One Noteworthy 11 July 2011 City Council Closed Session Item & Four Noteworthy 12 July 2011 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: One Noteworthy 11 July 2011 City Council Closed Session Item, namely Labor Negotiations - Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, Interim City Administrator Goss, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters, Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association, and LIUNA/UPEC Local 792 and Four Noteworthy 12 July 2011 City Council Agenda Items, namely 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 on Mission Street 2 NW of Avenue, a Resolution to increase the Construction Activity Road Impact Fee from 0.75% to 1% of the project valuation of a building permit, a Resolution adopting revisions to the Planning and Building Fee Schedules and a Resolution adopting revisions to the Community Services Fee Schedules, are presented. Excerpts from Agenda Item Summaries and Staff Reports are provided.

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Tour of Inspection and Closed Session
Monday, July 11, 2011 -- 4:30 p.m.
Council Chambers
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

II. Adjournment to Closed Session at City Hall
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:

1. Labor Negotiations – Gov’t. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, Interim City Administrator Goss, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters, Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association, and LIUNA/UPEC Local 792.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
AMENDED AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, July 12, 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

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 on Mission Street 2 NW of 11th Avenue. The property owner is Domicile Properties, LLC. The appellant is Sherrie Spendlove Gallo, joined by three other neighbors.

Description: The appellants are requesting that the Council overturn the approval of the project. The appellants are generally concerned with the location of the detached garage and the size of the proposed residence.

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

Important Considerations: The applicant is unable to develop the middle portion of the lot due to the presence of two significant trees.

Decision Record: On 11 May 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously approved this project.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT

RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.

BACKGROUND
The project site is located on Mission Street two northwest of Eleventh Avenue and is developed with a small one-story residence. The property contains three significant trees, one of which is located near the center of the lot. A Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources was issued on November 8, 2010.

On May 11, 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously approved the construction of a new one-story residence on the subject property. The Planning Commission was presented with opposition letters from three of the appellants at the hearing. However, the Commission determined that the proposed project met the zoning requirements and was consistent with the Design Guidelines.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed residence is 1,583 square feet in size with a 217-square-foot detached garage located in the front setback. The applicant is proposing a combination of board and batten siding with stucco. Unclad wood windows and doors are proposed throughout the residence.

EVALUATION
Basis for Appeal: This approval is being appealed by four neighbors that live within the immediate vicinity of the project. The appeal is lead by Sherrie Spendlove Gallo, the neighbor that lives directly to the north of the subject property. Below is a summary of the concerns raised by the appellants with a response by staff.

1. The proposed garage is located too close to the street and presents potential safety issues for those backing out. The neighbor to the north (Sherrie Spendlove Gallo) also feels that the garage will damage her view and access to sunlight.

Response: Design Guideline 6.2 states that “parking facilities that maintain or enhance variety along the street edge are encouraged.” CMC 17.10.030 allows for detached garages and carports to encroach into the front and/or side yard setbacks if certain standards can be met. These include avoiding impacts on significant trees and providing diversity to the streetscape (see attachment “C” for more information).

The applicant was approved to construct a detached garage located within the front and composite side-yard setbacks. The proposed garage is at the front property line and is located three feet from the northern property line. The garage is detached from the main residence but touches the corner of the front entry porch.

The applicant originally proposed a two-story design that would have placed the garage behind the front setback. The second-story would have been located on the northern side of the property to avoid the trees on the south. After consulting with staff, it was determined that a two-story design would have loomed over the northern neighbor’s outdoor patio and blocked the neighbor’s access to light. As a result, the applicant revised the design to be one-story. The one-story design has a larger footprint than the two-story and places the garage at the front of the property. In staff’s evaluation the one story design creates much less of an impact than a two-story design would have.

Staff notes that the applicant is unable to develop the middle portion of the lot due to the presence of two significant trees. The proposed residence is required to maintain a six foot setback from these trees. As a result, pushing the garage further back is not a feasible option without significantly reducing the square footage of the residence or by redesigning the home to be two stories. The Planning Commission did discuss the possibility of pushing the garage back two feet, but determined that it would have negatively altered the design while providing only a minimal benefit to the northern neighbor.

The proposed garage assists the project in avoiding impacts to significant trees and reduces the impact to the northern neighbor by allowing a one-story design. For these reasons staff supports the proposed garage. Additionally, none of the neighboring properties have a detached garage in the front setback. In staff’s evaluation the garage adds to the diversity to the streetscape and is not detrimental to the neighborhood.

With regards to safety, detached garages located in front and side-yards setbacks are fairly common in Carmel and several are approved by the Planning Commission each year. There are no unusual circumstances that make the subject garage less safe than any other detached garage located in the front setback.

2. At 1,800 square feet the proposed residence is too large given the constraints of the site. One neighbor recommended that footprint be reduced, while another neighbor recommended that the height be reduced.

Response: At 1,800 square feet the proposed residence has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, living room, dining room and garage. As evident on the floor plan, all of the rooms are modestly sized and are appropriate for a standard home. In order to push the garage back the applicant would likely have to eliminate either the living room or dining room.

With regards to building height, at the Planning Commission hearing staff noted that the structure appeared relatively tall for a one-story residence. The proposed residence has a ridge height of 17.5 feet with a maximum plate height of 12 feet. Staff recommended that if the Commission was concerned about mass, it could require the plate height to be reduced by one foot. The Planning Commission was supportive of the height because the trees at the front of the property help screen the building mass and because the proposed residence is in scale with other homes in the neighborhood, including the adjacent home to the north.

3. One neighbor is concerned with the appearance of the front window and potential for privacy impacts. This neighbor recommended that the window be reduced in size.

Response: Design Guideline 9.12 states that “the use of a grand entry, oversized entry door or large picture window facing the street is discouraged.”

The proposed window at the front of the residence is eight and-a-half feet tall by seven feet wide. Staff did raise some concern about the window at the Planning Commission hearing. However, the Planning Commission approved the window based on the determination that the scale was appropriate for the residence given that there are very few other windows on the front elevation. Staff notes that the proposed window is also screened by the trees at the front of the property.

4. One neighbor is concerned with the number of trees (five) that are being removed from the property.

Response: There are a total of nine trees on the property. The applicant is proposing to remove five of these trees, all of which are non-significant. As a condition of approval the applicant is required to plant one upper-canopy tree, giving a total of five trees on the property. The City Forester has reviewed the plans and supports the proposed tree removal.

Summary: The proposed residence is one-story, presents a simple design and
incorporates the use of wood siding. The applicant has also done a nice job of designing the residence around the three significant trees on the property and redesigned the project early in the planning process to help mitigate the impact the northern neighbor.

For these reasons the Planning Commission determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Guidelines. The Commission considered the concerns that were raised by the neighbors and determined that the project was appropriate. Staff concurs with the Commission.

RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.

X. Resolutions

C. Consideration of a Resolution to increase the Construction Activity Road Impact Fee from 0.75% to 1% of the project valuation of a building permit.

Description: The Construction Activity Road Impact Fee is collected on each building permit application that is approved by the City. The fee is currently 0.75% of the construction value of the project. This Resolution would raise the fee to 1% of the construction value of the project.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Important Considerations: It is recognized that construction vehicles have a significant impact on the roads and infrastructure of the City. The Construction Activity Road Impact Fee was originally adopted in 2009 and was designed to generate additional funds for road repairs and maintenance.

Decision Record: The Construction Activity Road Impact Fee was originally adopted on October 6, 2009.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT

BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 2008, based on a report prepared by Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) regarding the condition of the City’s streets the City Council began discussing the possibility of a construction activity road impact fee. The Council held two public workshops before ultimately deciding to adopt the fee at 0.75% of the construction value of projects requiring a building permit. During recent budget workshops the Council has expressed an interest in raising the construction activity road impact fee. The attached resolution would raise the fee from 0.75% to 1%.

EVALUATION
Road Conditions: The NCE report suggested that the City’s roads would require approximately $600,000 of maintenance and improvements on an annual basis. Under current economic conditions, it is not feasible to fund road maintenance activities at that level. Using the NCE report as a basis, the City Engineer and the Superintendent of Public Works routinely identify projects that should be considered priorities for funding.
While an increase in revenue from the road impact fee would not allow for full funding as recommended in the NCE report, it would allow the City to perform more of the road maintenance project priorities as identified by the City Engineer and Superintendent of Public Works. For example, projects 7-9 from Supplemental Budget Message #9 could be added to the 2011-12 Capital Budget.

Fiscal Impacts: During fiscal year 2010/11, the City received approximately $100,000 in revenue from the road impact fee. For fiscal year 2011/12, the projected road impact fee based on 0.75% is $120,000. If the fee was raised to 1%, the projected revenue would be approximately $160,000.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Resolution.

D. Consideration of a Resolution adopting revisions to the Planning and Building Fee Schedules.

Description: The proposed fee revisions are intended to more accurately cover the costs of providing the services associated with planning and building permit activities.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Important Considerations: At the June 14, 2011 Budget Workshop the Council requested that the Department of Community Planning and Building evaluate its fee schedules to determine if revisions should be made.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT

BACKGROUND
At the June 14, 2011 Budget Workshop, the City Council requested that the Department of Community Planning and Building evaluate its fee schedule to determine if revisions should be made to more fully cover the costs of providing planning and building services.

On June 21, the Council directed staff to bring back the fees for further review at the July meeting. The proposed resolution would adopt revisions to some of the fees contained in the planning and building fee schedules.

EVALUATION
Fee Comparison: Table 1 (see attached) contains a brief fee comparison for planning related fees from neighboring jurisdictions. It should be noted that due to the differences in various factors including project sizes, design review processes, etc. that it is difficult to make a clear comparison by simply looking at the fees charged. For example, the subdivision fees in neighboring jurisdictions are significantly higher than what the City of Carmel charges. However, most subdivision applications are vastly different in neighboring communities including large tracts of land and multiple new lots. Larger subdivisions require more review for planning and building, engineering and legal than typically is required for subdivisions in Carmel. The lower fee charged by the City reflects those differences.

It should also be noted that the majority of planning applications that the City processes are design review related. The City’s fees related to design review are fairly consistent with what is charged by neighboring communities. The largest fee differences are for applications that the City rarely processes (variances, subdivisions, use permits etc.). For example, the City approved approximately 180 design review related projects in 2010. However, only 12 use permits, four variances and no subdivisions were approved in 2010.

Fee Revisions:
Planning: Planning fees are calculated based on the average time required to process the application including all of the various staff members and steps involved. Other overhead expenses are also included in these calculations. For example, a preliminary site assessment application fee includes the cost of receiving and processing the application, reviewing it at a staff meeting, an on-site evaluation performed by planning and forestry staff, the preparation of a written report and overhead expenses (copies, postage, etc.).

The proposed fee revisions more accurately reflect the costs involved with processing the various applications. The two application fees that were questioned by the Council at the June 21, 2011 Budget Workshop included the appeals fee and the Mills Act fee. Staff proposed an increase from $260 to $585 for the appeals fee and a new fee for Mills Act application of $595 to more fully cover the costs associated with these types of applications.

Staff recognizes that having a high appeal fee may make it difficult for concerned citizens to appeal projects to the City Council. The current fee ($260) does not normally cover staff time and resources that processing an appeal requires. However, due to the limited number of appeals that are typically received during a given year, staff could support maintaining the existing $260 fee. Staff has removed the proposed appeal fee increase from this resolution. If the Council determines that is appropriate to cover at least a portion of staff costs in receiving and processing an appeal, it is suggested that the fee be increased to $350. This would fit into the range charged in Monterey ($170-$370) and would be less than that charged in Pacific Grove ($387-$585).

Staff has also revised the Mills Act fee from $595 to $150. While this will not fully cover the costs of processing the application, a higher fee may discourage property owners from applying. The Mills Act promotes the restoration and rehabilitation of historic properties and Mills Act projects will likely have positive impacts on community character and property values that would justify a lower fee.

Another new fee proposed is a $200 fee for Track 1 Design Study applications that are referred to the Planning Commission by staff. Track 1 applications are typically approved at the staff level. However, when a project may conflict with a land use policy or guideline, staff often refers the application to the Planning Commission for review. This fee would cover staff time required to process the applications plus the added expense of the Commission’s review when required.

The final new fee proposed is a $350 fee for preliminary concept reviews with the Planning Commission. This application allows an applicant to approach the Commission with a general project concept without fully developed plans to receive direction and feedback from the Commission prior to submitting a formal application.

These revised and new fees are designed to cover the expense of staff time required to process the specific land use applications. In all cases the fee either equals the staff time required for processing the application, or, as in most cases, only covers part of the full staff cost. In the case of fees for appeals and Mills Act requests, the fees are reduced due to policy considerations.

Building fees: Most building fees are based on a formula established in the California Building Code and the construction value of the project. For minor construction permits, the City can establish its own fee structure. The proposed resolution includes increases to these types of fees (plumbing, mechanical, electrical, etc.).

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Resolution.

E. Consideration of a Resolution adopting fees for the use of parks, streets and the beach.

Description: The proposed fee revisions are intended to more accurately cover the costs of providing the services associated with special events held within the city limits.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Important Considerations: At the June 14, 2011 Budget Workshop the Council
requested that the Community Services Department evaluate its fee schedules to determine if revisions should be made.

At the June 14, 2011 Budget Workshop, the City Council requested that the Community Services Department evaluate its fee schedule to determine if revisions should be made to more fully cover the costs of having special events requiring the closure of city streets, providing parking stalls, utilizing certain city buildings, the parks, and the beach.

EVALUATION
Regarding some of the proposed fees contained in this report, several were proposed last year by the Community Activities and Cultural Commission. One involved parking stalls which are $100 per stall per day. They proposed $200 per stall per day for special events such as Car Week, a PGA golf event like the US Open, and during the last two weeks of December. It also is proposed $200 be the set fee for valet parking for private events requiring two stalls.

The Commission proposed that Film Permits be set at $150 rather than just charging the $125 special event permit feel. However, given the time required for processing these permits it is recommended that this fee be increased to $250 per day. In addition, the hourly rate for Police or Public Works staff applied to other events would also apply to filming in Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Last year the Commission proposed a rental fee of $265/day for Devendorf Park. However, given the staff time involved in processing this permit and based on the fees charged in other cities it is recommended that the fee be increased to $400/4 hrs. plus $300 per extra hour, and a $250 refundable deposit.

For community buildings, both public and private, substantially more is charged for meeting rooms by these other entities compared to Carmel. Pacific Grove, for example, charges a $400 - $1,000 residential rate, and $800 - $2,000 non-residential rate. La Playa Hotel charges $250 - $1,200 for different sized rooms on weekends. Sunset Center charges half-day rates of $150 - $600. It is proposed that for Vista Lobos, which may not have the same meeting room as these other facilities, a half-day rate of $55 be set for the meeting room and $75 for the room and kitchen. Similar to Pacific Grove, it is proposed that a non-resident rate be applied which would double these rates to $110 for the meeting room and $150 for the room and kitchen.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Resolution.