economic Revitalization Plan, with Comments, as follows:
Marketing Goals & Objectives
1.) Increase all sales
Accommodations
Dining & Entertainment
Retail
Comments:
To reiterate, while the City Council specified the goal of increasing revenues through economic development as one of the City Administrator’s goals for calendar year 2006, the overall finances of the city do not support the contention that the city lacks revenue and must therefore “increase all sales;” rather, the overall finances of the city support the idea that the city mismanages $12 million annually.
Quarterly “Business” Newsletter
Policy Goals & Objectives
B.) Update businesses with a "What's Happening" quarterly newsletter
Comment:
The ER Team proposes a business quarterly newsletter, yet the City Administrator rejected the continuation of a Carmel-by-the-Sea tradition, namely the City Administrator’s weekly Friday letter for the residents. Businesses, yes, Residents, no!!!
Use of Internet-Online
Accommodations Goals & Objectives
2.) Coordinate effort for booking rooms
A.) Research and implement online booking engine
Marketing Goals & Objectives
1.) Increase all sales
B.) Create online booking and packages web interface
Retail
B.) Provide branded merchandise online
Comment:
The above Goals and Objectives from the Economic Revitalization Plan involve using the internet. Yet the City does not even have a current, up-to-date and complete Official City Web Site of Carmel-by-the-Sea!
Younger Tourists Targeted, Hipper shows, Restaurants and Bars
Dining & Entertainment Goals & Objectives
2.) Expand performing arts attendance
B.) Attract broader audiences with more contemporary performers
3.) Increase night-time activities
C.) Attract new, hip restaurants and bars
Retail
2.) Revitalize the Carmel brand
C.) Work with performing arts to attract hipper shows
D.) Expand brand strengths (e.g. artist colony) with younger angle
Comment:
Younger and hipper..what about catering to the residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea?
Violations of the City’s Municipal Code
Ambiance Goals & Objectives
2.) Improve night lighting
A.) Add tasteful night lighting in commercial areas
5.) Decorate for major city events
A.) Put Christmas lights up earlier and keep up longer
Comments:
Four of the 6 members of the ER Team are city employees. Yet they are advocating violations of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code without a mention of the need to amend the Municipal Code if the above items are instituted. Moreover, as a former city employee corroborated, the purpose of lighting in the Municipal Code is safety, not ambiance.
Reference:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 15.36
ELECTRICAL CODE*
15.36.070 Lighting Requirements.
A. Commercial Buildings/Zones.
1. All light fixtures shall not be directed toward the public right-of-way.
2. Lighting intensity shall not exceed eight-candlefoot power at a point two feet beyond the storefront windows as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the ground or public walking surface.
3. Lighting intensity within the interior of the store space shall not exceed 30-candlefoot power at any point visible from the public right-of-way as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the floor or walking surface.
B. Residential Buildings/Zones.
1. All exterior lighting attached to the main building or any accessory building shall be no higher than 10 feet above the ground and not exceed 25 watts in power per fixture.
2. Landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts per fixture and shall be spaced no closer than 10 feet apart. Landscape lighting shall not be used for tree, wall, fence or accent lighting of any type. The purpose of landscape lighting is to safely illuminate walkways and entrances to the subject property.
3. No exterior lighting is permitted upon City property and may not be directed toward City property.
4. Flood-type lighting is prohibited at all times.
WHAT?
Ambiance Goals & Objectives
6.) Fine dining concession at Del Mar Beach
A.) Identify best fit and seek business
Comments:
Only AFTER Announcements from the City Administrator, the Power Point presentation of the Economic Revitalization Plan and resident Linda Anderson objecting to the commercialization of the beach during Appearances, did City Administrator Rich Guillen state, “...it was a mistake, we had the same reaction at our committee and it was supposed to be taken off, it is now officially removed...” His words lend credence to the idea that the Economic Revitalization Plan reprinted in the packet and on the city’s web site is the original report compiled by former Economic Development Coordinator Greg Sellers, which was copied before any editing was done by the ER Team. No other corrections to the Plan reprinted in the packet and on the city’s web site were announced, although the Power Point presentation differed from the reprinted Plan in the packet and on the city’s web site.
NOTE: To read and review the STAFF REPORT and Economic Revitalization Plan, click on the post title above, then click on “City Council,” then click on “Agendas & Minutes,” then click on “March 13, 2007 Meeting Agenda Packet,” scroll to pages 7-14.
3 comments:
A few comments and some questions.
The "ad hoc" committees have been used in the past by the mayor to subvert the Brown Act, which reqires that public meetings be held in public. Her claim that such Carmel committees are not required to allow the public to attend is probably false but has yet to be challenged in court.
The mayor has also become famous for stacking commissions, boards and committees and this is just another unfortunate example. Too often her appointments are people, who are political supporters but not very competent. Are competent people so unwilling to serve under her?
The mayor continues to spend scarce city dollars on studies that replicate existing studies. Why does she waste public money like that and why do so many of these studies wind up gathering dust on a shelf?
Why does the City Council seem to work so hard to destroy those things about Carmel that have drawn the kind of tourists that are most desirable and why is it that the City Council is trying to make our city into a place that more and more will draw the kind of tourists that least benefit our economy - day trippers, bus trippers, people with limited incomes etc.?
Many local business people seem to have their eyes so firmly focused on short term profit that they can't see that in the process they are killing the goose that lays the long term golden eggs. This is not unusual under U.S. capitalism but why are the mayor and city council members, who above all are supposed to look after the long term welfare of the people, who elect them, supporting this short sighted thinking.
This mayor has a long record of violating city ordinances with impunity. That city employees would be encouraged to do so too should be no surprise. Actually, it seems possible that, if they were unwilling to do so they might be forced out of their jobs as so many others, especially senior staff such as Mrs. Pelican, have been over the past few years.
Taxpayers have a right to expect their city government to appropriately fund the Scout House, Forest Theater and Outlands. These cultural assets are not discretionary items; they are the heart and soul of old Carmel.
Taxpayers have a right to have a professional and competent City Administrator. Rich is neither.
Taxpayers have a right to have a city government representing their interests, not businesses exclusively.
Taxpayers have a right to expect their city government to set aside adequate reserves, not huge amounts relative to the annual budget.
Taxpayers have a right to expect their city government to budget and fund projects before the deferred maintenance costs become much higher than they otherwise would be if funded and completed in a timely manner.
City Council men and women must be reminded of the fact that tax money belongs to taxpayers, not government, not them.
The CBTS Watchdog. Covering the record of Mayor Sue and her sidekick accomplices. How delightful! In cyberspace, there now and for years after all the transient actors have left the stage. Think about it. Too bad they are not more concerned with how readers will see them and less concerned with their egos at the present moment.
Post a Comment