Dysfunctional City Council Deliberations

ABSTRACT: At the 4 December 2007 City Council meeting, an agenda item on an appellant’s appeal of a Historic Resources Board decision to deny a request to remove a commercial property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources was heard by the City Council. Selected excerpts of City Council Members remarks from their deliberations are presented and Comments are made following each comment group. References of selected excerpts from the Agenda Item Summary and Staff Report are reproduced.

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
December 4, 2007

VIII. Public Hearings

If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

A. Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the northeast corner of Ocean and Dolores from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owners are Theodore Leidig and Ocean and Sixth Ave. Investment, LTD.

Selected excerpts of the City Council deliberation, as follows:

• MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: I’m sort of lost...That really throws me for a loop.

• MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: You know, the word that’s sort of the catch phrase of the day is sustainable, we talk about sustainable energy and so forth and I think that’s also caught on and there have been some meetings recently where they talked about sustainable tourism. And when you look at that, you know, what is it that we have in Carmel that in the way that tourists come to see that is sustainable in their minds and one of them is our architecture. Much is made about the Carmel cottages, much is made about the Comstock, you know, dollhouses-type architecture and so forth. And the integrity of Ocean Avenue and the buildings that are there for the most part except for the change in the Carmel Plaza where the theatre was torn down, the lumberyard went away, the rest of it looks, you know, starting from the Carmel Diary and the milk bottle, as Earl mentioned, down that side and down the other side, it hasn’t changed dramatically at all. And I guess the concern that I would have is, is that, that is the key intersection, the hotel where Meta Bunse pointed to the sort of porch that came out, that’s the Carmel Hotel that was rolled down the street that became the Pine Inn and that was the, you know, the watering trough was there for the horses to water themselves. That was the center part of town. And that building, as I said, if Rip Van Winkle walked down the street, you know, he would recognize that building. And yes it can be destroyed. And if you took those down and put something else there, like right behind Pernille, where the gas station used to be, you know, you would have a very different feeling on Carmel and Ocean Avenue and our sustainable tourism or our architecture. And I think the integrity of our downtown is, would be really impacted by such a change. As much as I could say the same thing, Ted has been very generous to this town. And the family is long known. But, you know, Carmel Development Company is not as important to me as the fact that Carmel Drug has been there since the 30s and Village Hardware was there from the 1940s and the building on the corner, Sharper Image façade has changed the most just because the way it was when it was a market. But the framing of that, when you look at those pictures, it’s still the same to me. I just think that quite apart from taking the emotionalism out of it, it would change, if something is done to these buildings, because we’ve permitted them to be torn down, potentially, because they are no longer historic, we’re no longer protecting them, we will definitely change the ambience of out Central Commercial District.

COMMENT: As was evident after the City’s Staff Report, the issue before the City Council was whether the cumulative changes to the Carmel Development Company Building at the N.W. corner of Ocean Av. & San Carlos St. has resulted in a loss of substantial integrity so as to render the building not historic or has retained it’s integrity as a historic resource. Mayor McCloud’s non-germane, extraneous comments about “sustainable tourism,” architecture and the potential for demolition are typical. Comments should focus on the definition of “integrity” and whether the cumulative changes to the building represent a loss of substantial integrity or not.

• CITY COUNCIL MEMBER PAULA HAZDOVAC: It will be another mistake that we’ve made that, oh well, so what.

COMMENT: Hazdovac’s comment suggested that she is cognizant of other “mistakes” the City has made and the City’s cavalier attitude about their duties, responsibilities and accountability to the public.

• CITY ADMINISTRATOR RICH GUILLEN: You know, one of the concerns I have is there is a couple of things not answered here tonight. One is the second story. I don’t think you have all the facts to make a decision in that regard…So I’m just wondering if maybe staff should do a little more research on the second story issue…and bring it back next month.

CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: The only real issue left for the Council to decide is whether or not the cumulative changes over time have changed the integrity of the building...so really it doesn’t deal with second stories. You don’t have to worry about second stories. The only thing you haven’t had this evening is the City did have a consultant declare or suggest this was historic when it was placed on the list and you have not heard from that consultant…In a sense of fairness the City should ask that person to, and sort of, defend their position on why they did it because that is the person the City hired to do it. And you haven’t actually had that person before you this evening.

COMMENT: As City Attorney Don Freeman stated in response to City Administrator Rich Guillen’s comment about studying the second story issue, the real issue doesn’t deal with second stories. Again, the focus of the deliberations should be on “integrity,” not on second stories or other irrelevant issues.

• CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: ...a terrible precedent...that has never been done ever, to my knowledge, to these historic designations.

MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: Sean, was Mr. Seavey invited to come tonight?

SENIOR PLANNER SEAN CONROY: No.

MICHAEL ALBOV (representing Appellant Ted Leidig): I’m just a little surprised by the process. But, the Council can do whatever is wants and we recognize that, buts it’s a little weird.

COMMENT: For all of the previous historic appeals to the City Council, the City’s Preservation Consultant who evaluated and completed DPR 523 Forms for the properties on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources was never present to defend or update his DPRs, et cetera. If the City was concerned about this appeal or changed its policy with respect to having the City’s consultant present to verbally review his findings and conclusions, then the City should have contacted the consultant and arranged in advance to have him at the City Council meeting.

• CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: You adopted the list in its entirety, but you could have gone through and limited it to those that you felt didn’t qualify because that’s what happens

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: Well, we didn’t even adopt the list, not that way.

MAYOR SUE MCCLOUD: Well, it went forward with the LCP.

CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: It went forward with the LCP so the City Council actually did

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: We recognized that it was a list, we didn’t adopt the list. That’s not correct.

CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: Well, it is, because it was adopted as

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: I was there Don.

MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: Wait a minute.

CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: It was an attachment to the LCP and when you adopt the LCP you adopt all the attachments.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: No.

CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: Well, you do.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: No. That’s not what happened.

MAYOR SUE MCCLOUD: O.K. that’s enough…

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: Oh, wait a minute Sue. Excuse me Sue.

MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: It went forward with the LCP. Let's not get

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: I respectfully disagree, Sue, I mean, if you want to have your say that’s fine, let me have my say O.K. My say, I was there too and we didn’t adopt the list as such, we didn’t analyze any of the properties. All we did was recognize that there was a list out there. That’s all we did and we attached it as a list that’s out there. We did not adopt anything. That’s misleading and not true.

CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: I’m not suggesting you adopted the list on and by itself, all I’m saying is when you adopted the LCP that was an attachment that went with it.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: So what!

COMMENT: Although City Council Member Gerard Rose finally conceded the list (Inventory) was adopted by the City as an attachment to the LCP, his failure to take responsibility for his role in the adoption of the Inventory as part of the LCP is indicative of the City’s failure to exercise due diligence in reviewing the LCP prior to the City’s submittal to the California Coastal Commission for certification in late 2004.

• CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: ...At this late date, at this late time, to say O.K., because we obviously see we’re going to lose, let’s bring in Kent Seavey, I think that’s frankly, an unfair thing to do to the applicant and you know, I mean, if you get a majority that’s fine, but it’s an unfair thing to do, it sets a lousy precedent and frankly, it’s is kind of thing that makes us look foolish.

MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: Well, I would rather look foolish, Gerard, that not take the step so that we can be criticized in the future for not having heard all the evidence there was to hear from two different people.

HAZDOVAC made a substitute MOTION to CONTINUE the agenda item until Kent Seavey could appear before the City Council, seconded by McCLOUD and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: HAZDOVAC, SHARP, McCLOUD
NOES: ROSE, TALMAGE

COMMENT: On the one hand, Mayor Sue McCloud stated that there was no reason to delay a vote on the agenda item; on the other hand, McCloud stated she didn’t want to be criticized for “not having heard all the evidence there was to hear” from the two consultants, Kent Seavey and Meta Bunse, and voted to continue the agenda item. Furthermore, it is not a good precedent to appear to change policy during the historic appeal process; namely, the City has never had their historic consultant appear before the City Council during an appeal of a designated historic resource, only now to demand the presence of Kent Seavey in order to proceed with a City Council determination to grant or deny the appeal.

REFERENCES:
Selected excerpts from the Agenda Item Summary and Staff Report, as follows:

Meeting Date: 4 December 2007
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Senior Planner
City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the northeast corner of Ocean and Dolores from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owners are Theodore Leidig and Ocean and Sixth Ave. Investment, LTD. (Block 71, Lots 1-3, APN #’s 010-134-004/011).

Description: The appellant seeks removal of the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. Approval of the appeal would overturn a decision of the Historic Resources Board and result in the removal of the property from the list.

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal.

Important Considerations: The subject property has been included on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources that was adopted as part of the Local Coastal Program in 2004.

CMC 17.32.070 states that a property identified as an historic resource on the Carmel Inventory shall be presumed historically significant and shall not be removed from the City’s Inventory unless substantial evidence demonstrates that it is not an historic resource.

Decision Record: The Historic Resources Board denied the request to remove the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources on 22 October 2007. The property owner filed an appeal with the City Clerk on 1 November 2007.


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: SEAN CONROY, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: 4 DECEMBER 2007
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD’S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO REMOVE A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (CC) DISTRICT FROM THE CITY’S INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES. THE APPELLANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS ARE THEODORE LEIDIG & OCEAN AND SIXTH AVE INVESTMENT LTD. (NE COR. OCEAN & DOLORES, BLK 71, LOTS 1-3, APN #’S 010-134-004/011).

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Grant the appeal.

BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The structure subject to this appeal is a one-story concrete block building with three bays and is located on the northwest corner of Ocean Avenue and San Carlos Street. The building was originally constructed in approximately 1902. A fourth bay was constructed to the west in 1923 but is not considered historic. Mr. Leidig owns the two eastern most bays, while the bay occupied by the Carmel Drug Store is owned by Ocean and Sixth Ave Investment LTD.

The property was identified as an historic resource as part of the City’s on-going survey of historic structures. The DPR indicates that the structure qualifies as an historic resource under California Criterion #1 (history) as the first and oldest commercial business block, and under California Criterion #3 (architecture) for its use of “fireproof” concrete block construction. The DPR indicates that the property relates to the Architectural Development and Economic Development themes of the City’s Historic Context Statement.

The Historic Resources Board denied this appeal on 22 October 2007.

Basis for Appeal: The appellant is requesting that the property be removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources for the following reason:
1) Due to extensive additions and alterations, the property does not retain sufficient integrity to qualify as significant under Criterion 1 and/or 3.

California Register Criteria: CMC 17.32.040 indicates that historic properties must relate to at least one of the California Register Criteria. The original DPR indicates that the property qualifies under Criterion #1 and Criterion #3. These criteria are listed below:

1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterms of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.

Integrity: CMC 17.32.040 indicates that historic properties must maintain substantial integrity. The appellant points out that numerous changes have taken place over the years including expansion of a fourth bay on the west of the building in 1923, two additions to the north of the structure in 1957, several store front alterations including changes to the transom windows above the storefront windows, and the installation of three new windows on the east elevation in 1989.

However, the window additions, combined with the other alterations have caused the property to lose its integrity.

HRB Review: The HRB denied this appeal on 22 October 2007. The Board strongly recommended that the Council have a third review performed by another professional historian before making a final decision on the property. This was based on the fact that there were two competing historic reports. The Board’s final decision was based on the following points:

• The property qualifies as historic under California Register Criterion #1 for its association with the Carmel Development Company and as the first commercial building block constructed in the City.

• The property qualifies as historic under California Register Criterion #3 for its use of innovative construction materials, fireproof blocks.

• The property has not been altered so drastically as to make it unrecognizable to someone who was familiar with the building when it was originally constructed.

• The additions and alterations have not caused the property to lose its historic integrity.

RECOMMENDATION:
Grant the appeal.

NOTES:
Meta Bunse, JRP Historical Consulting, DPR 523, 16 pages, 2006.

Kent L. Seavey, Preservation Consultant, DPR 523, 3 pages, 2003.