‘MINUTES’ For Seven Noteworthy 7 February 2012 City Council Agenda Items

“MINUTES”
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Archived Video Streaming

City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

II. Roll Call

PRESENT: Council Members Burnett, Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage, and Mayor McCloud

ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT (partial list): Jason Stilwell, City Administrator
Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk
Don Freeman, City Attorney
Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager

V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

A. Announcements from Closed Session.

City Attorney Freeman stated the Council met in Closed Session (Monday, February 6, 2012). The two items on the agenda were:

1. Labor Negotiations – Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, City Administrator Stilwell, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the various bargaining units.

2. Existing Litigation -- Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Conference with legal counsel regarding The Flanders Foundation, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, Petitioner v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Respondents – Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M99437/State of California Court of Appeals, Sixth District, Civil Case No. H035818.

City Attorney Freeman stated there were no announcements for the public on the first and second items.

B. Announcements from City Council members (Council members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or report on his or her activities).

1. Receive Mayor's Annual Report.
Mayor's Annual Report 2012

Mayor’s Annual Report 2012

VII. Consent Calendar

C. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a grant from the California Coastal Conservancy in the amount of $250,000 to implement the Del Mar Master Plan and to authorize the City Administrator or his designee to execute the agreement and any other grant-related documents or amendments.

Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager, stated grant includes planning and implementation.

Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A-F, including Agenda Item C, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried unanimously.

VIII. Public Hearings

A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence located on Monte Verde, 2 N/E of Third Avenue. The appellant is Claudio Ortiz Design Group, on behalf of owner Plum Holdings, LLC.

Council Member Burnett recused himself due to his residence within 500 feet of the proposed project.

Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager, presented the report, including a review of the Planning Commission’s ten special conditions for the project. The property owner is only appealing special conditions 5, 6 and 10.

Special Condition #5: The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway and rear patio. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground as they approach the street.

Special Condition #6: The applicant shall reduce the ridge height by two feet while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.

Special Condition #10: Any external changes to the project shall be brought before the Planning Commission for review.

Staff recommendation was to grant the appeal but revise Special Conditions 5, 6 and 10 as follows:

5. The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway, and rear patio, and south of the driveway to replace the existing retaining wall in roughly the same location. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground as they approach the street. The final landscape plan shall include plantings that will screen the retaining wall running south from the driveway to the extent possible and no new paving shall be added between the street edge and the wall.

6. The applicant shall reduce the ridge height by two feet one foot (1’).

10. The applicant shall submit in writing any proposed changes to the project plans as approved by the Planning Commission on 11 January 2012 and revised by the City Council on 7 February 2012, prior to incorporating changes on the site. If the applicant changes the project without first obtaining approval, the applicant will be required to either: a) Submit the change in writing and cease all work on the project until either the Planning Commission or staff has approved the change; or b) Eliminate the change and submit the proposed change in writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance to the approved plans prior to final inspection approval.

Claudio Ortiz, representing Plum Holdings, addressed the Council, emphasizing an analysis of the terrain, safety and parking issues and input from the Fire Department. He stated his frustration is that they have complied with the Planning Commission’s requests through the process, specifically height issue, and the Commission mandates conditions without valid reasons for Commission’s imposed conditions. He spoke of their specific desires to maintain retaining wall in order to retain 4 feet of dirt and height allowance due to not encroaching on anyone’s privacy or views. He spoke of Commission’s “lack of commitment with residents” as reflected in Special Condition #10.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

A letter from a residence on Lincoln St. behind the site expressed support for the project and applicant and Claudio Ortiz

Another neighbor expressed support for the retaining wall and the applicant’s outreach to the community and was “disillusioned” by the Planning Commission.

Judie Profeta expressed support for the guidelines and the need to not have a Planning Commission which makes “arbitrary” decisions.

Malone Hodges addressed zoning and guidelines and the need to have a level playing field and expressed support for the project.

Monte Miller stated that the Planning Commissioners are polite and patient and have kept Carmel a world-class destination and advocated for the Council denying the appeal.

Barbara Livingston stated that she attended all three Planning Commission meetings on the project and the applicant did not comply with the Planning Commission’s requests. She expressed support for Special Condition #10 and advocated for the denial of the appeal.

A building addressed the three Special Conditions and stated that the retaining wall is “absolutely necessary.” He stated he was “appalled” by some of the Planning Commission’s comments regarding the design of the project. He urged approval of the appeal.

Fred Kern, the applicant, addressed the height of residence and stated he spoke with all the neighbors.

Roberta Miller addressed mass and bulk of project resembling three stories and style of architecture compared with other residences on street. She stated the applicant did not comply with Planning Commission’s requests for alternative designs. She urged Council to deny the appeal.

Another neighbor was “incredulous” regarding the “resistance of the Planning Commission” and “inconsistencies” and “illogic” of the Planning Commission. She addressed the stylistic variations of three projects Kern has built or remodeled nearby on the block. She stressed the importance of “fairness” and “beauty” and that the project improves the neighborhood.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

Claudio Ortiz stated that their project looks different from the other residences on the street, their project is 14 feet lower than the neighboring residence, their project is Mediterranean style whereas neighboring residence is Craftsman, their project uses Carmel stone whereas neighboring residence using linear stone. He stated that they complied with all Planning Commission requests, including garage location, green wall, green roof, window and door locations. And he stated they complied with all Planning Commission requests.

City Attorney Freeman stated that for appeals the staff represents the Planning Commissioners.

Council Member Hazdovac stated that the neighbors are supportive of the proposed project. She addressed retaining wall, architectural diversity, slope of terrain and Special Condition #10.

Council Member Sharp addressed retaining wall partially on right-of-way and the narrow street. She addressed Special Condition #10 and characterized it as “punitive” towards builder and height reduction condition of Planning Commission.

Council Member Talmage addressed the “challenging site” characterized by 23 degree pitch and the narrow street. The Planning Commission and the Staff do not agree on the project. He addressed the existing retaining wall and favored south “green” retaining wall on property. On ridge height, he favored 20 feet. He addressed Special Condition #10 and favored any external changes return to the Planning Commission.

Mayor McCloud expressed design concerns regarding “guest house” and retaining wall and existing tree.

Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence located on Monte Verde, 2 N/E of Third Avenue, including south “green” retaining wall not in public right-of-way, ridge height of 20 feet, eliminate Special Condition #10, (Staff’s revised Special Conditions 5, 6 and 10), seconded by Council Member McCLOUD, and failed by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: TALMAGE
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC; SHARP; & McCLOUD
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT

Mayor McCloud stated that her “No” vote was a “protest vote” because she had asked Claudio Ortiz yesterday through a city planner to prepare a “visual” involving a change in roof pitch and did not receive it. City Attorney Freeman stated that a vote has to be based on a “land use issue” and everything else is off the table.

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to approve an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence located on Monte Verde, 2 N/E of Third Avenue, including south “green” retaining wall not in public right-of-way, ridge height of 21 feet, eliminate Special Condition #10, (Staff’s revised Special Conditions 5, 6 and 10), seconded by Council Member SHARP, and failed by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC; SHARP
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: TALMAGE; McCLOUD
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT

Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence located on Monte Verde, 2 N/E of Third Avenue, including south “green” retaining wall not in public right-of-way, ridge height of 20 feet, eliminate Special Condition #10, (Staff’s revised Special Conditions 5, 6 and 10), seconded by Council Member SHARP, and passed by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT

X. Resolutions

B. Consideration of a Resolution appointing the Mayor and a designated Councilmember to represent the City on the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority.

Mayor McCloud presented the brief report, including the political aspect of the process.

Council Member Talmage stated he volunteered to be the designated Councilmember alternate to represent the City.

Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to approve a Resolution appointing the Mayor and designating Councilmember Talmage to represent the City on the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, seconded by Council Member BURNETT, and passed by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

XI. Orders of Council

C. Adopt updated Harassment Prevention Policy.

City Attorney Don Freeman stated the City currently has a Policy. As a result of an “unfortunate experience” the Policy was “revisited.” The City contracted with a law firm, but the city attorney reorganized the Policy. He reviewed the Policy, including reporting requirements, types of behavior, “no retaliation” permitted, past penalty section and elaborate examples eliminated, investigator responsibilities attached as an Exhibit, expanded to include Council Members, volunteers and contractors. Policy will only be effective with training every two years and City following Policy.

Council Member Sharp queried and commented on Policy.

To Council Member Ken Talmage query regarding city employees, City Administrator Stilwell stated that the final draft was given to labor unions and their feedback is incorporated in the Policy.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment

Jim Emery addressed a type of harassment, namely shunning or ostracism of an unfavored employee, and consensual relationship between supervisor and subordinate city employee causing a “destructive” atmosphere. One of the flaws in the last experience was the biased investigation by an external party and therefore there must be an unbiased investigator.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

City Attorney Freeman stated that certain requirements are “unenforceable.”

To Council Member Talmage’s query about references to HR Manager and the need for a designated HR Manager, City Administrator Stilwell stated that the designated HR Manager is the Administrative Services Director, currently Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk.

To Council Member Burnett’s query about mandatory training for everyone every two years, City Attorney Freeman stated that could be included in the Policy or as a separate item.

Council Member BURNETT moved to approve the Policy moving first sentence to policy section, specify training every two years for elected and appointed officials, volunteers and staff, a signed copy in files for all individuals covered in policy, add two business days for reporting, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE, and passed by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC, SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

CITY HARASSMENT PREVENTION POLICY Feb 2012

CITY HARASSMENT PREVENTION POLICY (February 2012)

E. Approve amendments to the contracts with the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council as follows:

1) A Resolution of Intent and first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 60, FAS Retirement Plan for Miscellaneous Employees hired on or after April 15, 2012.

2) A Resolution of Intent and first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) Establishing a 2% at 50, FAS Retirement Plan for Safety Employees hired by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on or after April l5, 2012.

City Administrator Stilwell presented the Staff Report, including implementation of CalPERS Committee’s recommendation of adopting a new tier for Miscellaneous Employees and Safety Employees. CalPERS has completed valuations and requires Council to adopt policies and ordinances for implementation of the new tier policy. There are two packets of information; one packet for Miscellaneous Employees and one packet for Safety Employees. Both contain Resolutions of Intent to Adopt an Ordinance and first reading of Ordinance, second reading at the March 6 meeting, and thus allow the City to hire new employees beginning on April 16, 2012.

To Council Member Talmage’s queries about safety employees, City Administrator Stilwell stated that safety employees include police, ambulance and fire employees.

Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member BURNETT moved to approve a Resolution of Intent of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 60, FAS Retirement Plan for Miscellaneous Employees hired on or after April 15, 2012, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and passed by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC, SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

Council Member BURNETT moved to approve a first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 60, FAS Retirement Plan for Miscellaneous Employees hired on or after April 15, 2012, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and passed by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC, SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

Council Member BURNETT moved to approve a Resolution of Intent of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) Establishing a 2% at 50, FAS Retirement Plan for Safety Employees hired by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on or after April l5, 2012, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and passed by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC, SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

Council Member BURNETT moved to approve a first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) Establishing a 2% at 50, FAS Retirement Plan for Safety Employees hired by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on or after April l5, 2012, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and passed by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC, SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE