Three Noteworthy 4 August 2009 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Three noteworthy 4 August 2009 City Council Agenda Items, namely a Resolution ratifying a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association, a Resolution adopting Green Building Checklists and Point Requirements for Residential and Nonresidential projects pursuant to Section 15.54.030 of the Green Building Ordinance and Review report and provide direction on modifications to the City’s Volumetric Standards, as established in CMC Section 17.10.030, are presented. Selected excerpts from Agenda Items Summaries and Staff Reports are presented for Agenda Items. COMMENTS are made on selected Agenda Items.

AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
4:30 p.m., Open Session
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

Live and archived video streaming available

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 ratifying a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association.

Description: The Police Officers Association (POA) understands the current financial challenges that the City is facing, including the recent impact of the State budget adoption. Approving this Resolution will provide a three-year contractual agreement for the terms and conditions of employment for members of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association including the POA foregoing a salary increase of 8.75% that was set to take effect on July 1, 2009.

The new Memorandum of Understanding will be effective from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2011, and will incorporate the following changes to the MOU that includes a 0% cost of living for Fiscal Year 2009/2010, and is to expire on June 30, 2012:

Term Three Years – July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012

Compensation
Safety positions: 0% (2009/2010) 4.5% (2010/2011) 5.5% (2011/2012)
Non-Safety Positions: 0% (2009/2010) 2.5% (2010/2011) 4.0% (2011/2012)

All other terms and conditions remain status quo.

Overall Cost: City Funds: (Estimated)
FY 2009/2010 $0
FY 2010/2011 $84,413
FY 2011/2012 $103,418

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

COMMENT:
• Between FY 2007/08 and FY 2011/12, the Actual, Revised and Proposed Expenditures for Police have increased each year as a percentage of total expenditures, except for Proposed FY 2011/12, as follows:

2007/08: $ 2,709,932 (19.7%) Total Expenditures $ 13,728,162
2008/09: $ 2,927,223 (20.5%) Total Expenditures $ 14,249,110
2009/10: $ 2,934,581 (21.4%) Total Expenditures $ 13,741,050
2010/11: $ 3,166,036 (22.9%) Total Expenditures $ 13,847,110
2011/12: $ 3,179,827 (21.8%) Total Expenditures $ 14,573,200

(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA ADOPTED BUDGET FISCAL YEARS 2009/10 THROUGH 2011/12)

X. Resolutions
A. Consideration of a Resolution adopting Green Building Checklists and Point Requirements for Residential and Nonresidential projects pursuant to Section 15.54.030 of the Green Building Ordinance.

Description: The Green Building Checklists identify various green building techniques that can be incorporated into development projects. The point requirements establish the minimum number of points, based on the checklists, which must be achieved in order to obtain a building permit.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Important Considerations: CMC Section 15.54.030 of the Green Building Ordinance indicates that the City Council will adopt the checklists and point requirements by resolution. This will allow the City Council to amend the checklists in the future, without amending the ordinance.

Decision Record: The Planning Commission recommended adoption of a Checklists and Point Requirements on 20 May 2009.

The Residential Checklist is based on the “Build it Green” Checklist. Build it Green is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote more efficient design in California. The organization has developed a comprehensive residential checklist that addresses all aspects of construction. There is a total of 310 available points.

The Non-Residential Checklist is based on a LEED Checklist. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is a nationwide non-profit organization that was established to promote green building principals throughout the country. The USGBC has established the LEED ratings systems that, like Build it Green, is divided into several sections that award points for incorporating green principles into a project (see attached). LEED has a total of 100 points available.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.

XI. Orders of Council
A. Review report and provide direction on modifications to the City’s Volumetric Standards, as established in CMC Section 17.10.030.

Description: The City’s volumetric standards establish the maximum amount of exterior volume that can be built on sites located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District. The Planning Commission recommended modifications to the volumetric standards.

Staff Recommendation: Provide direction on this issue.

Important Considerations: The City adopted standards several years ago, limiting the amount of exterior volume that could be constructed as part of new development in the Residential (R-1) District. The standards were designed to address concerns regarding the size of new homes and their impact on the character of the City.

Decision Record: The Planning Commission recommended some modifications to the City Council on 8 July 2009.

The Committee included:
􀂉 John Thodos, Architect
􀂉 Bill Strid, former Planning Commission Chair
􀂉 Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager

The Committee determined that the volume requirements are effective, but recommended some modifications. The Planning Commission reviewed these recommendations on 8 July 2009. The following summarizes the Committee’s recommendations followed by a response from staff and the recommendation from the Planning Commission.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Revise the volume factors as shown below.

Staff Response: The Committee recommended reducing the volume factors by one to further reduce the mass and scale of new projects in the Residential District. This would reduce the allowed volume for a standard 1,800-square-foot residence by 1,800 cubic feet. This recommendation also grants flat-roof structures the same volume factor as pitched-roof structures.

One criticism of the volumetric standards is that they can limit design creativity. Many of the City’s older, character-defining homes could not be built under today’s volume standards, much less if the standards became more stringent. The City’s current height, setback, volume and floor area requirements, along with the Design Guidelines and the design review process, provide sufficient opportunities to limit mass and bulk. Staff does not support a reduction in the allowed volume factors, as proposed.

Staff could support the recommendation to allow flat-roof structures the same volume factor as pitched-roof structures, but prefers that the other volume factors remain unchanged.

PC Review: The Planning Commission concurred with the Committee’s recommendation to reduce the volume factors by one and to grant flat-roofed structures the same volume factor as pitched roof structures.

2) Discourage subterranean parking garages on sites that require a sloped driveway that create a “ramp” effect. Specify in the code that subterranean parking should not qualify as basement space and should always be counted as above-ground floor area.

Staff Comments: This recommendation is consistent with the Design Guidelines, which discourage subterranean garages that create a ramped driveway. Staff concurs with this recommendation since ramped driveways typically add to the visual mass of a structure. Currently, subterranean garages can qualify for basement bonus floor area. Staff could support modifying the code to indicate that garage space always counts as above-grade floor area, thus removing the incentive to place a garage underground.

PC Review: The Planning Commission concurred with the Committee’s recommendation regarding subterranean garages.

3) If a volume consultant submits a project for design review, require the volume calculations to be prepared by another consultant.

Staff Comments: The City has three consultants who perform volume verifications. All three also work as architects in the City. The recommendation of the committee is that the City ensure that if a consultant submits a project for design review, a separate consultant perform the volume study. Staff concurs with this recommendation. Since this is an administrative matter, no action is required by the Council.

PC Review: The Planning Commission concurred with the Committee’s recommendation regarding consultant reviews.

The Planning Commission made an additional recommendation that was not discussed by the Committee, to appoint a study group to analyze if volumetric standards should be also implemented in the Commercial District.

LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP)
Any proposed changes to the zoning ordinance constitute an amendment to the LCP and would require Coastal Commission.

OPTIONS
The Council may wish to discuss at least the following options:
1) Make no changes to the City’s Volumetric Standards.
2) Direct staff to prepare an ordinance to address all of the recommendations of the Volume Committee and the Planning Commission.
3) Direct staff to prepare an ordinance to address some of the recommendations of the Volume Committee and the Planning Commission.

RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction on potential modifications to the City’s Volumetric Standard

LETTER submitted to City by Contractor Chris Tescher

Planning Commissioners:

Back in the 80’s when Planning Commission was looking at approving design review Olaf Dahlstrand, who was Chairperson of the Commission, declared he would vote for design review. However, he offered one caveat. He said that “design review would get rid of the worst houses, but it would also eliminate the best houses.” The unexpected outcome of design review is that houses become looking more alike and the diversification of architecture that was once Carmel’s history becomes more and more a thing of the past. During the last twenty years a number of modifications were made to the building ordinances, each with the intent to further rectify what seen as flaws to the original codes. The size of house was reduced from 2800 square feet to 1800 square feet. Ridge heights were lowered as well as plate lines. Site coverage was reduced and an expensive consultant was hired to direct us with new design guidelines that would launch us into the future. Finally volumetric was added to the list. And now we are looking at further reduction in the maximum volume of houses. All this is being done with the apparent intent of producing houses that better fit our lots and return us to the days of Comstock and M.J. Murphy. Ironically we can no longer build Comstock or Murphy style houses because volumetric has eliminated steep roofs and long overhands-trade marks of Comstock and Murphy. When will we learn that the more we tweak the rules the more frustrated we become.

I offer this observation. We have more than enough ordinances on the books to produce good simple designs, if that is what we are after. The trick is to use these tools to demand and challenge Designers and Architects to come up with compatible designs. And even though “beauty rests in the eye of the beholder” the Commissioners are the judges of what meets our guidelines and what does not.

Finally, if reducing the size of houses from 2800 square feet to 1800 square feet did not produce a satisfactory response from architects, than chopping 1800 cubic feet off volume is laughable. You are making the cookie cutter smaller, you are not making it better!

Sincerely,

Chris Tescher

COMMENT:
• Contractor Chris Tescher writes, as follows:

“The unexpected outcome of design review is that houses become looking more alike and the diversification of architecture that was once Carmel’s history becomes more and more a thing of the past.”

Unfortunately, the history of design review in Carmel-by-the-Sea is that with each new and additional design regulation approved by the City, the regulations have not appreciably reduced scale, mass and bulk, as intended, but limited architects and designers in creating innovative, creative and diversified residences. To wit, the City should be repealing some of the City’s design review regulations, not adding more stringent regulations to design review.

Note: Volumetrics was not part of the Design Traditions Project as crafted by Consultant Nore Winter of Winter and Company.