PART III (of III): Historic Context Statement Agenda Item Symbolic of City Council Members Misunderstanding & Mental Confusion

COMMENTS:

• The City Council has used the Historic Context Statement as an alibi to avoid accountability for the real problem; and that is, the lack of appropriate guidance to the surveyors in terms of the “best” historic resources and the application of the California Register of Historic Resources criteria. Moreover, the City Council and the City Administrator failed to properly review the DPR Forms prior to submission of the City’s Local Coastal Program to the California Coastal Commission for certification in late 2004. Note: The majority of appeals by property owners of properties listed on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources have been granted because of inaccuracies and supposition statements without evidence or foundation on DPR Forms.

• Even after Bruce Judd and Catherine Petrin of Architectural Resources Group (ARG) explained that the present Historic Context Statement is not at fault, all of the City Council Members demonstrated that they still lack basis comprehension of the Historic Preservation contents as articulated in the Local Coastal Program and Municipal Code.

• The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Meeting Minutes, as follows:
“The Council expressed their concerns about the current context statement and its use in conducting surveys that resulted in an excessive number of homes being placed on the City’s List of Historic Properties. They requested that the flaws be corrected and the process for applying the context statement and determining historicity be changed.”

Again, the minutes reflect the Council’s misunderstanding of the city’s present predicament; and that is, the root cause of the city’s “excessive number of homes” on the Historic Inventory is not due to the Historic Context Statement, rather it is due to the survey process itself. Furthermore, because the Council did not properly review the Local Coastal Program as a document comprehensively prior to submittal to the California Coastal Commission, 300 residences and commercial buildings were approved for inclusion on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

If City Council Member Gerard Rose believes the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources has “an absurd number of houses” on it, then it should have been obvious to him prior to the City Council’s unanimous vote to submit the City’s Local Coastal Program to the California Coastal Commission for certification in 2004. Moreover, if he had fulfilled his duties and responsibilities to his office and the public he would have conscientiously reviewed the document at that time, not realize the “obvious” 3 years later.

Note: City Council Member Gerard Rose’s characterization of “cities like Philadelphia and Baltimore” having only “a handful of homes” on their respective historic “lists” is grossly inaccurate. For example, the City of Philadelphia Register consists of approximately 13,000 buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts designated as historic by the Philadelphia Historical Commission.
(Source: http://www.phila.gov/historical/register.html). For more information, click on post title above.
Moreover, according to the Pennsylvania Historical Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation, there are 458 National Register Listed Resources and 64 National Historic Landmarks in the City of Philadelphia, PA.
(Source:
http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bhp/inventories/Final%20National%20Register%20Properties.pdf)

In short, City Council Member Gerard Rose has a record of mischaracterization; therefore, he cannot be trusted.

Similarly, if Mayor Sue McCloud believes that “historic preservation has gotten a bad name because of the process,” then why does she fail to understand that she, as mayor, was charged with making certain she understood the “process;” that is, the contents of the historic preservation element of the Local Coastal Program so that historic preservation would not get a bad name. Furthermore, Mayor McCloud appears to fail to remember her 10 June 2005 letter to all “historic property” owners; she wrote, “Approximately ten percent of all properties in Carmel-by-the-Sea were found to qualify as historic. Like you, I too own a home in Carmel that was identified as historic; I consider it a source of pride.” Thus, it appears that Mayor McCloud failed to fulfill her duties and responsibilities by exercising due diligence by reading, comprehending and reviewing the City’s Local Coastal Program in 2004 and now.

(For letter, click on Sunday, October 08, 2006 post, “McCloud's Hypocritical Historic Record”)

• Given the conduct of City Administrator Rich Guillen, Carmelites cannot expect him to provide any modicum of leadership or guidance on this issue; at the meeting, he merely expressed satisfaction that the City Council Members were able to “vent” their frustrations to ARG’s Bruce Judd and Catherine Petrin.

• Contrary to City Council Member Gerald Rose’s characterization of the California Coastal Commission and Staff as “those clowns,” and his implication that the Coastal Commission’s approved Local Coastal Program for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is the problem, the City’s certified Local Coastal Program contains all the elements of a successful historic preservation program, if properly followed and implemented.