Mission Trail Nature Preserve Mountain View Avenue Entrance Project: (Photographic) PROGRESS REPORT WEEK THREE

View to the East, Toward Bridge Access to Serra Trail, Mission Trail Nature Preserve

View to the West, Toward Mountain View Avenue Entrance, Mission Trail Nature Preserve

Mission Trail Nature Preserve Mountain View Avenue Entrance Project: (Photographic) PROGRESS REPORT WEEK TWO

View to the West, Toward the Mountain View Avenue Entrance, Mission Trail Nature Preserve

California Coastal Commission APPROVED AS SUBMITTED City of Carmel-by-the-Sea LCP Amendment No. LCP-3-CML-16-0005-1 Part A (Affordable Housing Incentives) & SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE FOUND, de Novo Hearing CONTINUED Appeal No. A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson, Carmel-by-the-Sea)

ABSTRACT:  On August 10, 2016, the California Coastal Commission APPROVED AS SUBMITTED City of Carmel-by-the-Sea LCP Amendment No. LCP-3-CML-16-0005-1 Part A (Affordable Housing Incentives) and SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE FOUND, de Novo Hearing CONTINUED Appeal No. A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson, Carmel-by-the-Sea).

CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT

15. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS (LCPs).

a. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea LCP Amendment No. LCP-3-CML-16-0005-1 Part A (Affordable Housing Incentives)

Public hearing and action on request by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to amend the Implementation Plan’s incentives for affordable housing, including by establishing new standards for density bonuses in areas with Core Commercial and Residential/Commercial land use designations, for "Bonus Density" allowances within the R-4 zoning district, and for "Floor Area Bonus" allowances for R-4 and Commercial zoning districts. (KK-SC) APPROVED AS SUBMITTED

16. NEW APPEALS.

d. Appeal No. A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson, Carmel-by-the-Sea) CORRESPONDENCE
Appeal by Commissioners Shallenberger and Howell of decision by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea granting permit with conditions to Wellington Henderson Jr. for construction of 8-ft.-tall, 63-ft.-long upper bluff wall with faux bluff facing and drainage and landscaping improvements on bluffs fronting 26336 Scenic Rd., along Carmel Beach in Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County. (MW-SC) SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE FOUND, de Novo Hearing CONTINUED

w16d 8 2016 Postponement Request

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Appeal No. A-3-CML-16-0057 (Henderson, Carmel-by-the-Sea)

Appeal by Commissioners Shallenberger and Howell of decision by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea granting permit with conditions to Wellington Henderson Jr. for construction of 8-ft.-tall, 63-ft.-long upper bluff wall with faux bluff facing and drainage and landscaping improvements on bluffs fronting 26336 Scenic Rd., along Carmel Beach in Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey County. 

Mission Trail Nature Preserve Mountain View Avenue Entrance Project: (Photographic) PROGRESS REPORT WEEK ONE

View to the West, Toward the Mountain View Avenue Entrance, Mission Trail Nature Preserve

                                                                         Close-Up

Beach Fire Rings: Precedent Established with Compromise between California Coastal Commission, Southern California Air Quality Management District & Newport Beach City Council

ABSTRACT: According to reporting in THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, Coastal Commission approves Newport Beach fire rings plan at two locations, Corona del Mar beach pits on hold, (June 11, 2015), “The Coastal Commission voted 9-1 to approve in part Newport Beach’s long-term plan for its fire rings” at the Coastal Commission’s June 11, 2015 meeting, Newport Beach, CA.  Application No. 5-14-1213 (City of Newport Beach Fire Rings) ADDENDUM
Application for after-the-fact approval of temporary plan to reduce number of fire rings from 60 to 56, relocate fire rings, and limit fire ring fuel to charcoal-only in some fire rings at Balboa Pier area and Corona del Mar State Beach; also, replace temporary plan with at least 60 beach fire rings to include permanent relocation of some fire rings, a mix of wood-burning and charcoal-only rings, and some ADA accessible fire rings, at Balboa Pier, Corona del Mar State Beach, and Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort & Marina, Newport Beach, Orange County. (EP-LB) APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS The SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION section is reproduced; the CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION original staff report and ADDENDUM document copy is embedded.

SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

The City of Newport Beach is seeking a coastal development permit to authorize a temporary plan to reduce the number of fire rings on city beaches, relocate the remaining rings, and limit fire ring fuel to charcoal-only in some fire rings to comply with air quality regulations. The temporary plan went into effect on January 23, 2015 and reduced the total number of fire rings from 60 to 56 fire rings, including 18 charcoal-only fire rings west of the Balboa Pier, 13 wood-burning fire rings east of the Balboa Pier, and 13 wood-burning and 12 charcoal-only fire rings at Corona del Mar State Beach. In addition, the City is seeking approval to permanently add fire rings in one new location, relocate some fire rings in the vicinity of Balboa Pier and at Corona del Mar State Beach, include a mix of wood-burning and charcoal-only fire rings, and make some fire rings ADA accessible. This permanent proposal would include a total of 64 fire rings within City limits by providing 16 woodburning rings and 16 charcoal-only rings in the vicinity of the Balboa Pier, 16 wood-burning and 8 charcoal-only rings at Corona del Mar State Beach, and 4 new wood-burning rings at the Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort & Marina. In connection with the permanent plan, the applicant seeks after-the-fact approval of an existing concrete ADA compliant access path onto the sand east of Balboa Pier and after-the-fact approval of 4 existing wood-burning fire rings on the beach at the Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort & Marina.

The primary Coastal Act issues raised by this application relate to public access and recreation, impacts from natural hazards, and protection of scenic views and water quality. The fire rings in the City of Newport Beach have historically been free to use and available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. Demand for the fire rings is high, especially during summer months. Although changes in the number and location of fire rings could have adverse impacts on public access to these lower cost recreational facilities, the applicant’s permanent proposal will expand public access by increasing the total number of fire rings available citywide, making fire rings available in a new location, and providing ADA accessible fire rings. Further, even though the restriction of fire ring fuel to charcoal-only does not provide an equivalent experience to a traditional wood bonfire and charcoal costs more than wood fuel, the applicant’s permanent proposal limits the ratio of charcoal only fire rings to approximately 37% of the fire rings and includes the sale of charcoal “at cost” at nearby retailers to minimize any adverse impact the fuel restriction may have on use of fire rings within and outside of Newport Beach. To ensure that these facilities are protected and to maximize the public’s access to the fire rings, the Commission imposes Special Condition 1 requiring the applicant to ensure that no fewer than 64 fire rings are available to the public at no cost and on a first-come, first-served basis within the City of Newport Beach. The Commission also imposes Special Condition 2 requiring minimum hours of public access at the Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort & Marina.

To educate the public about the fire rings and fuel restrictions, the applicant proposes a signage plan that would provide tips for fire ring use and identify the charcoal-only rings. The Commission imposes Special Condition 3 requiring a final signage plan to ensure that the signs do not adversely impact scenic and visual resources. Due to its oceanfront location, the proposed development may be exposed to the hazard of waves, erosion, storm conditions, sea level rise or other natural hazards. The Commission imposes Special Condition 4 prohibiting construction of protective devices (such as a seawall) in the future and Special Condition 5 requiring that the applicant assume the risk of undertaking the development.

The City does not own the Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort & Marina. The property is public tidelands granted to Orange County and leased to a concessionaire that is developed with a recreational vehicle park, launch ramp and boat storage, marina, restaurant, publicly accessible swim lagoon with sandy beach, boat rental dock, concessions, restrooms and public parking. Neither the County nor the lessee is a co-applicant on this application. However, the Director of Orange County Parks has informally indicated agreement that the City may install fire rings on the beach at the swim lagoon. The applicant has not yet submitted a formal agreement with the County authorizing the proposed development on the Newport Dunes property to staff to ensure that the applicant has the legal ability to comply with this permit’s conditions of approval. Therefore, staff recommends the Commission impose Special Condition 8 requiring the applicant to submit an agreement with the County establishing that the applicant can comply with the conditions of this coastal development permit.

Staff is recommending approval of the proposed coastal development permit with eight (8) special conditions regarding: 1) Public Access to Fire Rings; 2) Public Access to Newport Dunes; 3) Submittal of Final Signage Plan; 4) No Future Shoreline Protective Device; 5) Assumption of Risk, Waiver of Liability and Indemnity; 6) Submittal of Final Maintenance Plan; 7) Storage of Construction Materials, Mechanized Equipment and Removal of Construction Debris; and 8) Proof of Legal Ability to Comply with Conditions.

CCC th13b-6-2015

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
Th13b
ADDENDUM
STAFF REPORT: REGULAR CALENDAR
Staff Report: 05/29/2015
Hearing Date: 06/11/2015

REFERENCES:
Coastal Commission approves Newport Beach fire rings plan at two locations, Corona del Mar beach pits on hold. June 11, 2015
BY MEGAN NICOLAI / STAFF WRITER THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER,

After a three-year battle, Newport Beach fire ring saga burning out,   June 9, 201

By MEGAN NICOLAI / STAFF WRITER THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER,

SCAQMD Adopts Balanced Measure Governing Beach Bonfires
June 12, 2013

Beach Fire Monitoring Results

NOTE: In the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the City Council is scheduled to consider the First reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea declaring beach fires a public nuisance at today’s city council meeting, November 3, 2015. Section 30005 of the Public Resources Code states that the Coastal Act does not limit a local government’s ability to declare, prohibit, and abate nuisances. However, the City’s anticipated adoption of the First reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea declaring beach fires a public nuisance raises the issue of whether the public nuisance ordinance was enacted in good faith or was a pretext for avoiding coastal act and local coastal program obligations.

COURT CASE REGARDING CITY'S ENACTMENT OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDINANCE:
STATEMENT OF DECISION [CCP §632, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1590], CITY OF DANA POINT, a California Municipal Corporation Petitioner and Plaintiffs, vs.CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, a California public agency, and DOES 1through 5, inclusive, COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

Importantly, "The Court now rules as follows: Petitioner/Plaintiff City of Dana Point was not acting within the scope of section 17 30005, subdivision (b) of the Coastal Commission Act in adopting the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance. The City's enactment of the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance was a pretext for avoiding the requirements of its local coastal program. The court further finds that there was not, in fact, a nuisance or prospective nuisance at the time the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance was enacted."

Statement of Decision - Dana Pt v California Coastal Commission 09-17-15

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DANA POINT, a California Municipal Corporation Petitioner and Plaintiffs, vs.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, a California public agency, and DOES 1through 5, inclusive
CASENO: 37-2010-00099827-CU-WM-CIL
STATEMENT OF DECISION [CCP §632, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1590]
Dept: 70
Judge: Randa Trapp

CITY OF CARMEL-­BY-­THE-­SEA ORDINANCE NO. 2015-­005 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING BEACH FIRES ON CARMEL BEACH FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, AND ALL NATIONAL OR STATE HOLIDAYS & Carmel Beach 24-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/22/15 to 10/08/15), Carmel Beach 8-Hr Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15), Carmel Beach 1-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15)

ABSTRACT: CITY OF CARMEL-­BY-­THE-­SEA ORDINANCE NO. 2015-­005 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING BEACH FIRES ON CARMEL BEACH FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, AND ALL NATIONAL OR STATE HOLIDAYS and Carmel Beach 24-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/22/15 to 10/08/15), Carmel Beach 8-Hr Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15), Carmel Beach 1-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15) documents copies are embedded.

Ordinance No. 2015-005 Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Beach Fires on Carmel Beach 08-06-15

CITY OF CARMEL-­BY-­THE-­SEA
ORDINANCE NO. 2015-­005
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING BEACH FIRES ON CARMEL BEACH FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, AND ALL NATIONAL OR STATE HOLIDAYS
August 6, 2015
NOTE: RE: Specialists with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) have collected data on air quality at a residential property on Scenic Road in Carmel-­by-­the-Sea. 13th Avenue monitoring station
NOTE: Forest and Beach Commissioner Kathy Bang, a proponent of the Carmel Beach Fire Ban, owns a residential property on Scenic Road.

Carmel Beach 24-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5-22-15 to 10-08-15)

Carmel Beach 24-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/22/15 to 10/08/15)
SOURCE: Richard Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO)
Monterey Bay Unified Pollution Control District

Carmel Beach 8-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5-21-15 to 10-08-15)

Carmel Beach 8-Hr Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15)

SOURCE: Richard Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO)
Monterey Bay Unified Pollution Control District

Carmel Beach 1-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5-21-15 to 10-08-15)

Carmel Beach 1-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15)
SOURCE: Richard Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO)

Monterey Bay Unified Pollution Control District

QUESTIONS:

1. Using the reasonable person standard, does the air quality data represented in Carmel Beach 1-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15), Carmel Beach 8-Hr Ave PM2.5 (5/21/15 to 10/08/15) and Carmel Beach 24-Hr. Ave PM2.5 (5/22/15 to 10/08/15) support an Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting Beach Fires on Carmel Beach Friday through Sunday and all National or State Holidays?

2. Has the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea demonstrated that the wood smoke from the City’s beach fires is directly responsible for a public health problem?

3. A definition of “public nuisance” is “an act, condition, or thing that is illegal because it interferes with the rights of the public generally.” Do Carmel Beach fires constitute a “public nuisance?”

4, Has the City demonstrated that Carmel beach fires “cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public; or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public; or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property?”
(MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
RULE 402 – NUISANCES (Adopted 9-1-1968) (Revised 3-22-2000 and 8-21-2002))

5. Is ORDINANCE NO. 2015-­005 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PROHIBITING BEACH FIRES ON CARMEL BEACH FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, AND ALL NATIONAL OR STATE HOLIDAYS, adopted August 6, 2015, consistent with the CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT (2015)?
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
DIVISION 20
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT  (2015)

6. Are science and data driving public policy or are politics and a political agenda driving the interpretation of the science and data?

REFERENCE:
Nuisance and the Beach: How Much Control Should a State Exercise Over Beach Fire Rings?
Paul J. Weinberg, ZONING AND PLANNING LAW REPORT, FEBRUARY 2014 | Vol. 37 | No. 2

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL: AMENDED Closed Session & Public Workshop 10 September 2012

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL 

AMENDED Closed Session (4:30 p.m.) and 

Public Workshop (5:30 p.m.) 

Monday, September 10, 2012 

Council Chambers 

East side of Monte Verde Street between 

Ocean and Seventh Avenues

ABSTRACT: On Monday, September 10, 2012, the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council is scheduled to conduct a Closed Session at 4:30 P.M. and a Public Workshop at 5:30 P.M. Closed Session involves two items, namely Public Employee Performance Evaluation - Government Code Section 54957 Title: City Engineer and Property Negotiations – Gov’t. Code Section 54956.8, Real Property negotiations between City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Christine Sandin regarding the Sunset Cultural Center. The Public Workshop concerns Subject: Rio Park Planning. The AMENDED Agenda and General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Open Space and Conservation Element are embedded; and HIGHLIGHTS: RIO PARK is presented.

AMENDED City Council 09-10-12 Closed Session and Workshop

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
AMENDED Closed Session (4:30 p.m.) and Public Workshop (5:30 p.m.)
Monday, September 10, 2012

Open Space and Conservation CC Adopted 9-1-09

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Open Space and Conservation Element

HIGHLIGHTS: RIO PARK

Parks and Open Space

The city of Carmel has nine formally designated park, open space, and recreational areas as well as the Rio Park, which is located outside of the City limits, but is owned by the City.

Rio Park (6.24 acres)

Rio Park is not within the City limits, however, it is City property. The park borders the City’s southern boundary, west of Larson Field (see Figure 7.1: Parks, Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities).

The Rio Park is an open area providing opportunities for passive use, however, the park is not open to the public at this time. A portion of the park is currently used as a storage/staging area for project development, street projects, and contractor parking.

The Survey asked Carmel residents about their preferred option for the future of the Rio Park. As shown in Graph 7.1: Options for Rio Park Development, most respondents would like the Rio Park property to be both restored to provide habitat for native plants and animals as well as partially developed into an active recreational park. The second most favored option was restoring the habitat, followed by 20 percent of respondents who would like this property to be sold.

SOURCE: General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Open Space and Conservation Element

WEBCAM AT CARMEL BEACH & YEAR-ROUND ILLUMINATION OF THE OCEAN AVENUE MEDIAN LIGHTS: Consistent with the General Plan & the Coastal Land Use Plan?

UPDATE: Council divided over year-round fairy lights on Ocean Avenue

MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, April 13, 2012

Note: Council Member Karen Sharp made a motion to “keep the lights on, as they are, from dusk until late evening every night of the year” (Ocean Avenue median lights) which passed with Mayor McCloud, Council Members Sharp and Hazdovac approving  and Council Members Burnett and Talmage dissenting (3-2).   

On the 5th day of June 1929, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 96 which “set forth a very strong policy statement to direct the future development in Carmel. The principle established in the 1929 policy has been and will continue to be a major factor in Carmel's planning decisions. This ordinance, now outlined in Title 17 of the Municipal Code, established the residential character of Carmel and specifically outlined the City's intent that Carmel should subordinate other activities in order to preserve the community's unique residential character.” The 1929 ordinance stated, as follows:

“The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is hereby determined to be primarily, essentially and predominantly a residential city wherein business and commerce have in the past, are now, and are proposed to be in the future, subordinated to its residential character;  and that said determination is made having in mind the history and the development of said city,  its growth and the causes thereof; and also its geographical and topographical aspects,  together with its near proximity to the cities of Pacific Grove and Monterey, and the businesses, industries,  trades, callings and professions in existence and permissible therein.”

Adopted by Ordinance No. 96 passed on this 5th day of June 1929.

On the 3 April 2012 City Council Agenda, there are Orders of Council to “Receive report and provide direction on placement of a webcam at the beach” and “Receive report and provide direction on year-round illumination of the Ocean Avenue median lights.”

With regard to the webcam at Carmel Beach, apparently resident Jerry Gleason “approached the City with a proposal to place a webcam at the beach to allow visitors to the City travel website the ability to view Carmel Beach.”  Gleason subsequently “met with members of the Economic Advisory Team who reviewed the proposal and recommended the concept be taken to Council to proceed with the project.”  “The total estimated cost to install and service a “turnkey” beach Webcam is $10,000. In addition, the Internet access from AT&T DSL or Comcast Cable is estimated at approximately $75 per month, plus nominal maintenance costs.”  Additionally, objectives of the Beach-Cam include allowing “any Carmel City website visitor to view the beach conditions, surf and weather along Carmel Beach” and “help attract more visitors to Carmel by displaying the appearance and conditions along this beautiful white sand beach.” 

With regard to the year-round illumination of the Ocean Avenue median lights, apparently the City has “received many favorable comments about having a longer period for the lights along the Ocean Avenue median. It has been generally popular with residents, visitors and members of the business community.”  The “overall cost:” “The PG&E bill for extending the lighting period for an additional seven months would be approximately $490 a year.”  Yet General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element policies for residential development is to “limit exterior lighting” and for commercial development is to “prohibit business signs incorporating lights,” as follows:

P1-54 Limit exterior lighting to prevent glare and preserve the traditional low levels of illumination during hours of darkness.

O1-13 Maintain diligent control over signs and other advertising or notice-attracting facilities in order to avoid unsightly, bizarre, and/or out of scale visual impacts, including exterior lighting and lights from window displays. (LUP)

P1-80 Prohibit unsightly design elements such as excessive numbers of signs, nonfunctional awnings, exterior displays, interior displays, and excessive interior lighting used primarily as advertising or attention-getting features visible from the public rights-of-way. (LUP)

P1-81 Prohibit business signs incorporating lights, luminous or fluorescent paints, or movement. (LUP)

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element

Consequently, with the Beach-Cam and year-round illumination of the Ocean Avenue median lights agenda items and their resultant emphasis on visitors and the commercial district, would City Council adoption of the Beach-Cam and year-round illumination of the Ocean Avenue median lights violate the letter and spirit of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s founding Ordinance No. 96 declaring the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to be “primarily, essentially and predominantly a residential city wherein business and commerce have in the past, are now, and are proposed to be in the future, subordinated to its residential character?”  

‘MINUTES’ For Two Noteworthy 20 March 2012 Special City Council Meeting Agenda Items: Five-Year Financial Forecast & Capital Improvement Plan

“MINUTES”

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Archived Video Streaming

City Hall

East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

II. Roll Call

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

ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT (partial list): Jason Stilwell, City Administrator

Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk

Andrew Miller, Fire Chief

Stuart Ross, Public Works Superintendent

Mike Branson, City Forester

IV. Orders of Council

A. Receive and file the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea five-year financial forecast.

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator, presented a power point presentation summary of the FIVE YEAR 2012-2017 FINANCIAL FORECAST.

FIVE YEAR 2012

FIVE YEAR 2012-2017 FINANCIAL FORECAST Power Point Presentation HIGHLIGHTS

COUNCIL MEMBERS & CITY ADMINISTRATOR & PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Council Member Talmage addressed restructuring of the CalPERS side fund debt with interest of $500,000 annually for a lower interest expense savings of $200,000 and health insurance in operating budget.  Talmage suggested unbundling the parking/rents and interest on reserve funds.  And Talmage noted that CalPERS recently reduced rate from 7.75% to 7.50%.

Council Member Burnett referred to FIVE-YEAR FY 2011-12 through 16-17 General Fund Expenditures Table and addressed CalPERS side fund debt not addressed in budget.

City Administrator Stilwell stated the need for reserves for vehicle replacement and litigation. 

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment

Monte Miller addressed the CalPERS side fund debt, revenue increases for November ballot process and place revenue increases on April City Council agenda.

Jim Emery suggested ranking expenditure items and corresponding revenue needs.

Barbara Livingston suggested a financial forecast including a raise in sales tax to the rate of other Monterey Peninsula cities, an increase in TOT from 10% to 12% and property tax increases. 

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

City Administrator Stilwell addressed “closing the gap,” including require services to continue to shrink, employees to be compensated less, and/or new revenue sources to be created, from economic development, annexation, natural growth of the economy (if any), fee increases, and/or voter approved tax increases.

 

Council Member Talmage stated the need to have a timeline and dates for ballot measures, et cetera and advocated for paying off the side fund debt. 

Council Member Burnett addressed “trigger points” for items on the November 2012 ballot.  Burnett observed expenditures growth faster than revenue growth and therefore a need for a new revenue source. 

Mayor McCloud stated enforcement versus sales tax rate regarding the sale of artwork. 

Council Member Hazdovac stated past public rejection of an ambulance tax, sewer tax, paid parking and BID. 

B. Receive and review the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Capital Improvement Plan and refer it to the Planning Commission to review for General Plan Consistency.

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator, presented the power point presentation.

Capital Improvement Plan 2012

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Capital Improvement Plan Power Point Presentation

COUNCIL MEMBERS & CITY ADMINISTRATOR & PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Mayor McCloud addressed street section on Carpenter St. north of Ocean Avenue.  Stu Ross, Public Works Superintendent stated that the section was an expensive section to replace.  And Ross stated that street project priorities are determined by Nichols report, Neill Engineering and Public Works.

Council Member Talmage addressed street and road projects that according to the Nichols Report for planning purposes the City should expend 2/3 of a million to maintain roads at 70%, not less than 50% of Nichols recommendation. 

Council Member Talmage mentioned grand total of $8.6 million including two big projects of $950,000 for Forest Theater and $850,000 for Police/Public Works re-roof. 

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

Monte Miller addressed the absence of the Scout House and the City should either sell it or fit it up.

Jim Emery stated omission of return on investment analysis. 

Victoria Beach, Planning Commissioner, expressed an interest in making accessible a set of graphics, et cetera, for the public. 

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

City Administrator Stilwell responded justification sections including return on investment analysis, for example.  Stilwell stressed the focus on asset maintenance and improvement and impact on operating budget.  

Council Member Talmage requested information on use and status of City’s real estate properties, such as the Scout House. 

City Administrator Stilwell stated refer document with addendum and inquires/answers to questions from public to Planning Commission for April 11 meeting for determination of compliance. 

NOTE:  Questions from the public must be submitted to the City by close of business next Wednesday, March 28, 2012 for the city administrator to answer.  It is anticipated that compiled Q & A will be completed by next budget meeting on April 24, 2012, also including operating budget.

‘MINUTES’ For Eight Noteworthy 6 March 2012 City Council Agenda Items

“MINUTES”

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Archived Video Streaming

City Hall

East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

II. Roll Call

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

ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT (partial list): Jason Stilwell, City Administrator

Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk

Don Freeman, City Attorney

Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager

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

Announcements from Closed Session.

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

2. Public Employment – Government Code Section 54957. Title: Administrative Services Director.

3. Potential Litigation -- Government Code Section 54956.9(b).2 - Conference with legal counsel regarding potential litigation – one (1) matter.

City Attorney Don Freeman announced that the City Council met in closed sessions on Monday, March 5 and Tuesday, March 6, discussed three items, and there were no announcements for the public. 

VII. Consent Calendar

G. Consideration of a Resolution entering into an agreement with Sedway Consulting for services to update economic information related to the Flanders Mansion property in an amount not to exceed $5,000.

H. Consideration of a Resolution entering into an agreement with Denise Duffy and Associates for services to respond to the Court's ruling concerning the Flanders Mansion Project and to update the environmental impact report for the Flanders Mansion property in an amount not to exceed $20,500.

I. Consideration of a Resolution decertifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Sale of Flanders Mansion Property project and rescinding Resolutions of the City Council related to project selection, overriding considerations, project implementation, mitigation measures, public vote and findings regarding the Flanders Mansion property.

Melanie Billig (President, Flanders Foundation) pulled items G, H and I. 

To accommodate Melanie Billig’s request to make her comments now, rather than at the end of the meeting, Council Member Burnett stated that it was appropriate to honor Billig’s request.   Council Member Hazdovac requested her remarks be “brief.” 

Melanie Billig made a few observations on behalf of the Flanders Foundation.  During the last twelve years the Foundation sought City cooperation to rehabilitate the Mansion and the grounds at Foundation expense and maintain the Mansion as part of the park without City expense.  Also during the last twelve years, two lawsuits involving the environmental review process for the sale of the Flanders Mansion has cost the City in excess of $1 million; money which could have been better spent on parks, infrastructure, buildings, et cetera.  Yet the Council continues to pursue the sale with more public money.  And the further legal process involving the Surplus land act and public vote will cost more public money.  Billig stated that this is a very slow real estate market and the City has not maintained the Mansion inside and out.  Yet the council views Flanders Mansion as a “cash cow.”  The proceeds from sale will be minimal and only generate a small, one-time short-term gain.  The sale will irreparably damage the park, she stated. And if sold, park users will ask “who was responsible” for this travesty and where was their vision? The sale will be this council’s legacy and set a dangerous precedent.  The Council will have missed a great opportunity for ecotourism and complement the downtown   The Foundation has tried to work with the City over the years yet and the City has remained steadfast in its desire for a sale regardless of its opportunities to lease the Flanders Mansion.  

To Council Member Hazdovac’s query about the members on the Flanders Foundation Board, Melanie Billig responded: Mike Brown, Dick and Barbara Stiles, Brie Tripp, Mary Ellen Thomas, Harvey Billig, Anne Bell, Yoko Whittaker and herself. 

Barbara Livingston stated that the sale of Flanders Mansion is the “worst possible decision” that the Council could make right in the middle of Mission Trail Nature Preserve.  She mentioned an artists’ program use and that the Council has missed an opportunity to find a use for the Mansion.

Skip Lloyd encouraged the Council to encourage Denise Duffy to approach the EIR from the standpoint of Mission Trail Nature Preserve involving trails layout, et cetera, to enhance the park. 

Mayor McCLOUD moved to approve Consent Agenda Items, including G, H and I, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried unanimously.

IX. Ordinances

C. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan to make single family residential dwellings a limited use and to establish additional requirements for residential projects in the commercial districts. (First reading)

Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager, presented the Staff Report, including the three amendments:

• Making single family dwellings a limited use rather than a permitted use in all commercial districts;

• Establishing a unit size ratio for all two unit residential developments in the commercial districts; and

• Prohibiting residential uses on the first story of any building that fronts on a public street in the Central Commercial (CC) District.

Conroy stated that the Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance.  He addressed queries from Council Member Talmage, Mayor McCloud and Council Member Burnett involving public notice and Coastal Commission allowance of only three substantive amendments per year, et cetera.     

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

Barbara Brooks asked about compliance with the proposed Ordinance regarding the building north of Piccadilly Park   In response, Sean Conroy stated that limited use is limited to currently in use single-family residences. 

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member Hazdovac stated that the Ordinance seemed to be a change from historic policy. 

Council Member Burnett addressed the 60% number; he advocated 40% or 2300 sq. ft.  and 900 sq. ft. as the “right balance.”  In response, Sean Conroy stated that 60% represents number ensuring large unit and smaller unit used legitimately as a rental unit. 

60% refers to the amendment: “For two (2) unit residential developments, the floor area of the smaller unit shall be at least 60% of the size of the larger unit.”  “This amendment would avoid the potential of one very large unit and one very small unit being proposed in a two-unit development. It would also ensure that both units would be comparable in size,.” according to the Staff Report.

Council Member Talmage stated that the Ordinance was crafted in response to one project and represents changing rules for “blanket exclusion” on 28 city blocks.  He advocated conditional, not limited.  He suggested listing reservations and request Planning Commission revisit the Ordinance due to “possibly overreaching” status.

Council Member Sharp addressed concern of preexisting residences in commercial district. 

Barbara Livingston stated that it was not one project, but several projects which generated the Ordinance and advocated sending Ordinance back to Planning Commission. 

City Attorney Don Freeman recommended sending it back to the Planning Commission.

Council recommended the Planning Commission revisit 60% to encourage more diversity, such as 40% target, clarification regarding all commercial districts, permitted to conditioned versus permitted to limited,

By consensus, Council unanimously agreed to send the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan to make single family residential dwellings a limited use and to establish additional requirements for residential projects in the commercial districts back to the Planning Commission with aforementioned recommendations.

X. Resolutions

A. Consideration of a Resolution adopting amendments to the Commercial Design Guidelines to include additional guidance for residential projects and parking design.

Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager, presented the Staff Report, including the Commercial Design Guidelines as part of the City’s Local Coastal Plan, and reviewed the Proposed Amendments: 

• Make minor amendments to the language of the existing Design Guidelines to be more inclusive of all types of development;

• To provide guidance on parking design in all districts; and

• To provide additional guidance specific to development in the transitional Districts (RC & R-4).

Conroy reviewed Existing Language Edits, including Façade Proportions as an example; Parking Design “K” including Encourage pedestrian oriented design and Minimize the prominence of site features designed to accommodate vehicles (driveways, garages, ramps, parking surfaces, etc.) and reviewed “encourage” and “discourage” photographs examples; and RC/R-4 Design Guidelines “L”  including, Provide more specific guidance for projects located in the RC and R-4Districts and Emphasize the importance of neighborhood context, the landscaping and the need for pedestrian oriented designs. Sean Conroy recommended the adoption of the Amendments to the Commercial Design Guidelines. 

Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.

Sean Conroy responded to comments by Mayor McCloud and Council Members Hazdovac and Talmage regarding “encouraged” versus “discouraged” options and lot pavement coverage for rear parking. 

Council Member BURNETT moved to approve Resolution adopting amendments to the Commercial Design Guidelines to include additional guidance for residential projects and parking design, and “feedback” report to Council in one year, seconded by Council Member SHARP, and passed by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

XI. Orders of Council

B. Receive recommendations on the Santa Lucia Restrooms project and provide direction on the final design.

Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager, presented the Staff Report and requested the Council review comments from Forest & Beach Commission, Planning Commission and public workshop and Council provide direction to staff. 

Robert Carver, AIA, Carver + Schicketanz Architects, addressed some queries from the public workshop, including proposed size of structure 376 sq. ft., earthquake fault location approximately 1,000 ft away and no tree removal.  Carver reviewed plan on overhead shrunk by 25%.  Carver reviewed plans and responded to comments by Council Member Talmage, Mayor McCloud, Council Members Burnett, Hazdovac and Sharp. Carver proposed removal of skylights from design and openings only, policy direction on view from Scenic Road regarding visual impact, importance of “green” design, reasonable goal of 25% or 50% reduction and roof plantings. 

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment

Greg D’Ambrosio showed twenty-four photographs mounted on a board of Carmel Beach during the 1998 storms.  He discussed microfaults and the proposed location of the restroom as potentially in the surf zone.  He encouraged Council to consider weather impacts during deliberations.

Barbara Livingston queried whether two bathrooms or one unisex bathroom sufficient.  She recommended one bathroom unit and no excavation.

Skip Lloyd commented on the “public workshop” in November 2011 and questioned criteria for the restroom.  He stated he believed the proposed structure was more than is needed, “overkill.”

Cindy Lloyd echoed comments of previous public speakers.  Lloyd recommended Council keep it “small,” “simple” and “inexpensive” and available to patrons. 

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

Sean Conroy stated that the LCP states that temporary restrooms allowed until permanent restrooms built by City. 

Council Member Burnett stated there are three restrooms presently on the Point and justified the need for two restrooms.

Mayor McCloud mentioned the closure of the restrooms at Carmel River State Beach.  She recommended the elimination of the shower and pet wash-off area.

Council Member Talmage summarized consensus with no mechanical room and instead a smaller storage room, no separate shower, size reduced more than 25% and cost concerns with goal of under $200,000 and need of only a basis bathroom. 

Council Member Burnett expressed concern with the elevation of floor area, visual impacts from Scenic and survivability long-term with storm impacts. 

Sean Conroy summarized list of Council, including baby changing area, faults in General Plan, previous studies, eliminate showers and skylights, and  reduce size and scope of building by 50%.  And examine option to raise floor by one ft. 

Council Members Hazdovac and Burnett expressed interest in not eliminating shower, but having foot wash and shower head incorporated into foot wash area.  Council Member Sharp expressed interest in two unisex restrooms and communal hand washing area.

By consensus, Council unanimously agreed to have Robert Carver, AIA, redo design incorporating recommendations and directions from Council. 

Related Article: Council asks architect to tweak beachbathrooms, MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, March 9, 2012

C. Review conceptual plans for a pedestrian pathway on the west side of San Antonio Avenue between Ocean and Fourth Avenues and provide direction to staff.

Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager, presented the Staff Report, including the proposed pathway is located on the west side of San Antonio Avenue between Ocean and Fourth Avenues. The section of the pathway from Fourth Avenue to just south of the existing driveways of the Sand and Sea development will be asphalt and will follow the existing Carmel stone retaining wall. The pathway will have a decomposed granite surface from just south of the Sand and Sea driveways to the corner of Ocean Avenue.  He reviewed Planning Commission recommendations, including increase the width of the street between the path and the tree planter near Fourth Avenue to improve safety and access, look for opportunities to meander the path to create separation between the road and the path and to look less formal, consider design options that would eliminate the retaining walls in the dunes and consider alternatives to the formal appearance of the curb.

Sean Conroy responded to comments by Council Member Sharp regarding the existing retaining wall, Council Member Talmage regarding cost of plan implementation.  Council Member Talmage stated that the asphalt curb along pedestrian pathway between Fourth  Avenue and Carmel-Pebble Beach Gate was a “mistake” and addressed “key intersection” at San Antonio Avenue and Fourth Avenue.  Council Member Burnett advocated for natural traffic calming devices with planter design. 

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

Barbara Livingston expressed support for meandering path and boulders as barrier.  She expressed concerns of thinking about the North Dunes as a whole, not piecemeal.  She stated that pavers walkways are "too formal" and advocated for decomposed granite. She encouraged Council to protect “rustic, casual. informal” look of Carmel Beach

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

Sean Conroy stated that pavers were stipulated in Del Mar Master Plan adopted in 2009 by the City.  In review, Conroy stated Fourth Avenue consensus on curb, eliminate retaining wall losing two parking spaces or allow retaining wall for 35 ft. section and the retaining wall as part of curb.  

COMMENTARY ‘Will of the People’

“The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.”

---Thomas Jefferson November 13, 1787, Letter to William S. Smith

On 3 November 2009, the “will of the people” was, as follows: 913 Carmel-by-the-Sea voters (62%) voted to approve Measure I and 552 Carmel-by-the-Sea voters (38%) voted against Measure I, which stated:

"Approve discontinuance and abandonment of, and authorization to sell, Flanders mansion property public parkland. Shall discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property (APN 010-061-005) as public parkland, and authorization to sell the Flanders Mansion Property "with Conservation Easements and Mitigation" as passed on May 12, 2009 by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council by Resolutions No. 2009-30 through 2009-33, be approved?"

Moving forward, given the prospect of another vote on the sale of Flanders Mansion, Carmel-by-the-Sea voters would be wise to consider the following:

• The Flanders Mansion, a National Register of Historic Places property, one of only two properties in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, is “located within, and surrounded on all sides by Mission Trail Nature Preserve,” the City’s largest park. The City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Plan supports the preservation, protection and enhancement of historic structures, parkland and open space. A sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would create an in-holding within Mission Trail Nature Preserve. The creation of a private in-holding in a pubic park is the antithesis of good planning policy and often results in conflicts between private owners and public park users.

• In carrying out the policies of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan, the City’s Historic Resources Board, Forest and Beach Commission and Planning Commission are responsible for the preservation and protection of historic resources and parkland.

• In Environmental Impact Reports, the identified “Environmentally Superior Alternative” was the Lease Alternative because “that alternative would reduce impacts to historic resources and park resources since the City would retain ownership. In addition, the 2005 DEIR also determined that the Lease Alternative would minimize potential impacts on adjacent parkland since the property would be retained by the City. Moreover, it was also determined that this alternative would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to 1) land use and planning, and 2) parks and recreation.”

• The Mayor’s and City Councils’ decisions to sell the Flanders Mansion Property have resulted in taxpayer expenditures of $1,047,319.39, as of the City's December 2011 Check Register. Initial expenditures were required for environmental impact reports as required under CEQA. Subsequent litigation expenditures were required due to a Superior Court Judge determining that the City violated its Municipal Code with respect to maintenance and upkeep of historic structures and the City violated state law in not allowing a public vote to sell Flanders Mansion. Ergo, without litigation, the City would have continued to violate the Municipal Code and State law. Therefore, contrary to recent letters to the editor and public perception, city expenditures have been the result of the City violating municipal and state laws.

• Since Sue McCloud became Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea in 2000, the City has failed to place the issue of a potential use for the Flanders Mansion on a public agenda and has failed to negotiate in good faith with parties expressing interest in a life estate, lease and/or curatorship. Moreover, during the past twelve years, the City did not apply for grants or solicit donations for Flanders Mansion.

• As recognized by the Sierra Club, Ventana Chapter, “This park is also a county asset. There are monthly walks with cultural and natural history talks. This nature preserve is a unique regional asset and must be protected for future generations.” And, consistent with the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Plan, as follows: “The purpose of the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Plan is to favor the general interest over the special interest in order to give durability to the Carmel experience and our special quality of living.”

After carefully considering the aforementioned facts, we, Carmel-by-the-Sea voters, should ask ourselves: Is it consistent with our values and our General Plan/Local Coastal Plan to sell a National Register of Historic Places resource in Mission Trail Nature Preserve? Would our interests be best served if we explored alternative options for potential uses of the Flanders Mansion at public meetings where we can engage in a consensus-driven process to determine the best use for the Flanders Mansion in the context of Mission Trail Nature Preserve? Is it possible that the City, in its myopic intent to sell the Flanders Mansion, colluded with the local media to present a distorted and misleading presentation of all the facts surrounding the sale of the Flanders Mansion and manipulated a majority of voters into voting to sell a cultural resource when it arguably is in our best interest to retain an irreplaceable, historic resource and celebrate its contribution to our village character, natural beauty and unique sense of place?

Published & Written by
L. A. Paterson

BEACH RESTROOMS: Scenic & Santa Lucia Restroom Replacement Project Public Workshop

ABSTRACT: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has scheduled a Public Workshop to “to receive community input on conceptual plans to replace the existing temporary restrooms located near the intersection of Scenic Road and Santa Lucia Avenue in Carmel-by-the-Sea with a permanent restroom facility in the same location” on Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 6:00 P.M., City Hall Council Chambers. “The City’s General Plan recognizes the need to provide adequate facilities at the beach that will serve the needs of the public, mitigate damage to the environment and respect the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The General Plan also establishes a goal of replacing the existing temporary restrooms located near Scenic Road and Santa Lucia Avenue with a permanent restroom facility.” The Preliminary Concept Plans are embedded and the text of the Public Notice is presented. For more information about this workshop and/or the project, contact Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager at 831-620-2010 or by email at sconroy@ci.carmel.ca.us.

Scenic and Santa Lucia Restroom Preliminary Concept Plans

Scenic and Santa Lucia Restroom Preliminary Concept Plans
Architect: Carver-Schicketanz Architects
Cover Sheet, Proposed Site Plan, Proposed Floor Plan and Proposed Building Elevations

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PUBLIC NOTICE

Beach Restroom Replacement Project
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea will be conducting a public workshop on Thursday, November 17th at the City Hall Council Chambers located on the east side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh avenues. The workshop will begin at 6:00 p.m.

The purpose of the workshop is to receive community input on conceptual plans to replace the existing temporary restrooms located near the intersection of Scenic Road and Santa Lucia Avenue in Carmel-by-the-Sea with a permanent restroom facility in the same location. Issues related to the permitting process, design, restroom amenities, potential neighborhood impacts, and cost will be discussed.

For more information, and/or to pick up a copy of the agenda for the meeting, please call (831)620-2010, visit the Department of Community Planning and Building located at City Hall, or log on to www.ci.carmel.ca.us, then click on “Government” and then “Beach Restrooms.”

Carmel-by-the-Sea GENERAL PLAN AND LOCAL COASTAL PLAN

ABSTRACT: The Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan sections are presented with links to each of the documents.

Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan
Introduction PDF
Adopted June 3, 2003

Land Use and Community Character Element PDF
Adopted June 3, 2003

Circulation Element PDF
Adopted January 2010

Housing Element PDF
Adopted April 2010

Coastal Access and Recreation Element PDF
Adopted June 3, 2003

Coastal Resource Management Element PDF
Adopted June 3, 2003

Public Facilities and Services Element PDF
Adopted September 2009

Open Space/Conservation PDF
Adopted September 2009

Environmental Safety Element PDF
Adopted September 2009

Noise Element PDF
Adopted September 2009

GENERAL PLAN & LOCAL COASTAL PLAN: Introduction

ABSTRACT: The Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Introduction (2003) is uploaded 15 pages).


General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Introduction Purpose _ Organization
Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan
Introduction PDF
Adopted June 3, 2003

GENERAL PLAN & LOCAL COASTAL PLAN: Land Use and Community Character Element

ABSTRACT: The Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Land Use and Community Character Element (2003) is uploaded (62 pages).


General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use _ Community Character Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan
Land Use and Community Character Element PDF
Adopted June 3, 2003

GENERAL PLAN & LOCAL COASTAL PLAN: Circulation Element

ABSTRACT: The Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Circulation Element (2010) is uploaded (25 pages).


General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Circulation Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan
Circulation Element PDF
Adopted January 2010

GENERAL PLAN & LOCAL COASTAL PLAN: Housing Element

ABSTRACT: The Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Housing Element (2010) is uploaded (148 pages).


General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Housing Element _2007-2014_
Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan
Housing Element PDF
Adopted April 2010

GENERAL PLAN & LOCAL COASTAL PLAN: Coastal Access and Recreation Element

ABSTRACT: The Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Coastal Access and Recreation Element (2003) is uploaded (18 pages).


General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Access and Recreation Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan
Coastal Access and Recreation Element PDF
Adopted June 3, 2003

GENERAL PLAN & LOCAL COASTAL PLAN: Coastal Resource Management Element

ABSTRACT: The Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Coastal Resource Management Element (2003) is uploaded (53 pages).


General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Resource Management Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan
Coastal Resource Management Element PDF
Adopted June 3, 2003

GENERAL PLAN & LOCAL COASTAL PLAN: Public Facilities and Services Element

ABSTRACT: The Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Public Facilities and Services Element (2009) is uploaded (21 pages).


General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Public Facilities _ Services Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan and Local Coastal Plan
Public Facilities and Services Element PDF
Adopted September 2009