California Coastal Commission: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea LCP Amendment No. 2-09 (Design Review Process)

UPDATE: CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
6. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS (LCPs). See AGENDA CATEGORIES.
a. City of Carmel by the Sea LCP Amendment No. 2-09 (Design Review Process). Concurrence with the Executive Director’s determination that the request by the City of Carmel by the Sea to amend the certified LCP to eliminate the Design Review Board and move its responsibilities to the City’s Planning Commission is minor. (MW-SC) [APPROVED]

ABSTRACT: On the 12 August 2009 California Coastal Commission Agenda is the agenda item, City of Carmel by the Sea LCP Amendment No. 2-09 (Design Review Process). Concurrence with the Executive Director’s determination that the request by the City of Carmel by the Sea to amend the certified LCP to eliminate the Design Review Board and move its responsibilities to the City’s Planning Commission is minor. The Staff Report, prepared by Dan Carl, District Manager and Mike Watson, Coastal Planner, is reproduced.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
AUGUST 2009 AGENDA
HYATT REGENCY EMBARCADERO
5 EMBARCADERO PLAZA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2009
CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT

6. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS (LCPs). See AGENDA CATEGORIES.
a. City of Carmel by the Sea LCP Amendment No. 2-09 (Design Review Process). Concurrence with the Executive Director’s determination that the request by the City of Carmel by the Sea to amend the certified LCP to eliminate the Design Review Board and move its responsibilities to the City’s Planning Commission is minor. (MW-SC)


STATE OF CALIFORNIA – NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427-4863
FAX: (831) 427-4877
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV

Prepared July 22, 2009 (for August 12, 2009 Hearing)

To: Coastal Commissioners and Interested Persons

From: Dan Carl, District Manager
Mike Watson, Coastal Planner

Subject: Minor Amendment Determination for City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Local Coastal Program Amendment Number 2-09 (Design Review Process)

Carmel-by-the-Sea Proposed Amendment
Carmel-by-the-Sea is proposing to amend the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan (IP) to eliminate the City’s Design Review Board and to move its responsibilities to the City’s Planning Commission. See Exhibit A for the City’s staff report on this matter, Exhibit B for the adopted ordinance making the change, and Exhibit C for the cross-through and underline proposed changes.

Minor LCP Amendment Determination
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 13555, the Executive Director may determine that a proposed LCP amendment is “minor”. CCR Section 13554 defines minor LCP amendments. Among other things, minor LCP amendments include:

CCR Section 13554(a). Changes in wording which make the use as designated in the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps or other implementing actions more specific and which do not change the kind, location, intensity, or density of use and which are found by the Executive Director of the Commission or the Commission to be consistent with the land use plan as certified by the Commission.

If the Executive Director determines that an amendment is minor, that determination must be reported to the Commission. If one-third of the appointed members of the Commission request that it be processed as a major LCP amendment, then the amendment shall be set for a future public hearing; if one-third of the appointed members of the Commission do not object to the minor LCP amendment determination,
then the amendment is deemed approved, and it becomes a certified part of the LCP immediately (in this case, on August 12, 2009).

The purpose of this notice is to advise interested parties of the Executive Director’s determination that the proposed LCP amendment is minor.

Under the existing LCP, the City’s Design Review Board reviews more minor coastal development projects, including those which do not involve a use permit, variance, subdivision, or lot line adjustment. The Planning Commission reviews more major projects, including all coastal development projects that are not reviewed by the Design Review Board otherwise. The proposed amendment would eliminate the City’s Design Review Board, but it would not alter the LCP otherwise. In other words, existing LCP standards would not change, including those related to design review, but there would no longer be a separate Design Review Board and design review action. Instead, the responsibilities that previously rested with the Design Review Board would now reside wholly with the Planning Commission. It is anticipated that the amendment will simplify the coastal permit process in the City, but that it will not alter coastal resource protection under the LCP.

Coastal Commission Concurrence
The Executive Director will report this minor LCP amendment determination, and any comments received on it, to the Coastal Commission at its August 12, 2009 meeting at the Hyatt Regency Embarcadero, 5 Embarcadero Plaza, in San Francisco. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding the proposed amendment or the method under which it is being processed, please contact Mike Watson at the Central Coast District Office in Santa Cruz. If you wish to comment on and/or object to the proposed minor LCP amendment determination, please do so by August 7, 2009.

Procedural Note - LCP Amendment Action Deadline
This proposed LCP amendment was filed as complete on July 16, 2009. It is IP only and the 60-day action deadline is September 14, 2009. Thus, unless the Commission extends the action deadline (it may be extended by up to one year), the Commission has until September 14, 2009 to take a final action on this LCP amendment.

Exhibits:
Exhibit A: City staff report regarding elimination of the Design Review Board
Exhibit B: City Council ordinance eliminating the Design Review Board
Exhibit C: Proposed changes to the LCP in strike-through and underline

‘MINUTES’ for Five Noteworthy 2 June 2009 City Council Agenda Items

“MINUTES”
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
June 2, 2009

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.

F. Consideration of a Resolution of the City Council amending the agreement with Denise Duffy & Associates to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Flanders Property in an amount not to exceed $77,572.

G. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with CB Richard Ellis Consulting, Inc., for completion of the final economic analysis, appraisal and Phase II of the Flanders Property in an amount of $23,000 plus expenses.

H. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a proposal from Nichols Consulting Engineers for traffic and classifications counts and an update to the Construction Truck Impact Fee Study in an amount not to exceed $11,600.

Council Member TALMAGE pulled Item H.

Council Member ROSE moved adoption of Items A through G, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and carried unanimously.

Council Member TALMAGE expressed his dissatisfaction with expending $11,600 towards a Study; he preferred to adopt the Construction Truck Impact Fee without a Study. City Attorney Don Freeman stated that an analysis was required in order to support an impact fee.

Council Member ROSE moved adoption of Item H, and carried unanimously.

IX. Ordinances
B. Consideration of an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan returning all design and land use responsibilities to the Planning Commission (First reading).

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

Jonathan Sapp and Keith Paterson, both of the Design Review Board, voiced their support for maintaining the Design Review Board.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member TALMAGE took responsibility for putting this Item on the Agenda due to “new” information; he spoke of his concerns with recent retirements, the “loss of institutional memory,” lack of planning staff and lack of revenue to budget for the work of the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. Mayor McCloud spoke in support of the elimination of the Design Review Board mainly due to anticipated retirements of Planning Commissioners. Council Member SHARP spoke in support of maintaining the Design Review Board. Council Member HAZDOVAC expressed concerns about whether or not there is evidence for any cost savings with the elimination of the Design Review Board; the City Administrator had no data on the matter. Council Member ROSE supported TALMAGE and McCLOUD for the elimination of the Design Review Board. City Attorney Don Freeman spoke about the history and reasons of the formation of the Design Review Board and the desire to have an unanimous decision.

Council Member ROSE moved approval of an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan returning all design and land use responsibilities to the Planning Commission, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried by the following roll call:

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

XI. Orders of Council
B. Consideration of recommendations from the Green Building Committee and the Planning Commission regarding a draft Green Building Ordinance.

Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented the recommendations from the Green Building Committee and the Planning Commission.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

Libby Barnes, of Carver Schickentanz Architects and U.S. Green Building Council of Monterey Bay Branch, spoke in support of the Green Building Ordinance. Carla Ramsey, Carmel resident, spoke in support of a resolution, not an ordinance; she expressed support for voluntary, not mandatory compliance. Barbara Livingston spoke to 60 points required as being "easy to achieve." Brendan Connolly, Local Builder and Green Building Committee member, spoke about "awareness" and "education" about Green Building.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member ROSE spoke in support of the Green Building Ordinance. Council Member HAZDOVAC voiced her appreciation to the Green Building Committee. Consensus of Council Members in support of the draft Green Building Ordinance.

(Source: Archived Videos, Regular City Council Meeting, June 2, 2009)

Five Noteworthy 2 June 2009 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Five Noteworthy 2 June 2009 City Council Agenda Items, namely a Resolution of the City Council amending the agreement with Denise Duffy & Associates to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Flanders Property in an amount not to exceed $77,572, a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with CB Richard Ellis Consulting, Inc., for completion of the final economic analysis, appraisal and Phase II of the Flanders Property in an amount of $23,000 plus expenses, a Resolution accepting a proposal from Nichols Consulting Engineers for traffic and classifications counts and an update to the Construction Truck Impact Fee Study in an amount not to exceed $11,600, an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan returning all design and land use responsibilities to the Planning Commission and Consideration of recommendations from the Green Building Committee and the Planning Commission regarding a draft Green Building Ordinance, are presented. Selected excerpts from Agenda Item Summaries and Staff Reports are provided; COMMENTS are made on selected Agenda Items. The next City Council meetings will be the Special Budget Meeting, Tuesday, June 9, 2009, at 4:30 P.M. and the Flanders Protest Hearing, Tuesday, June 16, 2009, at 4:30 P.M. in Council Chambers.

AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
4:30 p.m., Open Session
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

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.

F. Consideration of a Resolution of the City Council amending the agreement with Denise Duffy & Associates to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Flanders Property in an amount not to exceed $77,572.

Description: The contract for Denise Duffy & Associates, dated July 25, 2008, outlined the preparation of an EIR using existing information on the property and from the Flanders Property Final EIR, dated August 2005. The scope of work included defining parameters for project description; preparing an administrative draft of the EIR for comment by staff; preparing a draft EIR for public circulation; preparing responses to comments on the draft EIR; and attending public hearings.

On March 6, 2009, Denise Duffy & Associates submitted a Contract Amendment that included meeting attendance, preparation of environmental documents and project management, in amount not to exceed $9,500, as outlined in Attachment “A”.

On March 12, 2009, Denise Duffy & Associates submitted a second Contract Amendment that included additional tasks associated with the Final Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Flanders Property, in an amount not to exceed
$32,000, as outlined in Attachment “B”.

Finally, on May 8, 2009, Denise Duffy & Associates requested a third Contract Amendment for further additional professional services in connection with the Final Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Flanders Property, in an amount not to exceed $36,072.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: $77,572.00 (Account 01-61051-0040).
Funds to be transferred from the General Operating Reserve.

Decision Record: Adopted Resolution 2008-49, approving an agreement with Denise Duffy & Associates, to prepare an EIR in an amount not to exceed $67,000.

COMMENT:
• Three Contract Amendments, dated March 6, March 12 and May 8, 2009 were submitted to the City by Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. Yet the Resolution amending the agreement with Denise Duffy & Associates is only now on the 2 June 2009 City Council Agenda. Moreover, the City paid Denise Duffy & Associates $26,360.61 by April 21, 2009.

117710 4/14/09 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 9,500.00 01 61051 FLANDERS PROPERTY EIR
117766 4/21/09 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 16,483.15 01 61051 FLANDERS PROPERTY EIR
----Vendor Total---- $ 26,360.61

Further evidence of a familiar pattern whereby the City expends taxpayer dollars prior to a resolution being placed on a public hearing agenda. And it is reminiscent of the City’s expenditures for materials and labor for the Dolores St. speed hump which was only removed when an attorney for the Dolores St. neighbors threatened a lawsuit against the City for misappropriation of funds due to the item never being placed on a City agenda for public hearing.

G. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with CB Richard Ellis Consulting, Inc., for completion of the final economic analysis, appraisal and Phase II of the Flanders Property in an amount of $23,000 plus expenses.

Description: CB Richard Ellis Consulting (CBRE) will complete the final economic analysis, appraisal and Phase II, as detailed in Attachment “A”.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: $23,000 plus expenses (Account 01-61051-0040).
These funds will be transferred from the General Operating Reserve.

Important Considerations: CBRE’s original contract, effective July 21, 2008, was for $40,000 to provide the economic analysis for the Flanders Property. On October 21, 2008, CBRE received an additional $5,000 for further professional services related to the economic analysis of the Flanders property.

Decision Record: Resolution 2008-50, approving preparation of economic analysis for the Flanders property;

COMMENTS:
• As of the City May Check Register, the City had paid CBRE Consulting Inc. $52,483.72. Moreover, on April 21, 2009, the City paid CBRE Consulting Inc. $6,882.50, presumably towards the $23,000, as follows:

117760 4/21/09 CBRE CONSULTING INC. $ 6,882.50 01 61051 FLANDERS PROPERTY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PROJECT

Again, further evidence of the City expending taxpayer dollars prior to the resolution being placed on a City agenda for public hearing.

• Two dates on CB Richard Ellis Consulting letter to City regarding Flanders Property Economic Analysis – Supplemental Budget, namely, March 2, 2009 (page 1) and February 27, 2009 (pages 2 and 3).

H. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a proposal from Nichols Consulting Engineers for traffic and classifications counts and an update to the Construction Truck Impact Fee Study in an amount not to exceed $11,600.

Description: In February 2008, a Construction Truck Impact Fee Study prepared by Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) was presented to the City Council. The study included statistics from traffic counts conducted in the City of Monterey. To update the study with construction traffic activity in Carmel-by-the-Sea, the City requested that NCE submit a proposal for traffic and classifications counts.

NCE’s proposal is outlined in Exhibit “A”. The information gleaned from the traffic counts will be used to update the Construction Truck Impact Fee report. The City Council then may consider implementing a construction truck impact fee to raise monies for streets and roads affected by construction truck activity. The fee would be assessed to builders as they apply for construction building permits.

Overall Cost: City Funds: $11,600, funded from Administration Department Professional Services Account 01-64051.

Staff Recommendation: Approve the Resolution.

Important Considerations: City Council directed staff to study the possibility of imposing a construction truck impact fee to help fund street and road projects. The Construction Truck Impact Fee Study previously prepared by NCE included traffic counts from the City of Monterey. By conducting a traffic count within the limits of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the City will have more accurate data to evaluate the impact of construction trucks on its streets.

COMMENT:
• The most inopportune times to impose a construction truck impact fee are during a time of economic downturn and slow economic recovery. Moreover, any construction truck impact fee will be passed onto the property owner; hence, a hidden tax on property owners.

IX. Ordinances
B. Consideration of an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan returning all design and land use responsibilities to the Planning Commission (First reading).

Description: The Design Review Board currently reviews applications for design review not requiring land use permits or those that are not otherwise reserved for the Planning Commission. This ordinance would return all responsibilities for design and land use to the Planning Commission.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance.

Important Considerations: CMC Chapter 17.52.050 establishes the responsibilities of the Design Review Board. The Board’s role has been limited to the review of design applications not involving other land use permits. Returning all design and land use responsibilities to the Planning Commission will create more consistency for applicants going through the planning process. This also will reduce pressures on staff, as it will be one fewer Board to manage.

Decision Record: This item was discussed at the April 7, 2009 meeting for action. The City Council deliberated on the draft ordinance and tabled it at that time.

STAFF REVIEW
At the Special February 4, 2009 City Council meeting on the mid-year budget, the City Administrator recommended returning all land use and design responsibilities to the Planning Commission. Following are some of the reasons for this recommendation:

1. Changing demographics: Carmel does not have the qualified applicant pool that it once enjoyed due to the high number of second home owners and our sizable retired community. There are three positions on both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board that expire this October -- a total of six. One Commission member has already moved from the area and two others have indicated their desire to “retire”. Some whose terms expire may wish to be reappointed. If not, Carmel-by-the-Sea faces a virtually impossible task of finding qualified candidates who must be Carmel-by-the-Sea residents and voters. Keeping Carmel “Carmel” depends on the application and understanding of both our Design Guidelines and codes. Openings for this year’s Boards and Commissions have been posted since the first of the year.

2. Reduced staff workload: An additional benefit is a reduced workload for the four-member staff (two of whom are planners), as it will have one fewer Board to manage. The Planning staff currently is responsible for the regular and special meetings of the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, Historic Resources Board and the Forest and Beach Commission, which amounts to preparing for a minimum of one meeting per week.

3. Consistency: This ordinance will simplify the design review process by creating a single decision-making body, as existed before 2001. This also will ensure consistency for applicants in how the City interprets and applies its design guidelines and criteria. There had been talk about the need for a joint meeting of the two bodies, as there has been inconsistency on design decisions: e.g. design elements such as mass and bulk, windows and skylights, to name a few.

4. Decrease in revenue from Building Permits and Fees: Annual revenues in the past few years were in excess of $300,000. Since the decrease in construction, revenues and related fees have fallen approximately 40%. Spec projects are not being built and projects are smaller and simpler.

COMMENT:
• When the City Council tabled the Draft Ordinance at the April 7, 2009 meeting, the City Council led the public to believe that it would only be reconsidered if and when there were too few applications for vacancies for the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission by October 2009. To wit, neither the Agenda Item Summary nor the Staff Report articulates the reason why this agenda item is now on the June 2, 2009 City Council Agenda.

XI. Orders of Council
B. Consideration of recommendations from the Green Building Committee and the Planning Commission regarding a draft Green Building Ordinance.

Description: The draft Green Building Ordinance would establish criteria that new construction projects must meet in order to receive a building permit. The goal of the ordinance is to guide development in a sustainable manner, promote energy efficiency, improve air quality, preserve natural resources and encourage architectural design that is consistent with the City's design traditions.

Staff Recommendation: Provide direction on the draft ordinance.

Important Considerations: In December 2009 a Green Building Committee was appointed to develop recommendations on a green building program for the City. The Committee was composed of local architects, builders, a City Council member, and a member of staff.

Decision Record: The Planning Commission recommended adoption of a green building ordinance on 20 May 2009.

Green Building Committee
Karen Sharp: Carmel City Council Member
John Thodos: Local Architect
Safwat Malek: Local Architect
Brendan Connolly: Local Builder
Jordan Daniels: Local Green Building Consultant
Sean Conroy: Planning & Building Services Manager

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1: Adopt the following as the mission statement for the green building program:
"The mission of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's green building program is to guide development in a sustainable manner, promote energy efficiency, improve air quality, preserve natural resources and encourage architectural design that is consistent with the City's diverse design traditions."

Recommendation #2: Use the Build it Green checklist for residential projects and the LEED Commercial checklist for non-residential projects as the basis of the program.

Recommendation #3: Require the following number of points for residential and nonresidential projects in order to obtain a building permit:

Residential:
New Construction (i.e. demo/rebuild) 60 points
New Addition/Remodel > 750 sq. ft. 25 points
New Addition/Remodel < 750 sq. ft. 15 points
Bathroom/Kitchen Remodel only 4 points

Non-Residential:
New Construction (i.e. demo/rebuild) 24 pts.
Additions/Remodels > 1000 sq. ft. 18 pts.
Additions/Remodels < 1000 sq. ft. 16 pts.

Recommendation #3: Adopt the following incentive levels and discuss potential incentives:
Residential: 120 pts.
Non-Residential: 40 pts.

Recommendation #4: Allow for the requirements of the ordinance to be phased in and not become mandatory until 1January 2010.

Recommendation #5: Require that the City exceed the standard point requirements by 15% for all City projects that exceed 1,000 square feet.

ADDENDUM:
The next meetings of the City Council, as follows:

Special Budget Meeting – 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Council Chambers

Special Meeting—Flanders Protest Hearing – 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Council Chambers

(Sources: City Council Agenda June 2, 2009 and City Council Agenda Packet June 2009)

Two Noteworthy 7 April 2009 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Two Noteworthy 7 April 2009 City Council Agenda Items, namely an Ordinance “to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan to merge the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission” and “Receive report on the Forest Theater renovation project," are presented. Materials for both agenda items are provided under “separate cover,” according to Heidi Burch, City Clerk. Noteworthy also is the absence of an Agenda Item for City Council consideration approving the proposed Fire Protection Services Contract with the City of Monterey as presented in the proposed time line included in Public Safety Director George Rawson's Staff Report for the Special City Council Meeting of 25 March 2009.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 7, 2009

IX. Ordinances
A. Consideration of an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan to merge the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission.
“Material” provided under “separate cover,” according to Heidi Burch, City Clerk.

XI. Orders of Council
B. Receive report on the Forest Theater renovation project.
“Material” provided under “separate cover,” according to Heidi Burch, City Clerk

(Sources: Agenda, Regular Meeting, Tuesday, April 7, 2009 and AGENDA Packet, Regular Meeting, Tuesday, April 7, 2009)

‘MINUTES’ for Two Noteworthy 3 March 2009 City Council Agenda Items

“MINUTES”
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
March 3, 2009

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 entering into an agreement with Burghardt + Doré Advertising, Inc. for Destination Marketing services in an amount not to exceed $27,500 in fiscal year 2008/09

Item G was pulled from the Agenda.

IX. Ordinances
D. Consideration of an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan to dissolve the Design Review Board (First Reading).

SUMMARY:
City Administrator Rich Guillen presented his recommendation for the dissolution of the Design Review Board (DRB) based on the “economic downturn,” lack of staff and reduction in staff time and workload.

Planning & Building Services Manager Sean Conroy cited the requirement of an Amendment to the LCP approved by the California Coastal Commission if approved by a majority of the City Council Members. Further, after a Second Reading by the City Council, the California Coastal Commission could conceivably place the item on their agenda 30-90 days later, according to City Administrator Rich Guillen.

During the Public Comment period, Carmelite Monte Miller, DRB Chairman Michael LePage and DRB Members Michael Lynch and Keith Paterson questioned and/or rebutted the City Administrator’s reasons for the dissolution of the DRB citing that dissolution would not yield economic savings or reduce staff workload. Barbara Livingston, as President of the Carmel Residents Association and on behalf of the board of Directors, requested the City Council continue the item due to the need for the mayor to meet with the chairs of the Planning Commission and the DRB to receive their input and the need for the staff to research the original intention of forming the DRB. Steve Dallas voiced his opposition to the dissolution of the DRB and doubted whether the California Coastal Commission would approve the dissolution if approved by a majority of City Council Members.

During City Council deliberation, City Council Member Ken Talmage recognized that the more important issue than staff time and workload was the issue of whether or not “venue shopping" was still occurring; that is, applicants tailoring their applications to be placed on one body’s agenda due to the belief that the City’s design standards were being inconsistently applied by the DRB vs. the Planning Commission.

After approximately eleven minutes of deliberation, a consensus was achieved that the City Council Members required more “facts,” more research and clarification of criteria which determine which applications are placed on the DRB vs. the Planning Commission agendas prior to any decision on the dissolution of the DRB. Ergo, no action was taken and the item was not continued to a date certain in the future.

COMMENT:
• Although City Administrator Rich Guillen reiterated that there would be economic savings and reductions in staff time and workload dealing with only five Commissioners as opposed to ten Commissioners, he failed to present any evidence or data to support his contention that the dissolution of the DRB with the resultant shifting of DRB responsibilities to the Planning Commission would result in economic savings, et cetera.

ADDENDUM:
The next meeting (workshop) of the City Council is Wednesday, March 25, 2009 at 4:30 P.M.:
Agenda Item, The Fire Department Contract with the City of Monterey

(Source: Archived Videos, Regular City Council Meeting, March 3, 2009)

Two Noteworthy 3 March 2009 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Two noteworthy 3 March 2009 City Council Agenda Items, namely a Resolution entering into an agreement with Burghardt + Doré Advertising, Inc. for Destination Marketing services and an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan to dissolve the Design
Review Board, are presented. A SYNOPSIS, consisting of selected excerpts from each Agenda Item Summary and/or Staff Report, is presented for each agenda item. COMMENTS are made regarding the dissolution of the Design Review Board.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 3, 2009

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 entering into an agreement with Burghardt + Doré Advertising, Inc. for Destination Marketing services in an amount not to exceed $27,500 in fiscal year 2008/09.

SYNOPSIS:
Description: The City has had a contract with Anda/Burghardt Advertising to provide destination marketing services. Recently, this firm closed and its president, Jeff Burghardt, is president of a new marketing firm, Burghardt + Doré Advertising, Inc.

Jeff Burghardt developed the City’s destination marketing plan. The City can continue its FY 2008/09 marketing plan by contracting with his new business, Burghardt + Doré. Exhibit “A” outlines the services to be provided by this firm through the end of the 2008/09 fiscal year.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: $27,500, to be funded from General Fund account 01-85200.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council approve entering into an agreement with Burghardt + Doré Advertising, Inc. to provide destination marketing services as outlined in Exhibit “A”.

Important Considerations:
1. Jeff Burghardt developed the marketing plan for the City when it was contracted with Anda/Burghardt.

2. Funds were approved in the Fiscal Year 2008/2009 Annual Budget up to $142,750. So far this fiscal year, $101,250 has been spent on marketing programs, with an additional $14,000 set aside to mail for the “Guide to Carmel”. This leaves a balance of approximately $27,500 for marketing services through June 30, 2009.

Decision Record: Resolution 2008-43, dated July 1, 2008, approving the FY 2008/09 destination marketing contract with Anda/Burghardt.

Exhibit A Revised
2008-09 Destination Marketing
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Strategy:
Continue to build on the integrated destination marketing campaign to increase visitor business and brand awareness. The marketing campaign will primarily focus on targeting upscale consumers during the shoulder and slow seasons.

Recommendation:
A strong mix of advertising, Internet, direct marketing, collateral, and public relations will continue to be the foundation for the City’s marketing efforts. This year, we recommend enhancing the website; printing a stylish rack brochure; increasing Internet search marketing to include all of the US with some geotargeting in Europe and Canada; increase press submissions; and provide coop media opportunities to the hotels/inns. New online videos and direct mail are TBD.

The following budget breakdown is recommended:
Remaining Marketing & PR Budget: $27,500
1) Marketing:
Scope of Work:
Marketing & Media Plan
Promotional Campaigns (ads, direct mail, emarketing, and PR)
Website
List Development

2) Public Relations:
Scope of Work
Pitching seasonal press releases
Manage ongoing press requests and needs

3) Present quarterly reports to the Council

4) Submit written annual report
Jeff Burghardt

Account/Creative Director
Burghardt+Doré Advertising, Inc.
P.O. Box 223491
Carmel, CA 93922
831.622.0144
Fax 831.620.0738
jeff@burghardt-dore.com

IX. Ordinances
D. Consideration of an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan to dissolve the Design Review Board (First Reading).

SYNOPSIS:
Description: The Design Review Board currently reviews applications for design review not requiring land use permits or those that are not otherwise reserved for the Planning Commission. This ordinance would dissolve the Design Review Board and shift its responsibilities to the Planning Commission.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt ordinance.

Important Considerations: CMC chapter 17.52.050 establishes the responsibilities of the Design Review Board. The Board’s role has been limited to the review of design applications not involving other land use permits. Dissolving the Board will shift more responsibility to the Planning Commission, but will create more consistency for applicants going through the planning process. This also will reduce pressures on staff, as it will be one fewer Board to manage.

Note: The ordinance will require a Local Coastal Program amendment by the California Coastal Commission.

COMMENTS:
• Established in 2000 at the instigation of Mayor Sue McCloud, the Design Review Board, now after nearly nine years, has been found to be unnecessary as an independent board. In his Staff Report, Planning & Building Services Manager Sean Conroy cited the need to “simplify the design review process,” “create more consistency for applicants" and “reduce pressures on staff” as reasons for dissolving the Design Review Board.

• While the Decision Record of “Consideration of an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan to dissolve the Design Review Board” states "N/A," the Decision Record should reflect that the City Council unanimously voted to adopt an “Ordinance revising CMC Chapter 17.30.010 (Demolition of Buildings) to require all demolition permit applications to be reviewed by the Planning Commission” at the 4 November 2009 (First Reading) and 2 December 2008 (Second Reading) City Council Meetings. Three/four months later, the City Council is now considering the dissolution of the Design Review Board, further evidence of city management dysfunction.

• For context, consultant Nore Winter (Winter & Company) of the Design Traditions Project never envisioned a Design Review Board as a separate entity, rather design review was originally envisioned as the responsibility of a sub-committee of the Planning Commission. Hence, a non-expert, namely Sue McCloud, overruled a nationally known design expert, namely Nore Winter. In short, Nore Winter has been vindicated and Sue McCloud has been very slow and late in rectifying a situation she created.

NOTE:
Next meeting of the City Council:
Budget Workshop – 4:30 p.m.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Council Chambers

(Sources: Agenda, Regular Meeting, Tuesday, March 3, 2009 and AGENDA Packet, Regular Meeting, Tuesday, March 3, 2009)

Evidence of Dysfunction: Design Review Board & Planning Commission

ABSTRACT: On the City Council Agenda of September 9, 2008 was an Order of Council to “Provide policy direction regarding the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board.” Although the Staff Report, written by Planning & Building Services Manager Sean Conroy, stated the Report was in response to a request to analyze the workloads of the Design Review Board (DRB) and the Planning Commission (PC), it became apparent that the DRB and PC are making inconsistent decisions with respect to each other. Statements by Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council Members Gerard Rose and Ken Talmage at the City Council Meeting illustrate some aspects of the current state of dysfunction. However, instead of having a discussion on the cause of the dysfunction and possible solutions, the City Council directed City Administrator Rich Guillen to prepare a proposal revising the Municipal Code to move responsibility for demolitions from the DRB to the PC as a mechanism to equalize the workloads of the DRB and PC. COMMENTS are made regarding Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Member Gerard Rose, the City Council's arrogation of the intended authority of a Community Planning & Building Director and a solution to inconsistent decision-making by the DRB and PC. REFERENCES, as links, are presented.

AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 9, 2008

XI. Orders of Council

B. Provide policy direction regarding the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board.

Statements by Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council Members Gerard Rose and Ken Talmage:

Mayor Sue McCloud: It has ended up, all demolitions are going to the Design Review Board, “I don’t think that was what was envisioned in the beginning, I know is wasn’t what was envisioned in the beginning.”

“...we’ve got two bodies (Design Review Board and Planning Commission) that are working sometimes at cross purposes and they are aware of it...”

City Council Member Gerard Rose: “And the fact is, when we dreamt this whole concept of two separate commissions up, we thought that’s what the Planning Commission was going to do, was going to handle demolitions, I don’t know how that fell between the cracks and went the other way, that was the plan.”

City Council Member Ken Talmage: “...when I was on the Planning Commission, it was very clear there was venue shopping going on and that you could get a different result depending upon which of the commissions you ended up in front of and that’s what we don’t want to happen, but that has been happening.”

The City’s Municipal Code section 17.52 identifies the duties and responsibilities of the Design Review Board (DRB) and Planning Commission (PC). These responsibilities are summarized below, as presented in the Staff Report.

DRB: The Design Review Board’s primary responsibility is to review Design Review applications that do not require any type of land use permit. These include:
• Demolitions
• Construction of new homes
• Remodeling of homes and commercial buildings
• Signs

PC: The Planning Commission has a much broader range of responsibilities, including:
• Maintain and update the General Plan & Zoning Ordinance
• Develop specific plans and master plans
• Review Capital Improvements Plan
• Review environmental documents
• Review land use permits (variances, subdivisions, conditional use permits, etc.)
• Perform design review for projects that include land use permits
• Interpret land use regulations
• Review appeals of staff approved projects

The Staff Report listed 4 potential options for redefining the responsibilities of the two bodies, as follows:

1) Revise the code to give staff discretion to assign applications to PC or DRB. While this would allow staff to balance the agendas between the two bodies, this could lead to accusations of unfair or inconsistent treatment by applicants.

2) Revise the code to redefine the roles of the PC and DRB. The simplest way to redistribute the workload would be to require a use permit for demolitions. This would send all demolitions and rebuilds to the Planning Commission and leave the smaller projects to the DRB. This would increase the length of PC agendas and decrease the length of DRB agendas.

3) Dissolve the DRB and have the PC meet twice a month. This would require a larger time commitment from planning commissioners, but would avoid inconsistent decisions between the two bodies. If this option is taken, staff recommends adding several alternates to the Commission to cover for absent members.

4) Maintain the responsibilities as currently defined in the Municipal Code. Since the DRB and PC duties are part of the zoning ordinance, any proposals to modify these requirements would require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. This would require hearings with the Planning Commission, City Council and California Coastal Commission.

COMMENTS:
• While Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Member Gerard Rose stated that it was their understanding that demolitions were to be the responsibility of the PC, neither McCloud nor Rose cited any references to support their contention. Moreover, given that the Municipal Code unambiguously states that the Duties and Responsibilities of the DRB are permit applications not reserved to the PC and projects not involving any land use permit, e.g. demolitions, and the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Housing Element specifically states that “Design study applications that do not require a Use Permit or CDP are reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB). Design Study applications that do require a Use Permit or Coastal Development Permit (CDP) are reviewed by the Planning Commission,” it is astonishing that five years have elapsed since certification of the City’s Local Coastal Program and both Sue McCloud and Gerard Rose only now seem to realize that demolitions have been the purview of the DRB, not the PC, for all these years. This state of affairs begs the question, if Sue McCloud and Gerard Rose do not grasp and comprehend the contents of the Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program as it pertains to this particular planning issue, what else do they not grasp and comprehend?

• Instead of placing a priority of the hiring of a Community Planning & Building Department Director with the background and expertise to make the best decisions with regard to the duties, responsibilities and operations of the DRB and PC, the City Council has arrogated the intended authority of the Director in an attempt to micromanage the City’s Planning & Building Department, specifically the duties and responsibilities of the DRB and PC.

• The importance of rectifying inconsistent decisions between the DRB and PC is much more important than attempting to equalize the bodies’ respective workloads through the transfer of demolitions from the DRB to PC. To wit, inconsistent decisions can most easily be rectified by adopting Option 3 on the Staff Report, as follows:

3) Dissolve the DRB and have the PC meet twice a month. This would require a larger time commitment from planning commissioners, but would avoid inconsistent decisions between the two bodies. If this option is taken, staff recommends adding several alternates to the Commission to cover for absent members.

For contextual purposes, it is important to note that the Planning Commission was once composed of seven members and met twice monthly. And the original concept in the Design Traditions Project was for design review to be accomplished by a subcommittee of the Planning Commission.

REFERENCES:
Regular Meeting Video
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
XI. Orders of Council
B. Provide policy direction regarding the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board.

(Beginning Time 03:53:50 – 04:09:32 Ending Time)

AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 9 SEPTEMBER 2008
SUBJECT: PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION REGARDING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD BACKGROUND

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
MUNICIPAL CODE
Division V. Processes and Authorities
Chapter 17.52
PERMIT PROCEDURES
17.52.050 Duties and Powers of the Design Review Board.
17.52.060 Duties and Powers of the Planning Commission.

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Housing Element
Design study applications that do not require a Use Permit or CDP are reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB). Design Study applications that do require a Use Permit or Coastal Development Permit (CDP) are reviewed by the Planning Commission.