Two Noteworthy 3 March 2009 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Two noteworthy 3 March 2009 City Council Agenda Items, namely a Resolution entering into an agreement with Burghardt + Doré Advertising, Inc. for Destination Marketing services and an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan to dissolve the Design
Review Board, are presented. A SYNOPSIS, consisting of selected excerpts from each Agenda Item Summary and/or Staff Report, is presented for each agenda item. COMMENTS are made regarding the dissolution of the Design Review Board.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 3, 2009

VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.

G. Consideration of a Resolution entering into an agreement with Burghardt + Doré Advertising, Inc. for Destination Marketing services in an amount not to exceed $27,500 in fiscal year 2008/09.

SYNOPSIS:
Description: The City has had a contract with Anda/Burghardt Advertising to provide destination marketing services. Recently, this firm closed and its president, Jeff Burghardt, is president of a new marketing firm, Burghardt + Doré Advertising, Inc.

Jeff Burghardt developed the City’s destination marketing plan. The City can continue its FY 2008/09 marketing plan by contracting with his new business, Burghardt + Doré. Exhibit “A” outlines the services to be provided by this firm through the end of the 2008/09 fiscal year.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: $27,500, to be funded from General Fund account 01-85200.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council approve entering into an agreement with Burghardt + Doré Advertising, Inc. to provide destination marketing services as outlined in Exhibit “A”.

Important Considerations:
1. Jeff Burghardt developed the marketing plan for the City when it was contracted with Anda/Burghardt.

2. Funds were approved in the Fiscal Year 2008/2009 Annual Budget up to $142,750. So far this fiscal year, $101,250 has been spent on marketing programs, with an additional $14,000 set aside to mail for the “Guide to Carmel”. This leaves a balance of approximately $27,500 for marketing services through June 30, 2009.

Decision Record: Resolution 2008-43, dated July 1, 2008, approving the FY 2008/09 destination marketing contract with Anda/Burghardt.

Exhibit A Revised
2008-09 Destination Marketing
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Strategy:
Continue to build on the integrated destination marketing campaign to increase visitor business and brand awareness. The marketing campaign will primarily focus on targeting upscale consumers during the shoulder and slow seasons.

Recommendation:
A strong mix of advertising, Internet, direct marketing, collateral, and public relations will continue to be the foundation for the City’s marketing efforts. This year, we recommend enhancing the website; printing a stylish rack brochure; increasing Internet search marketing to include all of the US with some geotargeting in Europe and Canada; increase press submissions; and provide coop media opportunities to the hotels/inns. New online videos and direct mail are TBD.

The following budget breakdown is recommended:
Remaining Marketing & PR Budget: $27,500
1) Marketing:
Scope of Work:
Marketing & Media Plan
Promotional Campaigns (ads, direct mail, emarketing, and PR)
Website
List Development

2) Public Relations:
Scope of Work
Pitching seasonal press releases
Manage ongoing press requests and needs

3) Present quarterly reports to the Council

4) Submit written annual report
Jeff Burghardt

Account/Creative Director
Burghardt+Doré Advertising, Inc.
P.O. Box 223491
Carmel, CA 93922
831.622.0144
Fax 831.620.0738
jeff@burghardt-dore.com

IX. Ordinances
D. Consideration of an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan to dissolve the Design Review Board (First Reading).

SYNOPSIS:
Description: The Design Review Board currently reviews applications for design review not requiring land use permits or those that are not otherwise reserved for the Planning Commission. This ordinance would dissolve the Design Review Board and shift its responsibilities to the Planning Commission.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt ordinance.

Important Considerations: CMC chapter 17.52.050 establishes the responsibilities of the Design Review Board. The Board’s role has been limited to the review of design applications not involving other land use permits. Dissolving the Board will shift more responsibility to the Planning Commission, but will create more consistency for applicants going through the planning process. This also will reduce pressures on staff, as it will be one fewer Board to manage.

Note: The ordinance will require a Local Coastal Program amendment by the California Coastal Commission.

COMMENTS:
• Established in 2000 at the instigation of Mayor Sue McCloud, the Design Review Board, now after nearly nine years, has been found to be unnecessary as an independent board. In his Staff Report, Planning & Building Services Manager Sean Conroy cited the need to “simplify the design review process,” “create more consistency for applicants" and “reduce pressures on staff” as reasons for dissolving the Design Review Board.

• While the Decision Record of “Consideration of an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan to dissolve the Design Review Board” states "N/A," the Decision Record should reflect that the City Council unanimously voted to adopt an “Ordinance revising CMC Chapter 17.30.010 (Demolition of Buildings) to require all demolition permit applications to be reviewed by the Planning Commission” at the 4 November 2009 (First Reading) and 2 December 2008 (Second Reading) City Council Meetings. Three/four months later, the City Council is now considering the dissolution of the Design Review Board, further evidence of city management dysfunction.

• For context, consultant Nore Winter (Winter & Company) of the Design Traditions Project never envisioned a Design Review Board as a separate entity, rather design review was originally envisioned as the responsibility of a sub-committee of the Planning Commission. Hence, a non-expert, namely Sue McCloud, overruled a nationally known design expert, namely Nore Winter. In short, Nore Winter has been vindicated and Sue McCloud has been very slow and late in rectifying a situation she created.

NOTE:
Next meeting of the City Council:
Budget Workshop – 4:30 p.m.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Council Chambers

(Sources: Agenda, Regular Meeting, Tuesday, March 3, 2009 and AGENDA Packet, Regular Meeting, Tuesday, March 3, 2009)