Three Noteworthy 7 June 2011 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Three Noteworthy 7 June 2011 City Council Agenda Items, namely a Resolution authorizing the City to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Monterey County Emergency Medical Services Agency (MCEMS Agency) and local provider agencies to support Monterey County EMS training and equipment expenditures for emergency first responders, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located at the SE Corner of Casanova Street and 4th Avenue (property owners Kendon and Jullian Dressel, appellant Judy O’ Day) and Receive updated report from CRFA and provide policy direction on CRFA employees becoming City employees, are presented. Excerpts from Agenda Item Summaries and Staff Report are provided. The report, REQUEST THAT THE CITY TAKE FORMAL STEPS TO HIRE EMPLOYEES CURRENTLY EMPLOYED BY CRFA AND MAKE THEM EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA, prepared by Gerard Rose, CFRA Board President, is embedded.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
4:30 p.m., Open Session

Live & Archived Video Streaming

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

II. Roll Call

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.

I. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Monterey County Emergency Medical Services Agency (MCEMS Agency) and local provider agencies to support Monterey County EMS training and equipment expenditures for emergency first responders.

Description: On July 20, 2010, the Emergency Medical Care Committee (EMCC) approved the establishment of a $1.5 million reserve and the disbursement of available CSA 74 funds to approved jurisdictions within Monterey County identified as participating provider agencies. CSA 74 funds are based on a $12.00-per-unit parcel tax assessment levied annually for EMS care and training. These emergency first responders include public safety, paramedic, EMT and ambulance services authorized to respond to medical emergencies within their jurisdiction. The purpose of these funds is to provide continual funding for emergency medical care services, equipment, and training.

The City of Carmel by-the-Sea will receive a one-time allocation of $55,404 this year and an annual distribution for FY 2009/10 of $10,355 for a total of $65,759. Future distributions will be contingent upon availability and at the discretion of the EMS Agency. The City Attorney has reviewed the Memorandum of Agreement.

Overall Cost: None.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Monterey County Emergency Medical Services Agency and local provider agencies to support emergency medical services.

Important Considerations: The term of the agreement shall be for a period of one year commencing on the date the agreement is fully executed.

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 Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located at the SE Corner of Casanova Street and 4th Avenue. The property owners are Kendon and Jullian Dressel and the appellant is Judy O’ Day.

Description: The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the approval of the project. The appellant argues that there is a prescriptive easement on the subject property and that the proposed residence should be set back further from the easement.

Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.

Important Considerations: The appellant has not provided any legal documentation validating the existence of an easement. Even if an easement did exist it would not preclude the applicant from using the easement portion of the property. Also, setbacks are measured from the property line, not easement boundaries.

Decision Record: On 13 April 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously approved this project.

BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project site is located at the southeast corner of Casanova Street and Fourth Avenue and is developed with a small one-story residence. The property contains a total of 15 trees, 11 of which are significant. There is currently no off-street parking space or driveway on the property. The northern neighbor’s driveway encroaches approximately five feet onto the north side of the subject property.

On April 13, 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously approved the construction of a new two-story residence on the subject property. The proposed residence has three levels, but is designed so that no portion of the building qualifies as three stories. The applicant is proposing a 1,192-square-foot main floor, a 363-square foot upper floor and a 232-square-foot lower floor that includes the garage. The proposed garage is partially below grade.

The applicant is proposing board and batten siding with a Carmel stone veneer around the front garage and steps. Unclad wood windows and doors are proposed as well as a composition shingle roof. Site coverage includes the driveway, the front deck and entry steps.

The applicant was originally approved to relocate two oak trees that are located in the backyard. Since the Design Study approval, the applicant has gained permission from the Forest and Beach Commission to remove the trees without relocation.

PC Review: The Planning Commission was presented with an opposition letter from the appellant at the hearing. However, the Commission determined that the proposed project met the zoning requirements and was consistent with the Design Guidelines. One Commissioner had to step down; however, the project received a unanimous 4-0 approval.

EVALUATION
Basis for Appeal: The appellant, Judy O’Day, owns the adjacent property to the north.

Below is a summary of the concerns raised by the appellant with a response from staff. The City Attorney has reviewed this report and concurs with staff’s analysis.

1. This approval allows the encroachment of the prospective building into a legitimate prescriptive driveway easement.
Response: The appellant has not provided any legal documentation validating the existence of an easement. It is not within the City’s purview to make a determination about the easement.

2. The project does not establish a sufficient setback from the prescriptive easement as defined by the fence boundary.
Response: CMC Section 17.06.020 states that setbacks are to be measured from the property line. There is nothing in the Zoning Code to indicate that a building setback is to be measured from an easement boundary.

3. The survey is incorrect with regards to the property lines.
Response: A survey of the subject property was conducted in November 2010, by a licensed surveyor. The survey shows the driveway encroaching approximately five feet onto the applicant’s property. The City relies on the accuracy of the survey prepared by a licensed surveyor.

XI. Orders of Council

B. Receive updated report from CRFA and provide policy direction on CRFA employees becoming City employees.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Take formal steps to hire CRFA’s employees and make them employees of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

FISCAL IMPACT:
At the present time, the City subsidy for CRFA is $300,000. That number has varied over the years due to forces that are beyond the City’s control, i.e. Medicare write-offs, uncollectible debts, and the like. However, the trend has been to require less each year over the past several years.

CRFA’s current budget for 2011 t0 2012 contemplates expenditures of $766,500, for its six full time paramedic/firefighter employees. This figure includes salaries and benefits, as well as social security and other benefits.

If CRFA’s employees were to transition to the City, the cost of salaries and benefits would drop, however the full extent of that savings would have to be the subject of labor negotiations. At the very least, however, there would be savings arising from the fact that the City doesn’t contribute social security payments (a savings of approximately $35,000). There would also be savings related to workers compensation insurance (approximately $18,000), liability insurance (approximately $10,000) and audit expenses (approximately $12,000).

This is a combined savings of at least $75,000, and would being the operational cost of six paramedic/firefighters down from $300,000 to approximately $225,000.

SUMMARY:
It makes sound fiscal policy and common sense for the City to preserve and maintain its 201 rights. This can best be done by bringing CRFA’s employees into the City. Mote important, it can be done without prejudicing the right of the city to enter into whatever relationships it may choose for its fire protection services.

CRFA Employees of City Proposal_ June 2_ 2011

REQUEST THAT THE CITY TAKE FORMAL STEPS TO HIRE EMPLOYEES CURRENTLY EMPLOYED BY CRFA AND MAKE THEM EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF CARMEL BY THE SEA

ADDENDUM:
Special City Council Budget Workshop – 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Council Chambers

Special City Council Budget Workshop – 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Council Chambers

Special City Council Budget Workshop – 4:30 p.m. (if needed)
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Council Chambers