“MINUTES”
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Archived Video
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: John Goss, Interim City Administrator
Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk
Don Freeman, City Attorney
Brian Finegan, Attorney
Mike Calhoun, Interim Police Chief
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
VIII. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two unit, multi-family residential project for a site located on San Carlos Street 3 SE of 7th Avenue. The appellant is Old Mill Properties, LLC.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the Staff Report. In conclusion, Wiener stated that the Council should consider discuss the following questions:
• Is the project consistent with the General Plan?
• Does the project comply with the Zoning Requirements for the RC District?
• Is the project consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines?
Architect Eric Miller, on behalf of appellant Old Mill Properties, LLC., presented a power point presentation. Highlights included Urban Housing, Sustainable Downtown; General Plan encourages a variety of residential units in the downtown area, Housing Element requirements; project history (eight months), project design and parking analysis. Miller cited the City Attorney’s opinion letter which stated that the Planning Commission’s discretion should not be arbitrarily or capriciously applied and the Commission’s decision should be based on substantial evidence in the record. Miller mentioned sixteen letters in support of the project.
Project Design: Miller stated that the project design is consistent with the design guidelines, staff recommended approval, city attorney’s opinion letter stated that the project is consistent with the General Plan and the Project is compatible with the architectural styling.
Parking Analysis: For good design and $500,000 expense reasons, parking in rear is objectionable due to steep ramp and unsafe driveway.
In conclusion, architect Eric Miller stated that the “great” Project is a poster child for housing in downtown.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Barbara Livingston stated that the Council must first determine the legislative intent /definition of multi-family dwellings prior to consideration of the Project; that is, whether or not the definition encompasses single family homes with granny units in the RC (residential commercial) district.
A man stated that the Project parking was contrary to the General Plan and recommended denial of the Project; he advocated for an underground garage.
Roberta Miller commented about the Planning Commissioners and expressed her disappointment in the Staff Report and advocated for denial of the Project.
Dan Silverie addressed underground parking and stated that underground parking on short lots is “dangerous.” He stated that the Project is an “improvement” to the neighborhood.
The developer, Don Mackey, stated that he is not a “taker,” he is a “giver.” He stated that Staff and attorney Brian Finegan support the Project. He stated that they have complied with the guidelines. They have done four complete design changes and seventeen to nineteen revisions of the plans based on suggestions. He asked the Council to base their “decision on the facts.”
Jim Bell, Mission Street resident, highlighted letters of support for the Project and his support of the Project.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Attorney Brian Finegan stated that investigation into legislative intent is only applicable if ambiguous. Finegan stated that vested rights are not for planning, but based on permit approval. He further stated in his letter that the Project was consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, but the Council must determine consistency with the design guidelines.
Council Member Sharp addressed subordinate units and affordable housing and parking and automobile carousel/turntable.
Council Member Burnett addressed parking options if lots were combined.
Appellant Don Mackey stated that these are two complete projects and referred to the police report on safety.
Architect Eric Miller stated that a 27% slope driveway from San Carlos Street is dangerous. One underground parking garage could increase traffic load onto the street. He addressed the automobile carousel/turntable and as safer than a steep ramp.
Interim Police Chief Mike Calhoun stated that the report stated the incline has potential of “limited view” and safety aspects.
Council Member Burnett stated that it was problematic that the Project is submitted as a multi-family project, but looks like a single family project.
Council Member Hazdovac stated that the applicant has met all the standards, the Project is an allowed use and expressed support for the Project.
Mayor McCloud commended the applicant on their parking solution.
Council Member Sharp expressed support for the Project with the carousel/turntable.
Attorney Finegan stated that the Council can approve, deny or modify the Project.
Interim City Administrator John Goss asked attorney Finegan whether there were any conditions of approval to prevent second unit from being used as part of the first unit even though both are permitted uses. Attorney Finegan stated that this is a design process, not a conditional use process. The carousel however is a design element.
Council Member BURNETT moved to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two unit, multi-family residential project for a site located on San Carlos Street 3 SE of 7th Avenue, seconded by Mayor McCLOUD and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC; SHARP
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: TALMAGE
Note: Council Member Hazdovac, prior to the roll call, stated that the Council was charged with answering “Is the project consistent with the General Plan?” "Yes." "Does the project comply with the Zoning Requirements for the RC District?" "Yes." "Is the project consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines?" "Yes."
B. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located on Mission Street 3 SW of 7th Avenue. The appellant is Old Mill Properties, LLC.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the Staff Report.
Architect Eric Miller, on behalf of appellant Old Mill Properties, LLC., presented a power point on the Project. Miller cited the Housing Element requirements per General Plan, parking issues, Planning Commission split decision (2-2) resulting in denial. The Project is consistent with the design guidelines, General Plan and Zoning Code and compatible with architectural styling.
Project Design: The Project represents a transitional design; discussed massing, materials, parking analysis, including retaining wall, oak tree, expense of rear parking.
In conclusion, architect Eric Miller stated that this Project is “the right way to do it,” the Planning Commission was trying to design; if delayed, the Project could lose the water and have two empty lots.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Barbara Livingston asked whether the developer paid for one appeal or two appeals.
Jim Bell, Mission Street resident, just south of the Project site on the east side of Mission Street, stated that he attended Planning Commission meetings and stated the Project has met the guidelines and standards. He expressed his strong support for the Project and that he considered it “not fair or legal” to deny the Project.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, stated that the applicant paid for both appeals.
Mayor McCLOUD moved to approve an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located on Mission Street 3 SW of 7th Avenue, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC; SHARP; McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: TALMAGE
X. Resolutions
A. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing an agreement with Peckham & McKenney for recruitment services for the next City Administrator.
City Attorney Don Freeman stated that he had received a copy of the Agreement that day. He highlighted changes including contract for fourteen weeks, expenses incurred identified more clearly, attorney fees, mediation and arbitration and termination provision limited to ten calendar days. Ms. Peckham concurred with the changes.
Council Member Burnett stated he was surprised about the fourteen-week contract.
City Attorney Don Freeman stated that either limit the contract to fourteen weeks and if more time is required to renegotiate the fee or “until the job is done,” the choice of the Council.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Barbara Livingston asked the Council whether the Council intended to provide Peckham & McKenney with guidelines for what the Council desires in a city administrator and whether or not the Council will be asking for community input.
Mayor McCloud stated “yes” and the details would be worked out at a future time.
Council Member BURNETT moved to authorize an agreement with Peckham & McKenney for recruitment services for the next City Administrator, with time period extended to five months. The motion was not seconded.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to authorize an agreement with Peckham & McKenney for recruitment services for the next City Administrator, with time period extended to sixteen weeks or four months, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried 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
Note: City Attorney Don Freeman stated Peckham & McKenney agreement with the City is for $16,500.
XI. Orders of Council
D. Approve amendments to City’s revised Harassment Prevention Policy.
City Attorney Don Freeman stated that Jon Giffin was not present at the meeting. Freeman recommended the Council not adopt the revised Harassment Prevention Policy. The City has an existing Policy and is therefore not vulnerable. The Draft Policy is "over lawyered,” “too cumbersome,” “not to the benefit of employees” or the atmosphere the City is trying to achieve. He gave examples of “whistling” and the issue of “favoritism.” He recommended the Policy be tabled and brought back in the fall, not continued month to month. He stated that “training” and “detection” and “enforcement” of the Policy is at the heart of the issue that needs to be resolved.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
City employee Margi Perotti concurred with the statements of Don Freeman. It does not benefit the employees or the City and the reporting requirements in the Policy are “over-the-top.”
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member Talmage stated the Draft Policy is “over lawyered,” “too subjective,” “too specific” and too “judgmental;” the Policy needs to be more general. He was concerned about independent city employees concerned about the Draft Policy.
City Attorney Don Freeman answered Council Member Hazdovac’s query about the expense amount of drafting the Policy as being $8,000.
Council Member BURNETT moved that the City retain its current policy, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE, and by consensus, the City Council approved the motion.
6 comments:
With regard to this appeal of the Planning Commission’s split vote (2-2) on both projects, it was disheartening to witness an aspect of Carmel’s dysfunctional government. By her questions, it was abundantly clear that Sue McCloud did not grasp how the General Plan and Zoning Code applied to this proposed Project. Jason Burnett basically substituted his subjective determination of what constitutes the visual appearance of a multi-family residence vs. a single family-family residence and in doing so failed to confine his decision-making to whether or not the Project was consistent with the General Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines and compatible with the Zoning Code. Council Member Paula Hazdovac was absolutely correct to focus on the Staff’s questions and base her vote on her answers: "Is the project consistent with the General Plan?" Yes. "Does the project comply with the Zoning Requirements for the RC District?" Yes. "Is the project consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines?" Yes. Lastly, it is beyond disheartening to see individuals go beyond the purview of their roles and in effect use the power of their position to unfairly deny an applicant and his architect the ability to rightfully design his project in compliance with the City’s guidelines and standards. And denying the San Carlos Street Project does not necessarily make for a “better project;” in reality, it may yield no project at all and an empty lot for the foreseeable future.
Well stated, VillageinForest; most disheartening was the glaring disconnect between the City Council's actions and the opportunity to support an infill project for downtown Carmel in the midst of the economic downturn. The local design and construction industry has been devastated by the recession, and unnecessary roadblocks by elected officials are having a negative impact on job growth and the fiscal health of our local governments. Also, this appeal highlights one of the problems inherent in a small community with 5-person decision-making bodies; since the PC and Council both resulted in a split vote due to recusals. Let's hope the denial does not lead to another lawsuit.
The Council decision to deny the San Carlos building appeal was appalling. The mayor did not give one clear objection but voted against it. From her comments it was obvious she was behind the fiasco from the beginning. Councilman Burnett was no better; he could not rationally explain his convoluted denial.
Here is a good suggestion for the City to save a lot of money. Do away with the Planning Department in its entirety and the entire design review process. They are obviously not needed and a waste of time. Simply have applicants submit their plans to the mayor’s supporters like the Reimer’s who had an interest in the denial, and others like Barbara Livingston and the other habitual “no-change” speakers, all of whom appear to have an “our way or no way attitude.” They can then directly submit their recommendations to the mayor who will make the final decision. She can confer with Councilman Burnett if she thinks he will agree with her. Isn’t this how it ended up?
As a Carmel resident I would like to apologize to the applicant, Mr. Mackey, and to the architect, Mr. Miller, for having to spend all their time, money, and well intentioned efforts. What they did was totally legal, fully allowed under the zoning, completely within all the design guidelines and regulations, and would have greatly improved our town and its image. I am ashamed for what transpired. It is also a shame that fear of retribution dictates anonymous blogs.
Some Carmelites have advocated for an end to Carmel’s petty tyrant mayor's rule for abusing her position by rewarding friends and punishing perceived enemies over 11 going on 12 long years. Carmel does not need another petty tyrant on the council making capricious and arbitrary decisions and deciding for personal political opportunistic reasons to play the game according to Sue McCloud’s rules.
Hypothetically, say during the planning approval process, the proposed residential remodel of Jason and Mel Burnett was appealed to the council and a councilman said he would vote to deny the Burnett project because its white, sterile, rectangular box-like appearance was not in keeping with Carmel’s community character housing stock. The Burnett’s would have every right to scream that his vote to deny their project was too subjective, capricious, arbitrary and WRONG. Turning now to Jason Burnett’s line of reasoning and votes to deny Mackey’s Eric Miller designed San Carlos Street and Mission Street projects, his actions were similarly capricious, arbitrary and WRONG. A humble man would recognize his mistake and bring the matter back to the council at the next meeting and rectify his mistake by voting to approve the Mackey San Carlos Street Project.
The failure of all 5 members of the council to not support a revised sexual harassment policy shows their utter lack of leadership and willingness to waste who know how many hours of time and $8000 of taxpayer money. Time for all 5 to go!
from Anonymous..."Here is a good suggestion for the City to save a lot of money. Do away with the Planning Department in its entirety and the entire design review process. They are obviously not needed and a waste of time. Simply have applicants submit their plans to the mayor’s supporters like the Reimer’s who had an interest in the denial, and others like Barbara Livingston and the other habitual “no-change” speakers, all of whom appear to have an “our way or no way attitude.” They can then directly submit their recommendations to the mayor who will make the final decision. She can confer with Councilman Burnett if she thinks he will agree with her. Isn’t this how it ended up?
Brilliant! That is exactly how it ended up!! And I hear the mayor is grooming Planning Commissioner Jan Reimers to take over when the mayor decides to retire. Great.
Post a Comment